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

Pump ed 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 prov ided with a draft version,

and had no comments or suggested changes.

2010 was the 22 nd 

## year of barrier net operation. The barrier net program originated as a three

year 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 Settl ement 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 comb ined) 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 effect iveness 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*

Mir č e Michael Nestor

Robert M Neustifter

Jeffrey D. Pintar

Vincent P Provenzano

Susan L Rasmussen

John C Shea

Scott J Sinkw itts

Charlotte A W alls

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. Neusti fter

_____ 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 Treat y 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 EFFE CTIVENESS 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 th roughout 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 (MDNRE 3 

## , USGS 4 

## ).

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 Pr ey 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 Author ity (CORA) (formerly the ChippewaOttawa Treaty Fishery Management Author ity 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, twi ce-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 Celsiu s, 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 re port, 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

alewives 1 

## 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 USGS 2 

## 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 Appendi x 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/repor ts/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 th e lake bottom, better anchor to net botto m 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 Pr ey 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-1Figure IV-110/28/2010Ludington Pumped Storage ProjectGill Net Effectiveness Monitoring31.941.287.882.480.490.695.695.795.896.396.486.596.590.993.9 93.992.178.391.988.591.589.30.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0100.0Target Species

% EFFECTIVENESS1989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010Figure IV-210/28/2010Ludington Pumped Storage ProjectGill Net Effectiveness Monitoring0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.0090.00100.00Game fish >5" Large Forage >5" Target Non-target

% EFFECTIVENESS19911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010Figure IV-3 10/28/2010Ludington Pumped Storage ProjectGill Net Effectiveness Monitoring05,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00045,00050,00055,00060,00065,00070,000 1 9 9 1 1 9 9 2 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0

Total CatchAll FishAlewifeFigure IV - 4 10/28/2010Ludington Pumped Storage ProjectGill Net Effectiveness Monitoring9495808279953805248230378751937446843172436231371561881142415611136109612368431497134265485882456060451082862846344869781348901,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,00010,0001991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Total number of fish caughtPerch > 5"Salmonids > 5"

# 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 Com position.............................. ............................... 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 Standa rds............................................................... 15

4.2.4 Compensation for Un avoidable 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 Collectio n 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 EFFECTIV ENESS DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

PARIED STATIONS - MEAN DIFFERENCE IN PROPORTIONS

APPENDIX C- GILL NET DAILY CATCH SUMMARIES

APPENDIX D- WEEKLY CATCH and BARRI ER NET EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARIES

APPENDIX E- MONTHLY DEPTH CATCH SUMMARIES

APPENDIX F- MONITORI NG SUMMARY REPORT

### LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 4.0-1 LAKE MICHIGAN NETTING DATES

TABLE 4.0-2 GILL NETTING SE T 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 PROP ORTION 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 (I NCLUDING 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 WEEK LY BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS

FIGURE 4.2-2 WEEKLY EFFECTIVENES S, 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 EFFECTIVEN ESS, YELLOW PERCH SIZE CLASSES

FIGURE 4.2-6 WEEKLY EFFECTIVENESS, ALEWIFE SIZE CLASSES

FIGURE 4.2-7 GAME FISH CATCH IN GI LL 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 EFFECTIVENESSHDR/LMS 

### 1 

## BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENES S 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 L udington Pumped Storage Project.

2. The 2010 barrier net effectiveness 1 

## monitoring program began April 15

and continued through October 15.

3. Barrier net installation was complete d 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 effec tiveness was based on analyses of;

(a) comparisons of the cumulative numb er of fish collected inside and

outside the barrier net, and (b) compar isons 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 fi sh 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 to tal length and 82.0% for

4-5 inch alewife.

7. Cumulative catch barrier net effectiv eness estimates for target species

and non-target species fish we re calculated at 89.3% and 63.6%

respectively.

8. As in 1991-2009, the 2010 data dem onstrate 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 lo sses is calculated using barrier net

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

1 

### Effectiveness indices are reported fo r 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 ove r five inches in total length)

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

compensation calculations are 94.5% fo r 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 Ener gy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

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

Agreement identifies, among other things, th e requirement for continued installation

and operation of a seasonal barrier net. Th e 2010 estimates of ba rrier 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 Ludi ngton Pumped Storage Project (LPSP) barrier

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

year of study of the barrie r net at the LPSP. The sp ecific objectives of the 2010

program were; (a) to monitor the fish popul ations inside and imme diately 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 progr am 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 c onsists 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/qua lity 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 recommendedHDR/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 certificat ions of compliance were provided weekly

and monthly.



# 3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

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

procedure prior to the comme ncement of monitoring, receiv ed weekly details of all

completed sampling activities and was provided notificati on 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 effectiveness 2 

## was initiated on April 15.

Effectiveness monitoring was scheduled tw ice per week, Monday and Tuesday, unless

prohibited by weather or equipment pr oblems. Postponed sampling was conducted

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

dates were sampled in a single study week to assess the effectiven ess 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 partic ular species and

related species (e.g., salmonids) are often di scussed 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 (salm onids 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 to tal length. The cumulative barrier net

effectiveness for large forage fish, game fi sh (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 losse s resulting from LPSP operation.

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

catch data from eight sampling stations loca ted inside and outsid e the barrier. The

difference between inside station and outsi de station catch abundance and species

composition is attributed to th e 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 rela tive 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 fo llowing stretch mesh

sizes: 1.0 inch, 1.5 inch, 2.0 inch, 2.5 inc h, 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 g ill nets set obliquely to the shoreline in

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

### 5 

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

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

were set at or near dusk and retrieved on th e 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 Appe ndix A-1. Appendix A-2 summarizes how

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

foot deep nets were utilized dur ing 2010 effectiveness monitoring.

The study design required that equivale nt gill nets (le ngth, depth and mesh

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

comparison of the inside and outside catches.

The crew chief approved all gill nets befo re 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 do cumented 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 co rresponding depth. By pairing the sample

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

leaving the presence of the barrier net as th e primary factor influe ncing catch statistics

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

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

evaluation methods are di scussed 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 insta llation 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 ne t stations (the experi mental or treatmentHDR/LMS 

### 6 

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

statistics from the inside stations were co mpared to those obtained from the outside

stations and hypothesis testing involve d the use of paired observations.

Water temperature was recorded mid-dept h 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 da ta 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 th e 2010 season revealed a significant bias of

-0.6 degrees with no significant difference fr om 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 wa s sent to YSI for servicing.) At the

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

the offshore stations temperatures were coll ected 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 ne t 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 compositi on and catch distribu tion were obtained by

collecting the following data from each station:

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

foot stations, these tal lies 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 near est 1⁄2 inch, of all fish less than 4.0

inches.

 The total lengths, measured to the neares t 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 aHDR/LMS 

### 7 

## net. Fish classified as 4.0 inches m easure 4.0-4.25 inches, fish classified as

4.5 inches measure 4.26-4.75 inches a nd 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 observe d falling out of a specific depth of the net

were assigned that category. If depth of net was not obser ved, 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 fi shed at locations out side 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. Therefor e, data analyses that describe species

abundance, species composition, time of occu rrence and the effect of environmental

variables (e.g., water temperat ure) were performed using da ta collected from only the

outside sample stations.

The fishery data collected from the barrier net effec tiveness monitoring

program were analyzed to determine the eff ectiveness of the barrier net in deterring

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

paired station data for presen tation 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 stat ion abundance for each target group and for

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

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

the statistical tests performed and the calcu lations 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 we re performed using two methods. The

method used to provide the weekly and m onthly effectiveness calculations in 2010

was the cumulative method. This method comp ares the total number of fish collected

in a given period of time (daily, weekly, m onthly, 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 percen tage, 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 effectiven ess calculations, fish less than 4.0 inches in total length

were omitted.

A second method of calculating the effec tiveness of the barr ier 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 outsi de net’s proportion of the pair’s total

catch, then subtracti ng the inside net’s proportion of th e 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 functi on 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 equa l numbers of fish we re caught outside and

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

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

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

### 9 

## minimize missing data and maximize data in tegrity, weekly data (both sampling days)

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

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

thus are not necessarily cons istent with the cumulative net effectiveness values.

3.2.2 STATISTICAL ANALYSES

Means of difference in proportion calcula tions were tested against the null

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

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

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

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

The T-test results provide the probability th at 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 cla sses 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 MONI TORING 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 concl udes no later than October 15th. In 2010, 27

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

reservoir outage September 8 to Septem ber 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 conditio ns were also responsible for a missed

sample day in April (week 3), May (week 4), June (week 11), August (week 20), andHDR/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 reco rded during the 2010 study are presented in

Table 4.0-2. Water temperatures in 2010 starte d 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 sta tions. Record warm gill net set water

temperatures were recorded on six of th e next seven collecti on 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 we re 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 great er than or equal to four inches in total

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

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

sample station in Table 4.1-2. Daily and w eekly 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 abunda nt. Other target species to tal 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 sa lmon (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 sh iner comprised 26.1%

of the total non-target catch while fr eshwater 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 collec tions 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 com position 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%, re spectively. This is histor ically among the smallest

alewife contributions. Salmoni ds (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, wi th 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 ove r 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 to tal catch inside the barrier net was

similarly much lower than normal with gr eater 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 spo ttail shiner and gizzard sh ad comprising 23.3% and 11.2%,

respectively.

4.2 BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS

The effectiveness of the Ludington barri er net is based upon the difference in

the gill net catches inside the barrier net fr om the gill net catches outside the barrier

net as described in Section 3.2.1 of this repo rt. 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 fi shed 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 targetHDR/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% e ffective at excluding non-ta rget species in 2010.

In order of abundance (outside the barrier only), the effec tiveness 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%. Effectivene ss 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 co mbined, is presented graphically in Figure

4.2-1.

Over the course of the 2010 monito ring 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 resu lted in 80 observations (the

four paired observations per week for 20 w eeks). 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 th e abundance or distribution of

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

distribution 3 

## . For 2010 the mean difference in pr oportion 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 statistic s (number of observations, mean, standard

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

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

associated with all paired stations combin ed 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±.322 4 

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

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

3 

### See section 3.2.1

4 

### Mean ± Standard DeviationHDR/LMS 

### 13 

## Target species mean difference in propor tion (.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 propor tion, 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 wa s at or above 0.80 in 8 weeks and at or

above 0.50 in 16 of the 20 weeks sampled. Th e 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 w eek 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 pr oportion 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 effec tiveness 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. Thes e 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 ar e presented in Table 4.2-4.

Monthly target species effectivene ss 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 temp eratures 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 27 th 

## ) occurred immediately after a two- day barrier net breach (repaired on

the 26 th 

## ). Numerous salmon were found inside the barrier and as a result, monthly

target species effectiveness for Septembe r 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 abunda nt 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 specie s. The subsequentHDR/LMS 

### 14 

## sampling found more non-target fish inside th e barrier than outside, primarily gizzard

shad.

4.2.2 TARGET SPECIES EFFECTIVENESS

The final cumulative percent effectivene ss estimates for the target species size

groups are presented in Table 4.2-1. Of th e 2,767 target species fish collected during

the 2010 monitoring, 561 (20.3%) were 4 to 5 in ch fish represented by three species;

alewife (537), yellow perch (23) and Ch inook 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 th an 5 inches in total length were

represented by all nine species and the barr ier net was 91.2% effective for them. The

most abundant species collected in this si ze category was alewife (1,677 fish) and the

barrier net was 94.5% effec tive at excluding them.

Barrier net effectiveness for salm onids 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% fo r Chinook salmon. The barrier net was

100.0% effective at excludi ng large yellow perch (> 5-inches). Barrier net

effectiveness values for othe r, relatively scarce, target species can be found in Table

4.2-1.

Hypothesis tests for difference in pro portion 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 proporti on values for salmonids as a group is

graphically portrayed in Fi gure 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 re present 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. Th ese 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 bu t 3 of these weeks

and the value was greater th an 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 effectiven ess 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, respectivel y. 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 wa s excellent but performance for the pacific

salmon was poor. Overall, the 2010 barrier ne t 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 ne t 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 barri er net effectiveness estimate for large

forage fish exceeds the FERC net performance standard of 85%.HDR/LMS 

### 16 

## 4.2.4 COMPENSATION FOR UN AVOIDABLE FISH LOSSES

Compensation for unavoidable fish losse s is calculated using barrier net

effectiveness estimates for large forage fis h, 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 eff ectiveness estimate for large forage is

94.5%. Beginning in 1997, compensation me thodology was modified to include 4-5

inch alewife in acknowledgement of barrier net e ffectiveness for this portion of the

alewife population. The 2010 barrier net eff ectiveness for 4-5 inch alewife is 82.0%.

The catch of yellow perch during barrier net monitoring has declined

significantly over the years (F igure 4.2-7) while at the same time, the numbers of

walleye present a significant percentage of ga me 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 walle ye over five inches is 80.4%. To account

for substantial changes in the Lake Mich igan fish community since the initial

valuation of damages, compensation paym ents since 2004 (retroactive to 2002) have

been scaled to catches outside the barrier ne t. Table 4.2-6 provides these scaling data.

Note that these values include data from sa mples 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 TEMPE RATURE RELATIONSHIPS

Figures 4.3-1, 4.3-2 and 4.3-3 compare a bundance of selected fish groups to

the mean set water temperature at outside stations only, for each sampling week.

Missing temperature data poi nts 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 pe rch 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. Ye llow perch abundance increased during the

increasing water temperatures of late June through July when the average set water

temperature was 72.6°. The highest abundan ce 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 ea rly 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 bot h size categories of alewives from

outside the barrier net occurre d 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 d eep 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-f oot 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. Ther e was little difference between numbers of

alewife, lake trout, and non-ta rget species collected in 6-f oot and 24-foot nets. The

catch was distributed among panels in the 24-f oot deep nets as follows: 24.1% surface,

19.7% middle and 56.2% bottom. Among alew ives 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 th an 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 num bered 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 dur ing 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 proj ect protocol (see

Section 3.1) all 4-5 inch fish were meas ured 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 releas ed inside the barrier net, outside the

barrier net, and in the Ludington Pumped St orage Project reservoi r 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 stur geon collected during the monitoring

program were scanned for pit tags and unt agged fish were to receive a pit tag upon

release. In 2010, five lake sturgeon were co llected outside the barri er net, and one was

collected inside the barrier net. One fi sh 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 ta g number 985120016221998. The next lake

sturgeon, captured July 8, m easured 650mm and already carried pit tag number

486005223F. Two more sturgeon were cap tured on August 10; one measuring

405mm was tagged with pit tag number 985120025061107, the other measured

585mm, and already carried pit tag numb er 484C3F5904. The final lake sturgeon

captured on August 23 measured 560mm, a nd 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 m onitoring began in 1989 (others were in 2001

and 2008).



# 5.0 DISCUSSION

The 2010 Barrier Net Effectiveness M onitoring 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 in side 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 mon itoring year, weather permitting, collectionsHDR/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 re sults 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 monitori ng 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 th e fall (e.g. salmonids), the barrier net

effectiveness measurements during this pe riod are often consistent with cumulative

seasonal results. In 2010, effectiveness monitoring was conducted on 34 of the 54

scheduled sampling dates. The 2010 eff ectiveness 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 Ludi ngton has changed in both species abundance

and species composition. During the 2010 sa mpling 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 (2 009), 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 thr ough 1996 the average annual catch was

49,038 fish.

Correspondingly, the catch of alewife, the predominant species collected

during the 22 year monitoring program, clos ely tracks the total catch. Lake Michigan

populations of yellow perch, walleye and ra inbow smelt have changed substantially

over the 22-year monitoring period. Rainbow smelt were again scarce in 2010 (only

two were captured) and yellow perch number s are still far below the levels of the

1990s (Figure 4.2-7). Walleye numbers, t hough somewhat lower in 2010 (Figure 4.2-

8) are still more prevalent than in the early 90s and are a substan tial 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 fr om 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 collectedHDR/LMS 

### 21 

## in 2009. These numbers suggest the overa ll number of alewife collected in 2010

(small + large) is consistent with the l ong term trend of decreasing alewife abundance

since monitoring began. Other factors may ha ve contributed to the small alewife catch

in 2010. Biofouling of gillnets with algae was abnormally heavy and persistent,

particularly during June and July when alew ife have historically been most abundant.

In addition, water temperatures increased rapidly during 2010, above levels preferred

by alewives (mid 50s to mid 60s). Water te mperatures above 70s were recorded during

nearly all sampling events from early July until late September.

From 1994 to 2007, less than 10 bloater c hub were collected annually outside

the barrier net. The 2008 and 2009 catches were dramatically larger at 359 and 89,

respectively. The 2010 collecti on of 13 bloater chub is cons istent 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 consiste nt 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 th e 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 abunda nt large game fish

collected outside the barrier net was lake trout (254). Th e 2010 historical low catch of

large Chinook salmon (35) was consistent with a declining trend observed over the

past several years th at parallels the abundance of al ewife, 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 mi d August until October, only 3 of a possible

14 overnight samples were obtained. Moreove r, during two of these overnight sets

water temperature was well above the pr eferred 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. Th is resulted in overallHDR/LMS 

### 22 

## game fish performance falling from 86% to 77%. The 2010 brown trout catch (98) was

historically among the largest with the ma jority caught in the spring. Other salmonid

species collections were sim ilar 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 outs ide the barrier (785, including walleye)

was similar to numbers observed the past seve ral years, well reduced from years prior

to 2000. The 2010 non-target collection is re presented 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, th e 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% effectivenes s 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 fi sh 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 coll ected. 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 27 th 

## , salmonid effectiveness was nearly 7% higher at 84.3%. Unsafe

weather conditions as well as a plant outag e precluded monitoring for nearly three

weeks prior to this sampling and it is specula ted 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 sp ecies in 2010 is below the average of

70.2% since 1991. Sample collections from immediately after the two-day net breach

(September 27 th 

## ) 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 in side and outside) are eliminated, the 2010

non-target fish effectiveness is nearly id entical to the long term average (70.6%).

The barrier net has histor ically performed well at ex cluding 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 wa s again effective at excluding walleye

(89.7%).

The paired station analyses confir med that the outside catches were

significantly greater than the catches from in side 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 wi th small catches. Similar

results are seen when examining weekly cu mulative catch effectiveness (Figure 5.0-1).

This suggests that the barrier net effectiven ess measures are more precise when fish

are more abundant in the area and spatial vari ability is reduced. It also suggests that

the less effective periods may be attributable to fish being trappe d inside the barrier

net when fish outside the barri er net have moved away.

As during the period 1991-2009, the 2010 data confirms that the barrier net

effectively excludes the majority of fish sus ceptible 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 sp ecies, game fish and large forage fish has

continued to be both ex cellent and consistent.

### REFERENCES

HDR/LMS. 2009. Report of the Ludington Ba rrier Net Effectiveness Monitoring Program

HDR/LMS. 2008. Report of the Ludington Ba rrier Net Effectiveness Monitoring Program

HDR/LMS. 2007. Report of the Ludington Ba rrier Net Effectiveness Monitoring Program

HDR/LMS. 2006. Report of the Ludington Ba rrier Net Effectiveness Monitoring Program

HDR/LMS. 2005. Report of the Ludington Ba rrier 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. 1 996. Report of the Ludington Barrier Net

Effectiveness Monitoring Program.

Barnes-Williams Environmental Consultants. 1 995. Report of the Ludington Barrier Net

Effectiveness Monitoring Program.

Barnes-Williams Environmental Consultants. 1 994. Report of the Ludington Barrier Net

Effectiveness Monitoring Program.

Barnes-Williams Environmental Consultants. 1 993. Report of the Ludington Barrier Net

Effectiveness Monitoring Program.

Barnes-Williams Environmental Consultants. 1 992. Report of the Ludington Barrier Net

Effectiveness Monitoring Program.

Barnes-Williams Environmental Consultants. 1 991. Report of the Ludington Barrier Net

Effectiveness Monitoring Program.

### Barnes-Williams Environmental Consultants. 1 990. Report of the Ludington Barrier Net

Effectiveness Monitoring Program.

Barnes-Williams Environmental Consultants. 1 989. 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

### S e t D a t e S t u d y W e e k G i l l N e t S a m p l e s

4 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 0 2 8

4 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 0 2 8

4 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 0 3 8

5 / 6 / 2 0 1 0 4 8

5 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 0 5 8

5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 0 5 8

5 / 1 7 / 2 0 1 0 6 8

5 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 0 6 8

5 / 2 4 / 2 0 1 0 7 8

5 / 2 5 / 2 0 1 0 7 8

5 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 0 8 8

6 / 3 / 2 0 1 0 8 8

6 / 7 / 2 0 1 0 9 8

6 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 0 9 8

6 / 1 4 / 2 0 1 0 1 0 8

6 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 0 1 0 8

6 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 0 1 1 8

6 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 0 1 2 8

6 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 0 1 2 8

7 / 7 / 2 0 1 0 1 3 8

7 / 8 / 2 0 1 0 1 3 8

7 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 0 1 4 8

7 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 0 1 4 8

7 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 0 1 5 8

7 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 0 1 5 8

7 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 0 1 6 8

7 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 0 1 6 8

8 / 9 / 2 0 1 0 1 8 8

8 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 0 1 8 8

8 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 0 2 0 8

9 / 1 / 2 0 1 0 2 1 8

9 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 0 2 5 8

1 0 / 4 / 2 0 1 0 2 6 8

1 0 / 5 / 2 0 1 0 2 6 8

S a m p l e s W e e k s D a y s 2 7 2 2 0 3 4

H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

.

N o t e : D u e t o a d v e r s e l a k e c o n d i t i o n s d u r i n g w e e k s 1

, 1 7

, 1 9 a n d

2 7 s a m p l e s w e r e n o t c o l l e c t e d

. M o n i t o r i n g w a s s u s p e n d e d

d u r i n g w e e k s 2 2

, 2 3

, a n d 2 4 d u e t o a r e s e r v i o r o u t a g e

. 

## T A B L E 4

. 0

- 1

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P R O J E C T



## L A K E M I C H I G A N N E T T I N G D A T E S

2 0 1 012345678DATE4/19/201043.043.247.346.642.643.043.343.04/22/201043.743.247.746.943.043.544.644.14/28/201043.344.848.246.642.142.143.944.15/6/201051.151.652.752.946.450.251.450.45/11/201046.846.045.144.845.345.044.844.45/12/201046.246.646.446.645.145.545.945.55/17/201046.947.548.050.546.846.947.146.95/18/201047.147.753.250.746.047.147.747.55/24/201059.058.657.055.954.954.554.053.45/25/201058.658.656.856.756.555.955.654.95/31/201055.955.655.958.555.055.955.255.96/3/201055.055.859.459.451.853.854.757.66/7/201046.851.454.353.443.345.753.252.56/10/201051.851.653.653.151.851.352.051.86/14/201054.153.656.756.352.352.353.155.46/15/201054.552.050.950.753.452.251.151.66/21/201066.667.564.865.764.064.061.966.76/29/201067.568.269.469.664.866.667.668.56/30/201067.167.169.367.866.465.166.666.27/7/201072.773.272.571.671.671.471.171.27/8/201074.574.773.974.373.072.972.571.87/12/201075.075.276.375.772.372.374.574.17/13/201071.872.173.673.270.071.273.272.97/19/201075.676.175.975.473.873.674.175.07/20/201076.677.476.375.674.374.874.174.57/29/201075.676.177.077.775.275.075.475.27/31/201074.774.773.974.174.774.574.374.18/9/201076.676.875.775.074.875.274.173.98/10/201075.975.976.575.075.074.375.975.28/23/201067.667.871.470.962.664.970.770.29/1/201074.174.373.873.472.772.773.073.09/27/201062.162.261.961.361.261.260.860.810/4/201045.948.051.850.544.846.948.450.010/5/201046.648.048.948.945.547.346.846.41234567841.742.343.343.341.241.542.442.442.142.143.743.542.442.442.842.642.342.843.544.442.142.443.243.345.745.550.049.645.546.649.549.846.245.544.444.444.644.445.045.346.846.945.745.544.644.444.245.046.046.247.147.146.046.446.946.946.946.947.547.345.746.046.947.356.356.554.753.854.955.054.554.056.356.555.455.056.756.755.254.755.254.755.054.955.255.054.754.154.753.655.855.951.154.154.556.548.948.951.651.445.349.649.850.551.150.950.949.351.450.950.249.351.451.149.551.149.649.550.550.755.454.352.052.255.855.053.853.666.766.766.065.866.066.466.066.065.866.266.466.266.066.065.864.963.562.864.663.963.764.260.463.772.372.371.271.171.271.470.970.971.472.171.871.871.671.671.472.168.969.470.270.270.270.268.570.066.666.665.564.068.766.767.667.673.273.673.473.673.073.073.273.275.075.073.473.874.874.773.673.674.374.175.074.874.574.574.374.773.973.973.673.274.173.973.873.874.574.574.374.373.873.873.873.873.974.174.374.373.973.974.374.366.267.368.068.266.268.969.870.072.772.772.372.572.772.572.572.560.460.360.159.960.460.460.160.145.946.448.248.446.244.648.248.646.947.748.248.046.846.646.946.4SETWATERTEMPERATURE(Fahrenheit)STATIONLIFTWATERTEMPERATURE(Fahrenheit)STATIONNote:Valuescorrectedforasignificant0.6degreeinstrumentbias(P<.05),foundfromweeklycalibrations.TABLE4.0-2BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTGILLNETTINGSETANDLIFTWATERTEMPERATURES2010

### C o m m o n N a m e S c i e n t i f i c N a m e

A l e w i f e A l o s a p s e u d

o h a r e n g u s

B r o w n t r o u t S a l m o t r u t t a

B u r b o t L o t a l o t a

C h a n n e l c a t f i s h I c t a l u r u s p u n c t a t u s

C h i n o o k s a l m o n O n c o r h y n c h u s t s h a w y t s c h a

C h u b ( B l o a t e r ) C o r e g o n u s s p p

. ( h o y i )

C o h o s a l m o n O n c o r h y n c h u s k i s u t c h

C o m m o n c a r p C y p r i n u s c a r p i o

F r e s h w a t e r d r u m A p l o d i n o t u s g r u n n i e n s

G i z z a r d s h a d D o r o s o m a c e

p e d i a n u m

L a k e H e r r i n g C o r e g o n u s a r

t e d i

L a k e s t u r g e o n A c i p e n s e r f u l v e s c e n s

L a k e t r o u t S a l v e l i n u s n a m a

y c u s h

L a k e w h i t e f i s h C o r e g o n u s c l

u p e a f o r m i s

L o n g n o s e s u c k e r C a t o s t o m u s c a t

o s t o m u s

N o r t h e r n p i k e E s o x l u c i u s

R a i n b o w s m e l t O s m e r u s m o r d a x

R a i n b o w t r o u t ( S t e e l h e a d ) O n c o r h y n c h u s m y k i s s

R e d h o r s e s p p

. M o x o s t o m a s p p

.

R o c k b a s s A m b l o p l i t e s r u p e s t r i s

R o u n d g o b y N e o g o b i u s m e l a n o s t o m u s

R o u n d w h i t e f i s h P r o s o p i u m c y l i n d r a c e u m

S m a l l m o u t h b a s s M i c r o p t e r u s d o l o m i e u

S p o t t a i l s h i n e r N o t r o p i s h u d s o n i u s

W a l l e y e S a n d e r v i t r e u s

W h i t e p e r c h M o r o n e a m e r

i c a n a

W h i t e s u c k e r C a t o s t o m u s c o m m e r

s o n i

Y e l l o w p e r c h P e r c a f l a v e s c e n s



## H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. T A B L E 4

. 1

- 1

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P R O J E C T



## L I S T O F S P E C I E S C O L L E C T E D

2 0 1 0

### S p e c i e s S i z e R a n g e

( I n c h e s ) 2 3 6 7 1 4 5 8 T O T A L

( N u m b e r o f S a m p l e s / N e t s : ) ( 3 4 ) ( 3 4 ) ( 3 4 ) ( 3 4 ) ( 3 4 ) ( 3 4 ) ( 3 4 ) ( 3 4 ) ( 2 7 2 )

C h i n o o k s a l m o n 4

- 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

> 5

- 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 5 4 2 3

> 1 2

- 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 4

> 2 0 3 5 3 1 0 0 6 2 5 3 4

C o h o s a l m o n 4

- 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

> 5

- 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

> 1 2 1 6 2 4 0 0 4 4 2 1

S t e e l h e a d 4

- 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

> 5

- 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2

> 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2

L a k e t r o u t 4

- 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

> 5

- 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

> 1 2 6 6 2 1 0 7 6 4 9 6 6 6 3 2 7 8

B r o w n t r o u t 4

- 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

> 5

- 1 2 2 4 1 6 1 1 6 1 3 3 4

> 1 2 5 6 1 1 2 0 4 6 1 1 0 9 0

Y e l l o w p e r c h 4

- 5 0 1 2 3 3 2 1 2 0 2 3

> 5 0 0 0 0 7 2 1 0 5 2 4

S m e l t 4

- 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

> 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

A l e w i f e 4

- 5 1 9 4 1 5 1 7 4 8 1 7 0 1 6 9 6 8 5 3 7

> 5 3 4 1 3 2 0 2 1 4 0 7 3 7 3 4 6 2 3 4 7 1 6 7 7

C h u b 4

- 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

> 5 0 1 0 0 6 1 3 3 1 4

T a r g e t S p e c i e s > = 4 7 1 8 7 3 7 7 3 5 7 0 6 7 9 7 3 7 5 1 3 2 7 6 7

N o n t a r g e t S p e c i e s > = 4 8 1 7 2 6 7 6 6 1 9 6 1 8 5 1 8 4 2 2 0 1 0 7 1

A l l S p e c i e s T o t a l > = 4 1 5 2 1 5 9 1 0 4 1 3 9 7 6 6 8 6 4 9 2 1 7 3 3 3 8 3 8



### H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. 

## T A B L E 4

. 1

- 2

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P R O J E C T



## L O C A T I O N A L C A T C H D I S T R I B U T I O N

S T A T I O N S I N S I D E B A R R I E R S T A T I O N S O U T S I D E B A R R I E R 2 0 1 0

### B u r b o t 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0 < 0

. 1

C h a n n e l c a t f i s h 0 7 7 1 0 0

. 0 0

. 7

C o m m o n c a r p 1 2 3 5 0

. 0 0

. 3

F r e s h w a t e r d r u m 3 1 7 4 1 7 7 9 8

. 3 1 6

. 5

G i z z a r d s h a d 6 2 2 7 8 9 * 8

. 3

L a k e H e r r i n g 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0 < 0

. 1

L a k e s t u r g e o n 1 5 6 8 0

. 0 0

. 6

L a k e w h i t e f i s h 0 7 7 1 0 0

. 0 0

. 7

L o n g n o s e s u c k e r 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0 < 0

. 1

N o r t h e r n p i k e 0 2 2 1 0 0

. 0 0

. 2

R e d h o r s e s p p

. 1 4 5 5 6 9 7 4

. 5 6

. 4

R o c k b a s s 1 2 3 5 0

. 0 0

. 3

R o u n d g o b y 3 4 1 2 6 1 6 0 7 3

. 0 1 4

. 9

R o u n d w h i t e f i s h 1 4 1 0 8 1 2 2 8 7

. 0 1 1

. 4

S m a l l m o u t h b a s s 7 1 8 * 0

. 7

S p o t t a i l s h i n e r 1 2 9 1 5 1 2 8 0 1 4

. 6 2 6

. 1

W a l l e y e 8 7 8 8 6 8 9

. 7 8

. 0

W h i t e p e r c h 0 7 7 1 0 0

. 0 0

. 7

W h i t e s u c k e r 1 2 3 0 4 2 6 0

. 0 3

. 9

T O T A L 2 8 6 7 8 5 1 0 7 1 6 3

. 6 1 0 0

. 0

H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. N o t e : P e r c e n t E f f e c t i v e n e s s = ( ( O u t s i d e C a t c h

- I n s i d e C a t c h ) / O u t s i d e C a t c h ) X 1 0 0

.

* D e n o t e s n e g a t i v e e f f e c t i v e n e s s

. 

## T A B L E 4

. 1

- 3

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P R O J E C T



## N O N T A R G E T S P E C I E S F I S H C A T C H A N D E F F E C T I V E N E S S

S p e c i e s

I n s i d e O u t s i d e T o t a l P e r c e n t

E f f e c t i v e N o n t a r g e t

S p e c i e s F i s h

% C o m p o s i t i o n N U M B E R O F F I S H C O L L E C T E D

2 0 1 0SPECIESSize(Inches)InsideOutsideInsideOutsideInsideOutsideInsideOutsideInsideOutsideInsideOutsideInsideOutsideInsideOutsidePercentEffectiveChinooksalmon4-50000100000000010->5-1200211010101051132085.0>12-200100000010110022.0>200000010042137432113*Cohosalmon4-50000000000000000->5-120000000000000000->12000000000212214138*Steelhead4-50000000000000000->5-120002000000000002100.0>120101000000000002100.0Laketrout4-50000000000000000->5-120000100000000010->120312633130002211171342425490.6Browntrout4-50000000000000000->5-12013136712010000132138.1>1232763801110001120137783.1Yellowperch4-500000031122140061764.7>500010905090000024100.0Smelt4-50000000000000000->50000000000010102100.0Alewife4-5008118242143287172802168245582.0>5032855942945127602105488158994.5Chub4-50000000000000000->50405120000000211392.3TargetSpecies>=436849799751202551922449313431155268249989.3NontargetSpecies>=47791585617436159116588841613828678563.6AllSpeciesTotal>=43751289571311376913513511411911847293554328483.1Note:PercentEffectiveness=((OutsideCatch-InsideCatch)/OutsideCatch)*100.Allnegativenumbersaredenotedby"*".HDRMichigan,Inc.TABLE4.2-1BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTMONTHLYGILLNETCATCHANDEFFECTIVENESSSUMMARY2010APRILMAYJUNEJULYAUGUSTSEPTEMBEROCTOBERTOTAL

### S P E C I E S S I Z E

R A N G E

( I n c h e s ) G 1 a n d G 2 G 3 a n d G 4 G 5 a n d G 6 G 7 a n d G 8 A l l P A I R E D

S T A T I O N S

C h i n o o k s a l m o n 4

- 5

- - 1

. 0 0 0

- - - 1

. 0 0 0 3



### > 5

- 1 2

. 0 0 0

. 8 3 3 1

. 0 0 0

. 3 3 3

. 6 4 1 4



### > 1 2

- 2 0

-

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0

-

. 0 0 0 5



### > 2 0

- 1

. 0 0 0

-

. 0 5 0

. 2 5 0

-

. 0 5 0

-

. 1 5 8 6

7



### C o h o s a l m o n 4

- 5

- - - - - 8



### > 5

- 1 2

- - - - - 9



### > 1 2

- 1

. 0 0 0

- 1

. 0 0 0

. 5 5 6

. 4 6 7

. 0 0 7 1 0

1 1



### S t e e l h e a d 4

- 5

- - - - - 1 2



### > 5

- 1 2

- 1

. 0 0 0

- - 1

. 0 0 0 1 3



### > 1 2 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

- - 1

. 0 0 0 1 4

1 5



### L a k e t r o u t 4

- 5

- - - - - 1 6



### > 5

- 1 2

- - 1

. 0 0 0

- - - 1

. 0 0 0 1 7



### > 1 2

. 9 0 2

. 7 7 1

. 9 1 8

. 8 0 4

. 8 4 3 1 8

1 9



### B r o w n t r o u t 4

- 5

- - - - - 2 0



### > 5

- 1 2

-

. 3 3 3

. 3 0 0

. 0 0 0

-

. 1 5 0

. 0 7 4 2 1



### > 1 2

. 5 3 7

. 7 3 7

. 0 0 0

. 8 5 7

. 6 5 4 2 2

2 3



### Y e l l o w p e r c h 4

- 5 1

. 0 0 0

. 5 0 0

. 6 0 6

- 1

. 0 0 0

. 2 2 7 2 4



### > 5 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0 2 5

2 6



### S m e l t 4

- 5

- - - - - 2 7



### > 5

- - 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0 2 8

2 9



### A l e w i f e 4

- 5

. 2 9 8

. 5 4 4

. 9 0 2

. 7 8 0

. 6 4 0 3 0



### > 5

. 4 0 8

. 8 2 7

. 7 9 7

. 5 6 9

. 6 5 2 3 1

3 2



### C h u b 4

- 5

- - - - - 3 3



### > 5 1

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

. 8 1 8 3 4

3 5



### T a r g e t S p e c i e s > = 4

. 6 3 4

. 6 4 7

. 8 2 5

. 7 1 5

. 7 0 5 3 6

3 7



### N o n t a r g e t S p e c i e s > = 4

. 3 7 5

. 4 4 8

. 5 7 2

. 5 6 1

. 4 8 6 3 8

3 9



### A l l S p e c i e s T o t a l > = 4

. 5 9 0

. 5 9 7

. 7 3 6

. 6 5 0

. 6 4 3 4 0 

### M E A N D I F F E R E N C E I N P R O P O R T I O N

P A I R E D S T A

T I O N S

H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. 

## T A B L E 4

. 2

- 2

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P R O J E C T



## P A I R E D S T A T I O N M E A N D I F F E R E N C E I N P R O P O R T I O N D A T A

2 0 1 0

### S P E C I E S S I Z E

R A N G E

( I n c h e s ) O B S

. M E A N S T D

. D E V

. M I N I M U M M A X I M U M

C h i n o o k s a l m o n 4

- 5 1

- 1

. 0 0 0

- 1

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0

> 5

- 1 2 1 3

. 6 4 1

. 7 5 1

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

> 1 2

- 2 0 4

. 0 0 0 1

. 1 5 5

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

> 2 0 1 2

-

. 1 5 8

. 7 9 9

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

C o h o s a l m o n 4

- 5

> 5

- 1 2

> 1 2 9

. 0 0 7

. 9 6 6

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

S t e e l h e a d 4

- 5

> 5

- 1 2 2 1

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

> 1 2 2 1

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

L a k e t r o u t 4

- 5

> 5

- 1 2 1

- 1

. 0 0 0

- 1

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0

> 1 2 4 0

. 8 4 3

. 3 2 0

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

B r o w n t r o u t 4

- 5

> 5

- 1 2 1 9

. 0 7 4

. 9 5 0

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

> 1 2 2 7

. 6 5 4

. 6 8 7

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

Y e l l o w p e r c h 4

- 5 8

. 2 2 7

. 8 6 7

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

> 5 1 1 1

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

S m e l t 4

- 5

> 5 2 1

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

A l e w i f e 4

- 5 3 5

. 6 4 0

. 5 5 9

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

> 5 5 4

. 6 5 2

. 5 8 1

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

C h u b 4

- 5

> 5 1 1

. 8 1 8

. 6 0 3

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

T a r g e t S p e c i e s > = 4 7 7

. 7 0 5

. 3 4 8

-

. 5 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

N o n t a r g e t S p e c i e s > = 4 7 6

. 4 8 6

. 4 9 6

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

A l l S p e c i e s T o t a l > = 4 8 0

. 6 4 3

. 3 2 2

-

. 1 9 4 1

. 0 0 0 M E A N D I F F E R E N C E I N P R O P O R T I O N

H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. 

## T A B L E 4

. 2

- 3

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P R O J E C T



## M E A N D I F F E R E N C E I N P R O P O R T I O N D A T A

- A L L P A I R E D S T A T I O N S

2 0 1 0

### S P E C I E S S I Z E

R A N G E

( I n c h e s ) S I Z E

R A N G E

( I n c h e s ) A P R M A Y J U N J U L A U G S E P O C T

C h i n o o k s a l m o n 4

- 5

- - - - - - -

> 5

- 1 2

- 8 1

. 8 1 0 0

. 0 1 0 0

. 0 1 0 0

. 0 1 0 0

. 0 *

> 1 2

- 2 0 1 0 0

. 0

- - - - *

-

> 2 0

- - 1 0 0

. 0

- * * *

C o h o s a l m o n 4

- 5

- - - - - - -

> 5

- 1 2

- - - - - - -

> 1 2

- - - - 1 0 0

. 0 * 7 5

. 0

S t e e l h e a d 4

- 5

- - - - - - -

> 5

- 1 2

- 1 0 0

. 0

- - - - -

> 1 2 1 0 0

. 0 1 0 0

. 0

- - - - -

L a k e t r o u t 4

- 5

- - - - - - -

> 5

- 1 2

- - - - - - -

> 1 2 1 0 0

. 0 9 6

. 8 7 6

. 9

- 1 0 0

. 0 8 1

. 8 8 7

. 3

B r o w n t r o u t 4

- 5

- - - - - - -

> 5

- 1 2 1 0 0

. 0 * 5 0

. 0 4 1

. 7 1 0 0

. 0

- -

> 1 2 8 8

. 9 8 4

. 2 1 0 0

. 0

- - *

-

Y e l l o w p e r c h 4

- 5

- - - 7 2

. 7 * 7 5

. 0

-

> 5

- 1 0 0

. 0 1 0 0

. 0 1 0 0

. 0 1 0 0

. 0

- -

S m e l t 4

- 5

- - - - - - -

> 5

- - - - - 1 0 0

. 0 1 0 0

. 0

A l e w i f e 4

- 5

- 9 3

. 2 8 8

. 8 6 3

. 2 3 9

. 3 1 0 0

. 0 8 3

. 3

> 5 1 0 0

. 0 9 5

. 0 9 5

. 6 8 4

. 2 1 0 0

. 0

- *

C h u b s 4

- 5

- - - - - - -

> 5 1 0 0

. 0 1 0 0

. 0 5 0

. 0

- - - 1 0 0

. 0

T a r g e t S p e c i e s > = 4 9 5

. 6 9 3

. 9 9 3

. 8 7 1

. 4 5 1

. 0 8

. 8 8 0

. 0

N o n t a r g e t S p e c i e s > = 4 1 0 0

. 0 5 0

. 0 6 7

. 8 7 7

. 4 8 3

. 1 * 8 8

. 4

A l l S p e c i e s T o t a l > = 4 9 6

. 0 8 6

. 6 9 0

. 5 7 4

. 1 6 9

. 3 * 8 4

. 0 M O N T H L Y E F F E C T I V E N E S S

H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. N o t e : P e r c e n t E f f e c t i v e n e s s = ( ( O u t s i d e C a t c h

- I n s i d e C a t c h ) / O u t s i d e C a t c h ) * 1 0 0

. A l l n e g a t i v e n u m b e r s a r e d e n o t e d b y " * "

. 

## T A B L E 4

. 2

- 4

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P R O J E C T



## M O N T H L Y B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S

2 0 1 0

## T A B L E 4

. 2

- 5

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I T O R I

N G P R O G R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P R O J E C T



## G A M E F I S H A N D L A R G E F O R A G E F I S H C A T C H A N D E F F E C T I V E N E S S S U M M A R Y

2 0 1 0

I N S I D E O U T S I D E P E R C E N T E F F E C T I V E N E S S

G A M E F I S H > 5 "

C h i n o o k s a l m o n 2 6 3 5 2 5

. 7

C o h o s a l m o n 1 3 8 *

S t e e l h e a d 0 4 1 0 0

. 0

L a k e t r o u t 2 5 2 5 4 9 0

. 2

B r o w n t r o u t 2 6 9 8 7 3

. 5

Y e l l o w p e r c h 0 2 4 1 0 0

. 0

G A M E F I S H T O T A L 9 0 4 2 3 7 8

. 7

F O R A G E F I S H > 5 "

R a i n b o w S m e l t 0 2 1 0 0

. 0

A l e w i f e 8 8 1 5 8 9 9 4

. 5

F O R A G E F I S H T O T A L 8 8 1 5 9 1 9 4

. 5

N o t e : P e r c e n t E f

f e c t i v e n e s s = ( ( O u t s i d e C a t c h

– I n s i d e C a t c h ) / O u t s i d e C a t c h ) * 1 0 0

. A l l n e g a t i v e n u m b e r s a r e d e n o t e d b y “ * ”

.

H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

.

## T A B L E 4

. 2

- 6

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I T O R I

N G P R O G R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P R O J E C T



## G A M E F I S H ( I N C L U D I N G W A L L E Y E )

, L A R G E F O R A G E F I S H

, A N D 4

- 5 ” A L E W I F E

C A T C H A N D E F F E C T I V E N E S S S U M M A R Y

2 0 1 0

I N S I D E O U T S I D E P E R C E N T E F F E C T I V E N E S S

G A M E F I S H > 5 "

C h i n o o k s a l m o n 2 6 3 5 2 5

. 7

C o h o s a l m o n 1 3 8 *

S t e e l h e a d 0 4 1 0 0

. 0

L a k e t r o u t 2 5 2 5 4 9 0

. 2

B r o w n t r o u t 2 6 9 8 7 3

. 5

Y e l l o w p e r c h 0 2 4 1 0 0

. 0

G A M E F I S H T O T A L 9 0 4 2 3 7 8

. 7

W a l l e y e 8 7 8 8 9

. 7

G A M E F I S H I N C L U D I N G W A L L E Y E 9 8 5 0 1 8 0

. 4

F O R A G E F I S H > 5 "

R a i n b o w S m e l t 0 2 1 0 0

. 0

A l e w i f e 8 8 1 5 8 9 9 4

. 5

F O R A G E F I S H T O T A L 8 8 1 5 9 1 9 4

. 5

A l e w i f e 4

- 5 ” 8 2 4 5 5 8 2

. 0

N o t e : P e r c e n t E f

f e c t i v e n e s s = ( ( O u t s i d e C a t c h

– I n s i d e C a t c h ) / O u t s i d e C a t c h ) * 1 0 0

. A l l n e g a t i v e n u m b e r s a r e d e n o t e d b y “ * ”

.



## A d d i t i o n a l P a r a m e t e r s f o r S c a l i n g o f D a m a g e C o m p e n s a t i o n

G a m e F i s h C a t c h O u t s i d e t h e N e t ( i n c l u d i n g w a l l e y e )

=

W e i g h t o f L a r g e F o r a g e C a u g h t O u t s i d e t h e N e t =

* I n c l u d e s f

i s h c o l l e c t e d d u r i n g p l a n t s h u t d o w n

H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

.PERCENTCategoryInside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside OutsideEFFECTIVEGame Fish 3 61 13 117 7 41 8 18 5 17 29 27 25 142 90 423 79%Walleye0 0 1 3 2 14 5 22 0 24 0 5 0 10 8 78 90%Game Fishincluding Walleye3 61 14 120 9 55 13 40 5 41 29 32 25 152 98 501 80%Large Forage 0 3 28 559 42 945 12 760 2 1 1 5 5 881591 95%PLANT SHUT DOWN (Sep 14)SHUT DOWN TOTALCategoryOutside OutsideGame Fish 32 455Walleye 8 86Game Fishincluding Walleye40 541Large Forage 0 1,591APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER TOTALTABLE 4.2-7BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAMLUDINGTON PUMP STORAGE PROJECTMONTHLY COLLECTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH FISH DAMAGE COMPENSATION DETERMINANTS

### S I Z E

R A N G E

( I n c h e s ) S I Z E

R A N G E

( I n c h e s ) 6 ' N E T S

S U R F A C E 0

- 8 ' M I D

- D E P T H 8 '

- 1 6 ' B O T T O M 1 6 '

- 2 4 ' S U B T O T A L A L L

N E T S

T O T A L 

### S P E C I E S

C h i n o o k s a l m o n 4

- 5 1 0 0 0 0 1

> 5

- 1 2 1 3 2 4 4 1 0 2 3

> 1 2

- 2 0 2 1 1 0 2 4

> 2 0 1 4 4 8 8 2 0 3 4

C o h o s a l m o n 4

- 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

> 5

- 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

> 1 2 7 4 7 3 1 4 2 1

S t e e l h e a d 4

- 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

> 5

- 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 2

> 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 2

L a k e t r o u t 4

- 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

> 5

- 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1

> 1 2 1 3 7 1 9 2 5 9 7 1 4 1 2 7 8

B r o w n t r o u t 4

- 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

> 5

- 1 2 2 3 0 2 9 1 1 3 4

> 1 2 7 7 2 0 1 1 1 3 9 0

Y e l l o w p e r c h 4

- 5 6 0 0 1 7 1 7 2 3

> 5 9 1 1 1 3 1 5 2 4

S m e l t 4

- 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

> 5 0 1 1 0 2 2

A l e w i f e 4

- 5 2 7 8 9 7 5 6 1 0 6 2 5 9 5 3 7

> 5 8 2 7 2 9 4 2 0 0 3 5 6 8 5 0 1 6 7 7

C h u b s 4

- 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

> 5 8 0 0 6 6 1 4

T a r g e t S p e c i e s > = 4 1 4 0 7 4 2 5 3 0 5 6 3 0 1 3 6 0 2 7 6 7

N o n t a r g e t S p e c i e s > = 4 5 3 4 3 3 6 8 4 3 6 5 3 7 1 0 7 1

A l l S p e c i e s T o t a l > = 4 1 9 4 1 4 5 8 3 7 3 1 0 6 6 1 8 9 7 3 8 3 8 2 4 ' D E E P N E T S

H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. 

## T A B L E 4

. 4

- 1

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P R O J E C T



## C A T C H D E P T H D I S T R I B U T I O N S U M M A R Y

2 0 1 0

### T a r g e t S p e c i e s

A l e w i f e I n s i d e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

O u t s i d e 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 4

Y e l l o w p e r c h I n s i d e 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3

O u t s i d e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

T a r g e t S p e c i e s T o t a l I n s i d e 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3

O u t s i d e 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 4

R o u n d g o b y I n s i d e 1 3 3 2 7 1 0 0 0 6 2

O u t s i d e 0 1 1 9 4 9 2 5 0 0 0 1 9 3 N o n t a r g e t S p e c i e s

N o n t a r g e t S p e c i e s T o t a l I n s i d e 1 3 3 2 7 1 0 0 0 6 2

O u t s i d e 0 1 1 9 4 9 2 5 0 0 0 1 9 3

A l l S p e c i e s T o t a l I n s i d e 1 3 3 2 7 1 0 3 0 6 5

O u t s i d e 0 1 1 9 4 9 2 6 0 0 3 1 9 7 A l l S p e c i e s

H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. 

## T A B L E 4

. 5

- 1

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P R O J E C T



## S M A L L F I S H C A T C H S U M M A R Y

2 0 1 0

S P E C I E S L O C A T I O N A P R M A Y J U N J U L A U G S E P O C T T O T A L F I S H < 4

. 0 I N C H E S T O T A L L E N G T H

# 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 5.0-1HDRMichigan,Inc.FIGURE3.1-1BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTPLANTLAYOUTANDGILLNETSAMPLINGSTATIONLOCATIONS2010LAKEMICHIGAN15623478BREAKWATERBARRIERNETPUMP/POWERSTATIONSHORELINESHORELINEBOATLAUNCHN→1⁄4MILESOUTH1⁄4MILESOUTH1⁄4MILENORTH1⁄4MILENORTHSOUTHJETTYNORTHJETTYBARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTSPECIESPERCENTCOMPOSITION,OUTSIDESTATIONS2010>5inchAlewife48.4%Chub0.4%Salmonids(5species)12.1%Yellowperch1.2%Others(20species)24.0%4-5inchAlewife13.9%FIGURE4.1-1FIGURE4.1-2BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTNONTARGETSPECIESPERCENTCOMPOSITION,OUTSIDESTATIONS2010GizzardShad3.3%WhiteSucker3.8%SpottailShiner19.2%RoundWhitefish13.8%Walleye9.9%Redhorsespp.7.0%Others(11species)4.7%FreshwaterDrum22.2%RoundGoby16.1%FIGURE4.1-3BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTSPECIESPERCENTCOMPOSITION,INSIDESTATIONS2010GizzardShad11.2%Chubs0.2%RoundGoby6.1%Others(9species)11.0%Yellowperch1.1%Salmonids(5species)16.4%4-5inchAlewife14.8%>5inchAlewife15.9%SpottailShiner23.3%FIGURE4.2-1BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTCUMULATIVEWEEKLYBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESS20100102030405060708090100123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627WEEKNUMBER

C U M U L A T I V E P E R C E N T E F F E C T I V E N E S S-.20.2.4.6.81

M e a n D i f f e r e n c e i n P r o p o r t i o n123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627STUDYWEEKTARGETANDNONTARGETSPECIESFISHTargetSpeciesFishNontargetSpeciesFishHDRMichigan,Inc.FIGURE4.2-2BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTWEEKLYEFFECTIVENESS2010-.20.2.4.6.81

M e a n D i f f e r e n c e i n P r o p o r t i o n123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627STUDYWEEKTOTALCATCHHDRMichigan,Inc.FIGURE4.2-3BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTWEEKLYEFFECTIVENESS2010-.4-.20.2.4.6.81

M e a n D i f f e r e n c e i n P r o p o r t i o n123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627STUDYWEEKSALMONIDSHDRMichigan,Inc.FIGURE4.2-4BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTWEEKLYEFFECTIVENESS2010FIGURE4.2-5BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTWEEKLYEFFECTIVENESS2010YELLOWPERCHSIZECLASSES-1-0.8-0.6-0.4-0.200.20.40.60.81123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627STUDYWEEK

M e a n D i f f e r e n c e I n P r o p o r t i o nYellowPerch4-5InchesYellowPerch>5Inches-1-.50.51

M e a n D i f f e r e n c e i n P r o p o r t i o n123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627STUDYWEEKALEWIFESIZECLASSESAlewife4-5InchesAlewife>5InchesHDRMichigan,Inc.FIGURE4.2-6BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTWEEKLYEFFECTIVENESS2010FIGURE4.2-7BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTGAMEFISHCATCHINGILLNETSFISHEDOUTSIDETHELUDINGTONBARRIERNET2010010002000300040005000600070008000900010000199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010

N u m b e r C a u g h tYellowPerchSalmonidsFIGURE4.2-8BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTWALLEYECATCHINGILLNETSFISHEDOUTSIDETHELUDINGTONBARRIERNET2010050100150200250199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010

N u m b e r C a u g h tFIGURE4.3-1BARRIERMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTSALMONIDSPECIESABUNDANCEvs.MEANSETWATERTEMPERATURE201005101520123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627WEEKNUMBER

M E A N C A T C H P E R O U T S I D E N E T ( N U M B E R O F F I S H )01020304050607080 W A T E R T E M P E R A T U R E ( F a h r e n h e i t )SalmonidsmeanwatertempFIGURE4.3-2BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTYELLOWPERCHANDNONTARGETSPECIESABUNDANCEvs.MEANSETWATERTEMPERATURE201002468101214161820123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627WEEKNUMBER

M E A N C A T C H P E R O U T S I D E N E T ( N U M B E R O F F I S H )01020304050607080

W A T E R T E M P E R A T U R E ( F a h r e n h e i t )YellowPerchnontargetwatertempFIGURE4.3-3BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTALEWIFEANDALLFISHABUNDANCEvs.MEANSETWATERTEMPERATURE2010020406080100123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627WEEKNUMBER

M E A N C A T C H P E R O U T S I D E N E T ( N U M B E R O F F I S H )01020304050607080 W A T E R T E M P E R A T U R E ( F a h r e n h e i t )AlewifeallfisheswatertempFIGURE4.6-1BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTLENGTHFREQUENCY-4TO5INCHALEWIFE2010HDRMichigan,Inc.050100150200250

N U M B E R O F F I S H C O L L E C T E D44.55LENGTH(in.)FIGURE4.6-2BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTLENGTHFREQUENCY-4TO5INCHYELLOWPERCH2010HDRMichigan,Inc.024681012

N U M B E R O F F I S H C O L L E C T E D44.55TOTALLENGTH(in.)FIGURE5.0-1BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTWEEKLYCATCHANDBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESS20100100200300400500600700800900123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627WEEKNUMBER

T O T A L W E E K L Y C A T C H ( N U M B E R O F F I S H )0102030405060708090100 P E R C E N T E F F E C T I V E N E S SINSIDECATCHOUTSIDECATCHWEEKLYEFFECTIVENESS

# 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

### 6 7 8 4 5 3 2 1 D a t e M o n t h W e e k

4 9 4 8 4 7 5 0 4 5 3 9 4 0 4 2 1 9 A p r 2

5 0 4 7 4 8 4 9 4 2 4 0 3 9 4 5 2 2

4 8 4 9 5 0 4 7 4 3 4 5 3 9 4 2 2 8 A p r 3

4 9 5 0 4 8 4 7 4 3 4 2 3 9 4 5 6 M a y 4

4 7 4 8 5 0 4 9 4 5 3 9 4 3 4 2 1 1 M a y 5

4 7 4 8 5 0 4 9 4 5 4 3 3 9 4 2 1 2

5 0 4 7 4 8 4 9 3 9 4 2 4 3 4 5 1 7 M a y 6

4 7 5 0 4 8 4 9 3 9 4 2 4 3 4 5 1 8

5 0 4 8 4 7 4 9 4 3 4 5 3 9 4 2 2 4 M a y 7

5 0 4 7 4 8 4 9 4 5 4 3 3 9 4 2 2 5

4 8 4 9 5 0 4 7 4 3 4 5 4 2 3 9 3 1 M a y 8

4 8 4 7 5 0 4 9 3 9 4 5 4 3 4 2 3

4 7 4 9 5 0 4 8 4 5 4 3 4 2 3 9 7 J u n 9

4 7 4 8 5 0 4 9 4 5 4 3 3 9 4 2 1 0

4 7 4 9 4 8 5 0 4 5 4 2 3 9 4 3 1 4 J u n 1 0

5 0 4 9 4 8 4 7 4 2 4 5 4 3 3 9 1 5

4 8 5 0 4 7 4 9 4 5 4 2 3 9 4 3 2 1 J u n 1 1

4 9 4 7 4 8 5 0 4 3 4 4 4 2 4 5 2 9 J u n 1 2

4 9 4 8 4 7 5 0 4 3 4 4 4 2 4 5 3 0

5 0 4 7 4 9 4 8 4 3 4 4 4 2 4 5 7 J u l 1 3

4 9 5 0 4 8 4 7 4 5 4 2 4 3 4 4 8

4 7 5 0 4 8 4 9 4 4 4 3 4 2 4 5 1 2 J u l 1 4

5 0 4 8 4 7 4 9 4 2 4 3 4 5 4 4 1 3

4 7 4 8 5 0 4 9 4 5 4 4 4 3 4 2 1 9 J u l 1 5

4 7 5 0 4 8 4 9 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 2 0

4 8 4 7 4 6 5 0 4 5 4 4 4 3 4 2 2 9 J u l 1 6

4 7 4 8 5 0 4 6 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 3 1

4 7 5 0 4 6 4 8 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 9 A u g 1 8

4 7 4 6 5 0 4 8 4 5 4 3 4 4 4 2 1 0

4 6 4 8 4 7 5 0 4 4 4 2 4 5 4 3 2 3 A u g 2 0

5 0 4 7 4 8 4 6 4 4 4 2 4 5 4 3 1 S e p 2 1

4 7 4 6 4 8 5 0 4 3 4 4 4 2 4 5 2 7 S e p 2 5

4 8 4 6 4 7 5 0 4 3 4 5 4 2 4 4 4 O c t 2 6

5 0 4 8 4 6 4 7 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 5 S t a t i o n #

H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. 

## A P P E N D I X A

- 1

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I

T O R I N G P R O G

R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P R O J E C T



## D A I L Y G I L L N E T D E P L O Y M E N T R E C O R D

2 0 1 0

## A P P E N D I X A

- 2

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P R O J E C T



## N E T U S E F R E Q U E N C Y

2 0 1 0

S I X F O O T D E E P N E T S

N E T N O

. S t a t i o n 1 S t a t i o n 2 S t a t i o n 3 S t a t i o n 4 T O T A L

3 9 3 9 2 3 1 7

4 0 0 1 1 0 2

4 2 1 1 8 8 7 3 4

4 3 4 8 1 1 9 3 2

4 4 3 5 6 3 1 7

4 5 1 3 3 6 1 2 3 4

T o t a l 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 1 3 6

T W E N T Y F O U R F O O T D E E P N E T S

N E T N O

. S t a t i o n 5 S t a t i o n 6 S t a t i o n 7 S t a t i o n 8 T O T A L

4 6 2 1 3 3 9

4 7 6 1 3 8 7 3 4

4 8 4 6 1 1 1 3 3 4

4 9 1 4 5 5 1 2 5

5 0 8 9 7 1 0 3 4

T o t a l 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 1 3 6

H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

.

# 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



# 201010/27/2009 

### HDR/LMS 20 10 

## Calculations and Results LU DINGTON 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)

g ill 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.

### S p e c i e s S i z e R a n g e

( I n c h e s ) O b s M e a n S t d D e v M i n M a x

C h i n o o k s a l m o n 4

- 5

> 5

- 1 2 2

. 0 0 0 1

. 4 1 4

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

> 1 2

- 2 0

> 2 0 2

- 1

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0

- 1

. 0 0 0

- 1

. 0 0 0

C o h o s a l m o n 4

- 5

> 5

- 1 2

> 1 2 1

- 1

. 0 0 0

- 1

. 0 0 0

- 1

. 0 0 0

S t e e l h e a d 4

- 5

> 5

- 1 2

> 1 2 1 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

L a k e t r o u t 4

- 5

> 5

- 1 2

> 1 2 9

. 9 0 2

. 1 7 3

. 5 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

B r o w n t r o u t 4

- 5

> 5

- 1 2 3

-

. 3 3 3 1

. 1 5 5

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

> 1 2 8

. 5 3 7

. 8 0 9

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

Y e l l o w p e r c h 4

- 5 1 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

> 5 2 1

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

S m e l t 4

- 5

> 5

A l e w i f e 4

- 5 9

. 2 9 8

. 8 1 7

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

> 5 1 3

. 4 0 8

. 7 6 7

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

C h u b 4

- 5

> 5 4 1

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

S p o t t a i l S h i n e r > = 4 1 7

-

. 2 2 6

. 8 4 8

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

O t h e r N o n t a r g e t F i s h > = 4 2 0

. 6 8 4

. 5 6 0

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

A l l T a r g e t S p e c i e s F i s h > = 4 1 9

. 6 3 4

. 4 3 2

-

. 5 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

N o n t a r g e t S p e c i e s F i s h > = 4 2 0

. 3 7 5

. 5 2 4

-

. 6 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

A l l S a l m o n i d s > = 4 1 3

. 3 3 7

. 8 3 2

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

A l l Y e l l o w P e r c h > = 4 3 1

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

A l l F o r a g e F i s h > = 4 1 5

. 4 7 0

. 7 5 4

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

A l l F i s h > = 4 2 0

. 5 9 0

. 3 5 2

-

. 1 4 9 1

. 0 0 0

1 0 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 0 

### H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. 2 0 1 0 

## S t a t i o n s 1 a n d 2 B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S D E S C R I P T I V E S T A T I S T I C S

P A I R E D S T A T I O N S

- M E A N D I F F E R E N C E I N P R O P O R T I O N S

### S p e c i e s S i z e R a n g e

( I n c h e s ) O b s M e a n S t d D e v M i n M a x

C h i n o o k s a l m o n 4

- 5 1

- 1

. 0 0 0

- 1

. 0 0 0

- 1

. 0 0 0

> 5

- 1 2 4

. 8 3 3

. 3 3 3

. 3 3 3 1

. 0 0 0

> 1 2

- 2 0 2

. 0 0 0 1

. 4 1 4

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

> 2 0 4

-

. 0 5 0

. 8 2 3

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

C o h o s a l m o n 4

- 5

> 5

- 1 2

> 1 2 2

- 1

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0

- 1

. 0 0 0

- 1

. 0 0 0

S t e e l h e a d 4

- 5

> 5

- 1 2 2 1

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

> 1 2 1 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

L a k e t r o u t 4

- 5

> 5

- 1 2 1

- 1

. 0 0 0

- 1

. 0 0 0

- 1

. 0 0 0

> 1 2 1 0

. 7 7 1

. 4 1 6

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

B r o w n t r o u t 4

- 5

> 5

- 1 2 1 0

. 3 0 0

. 9 4 9

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

> 1 2 1 0

. 7 3 7

. 6 2 4

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

Y e l l o w p e r c h 4

- 5 2

. 5 0 0

. 7 0 7

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

> 5 1 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

S m e l t 4

- 5

> 5

A l e w i f e 4

- 5 8

. 5 4 4

. 5 5 4

-

. 3 3 3 1

. 0 0 0

> 5 1 3

. 8 2 7

. 3 2 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

C h u b 4

- 5

> 5 2

. 0 0 0 1

. 4 1 4

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

S p o t t a i l S h i n e r > = 4 1 8

. 3 3 9

. 7 9 7

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

O t h e r N o n t a r g e t F i s h > = 4 1 8

. 5 4 4

. 6 5 7

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

A l l T a r g e t S p e c i e s F i s h > = 4 2 0

. 6 4 7

. 3 3 6

-

. 1 4 3 1

. 0 0 0

N o n t a r g e t S p e c i e s F i s h > = 4 1 9

. 4 4 8

. 5 7 1

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

A l l S a l m o n i d s > = 4 2 0

. 5 8 1

. 5 6 1

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

A l l Y e l l o w P e r c h > = 4 3

. 6 6 7

. 5 7 7

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

A l l F o r a g e F i s h > = 4 1 4

. 6 5 5

. 3 9 9

-

. 1 1 1 1

. 0 0 0

A l l F i s h > = 4 2 0

. 5 9 7

. 3 2 8

-

. 0 5 9 1

. 0 0 0

1 0 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 0 

### H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. 2 0 1 0 

## S t a t i o n s 3 a n d 4 B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S D E S C R I P T I V E S T A T I S T I C S

P A I R E D S T A T I O N S

- M E A N D I F F E R E N C E I N P R O P O R T I O N S

### S p e c i e s S i z e R a n g e

( I n c h e s ) O b s M e a n S t d D e v M i n M a x

C h i n o o k s a l m o n 4

- 5

> 5

- 1 2 4 1

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

> 1 2

- 2 0 2

. 0 0 0 1

. 4 1 4

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

> 2 0 2

. 2 5 0 1

. 0 6 1

-

. 5 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

C o h o s a l m o n 4

- 5

> 5

- 1 2

> 1 2 3

. 5 5 6

. 7 7 0

-

. 3 3 3 1

. 0 0 0

S t e e l h e a d 4

- 5

> 5

- 1 2

> 1 2

L a k e t r o u t 4

- 5

> 5

- 1 2

> 1 2 9

. 9 1 8

. 2 2 1

. 3 3 3 1

. 0 0 0

B r o w n t r o u t 4

- 5

> 5

- 1 2 2

. 0 0 0 1

. 4 1 4

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

> 1 2 2

. 0 0 0 1

. 4 1 4

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

Y e l l o w p e r c h 4

- 5 3

. 6 0 6

. 5 3 3

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

> 5 5 1

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

S m e l t 4

- 5

> 5 1 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

A l e w i f e 4

- 5 1 1

. 9 0 2

. 1 7 1

. 5 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

> 5 1 4

. 7 9 7

. 2 9 7

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

C h u b 4

- 5

> 5 3 1

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

S p o t t a i l S h i n e r > = 4 1 2

-

. 2 5 6

. 7 6 4

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

O t h e r N o n t a r g e t F i s h > = 4 1 9

. 7 7 8

. 3 5 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

A l l T a r g e t S p e c i e s F i s h > = 4 1 9

. 8 2 5

. 2 2 3

. 1 2 5 1

. 0 0 0

N o n t a r g e t S p e c i e s F i s h > = 4 1 9

. 5 7 2

. 4 4 1

-

. 5 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

A l l S a l m o n i d s > = 4 1 3

. 7 5 7

. 3 8 6

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

A l l Y e l l o w P e r c h > = 4 8

. 8 5 2

. 3 5 0

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

A l l F o r a g e F i s h > = 4 1 7

. 8 7 1

. 1 5 2

. 5 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

A l l F i s h > = 4 2 0

. 7 3 6

. 2 5 6

. 0 8 7 1

. 0 0 0

1 0 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 0 

### H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. 2 0 1 0 

## S t a t i o n s 5 a n d 6 B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S D E S C R I P T I V E S T A T I S T I C S

P A I R E D S T A T I O N S

- M E A N D I F F E R E N C E I N P R O P O R T I O N S

### S p e c i e s S i z e R a n g e

( I n c h e s ) O b s M e a n S t d D e v M i n M a x

C h i n o o k s a l m o n 4

- 5

> 5

- 1 2 3

. 3 3 3 1

. 1 5 5

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

> 1 2

- 2 0

> 2 0 4

-

. 0 5 0

. 8 2 3

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

C o h o s a l m o n 4

- 5

> 5

- 1 2

> 1 2 3

. 4 6 7

. 9 2 4

-

. 6 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

S t e e l h e a d 4

- 5

> 5

- 1 2

> 1 2

L a k e t r o u t 4

- 5

> 5

- 1 2

> 1 2 1 2

. 8 0 4

. 3 8 9

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

B r o w n t r o u t 4

- 5

> 5

- 1 2 4

-

. 1 5 0

. 8 7 0

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

> 1 2 7

. 8 5 7

. 3 7 8

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

Y e l l o w p e r c h 4

- 5 2

- 1

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0

- 1

. 0 0 0

- 1

. 0 0 0

> 5 3 1

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

S m e l t 4

- 5

> 5 1 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

A l e w i f e 4

- 5 7

. 7 8 0

. 3 6 9

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

> 5 1 4

. 5 6 9

. 7 2 8

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

C h u b 4

- 5

> 5 2 1

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

S p o t t a i l S h i n e r > = 4 1 2

-

. 2 7 1

. 8 6 2

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

O t h e r N o n t a r g e t F i s h > = 4 1 8

. 6 9 5

. 4 1 6

-

. 5 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

A l l T a r g e t S p e c i e s F i s h > = 4 1 9

. 7 1 5

. 3 6 2

-

. 2 5 0 1

. 0 0 0

N o n t a r g e t S p e c i e s F i s h > = 4 1 8

. 5 6 1

. 4 4 3

-

. 6 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

A l l S a l m o n i d s > = 4 1 8

. 5 0 2

. 6 5 5

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

A l l Y e l l o w P e r c h > = 4 4

. 3 3 3

. 9 4 3

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

A l l F o r a g e F i s h > = 4 1 5

. 6 5 9

. 5 5 3

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

A l l F i s h > = 4 2 0

. 6 5 0

. 3 4 4

-

. 1 9 4 1

. 0 0 0

1 0 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 0 

### H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. 2 0 1 0 

## S t a t i o n s 7 a n d 8 B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S D E S C R I P T I V E S T A T I S T I C S

P A I R E D S T A T I O N S

- M E A N D I F F E R E N C E I N P R O P O R T I O N S

### S p e c i e s S i z e R a n g e

( I n c h e s ) O b s M e a n S t d D e v M i n M a x

C h i n o o k s a l m o n 4

- 5 1

- 1

. 0 0 0

- 1

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0

> 5

- 1 2 1 3

. 6 4 1

. 7 5 1

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

> 1 2

- 2 0 4

. 0 0 0 1

. 1 5 5

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

> 2 0 1 2

-

. 1 5 8

. 7 9 9

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

C o h o s a l m o n 4

- 5

> 5

- 1 2

> 1 2 9

. 0 0 7

. 9 6 6

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

S t e e l h e a d 4

- 5

> 5

- 1 2 2 1

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

> 1 2 2 1

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

L a k e t r o u t 4

- 5

> 5

- 1 2 1

- 1

. 0 0 0

- 1

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0

> 1 2 4 0

. 8 4 3

. 3 2 0

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

B r o w n t r o u t 4

- 5

> 5

- 1 2 1 9

. 0 7 4

. 9 5 0

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

> 1 2 2 7

. 6 5 4

. 6 8 7

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

Y e l l o w p e r c h 4

- 5 8

. 2 2 7

. 8 6 7

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

> 5 1 1 1

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

S m e l t 4

- 5

> 5 2 1

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

A l e w i f e 4

- 5 3 5

. 6 4 0

. 5 5 9

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

> 5 5 4

. 6 5 2

. 5 8 1

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

C h u b 4

- 5

> 5 1 1

. 8 1 8

. 6 0 3

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

S p o t t a i l S h i n e r > = 4 5 9

-

. 0 6 9

. 8 4 3

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

O t h e r N o n t a r g e t F i s h > = 4 7 5

. 6 7 7

. 5 0 7

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

A l l T a r g e t S p e c i e s F i s h > = 4 7 7

. 7 0 5

. 3 4 8

-

. 5 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

N o n t a r g e t S p e c i e s F i s h > = 4 7 6

. 4 8 6

. 4 9 6

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

A l l S a l m o n i d s > = 4 6 4

. 5 4 5

. 6 2 5

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

A l l Y e l l o w P e r c h > = 4 1 8

. 7 3 1

. 5 5 2

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

A l l F o r a g e F i s h > = 4 6 1

. 6 7 0

. 5 1 6

- 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0

A l l F i s h > = 4 8 0

. 6 4 3

. 3 2 2

-

. 1 9 4 1

. 0 0 0

1 0 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 0 

### H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. 2 0 1 0 

## S t a t i o n s 1

- 8 C o m b i

n e d B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S D E S C R I P T I V E S T A T I S T I C S

P A I R E D S T A T I O N S

- M E A N D I F F E R E N C E I N P R O P O R T I O N S

## BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

PAIRED STATIONS - MEAN DI FFERENCE IN PROPORTIONS

Stations 1-8 Combined Statistically Significant

2010

The following table summarize Student's t-tests conducted to te st the null hypthesis that the barrier net is not effective

and that the weekly inside paired stat ion catches are equal to the catches at the corresponding outside stations ( H 0:U 

### = 0 )

versus the alternative hypothesis that t he barrier net effectively excludes fish (H

o :U 

### >0). If the attained significance value

(P) of the one tailed test is less than 0.05 then the null hy pothesis 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 p erch 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

A lewife 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

2010TargetSpecies0Alewife00000002221Browntrout020026018101Laketrout0000041288020TOTAL201851102021Freshwaterdrum0000000011NontargetSpecies1Redhorsespp.00000000110Whitesucker0000010011000TOTAL3300100202ALLSPECIESTOTAL020411152123HDRMichigan,Inc.4/23/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT4/19/2010TOTALCATCHTargetSpecies0Alewife00000100111Browntrout01001110214150Chub(Bloater)00000102333Laketrout00000210722220Rainbowtrout(Steelhead)0000010011010TOTAL42411110161040Commoncarp0000001011NontargetSpecies1Redhorsespp.00000000111Smallmouthbass0000000011000TOTAL3301000201ALLSPECIESTOTAL01061611114445HDRMichigan,Inc.4/23/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT4/22/2010TOTALCATCHTargetSpecies4Browntrout00000200660Chinooksalmon00000010111Chub(Bloater)00000000110Laketrout0000000111000TOTAL991120051Redhorsespp.0000000011NontargetSpecies000TOTAL1100000100ALLSPECIESTOTAL00062111010HDRMichigan,Inc.5/3/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT4/28/2010TOTALCATCHTargetSpecies2Alewife00000001618181Browntrout310045028120Chinooksalmon00000100114Laketrout00000203991Rainbowtrout(Steelhead)0000010022013TOTAL423821094083Freshwaterdrum0000000144NontargetSpecies0Lakewhitefish00000100113Redhorsespp.00000000331Roundgoby00011043890Roundwhitefish00000002220Spottailshiner4011610017104TOTAL2619642727211ALLSPECIESTOTAL71115114275768HDRMichigan,Inc.5/10/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT5/6/2010TOTALCATCHTargetSpecies0Alewife00000010111Browntrout01001100230Chinooksalmon01001100124Laketrout100013431415021TOTAL21183553050Redhorsespp.0001100223NontargetSpecies0Roundgoby00000001111Roundwhitefish00000021441Spottailshiner1121500016211TOTAL14842062229ALLSPECIESTOTAL23275772635HDRMichigan,Inc.5/13/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT5/11/2010TOTALCATCHTargetSpecies1Browntrout10001401670Chinooksalmon10001100124Laketrout000003611414002TOTAL23212682050Redhorsespp.0000000111NontargetSpecies0Roundgoby00000013440Roundwhitefish00000023555Spottailshiner01001000560Walleye0100100001020TOTAL171573020504ALLSPECIESTOTAL220108993640HDRMichigan,Inc.5/13/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT5/12/2010TOTALCATCHTargetSpecies4Alewife02002317951532Browntrout00000400661Chinooksalmon00000100221Chub(Bloater)00000000115Laketrout0000001177020TOTAL69671083620132Redhorsespp.0000000022NontargetSpecies0Roundgoby007070303100Roundwhitefish00000014550Spottailshiner0010100001800TOTAL1810440802010ALLSPECIESTOTAL028153612147787HDRMichigan,Inc.5/19/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT5/17/2010TOTALCATCHTargetSpecies4Alewife041052271447520Browntrout00011411670Chinooksalmon00000500553Laketrout00000140880Rainbowtrout(Steelhead)0000010011140TOTAL73671512336171Freshwaterdrum0000000011NontargetSpecies0Lakewhitefish00000001110Roundgoby001010549100Spottailshiner1000120023101TOTAL151355220118ALLSPECIESTOTAL14283517208088HDRMichigan,Inc.5/19/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT5/18/2010TOTALCATCHTargetSpecies97Alewife81411430131172752895Browntrout10001000561Laketrout0001102145419TOTAL30028418133301621032Freshwaterdrum0000010033NontargetSpecies0Roundgoby20316211316220Roundwhitefish00000002220Spottailshiner90150242529331Walleye00000010220Whitesucker000000101118011TOTAL633317853013346ALLSPECIESTOTAL201221063514135317363HDRMichigan,Inc.5/26/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT5/24/2010TOTALCATCHTargetSpecies46Alewife171091079131481574Browntrout01001200673Chub(Bloater)00000000330Laketrout0000012033181TOTAL170160138113100533Freshwaterdrum0000003066NontargetSpecies3Roundgoby0002213411130Roundwhitefish000000011110Spottailshiner010251735119361Walleye00000000112100TOTAL5738611419717729ALLSPECIESTOTAL118370179219198227HDRMichigan,Inc.5/26/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT5/25/2010TOTALCATCHTargetSpecies20Alewife10416093241371430Chinooksalmon00000001111Chub(Bloater)00000000110Laketrout00000121440Yellowperch0000001011401TOTAL1501442696161210Redhorsespp.0000040044NontargetSpecies0Roundgoby0010108614150Roundwhitefish00011000010Spottailshiner00213201360Whitesucker0000010011300TOTAL2722787520311ALLSPECIESTOTAL10721810433166177HDRMichigan,Inc.6/4/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT5/31/2010TOTALCATCHTargetSpecies48Alewife511073637982192261Browntrout00000000110Chub(Bloater)01001000011Laketrout0110200013235TOTAL231221983736100501LakeHerring0000000011NontargetSpecies0Lakesturgeon00000010110Redhorsespp.00000700771Roundgoby00000024770Spottailshiner720094004130Walleye0000001122027TOTAL31225411902019ALLSPECIESTOTAL1252524741103243262HDRMichigan,Inc.6/4/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT6/3/2010TOTALCATCHTargetSpecies3Alewife1210114162021350Browntrout00000301440Laketrout01001102340212TOTAL4328322015130Freshwaterdrum0000010011NontargetSpecies0Lakesturgeon00000001110Lakewhitefish00000001110Redhorsespp.00000401550Roundgoby11002003350Roundwhitefish00000001112Spottailshiner03003000250Whitesucker0000010011041TOTAL2015706502120ALLSPECIESTOTAL13605262104363HDRMichigan,Inc.6/11/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT6/7/2010TOTALCATCHTargetSpecies4Alewife003031940991020Browntrout01102000021Laketrout0000003155410TOTAL10910419715050Freshwaterdrum0000010011NontargetSpecies0Redhorsespp.00000201330Roundgoby00000003330Roundwhitefish00000001111Spottailshiner05005010270Walleye0000010122050TOTAL1712614501010ALLSPECIESTOTAL06465987116126HDRMichigan,Inc.6/11/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT6/10/2010TOTALCATCHTargetSpecies38Alewife00000134055550Browntrout00000200220Laketrout0000020133000TOTAL6060141700380Redhorsespp.0000030033NontargetSpecies1Roundgoby10001020340Roundwhitefish01001100120Spottailshiner10102100130Walleye0000001011112TOTAL13903540104ALLSPECIESTOTAL2113922716973HDRMichigan,Inc.6/16/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT6/14/2010TOTALCATCHTargetSpecies2Alewife100121116231330Browntrout00000200220Chub(Bloater)00000010110Laketrout0000010011001TOTAL3735217142120Redhorsespp.0000010122NontargetSpecies0Roundgoby00000101220Spottailshiner2031603039302TOTAL13723261028ALLSPECIESTOTAL3032162044250HDRMichigan,Inc.6/16/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT6/15/2010TOTALCATCHTargetSpecies12Alewife3010467631350Browntrout0000010122103TOTAL373377740120Freshwaterdrum0000010011NontargetSpecies1Gizzardshad00000000110Roundgoby00033001148Spottailshiner1121504012171Walleye0000011033211TOTAL26181528410412ALLSPECIESTOTAL4132291285163HDRMichigan,Inc.6/28/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT6/21/2010TOTALCATCHTargetSpecies93Alewife354112321060764394620Browntrout10001301450Chinooksalmon01001010120Chub(Bloater)00000010111Yellowperch0000006299464TOTAL479454796821325119419Freshwaterdrum000000202121NontargetSpecies3Redhorsespp.02002000350Roundgoby00000041115152Spottailshiner430072004113Walleye11002011572Whiteperch00000000221Whitesucker0000001022065TOTAL63521282110301136ALLSPECIESTOTAL91241242157691506542HDRMichigan,Inc.7/1/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT6/29/2010TOTALCATCHTargetSpecies60Alewife111011311945402642770Browntrout00000200220Chinooksalmon00000001110Laketrout01001000010211TOTAL2812674145121141602Freshwaterdrum0000021055NontargetSpecies1Gizzardshad00000000112Redhorsespp.00000000221Roundgoby0020205814160Roundwhitefish00000010118Spottailshiner4101640113191Walleye00000000111Whitesucker0000000122214TOTAL473910768116222ALLSPECIESTOTAL1532761275251306328HDRMichigan,Inc.7/1/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT6/30/2010TOTALCATCHTargetSpecies0Alewife00011121450Browntrout1000120023001TOTAL861232103Channelcatfish0000000033NontargetSpecies0Commoncarp10001000016Freshwaterdrum0000031010101Spottailshiner20002301570Walleye0000002133003TOTAL2421236301015ALLSPECIESTOTAL400109532732HDRMichigan,Inc.7/9/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT7/7/2010TOTALCATCHTargetSpecies2Alewife02114434049530Browntrout00044001150Yellowperch0000001011120TOTAL595141448523Channelcatfish0000000033NontargetSpecies14Freshwaterdrum0000072629290Gizzardshad00000100110Lakesturgeon00000100110Rockbass00000100111Redhorsespp.00000100220Roundgoby00000010110Spottailshiner10102110240Walleye00011002230Whitesucker0001100001101TOTAL464284124218712ALLSPECIESTOTAL122201684993105HDRMichigan,Inc.7/9/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT7/8/2010TOTALCATCHTargetSpecies0Alewife1010226311130Browntrout00000300330Yellowperch0001100112101TOTAL18154653108Freshwaterdrum010012382122NontargetSpecies0Redhorsespp.10001000010Roundgoby00134040480Smallmouthbass10001000010Spottailshiner22004000040Walleye000110639100Whitesucker0100100112144TOTAL4835121321348516ALLSPECIESTOTAL5428719165066HDRMichigan,Inc.7/14/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT7/12/2010TOTALCATCHTargetSpecies1Alewife21003000140Browntrout00011010120Chinooksalmon00000010110Yellowperch0000001122012TOTAL951304116Freshwaterdrum000000501111NontargetSpecies0Redhorsespp.01001000010Roundgoby00000022440Spottailshiner02002100130Walleye01001050560Whitesucker1000100001041TOTAL2621212150619ALLSPECIESTOTAL350711532635HDRMichigan,Inc.7/14/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT7/13/2010TOTALCATCHTargetSpecies5Alewife1010229319210Browntrout00000001110Yellowperch0000010122101TOTAL24225932050Commoncarp0000001011NontargetSpecies0Freshwaterdrum00000252990Gizzardshad00000300330Rockbass00000100110Roundgoby00011001120Spottailshiner10001100120Walleye0100100001011TOTAL191636731015ALLSPECIESTOTAL2115101583843HDRMichigan,Inc.7/23/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT7/19/2010TOTALCATCHTargetSpecies1Alewife0001125816170Browntrout01012000020Yellowperch0100100001020TOTAL20168524210Channelcatfish0000001011NontargetSpecies0Freshwaterdrum00000104551Redhorsespp.00000000110Roundgoby00011000010Spottailshiner03003200250Walleye0001100112030TOTAL151051352149ALLSPECIESTOTAL050256132635HDRMichigan,Inc.7/23/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT7/20/2010TOTALCATCHTargetSpecies5Alewife02403271632347740Browntrout00000100110Yellowperch00101000011240TOTAL76482331728350Redhorsespp.0000010122NontargetSpecies0Spottailshiner20002200240Walleye00000001110Whiteperch00000001111Whitesucker0000000011002TOTAL97303201330ALLSPECIESTOTAL22416203265585HDRMichigan,Inc.8/1/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT7/29/2010TOTALCATCHTargetSpecies0Alewife0121448416200Browntrout00000300330Yellowperch0000001001010210TOTAL332941874100Freshwaterdrum0000003033NontargetSpecies0Gizzardshad00000010110Spottailshiner10001010120Walleye00000001110Whitesucker0000010011001TOTAL8715110015ALLSPECIESTOTAL112082353641HDRMichigan,Inc.8/1/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT7/31/2010TOTALCATCHTargetSpecies8Alewife0117931820290Chinooksalmon00011102340Yellowperch0000011022110TOTAL3525102510884Freshwaterdrum0000000266NontargetSpecies2Gizzardshad00000000221Redhorsespp.10001100230Roundgoby00022001130Smallmouthbass00101000010Spottailshiner00101002230Walleye00000001110Whitesucker0000000111201TOTAL20157015271015ALLSPECIESTOTAL1131562174055HDRMichigan,Inc.8/11/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT8/9/2010TOTALCATCHTargetSpecies0Alewife020682259170Chinooksalmon10012000020Yellowperch0002200002021TOTAL21952212900Lakesturgeon0000010122NontargetSpecies0Redhorsespp.00000200220Spottailshiner00101503890Walleye00000011221Whitesucker0000000011100TOTAL1615518101913ALLSPECIESTOTAL1211103102437HDRMichigan,Inc.8/11/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT8/10/2010TOTALCATCHTargetSpecies0Alewife00000010110Browntrout00000100110Chinooksalmon02002000020Cohosalmon00000011220Laketrout00000011226Yellowperch0000021099020TOTAL17152432060Lakesturgeon0010100001NontargetSpecies1Northernpike00000100221Redhorsespp.00000010220Smallmouthbass04004000041Spottailshiner00000300447Walleye00000010421212Whiteperch00000000220Whitesucker0000013044140TOTAL40354145501207ALLSPECIESTOTAL0611881865057HDRMichigan,Inc.8/30/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT8/23/2010TOTALCATCHTargetSpecies0Alewife00000020220Chinooksalmon0010141056100TOTAL870341000Freshwaterdrum2000201013NontargetSpecies1Spottailshiner11013200361Whiteperch00000010221Whitesucker0000011144013TOTAL151013351316ALLSPECIESTOTAL31137611723HDRMichigan,Inc.9/7/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT9/1/2010TOTALCATCHTargetSpecies0Alewife10001000010Browntrout00101001120Chinooksalmon2335132338210Cohosalmon1524120112143Laketrout1001243111130Rainbowsmelt00000010113Yellowperch0010101045785TOTAL5727696301060Freshwaterdrum0000002133NontargetSpecies8Gizzardshad17108256061217770Longnosesucker00000001110Rockbass00101000011Redhorsespp.12104111480Roundgoby00000100113Roundwhitefish02136061524300Smallmouthbass10001000012Spottailshiner00123151018210Walleye00000041550Whitesucker3320801019141722TOTAL1577421162383301440113ALLSPECIESTOTAL27252120292527101214HDRMichigan,Inc.10/4/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT9/27/2010TOTALCATCHTargetSpecies0Alewife210251337120Browntrout02002000020Chinooksalmon010451023819Laketrout14038139246573083TOTAL9575291215209190Burbot0000000111NontargetSpecies0Freshwaterdrum0000035311110Gizzardshad00202100130Redhorsespp.02002000024Roundwhitefish01012931935370Spottailshiner10001150217180Walleye00000010115Whitesucker0100102078241TOTAL81732511288191028ALLSPECIESTOTAL412228432354148176HDRMichigan,Inc.10/7/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT10/4/2010TOTALCATCHTargetSpecies0Alewife10001030340Chinooksalmon00000010110Chub(Bloater)00000011220Cohosalmon010010224527Laketrout3015911181369780Rainbowsmelt0000000111114TOTAL9180172511115270Freshwaterdrum000008762121NontargetSpecies0Lakewhitefish00000031440Redhorsespp.00112000021Roundwhitefish01124851226300Spottailshiner20002400460Walleye00000333991Whitesucker0000000011212TOTAL7365221823832819ALLSPECIESTOTAL62329344339145164HDRMichigan,Inc.10/7/2010STATIONSINSIDEBARRIERSTATIONSOUTSIDEBARRIER2367INSIDETOTALOUTSIDETOTAL8541LUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTBARRIERNETEFFECTIVENESSMONITORINGPROGRAMGILLNETDAILYCATCHREPORT10/5/2010TOTALCATCH

# APPENDIX D

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT



# WEEKLY CATCH and BARRI ER NET EFFECTIVENESS

SUMMARIES

2010

## T a r g e t S p e c i e s

A l e w i f e 0 3 3 1 0 0

. 0

B r o w n t r o u t 3 2 2 2 5 8 6

. 4

C h u b ( B l o a t e r ) 0 3 3 1 0 0

. 0

L a k e t r o u t 0 3 0 3 0 1 0 0

. 0

R a i n b o w t r o u t ( S t e e l h e a d ) 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

5 9 3 T O T A L 6 2 9 4

. 9

C o m m o n c a r p 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0 

## N o n t a r g e t S p e c i e s

F r e s h w a t e r d r u m 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

R e d h o r s e s p p

. 0 2 2 1 0 0

. 0

S m a l l m o u t h b a s s 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

W h i t e s u c k e r 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

6 0 T O T A L 6 1 0 0

. 0

A L L S P E C I E S

T O T A L 6 8 3 6 5

* P e r c e n t E f f e c t i v e n e s s = ( ( O u t s i d e C a t c h

- I n s i d e C a t c h ) / O u t s i d e C a t c h ) * 1 0 0 ; a l l n e g a t i v e n u m b e r s r e p o r t e d a s 0 % e f f e c t i v e

. 

### 9 5

. 4



## H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. 4 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 0 

# L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P L A N T

B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

W E E K L Y C A T C H a n d B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S S U M M A R Y

W E E K O F : 4 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 0 t o 4 / 2 4 / 2 0 1 0

I N S I D E

S T A T I O N S O U T S I D E

S T A T I O N S W E E K L Y

T O T A L P E R C E N T *

E F F E C T I V E N E S S

## T a r g e t S p e c i e s

B r o w n t r o u t 0 6 6 1 0 0

. 0

C h i n o o k s a l m o n 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

C h u b ( B l o a t e r ) 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

L a k e t r o u t 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

9 0 T O T A L 9 1 0 0

. 0

R e d h o r s e s p p

. 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0 

## N o n t a r g e t S p e c i e s

1 0 T O T A L 1 1 0 0

. 0

A L L S P E C I E S

T O T A L 1 0 0 1 0

* P e r c e n t E f f e c t i v e n e s s = ( ( O u t s i d e C a t c h

- I n s i d e C a t c h ) / O u t s i d e C a t c h ) * 1 0 0 ; a l l n e g a t i v e n u m b e r s r e p o r t e d a s 0 % e f f e c t i v e

. 

### 1 0 0

. 0



## H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. 5 / 3 / 2 0 1 0 

# L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P L A N T

B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

W E E K L Y C A T C H a n d B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S S U M M A R Y

W E E K O F : 4 / 2 5 / 2 0 1 0 t o 5 / 1 / 2 0 1 0

I N S I D E

S T A T I O N S O U T S I D E

S T A T I O N S W E E K L Y

T O T A L P E R C E N T *

E F F E C T I V E N E S S

## T a r g e t S p e c i e s

A l e w i f e 0 1 8 1 8 1 0 0

. 0

B r o w n t r o u t 4 8 1 2 5 0

. 0

C h i n o o k s a l m o n 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

L a k e t r o u t 0 9 9 1 0 0

. 0

R a i n b o w t r o u t ( S t e e l h e a d ) 0 2 2 1 0 0

. 0

3 8 4 T O T A L 4 2 8 9

. 5

F r e s h w a t e r d r u m 0 4 4 1 0 0

. 0 

## N o n t a r g e t S p e c i e s

L a k e w h i t e f i s h 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

R e d h o r s e s p p

. 0 3 3 1 0 0

. 0

R o u n d g o b y 1 8 9 8 7

. 5

R o u n d w h i t e f i s h 0 2 2 1 0 0

. 0

S p o t t a i l s h i n e r 6 1 7

. 0

1 9 7 T O T A L 2 6 6 3

. 2

A L L S P E C I E S

T O T A L 6 8 1 1 5 7

* P e r c e n t E f f e c t i v e n e s s = ( ( O u t s i d e C a t c h

- I n s i d e C a t c h ) / O u t s i d e C a t c h ) * 1 0 0 ; a l l n e g a t i v e n u m b e r s r e p o r t e d a s 0 % e f f e c t i v e

. 

### 8 0

. 7



## H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. 5 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 0 

# L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P L A N T

B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

W E E K L Y C A T C H a n d B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S S U M M A R Y

W E E K O F : 5 / 2 / 2 0 1 0 t o 5 / 8 / 2 0 1 0

I N S I D E

S T A T I O N S O U T S I D E

S T A T I O N S W E E K L Y

T O T A L P E R C E N T *

E F F E C T I V E N E S S

## T a r g e t S p e c i e s

A l e w i f e 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

B r o w n t r o u t 2 8 1 0 7 5

. 0

C h i n o o k s a l m o n 2 2 4

. 0

L a k e t r o u t 1 2 8 2 9 9 6

. 4

3 9 5 T O T A L 4 4 8 7

. 2

R e d h o r s e s p p

. 1 3 4 6 6

. 7 

## N o n t a r g e t S p e c i e s

R o u n d g o b y 0 5 5 1 0 0

. 0

R o u n d w h i t e f i s h 0 9 9 1 0 0

. 0

S p o t t a i l s h i n e r 6 6 1 2

. 0

W a l l e y e 1 0 1

. 0

2 3 8 T O T A L 3 1 6 5

. 2

A L L S P E C I E S

T O T A L 7 5 1 3 6 2

* P e r c e n t E f f e c t i v e n e s s = ( ( O u t s i d e C a t c h

- I n s i d e C a t c h ) / O u t s i d e C a t c h ) * 1 0 0 ; a l l n e g a t i v e n u m b e r s r e p o r t e d a s 0 % e f f e c t i v e

. 

### 7 9

. 0



## H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. 5 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 0 

# L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P L A N T

B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

W E E K L Y C A T C H a n d B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S S U M M A R Y

W E E K O F : 5 / 9 / 2 0 1 0 t o 5 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 0

I N S I D E

S T A T I O N S O U T S I D E

S T A T I O N S W E E K L Y

T O T A L P E R C E N T *

E F F E C T I V E N E S S

## T a r g e t S p e c i e s

A l e w i f e 7 9 8 1 0 5 9 2

. 9

B r o w n t r o u t 1 1 2 1 3 9 1

. 7

C h i n o o k s a l m o n 0 7 7 1 0 0

. 0

C h u b ( B l o a t e r ) 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

L a k e t r o u t 0 1 5 1 5 1 0 0

. 0

R a i n b o w t r o u t ( S t e e l h e a d ) 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

1 3 4 8 T O T A L 1 4 2 9 4

. 0

F r e s h w a t e r d r u m 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0 

## N o n t a r g e t S p e c i e s

L a k e w h i t e f i s h 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

R e d h o r s e s p p

. 0 2 2 1 0 0

. 0

R o u n d g o b y 8 1 2 2 0 3 3

. 3

R o u n d w h i t e f i s h 0 5 5 1 0 0

. 0

S p o t t a i l s h i n e r 2 2 4

. 0

2 3 1 0 T O T A L 3 3 5 6

. 5

A L L S P E C I E S

T O T A L 1 7 5 1 8 1 5 7

* P e r c e n t E f f e c t i v e n e s s = ( ( O u t s i d e C a t c h

- I n s i d e C a t c h ) / O u t s i d e C a t c h ) * 1 0 0 ; a l l n e g a t i v e n u m b e r s r e p o r t e d a s 0 % e f f e c t i v e

. 

### 8 8

. 5



## H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. 5 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 0 

# L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P L A N T

B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

W E E K L Y C A T C H a n d B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S S U M M A R Y

W E E K O F : 5 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 0 t o 5 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 0

I N S I D E

S T A T I O N S O U T S I D E

S T A T I O N S W E E K L Y

T O T A L P E R C E N T *

E F F E C T I V E N E S S

## T a r g e t S p e c i e s

A l e w i f e 2 3 4 2 3 4 4 6 9 4

. 6

B r o w n t r o u t 2 1 1 1 3 8 1

. 8

C h u b ( B l o a t e r ) 0 3 3 1 0 0

. 0

L a k e t r o u t 1 7 8 8 5

. 7

4 4 4 2 6 T O T A L 4 7 0 9 4

. 1

F r e s h w a t e r d r u m 0 9 9 1 0 0

. 0 

## N o n t a r g e t S p e c i e s

R o u n d g o b y 8 2 7 3 5 7 0

. 4

R o u n d w h i t e f i s h 0 3 3 1 0 0

. 0

S p o t t a i l s h i n e r 4 1 2 8 6 9

. 0

W a l l e y e 0 3 3 1 0 0

. 0

W h i t e s u c k e r 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

7 1 4 9 T O T A L 1 2 0 3 1

. 0

A L L S P E C I E S

T O T A L 5 9 0 7 5 5 1 5

* P e r c e n t E f f e c t i v e n e s s = ( ( O u t s i d e C a t c h

- I n s i d e C a t c h ) / O u t s i d e C a t c h ) * 1 0 0 ; a l l n e g a t i v e n u m b e r s r e p o r t e d a s 0 % e f f e c t i v e

. 

### 8 5

. 4



## H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. 5 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 0 

# L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P L A N T

B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

W E E K L Y C A T C H a n d B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S S U M M A R Y

W E E K O F : 5 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 0 t o 5 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 0

I N S I D E

S T A T I O N S O U T S I D E

S T A T I O N S W E E K L Y

T O T A L P E R C E N T *

E F F E C T I V E N E S S

## T a r g e t S p e c i e s

A l e w i f e 1 3 3 5 6 3 6 9 9 6

. 3

B r o w n t r o u t 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

C h i n o o k s a l m o n 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

C h u b ( B l o a t e r ) 1 1 2

. 0

L a k e t r o u t 2 5 7 6 0

. 0

Y e l l o w p e r c h 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

3 6 5 1 6 T O T A L 3 8 1 9 5

. 6

L a k e H e r r i n g 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0 

## N o n t a r g e t S p e c i e s

L a k e s t u r g e o n 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

R e d h o r s e s p p

. 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

R o u n d g o b y 1 2 1 2 2 9 5

. 2

R o u n d w h i t e f i s h 1 0 1

. 0

S p o t t a i l s h i n e r 1 2 7 1 9

. 0

W a l l e y e 0 2 2 1 0 0

. 0

W h i t e s u c k e r 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

4 4 1 4 T O T A L 5 8 6 8

. 2

A L L S P E C I E S

T O T A L 4 3 9 3 0 4 0 9

* P e r c e n t E f f e c t i v e n e s s = ( ( O u t s i d e C a t c h

- I n s i d e C a t c h ) / O u t s i d e C a t c h ) * 1 0 0 ; a l l n e g a t i v e n u m b e r s r e p o r t e d a s 0 % e f f e c t i v e

. 

### 9 2

. 7



## H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. 6 / 4 / 2 0 1 0 

# L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P L A N T

B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

W E E K L Y C A T C H a n d B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S S U M M A R Y

W E E K O F : 5 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 0 t o 6 / 5 / 2 0 1 0

I N S I D E

S T A T I O N S O U T S I D E

S T A T I O N S W E E K L Y

T O T A L P E R C E N T *

E F F E C T I V E N E S S

## T a r g e t S p e c i e s

A l e w i f e 1 7 1 2 0 1 3 7 8 5

. 8

B r o w n t r o u t 2 4 6 5 0

. 0

L a k e t r o u t 1 8 9 8 7

. 5

1 3 2 2 0 T O T A L 1 5 2 8 4

. 8

F r e s h w a t e r d r u m 0 2 2 1 0 0

. 0 

## N o n t a r g e t S p e c i e s

L a k e s t u r g e o n 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

L a k e w h i t e f i s h 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

R e d h o r s e s p p

. 0 8 8 1 0 0

. 0

R o u n d g o b y 2 6 8 6 6

. 7

R o u n d w h i t e f i s h 0 2 2 1 0 0

. 0

S p o t t a i l s h i n e r 8 4 1 2

. 0

W a l l e y e 0 2 2 1 0 0

. 0

W h i t e s u c k e r 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

2 7 1 0 T O T A L 3 7 6 3

. 0

A L L S P E C I E S

T O T A L 1 8 9 3 0 1 5 9

* P e r c e n t E f f e c t i v e n e s s = ( ( O u t s i d e C a t c h

- I n s i d e C a t c h ) / O u t s i d e C a t c h ) * 1 0 0 ; a l l n e g a t i v e n u m b e r s r e p o r t e d a s 0 % e f f e c t i v e

. 

### 8 1

. 1



## H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. 6 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 0 

# L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P L A N T

B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

W E E K L Y C A T C H a n d B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S S U M M A R Y

W E E K O F : 6 / 6 / 2 0 1 0 t o 6 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 0

I N S I D E

S T A T I O N S O U T S I D E

S T A T I O N S W E E K L Y

T O T A L P E R C E N T *

E F F E C T I V E N E S S

## T a r g e t S p e c i e s

A l e w i f e 2 8 6 8 8 9 7

. 7

B r o w n t r o u t 0 4 4 1 0 0

. 0

C h u b ( B l o a t e r ) 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

L a k e t r o u t 0 4 4 1 0 0

. 0

9 5 2 T O T A L 9 7 9 7

. 9

R e d h o r s e s p p

. 0 5 5 1 0 0

. 0 

## N o n t a r g e t S p e c i e s

R o u n d g o b y 1 5 6 8 0

. 0

R o u n d w h i t e f i s h 1 1 2

. 0

S p o t t a i l s h i n e r 8 4 1 2

. 0

W a l l e y e 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

1 6 1 0 T O T A L 2 6 3 7

. 5

A L L S P E C I E S

T O T A L 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 1

* P e r c e n t E f f e c t i v e n e s s = ( ( O u t s i d e C a t c h

- I n s i d e C a t c h ) / O u t s i d e C a t c h ) * 1 0 0 ; a l l n e g a t i v e n u m b e r s r e p o r t e d a s 0 % e f f e c t i v e

. 

### 8 9

. 2



## H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. 6 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 0 

# L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P L A N T

B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

W E E K L Y C A T C H a n d B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S S U M M A R Y

W E E K O F : 6 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 0 t o 6 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 0

I N S I D E

S T A T I O N S O U T S I D E

S T A T I O N S W E E K L Y

T O T A L P E R C E N T *

E F F E C T I V E N E S S

## T a r g e t S p e c i e s

A l e w i f e 4 3 1 3 5 8 7

. 1

B r o w n t r o u t 0 2 2 1 0 0

. 0

3 3 4 T O T A L 3 7 8 7

. 9

F r e s h w a t e r d r u m 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0 

## N o n t a r g e t S p e c i e s

G i z z a r d s h a d 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

R o u n d g o b y 3 1 4

. 0

S p o t t a i l s h i n e r 5 1 2 1 7 5 8

. 3

W a l l e y e 0 3 3 1 0 0

. 0

1 8 8 T O T A L 2 6 5 5

. 6

A L L S P E C I E S

T O T A L 6 3 1 2 5 1

* P e r c e n t E f f e c t i v e n e s s = ( ( O u t s i d e C a t c h

- I n s i d e C a t c h ) / O u t s i d e C a t c h ) * 1 0 0 ; a l l n e g a t i v e n u m b e r s r e p o r t e d a s 0 % e f f e c t i v e

. 

### 7 6

. 5



## H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. 6 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 0 

# L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P L A N T

B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

W E E K L Y C A T C H a n d B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S S U M M A R Y

W E E K O F : 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 0 t o 6 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 0

I N S I D E

S T A T I O N S O U T S I D E

S T A T I O N S W E E K L Y

T O T A L P E R C E N T *

E F F E C T I V E N E S S

## T a r g e t S p e c i e s

A l e w i f e 3 6 7 0 3 7 3 9 9 4

. 9

B r o w n t r o u t 1 6 7 8 3

. 3

C h i n o o k s a l m o n 1 2 3 5 0

. 0

C h u b ( B l o a t e r ) 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

L a k e t r o u t 1 0 1

. 0

Y e l l o w p e r c h 0 9 9 1 0 0

. 0

7 2 1 3 9 T O T A L 7 6 0 9 4

. 6

F r e s h w a t e r d r u m 0 2 6 2 6 1 0 0

. 0 

## N o n t a r g e t S p e c i e s

G i z z a r d s h a d 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

R e d h o r s e s p p

. 2 5 7 6 0

. 0

R o u n d g o b y 2 2 9 3 1 9 3

. 1

R o u n d w h i t e f i s h 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

S p o t t a i l s h i n e r 1 3 1 7 3 0 2 3

. 5

W a l l e y e 2 6 8 6 6

. 7

W h i t e p e r c h 0 2 2 1 0 0

. 0

W h i t e s u c k e r 0 4 4 1 0 0

. 0

9 1 1 9 T O T A L 1 1 0 7 9

. 1

A L L S P E C I E S

T O T A L 8 7 0 5 8 8 1 2

* P e r c e n t E f f e c t i v e n e s s = ( ( O u t s i d e C a t c h

- I n s i d e C a t c h ) / O u t s i d e C a t c h ) * 1 0 0 ; a l l n e g a t i v e n u m b e r s r e p o r t e d a s 0 % e f f e c t i v e

. 

### 9 2

. 9



## H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. 7 / 1 / 2 0 1 0 

# L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P L A N T

B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

W E E K L Y C A T C H a n d B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S S U M M A R Y

W E E K O F : 6 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 0 t o 7 / 3 / 2 0 1 0

I N S I D E

S T A T I O N S O U T S I D E

S T A T I O N S W E E K L Y

T O T A L P E R C E N T *

E F F E C T I V E N E S S

## T a r g e t S p e c i e s

A l e w i f e 5 5 3 5 8 9 0

. 6

B r o w n t r o u t 5 3 8

. 0

Y e l l o w p e r c h 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

5 7 1 0 T O T A L 6 7 8 2

. 5

C h a n n e l c a t f i s h 0 6 6 1 0 0

. 0 

## N o n t a r g e t S p e c i e s

C o m m o n c a r p 1 0 1

. 0

F r e s h w a t e r d r u m 0 3 9 3 9 1 0 0

. 0

G i z z a r d s h a d 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

L a k e s t u r g e o n 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

R o c k b a s s 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

R e d h o r s e s p p

. 0 2 2 1 0 0

. 0

R o u n d g o b y 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

S p o t t a i l s h i n e r 4 7 1 1 4 2

. 9

W a l l e y e 1 5 6 8 0

. 0

W h i t e s u c k e r 1 0 1

. 0

6 3 7 T O T A L 7 0 8 8

. 9

A L L S P E C I E S

T O T A L 1 3 7 1 7 1 2 0

* P e r c e n t E f f e c t i v e n e s s = ( ( O u t s i d e C a t c h

- I n s i d e C a t c h ) / O u t s i d e C a t c h ) * 1 0 0 ; a l l n e g a t i v e n u m b e r s r e p o r t e d a s 0 % e f f e c t i v e

. 

### 8 5

. 8



## H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. 7 / 9 / 2 0 1 0 

# L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P L A N T

B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

W E E K L Y C A T C H a n d B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S S U M M A R Y

W E E K O F : 7 / 4 / 2 0 1 0 t o 7 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 0

I N S I D E

S T A T I O N S O U T S I D E

S T A T I O N S W E E K L Y

T O T A L P E R C E N T *

E F F E C T I V E N E S S

## T a r g e t S p e c i e s

A l e w i f e 5 1 2 1 7 5 8

. 3

B r o w n t r o u t 1 4 5 7 5

. 0

C h i n o o k s a l m o n 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

Y e l l o w p e r c h 1 3 4 6 6

. 7

2 0 7 T O T A L 2 7 6 5

. 0

F r e s h w a t e r d r u m 1 3 2 3 3 9 6

. 9 

## N o n t a r g e t S p e c i e s

R e d h o r s e s p p

. 2 0 2

. 0

R o u n d g o b y 4 8 1 2 5 0

. 0

S m a l l m o u t h b a s s 1 0 1

. 0

S p o t t a i l s h i n e r 6 1 7

. 0

W a l l e y e 2 1 4 1 6 8 5

. 7

W h i t e s u c k e r 2 1 3

. 0

5 6 1 8 T O T A L 7 4 6 7

. 9

A L L S P E C I E S

T O T A L 1 0 1 2 5 7 6

* P e r c e n t E f f e c t i v e n e s s = ( ( O u t s i d e C a t c h

- I n s i d e C a t c h ) / O u t s i d e C a t c h ) * 1 0 0 ; a l l n e g a t i v e n u m b e r s r e p o r t e d a s 0 % e f f e c t i v e

. 

### 6 7

. 1



## H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. 7 / 1 4 / 2 0 1 0 

# L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P L A N T

B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

W E E K L Y C A T C H a n d B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S S U M M A R Y

W E E K O F : 7 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 0 t o 7 / 1 7 / 2 0 1 0

I N S I D E

S T A T I O N S O U T S I D E

S T A T I O N S W E E K L Y

T O T A L P E R C E N T *

E F F E C T I V E N E S S

## T a r g e t S p e c i e s

A l e w i f e 3 3 5 3 8 9 1

. 4

B r o w n t r o u t 2 1 3

. 0

Y e l l o w p e r c h 1 2 3 5 0

. 0

3 8 6 T O T A L 4 4 8 4

. 2

C h a n n e l c a t f i s h 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0 

## N o n t a r g e t S p e c i e s

C o m m o n c a r p 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

F r e s h w a t e r d r u m 0 1 4 1 4 1 0 0

. 0

G i z z a r d s h a d 0 3 3 1 0 0

. 0

R o c k b a s s 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

R e d h o r s e s p p

. 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

R o u n d g o b y 2 1 3

. 0

S p o t t a i l s h i n e r 4 3 7

. 0

W a l l e y e 2 1 3

. 0

2 6 8 T O T A L 3 4 6 9

. 2

A L L S P E C I E S

T O T A L 7 8 1 4 6 4

* P e r c e n t E f f e c t i v e n e s s = ( ( O u t s i d e C a t c h

- I n s i d e C a t c h ) / O u t s i d e C a t c h ) * 1 0 0 ; a l l n e g a t i v e n u m b e r s r e p o r t e d a s 0 % e f f e c t i v e

. 

### 7 8

. 1



## H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. 7 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 0 

# L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P L A N T

B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

W E E K L Y C A T C H a n d B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S S U M M A R Y

W E E K O F : 7 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 0 t o 7 / 2 4 / 2 0 1 0

I N S I D E

S T A T I O N S O U T S I D E

S T A T I O N S W E E K L Y

T O T A L P E R C E N T *

E F F E C T I V E N E S S

## T a r g e t S p e c i e s

A l e w i f e 3 1 6 3 9 4 5 0

. 8

B r o w n t r o u t 0 4 4 1 0 0

. 0

Y e l l o w p e r c h 1 1 0 1 1 9 0

. 0

7 7 3 2 T O T A L 1 0 9 5 8

. 4

F r e s h w a t e r d r u m 0 3 3 1 0 0

. 0 

## N o n t a r g e t S p e c i e s

G i z z a r d s h a d 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

R e d h o r s e s p p

. 0 2 2 1 0 0

. 0

S p o t t a i l s h i n e r 3 3 6

. 0

W a l l e y e 0 2 2 1 0 0

. 0

W h i t e p e r c h 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

W h i t e s u c k e r 0 2 2 1 0 0

. 0

1 4 3 T O T A L 1 7 7 8

. 6

A L L S P E C I E S

T O T A L 1 2 6 3 5 9 1

* P e r c e n t E f f e c t i v e n e s s = ( ( O u t s i d e C a t c h

- I n s i d e C a t c h ) / O u t s i d e C a t c h ) * 1 0 0 ; a l l n e g a t i v e n u m b e r s r e p o r t e d a s 0 % e f f e c t i v e

. 

### 6 1

. 5



## H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. 8 / 1 / 2 0 1 0 

# L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P L A N T

B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

W E E K L Y C A T C H a n d B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S S U M M A R Y

W E E K O F : 7 / 2 5 / 2 0 1 0 t o 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 0

I N S I D E

S T A T I O N S O U T S I D E

S T A T I O N S W E E K L Y

T O T A L P E R C E N T *

E F F E C T I V E N E S S

## T a r g e t S p e c i e s

A l e w i f e 1 7 2 9 4 6 4 1

. 4

C h i n o o k s a l m o n 3 3 6

. 0

Y e l l o w p e r c h 2 2 4

. 0

3 4 2 2 T O T A L 5 6 3 5

. 3

F r e s h w a t e r d r u m 0 6 6 1 0 0

. 0 

## N o n t a r g e t S p e c i e s

G i z z a r d s h a d 0 2 2 1 0 0

. 0

L a k e s t u r g e o n 0 2 2 1 0 0

. 0

R e d h o r s e s p p

. 1 4 5 7 5

. 0

R o u n d g o b y 2 1 3

. 0

S m a l l m o u t h b a s s 1 0 1

. 0

S p o t t a i l s h i n e r 2 1 0 1 2 8 0

. 0

W a l l e y e 0 3 3 1 0 0

. 0

W h i t e s u c k e r 0 2 2 1 0 0

. 0

3 0 6 T O T A L 3 6 8 0

. 0

A L L S P E C I E S

T O T A L 9 2 2 8 6 4

* P e r c e n t E f f e c t i v e n e s s = ( ( O u t s i d e C a t c h

- I n s i d e C a t c h ) / O u t s i d e C a t c h ) * 1 0 0 ; a l l n e g a t i v e n u m b e r s r e p o r t e d a s 0 % e f f e c t i v e

. 

### 5 6

. 3



## H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. 8 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 0 

# L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P L A N T

B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

W E E K L Y C A T C H a n d B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S S U M M A R Y

W E E K O F : 8 / 8 / 2 0 1 0 t o 8 / 1 4 / 2 0 1 0

I N S I D E

S T A T I O N S O U T S I D E

S T A T I O N S W E E K L Y

T O T A L P E R C E N T *

E F F E C T I V E N E S S

## T a r g e t S p e c i e s

A l e w i f e 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

B r o w n t r o u t 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

C h i n o o k s a l m o n 2 0 2

. 0

C o h o s a l m o n 0 2 2 1 0 0

. 0

L a k e t r o u t 0 2 2 1 0 0

. 0

Y e l l o w p e r c h 0 9 9 1 0 0

. 0

1 5 2 T O T A L 1 7 8 6

. 7

L a k e s t u r g e o n 1 0 1

. 0 

## N o n t a r g e t S p e c i e s

N o r t h e r n p i k e 0 2 2 1 0 0

. 0

R e d h o r s e s p p

. 0 2 2 1 0 0

. 0

S m a l l m o u t h b a s s 4 0 4

. 0

S p o t t a i l s h i n e r 0 4 4 1 0 0

. 0

W a l l e y e 0 2 1 2 1 1 0 0

. 0

W h i t e p e r c h 0 2 2 1 0 0

. 0

W h i t e s u c k e r 0 4 4 1 0 0

. 0

3 5 5 T O T A L 4 0 8 5

. 7

A L L S P E C I E S

T O T A L 5 7 7 5 0

* P e r c e n t E f f e c t i v e n e s s = ( ( O u t s i d e C a t c h

- I n s i d e C a t c h ) / O u t s i d e C a t c h ) * 1 0 0 ; a l l n e g a t i v e n u m b e r s r e p o r t e d a s 0 % e f f e c t i v e

. 

### 8 6

. 0



## H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. 8 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 0 

# L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P L A N T

B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

W E E K L Y C A T C H a n d B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S S U M M A R Y

W E E K O F : 8 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 0 t o 8 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 0

I N S I D E

S T A T I O N S O U T S I D E

S T A T I O N S W E E K L Y

T O T A L P E R C E N T *

E F F E C T I V E N E S S

## T a r g e t S p e c i e s

A l e w i f e 0 2 2 1 0 0

. 0

C h i n o o k s a l m o n 1 5 6 8 0

. 0

7 1 T O T A L 8 8 5

. 7

F r e s h w a t e r d r u m 2 1 3

. 0 

## N o n t a r g e t S p e c i e s

S p o t t a i l s h i n e r 3 3 6

. 0

W h i t e p e r c h 0 2 2 1 0 0

. 0

W h i t e s u c k e r 0 4 4 1 0 0

. 0

1 0 5 T O T A L 1 5 5 0

. 0

A L L S P E C I E S

T O T A L 2 3 6 1 7

* P e r c e n t E f f e c t i v e n e s s = ( ( O u t s i d e C a t c h

- I n s i d e C a t c h ) / O u t s i d e C a t c h ) * 1 0 0 ; a l l n e g a t i v e n u m b e r s r e p o r t e d a s 0 % e f f e c t i v e

. 

### 6 4

. 7



## H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. 9 / 7 / 2 0 1 0 

# L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P L A N T

B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

W E E K L Y C A T C H a n d B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S S U M M A R Y

W E E K O F : 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 0 t o 9 / 4 / 2 0 1 0

I N S I D E

S T A T I O N S O U T S I D E

S T A T I O N S W E E K L Y

T O T A L P E R C E N T *

E F F E C T I V E N E S S

## T a r g e t S p e c i e s

A l e w i f e 1 0 1

. 0

B r o w n t r o u t 1 1 2

. 0

C h i n o o k s a l m o n 1 3 8 2 1

. 0

C o h o s a l m o n 1 2 2 1 4

. 0

L a k e t r o u t 2 1 1 1 3 8 1

. 8

R a i n b o w s m e l t 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

Y e l l o w p e r c h 1 4 5 7 5

. 0

2 7 3 0 T O T A L 5 7 0

. 0

F r e s h w a t e r d r u m 0 3 3 1 0 0

. 0 

## N o n t a r g e t S p e c i e s

G i z z a r d s h a d 6 0 1 7 7 7

. 0

L o n g n o s e s u c k e r 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

R o c k b a s s 1 0 1

. 0

R e d h o r s e s p p

. 4 4 8

. 0

R o u n d g o b y 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

R o u n d w h i t e f i s h 6 2 4 3 0 7 5

. 0

S m a l l m o u t h b a s s 1 0 1

. 0

S p o t t a i l s h i n e r 3 1 8 2 1 8 3

. 3

W a l l e y e 0 5 5 1 0 0

. 0

W h i t e s u c k e r 8 1 9

. 0

7 4 8 3 T O T A L 1 5 7 0

. 0

A L L S P E C I E S

T O T A L 2 1 4 1 1 3 1 0 1

* P e r c e n t E f f e c t i v e n e s s = ( ( O u t s i d e C a t c h

- I n s i d e C a t c h ) / O u t s i d e C a t c h ) * 1 0 0 ; a l l n e g a t i v e n u m b e r s r e p o r t e d a s 0 % e f f e c t i v e

. 

### 0

. 0



## H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. 1 0 / 4 / 2 0 1 0 

# L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P L A N T

B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

W E E K L Y C A T C H a n d B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S S U M M A R Y

W E E K O F : 9 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 0 t o 1 0 / 2 / 2 0 1 0

I N S I D E

S T A T I O N S O U T S I D E

S T A T I O N S W E E K L Y

T O T A L P E R C E N T *

E F F E C T I V E N E S S

## T a r g e t S p e c i e s

A l e w i f e 6 1 0 1 6 4 0

. 0

B r o w n t r o u t 2 0 2

. 0

C h i n o o k s a l m o n 5 4 9

. 0

C h u b ( B l o a t e r ) 0 2 2 1 0 0

. 0

C o h o s a l m o n 1 4 5 7 5

. 0

L a k e t r o u t 1 7 1 3 4 1 5 1 8 7

. 3

R a i n b o w s m e l t 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0

1 5 5 3 1 T O T A L 1 8 6 8 0

. 0

B u r b o t 0 1 1 1 0 0

. 0 

## N o n t a r g e t S p e c i e s

F r e s h w a t e r d r u m 0 3 2 3 2 1 0 0

. 0

G i z z a r d s h a d 2 1 3

. 0

L a k e w h i t e f i s h 0 4 4 1 0 0

. 0

R e d h o r s e s p p

. 4 0 4

. 0

R o u n d w h i t e f i s h 6 6 1 6 7 9 0

. 2

S p o t t a i l s h i n e r 3 2 1 2 4 8 5

. 7

W a l l e y e 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0

. 0

W h i t e s u c k e r 1 8 9 8 7

. 5

1 3 8 1 6 T O T A L 1 5 4 8 8

. 4

A L L S P E C I E S

T O T A L 3 4 0 4 7 2 9 3

* P e r c e n t E f f e c t i v e n e s s = ( ( O u t s i d e C a t c h

- I n s i d e C a t c h ) / O u t s i d e C a t c h ) * 1 0 0 ; a l l n e g a t i v e n u m b e r s r e p o r t e d a s 0 % e f f e c t i v e

. 

### 8 4

. 0



## H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. 1 0 / 7 / 2 0 1 0 

# L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P L A N T

B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

W E E K L Y C A T C H a n d B A R R I E R N E T E F F E C T I V E N E S S S U M M A R Y

W E E K O F : 1 0 / 3 / 2 0 1 0 t o 1 0 / 9 / 2 0 1 0

I N S I D E

S T A T I O N S O U T S I D E

S T A T I O N S W E E K L Y

T O T A L P E R C E N T *

E F F E C T I V E N E S S

# APPENDIX E

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT



# MONTHLY DEPTH CATC H 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



# 2010SPECIESSize(Inches)InsideOutsideInsideOutsideInsideOutsideInsideOutsideInsideOutsideInsideOutsideInsideOutsideInsideOutsideChinooksalmon4-50000000000000000>5-120000000100021013>12-200000000000000000>200000000021311062Cohosalmon4-50000000000000000>5-120000000000000000>120000000002000103Steelhead4-50000000000000000>5-120000000000000000>120000000000000000Laketrout4-50000000000000000>5-120000000000000000>1201812305000113639889Browntrout4-50000000000000000>5-120000115200000063>1203140200000100110Yellowperch4-5000000210211100512>500010605010000013Smelt4-50000000000000000>50000000000000000Alewife4-50011923432791000011591>50031171117274500000121335Chubs4-50000000000000000>50200020000000206TargetSpecies>=423616414222179013165884463567NontargetSpecies>=414094136211566233038656106330AllSpeciesTotal>=40244625827284281461939354614100169897HDRMichigan,Inc.TABLEE-1BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTMONTHLYBOTTOM-24'NETCATCHSUMMARY2010APRILMAYJUNEJULYAUGUSTSEPTEMBEROCTOBERTOTALSPECIESSize(Inches)InsideOutsideInsideOutsideInsideOutsideInsideOutsideInsideOutsideInsideOutsideInsideOutsideInsideOutsideChinooksalmon4-50000000000000000>5-120001010000010104>12-200000000000100010>200000000000511162Cohosalmon4-50000000000000000>5-120000000000000000>120000000000410243Steelhead4-50000000000000000>5-120000000000000000>120000000000000000Laketrout4-50000000000000000>5-120000000000000000>12010302000001117124Browntrout4-50000000000000000>5-120000001100000011>120000000000000000Yellowperch4-50000000000000000>50000010000000001Smelt4-50000000000000000>50000000000010001Alewife4-500011019016540001551>5001878940100000009191Chubs4-50000000000000000>50000000000000000TargetSpecies>=41110281171275410522227278NontargetSpecies>=40024182051232111751AllSpeciesTotal>=401310691251475922843344329HDRMichigan,Inc.TABLEE-2BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTMONTHLYMID-DEPTH-24'NETCATCHSUMMARY2010APRILMAYJUNEJULYAUGUSTSEPTEMBEROCTOBERTOTALSPECIESSize(Inches)InsideOutsideInsideOutsideInsideOutsideInsideOutsideInsideOutsideInsideOutsideInsideOutsideInsideOutsideChinooksalmon4-50000000000000000>5-120000000000020002>12-200100000000000001>200000010001001113Cohosalmon4-50000000000000000>5-120000000000000000>120000000000210122Steelhead4-50000000000000000>5-120000000000000000>120000000000000000Laketrout4-50000000000000000>5-120000000000000000>1202051000010028316Browntrout4-50000000000000000>5-120000000000000000>120001000000100011Yellowperch4-50000000000000000>50000010000000001Smelt4-50000000000000000>50000000000000101Alewife4-500031046210020204295>5027146212201001002211283Chubs4-50000000000000000>50000000000000000TargetSpecies>=457183317022053551720405NontargetSpecies>=40073443391023AllSpeciesTotal>=405141863174224086552630428HDRMichigan,Inc.TABLEE-3BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTMONTHLYSURFACE-24'NETCATCHSUMMARY2010APRILMAYJUNEJULYAUGUSTSEPTEMBEROCTOBERTOTALSPECIESSize(Inches)InsideOutsideInsideOutsideInsideOutsideInsideOutsideInsideOutsideInsideOutsideInsideOutsideInsideOutsideChinooksalmon4-50000100000000010>5-12002100000010000211>12-200000000010010011>200000000020551186Cohosalmon4-50000000000000000>5-120000000000000000>120000000000601070Steelhead4-50000000000000000>5-120002000000000002>120101000000000002Laketrout4-50000000000000000>5-120000100000000010>120101322600001787012125Browntrout4-50000000000000000>5-1201312519010000617>1232453309100000201166Yellowperch4-50000001101030015>50000010008000009Smelt4-50000000000000000>50000000000000000Alewife4-500757221152734312001060218>501172092155751101103147780Chubs4-50000000000000000>50205100000000017TargetSpecies>=433935350506933555624131616721581249NontargetSpecies>=4630574210025795344343862153381AllSpeciesTotal>=434565407927936013411585659241343111630HDRMichigan,Inc.TABLEE-4BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPLANTMONTHLYSHORELINENETCATCHSUMMARY2010APRILMAYJUNEJULYAUGUSTSEPTEMBEROCTOBERTOTAL

# 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 Record s..............................................................................................

.......... . 6

III. DISPOSITION OF FISH COLLECTED

............................................................... ....... 7

A Handling.................................................................................................................... ... 7

B. Disposition................................................................................................................ .. 8

C. Log Main tenance

..................................................................................................... ..... 10

IV. OTHER OBSERVATIONS AND/OR COMMENTS

........................................... ...... 10

A. Inspection and Repair of Gill Nets................................ .............................................. 10

B. Data for the Michigan Depart ment of Natural Resources............................................. 11

C. Voucher Co llection........................................................................

.............................. 11

D. Scientific Coll ectors Permit

........................................................... .............................. 12

E. Deviations from Sc heduled Activitie s.................................. ........................................ 12

F. R ecords Mana gement

............................................................................ ...................... 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 monito ring 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 week ly collection of fish by gill netting. Quality

assurance/quality control procedures were implem ented 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 task s including weekly reports to document weather

conditions and water temperatures during sampli ng, 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 request ed that data be collected from lake trout to

augment research being conducted by the Fisheries Di vision. All salmonids with only an adipose fin

clip were identified as fish carrying a coded wire-ta g. 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), samp ling 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. Re ports were submitted to the Superintendent,

Ludington Pumped Storage Plant. Each report include d copies of the monitori ng 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 th e 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 w eeks 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/Tues day 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 w ith 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 Ce ntigrade 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 provide d 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 fi sh 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 c lip were returned to the lab for

processing.

Where conditions allowed, every effort wa s made to return live fish to the

water. When fish were released in th e 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 re leased, 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 re mained 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 pane ls 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 pa nels of stretch mesh sizes of 1

inch, 1 1/2 inch, 2 inch, 2 1/2 inc h, 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 al ewife) would fall out of the net.

When the depth panel of origin was unknown, these fish were

allocated to the gill net section (sur face, 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 r ound 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-sampli ng 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 si ze class, and (3.) these fish were

measured.

Fish length was recorded to th e 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 m easured 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 wa s 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 c ontract 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 wa s updated. The new contract included the

contractor, HDR Michigan, Inc., clean and stor e edible fish when less than 75 pounds were

collected. Fillets were stored in a locked fr eezer on site while the edible fish carcasses were

disposed of with non-edible fish at Carlson’s fa rm. Edible fish were defined as fish in good

condition and included; brown trout, lake trout , rainbow trout (steel head), 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, writte n 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 availabl e for pickup. Fish were picked up

within the time frame agreed upon betw een the project supervisor and the

disposition recipient. This varied from 2 to 36-hours after collection. A

secured 4 x 8 foot shed was provide d 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 lock ed 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 Aging 1 

## Farm 2 

## 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 fr om 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. Be nzie County Council on Aging pickedup fish beginning April 23.

1. Recipient's Name:

Max Kracht, Jeff Sattler, Ga ry 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 M DNR for ENTERGY, Palisades to

obtain fish from spring and fall barri er 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 repa irs made prior to or during the 2010

sampling program are shown in Appendix F-III.

### 11 

## B. DATA FOR THE MICHIGAN DE PARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

1. Coded Wire-Tags

As part of the QA/QC Control Proce dure, 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 adi pose fin clip. Such fish carry a coded

wire-tag and the MDNR Fisheries Divisi on 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 duri ng the 2010 sample season. Five were

collected outside the barrier net while one was collected inside the barrier

net. Two fish were captured during J une. 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 ta g number 486005223F. Three more fish

were captured during August. One fish captured on August 10 was tagged

with a pit tag number 985120025061107. Anot her 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 re leased 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.

## T A B L E 1

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P R O J E C T



## S e t a n d L i f

t D a t e s f o r G i l l N e t t i n g

2 0 1 0

H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. * D u r i n g r e s e r v o i r o u t a g e

W e e k M o n t h S e t D a t e D a y L i f t D a t e

2 A p r 1 9 M o n 2 0

2 2 T h u 2 3

3 A p r 2 8 W e d 2 9

4 M a y 6 T h u 7

5 M a y 1 1 T u e 1 2

1 2 W e d 1 3

6 M a y 1 7 M o n 1 8

1 8 T u e 1 9

7 M a y 2 4 M o n 2 5

2 5 T u e 2 6

8 M a y 3 1 M o n 1

3 T h u 4

9 J u n 7 M o n 8

1 0 T h u 1 1

1 0 J u n 1 4 M o n 1 5

1 5 T u e 1 6

1 1 J u n 2 1 M o n 2 2

1 2 J u n 2 9 T u e 3 0

3 0 W e d 1

1 3 J u l 7 W e d 8

8 T h u 9

1 4 J u l 1 2 M o n 1 3

1 3 T u e 1 4

1 5 J u l 1 9 M o n 2 0

2 0 T u e 2 1

1 6 J u l 2 9 T h u 3 0

3 1 S a t 1

1 8 A u g 9 M o n 1 0

1 0 T u e 1 1

2 0 A u g 2 3 M o n 2 4

2 1 S e p 1 W e d 2

* 2 3 S e p 1 4 T u e 1 5

2 5 S e p 2 7 M o n 2 8

2 6 O c t 4 M o n 5

5 T u e 6TABLE2BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTLakeConditionsatSetandLiftofGillNets2010SetLiftWeekMonthDateWeatherWindDirectionWaveHeight(feet)AirTemperature(centigrade)WeatherWindDirectionWaveHeight(feet)AirTemperature(centigrade)2419PCN1-27.6PCE<14.6422CN<17.5CE<14.23428C0<18.8PCSE1-26.2456PCN1-29.8OCNE2-35.45511OCE<17.7RE<17.3512PCSE<110.7RSE1-27.36517PCNE<116.4PCE<17.8518PCNE1-212.7CE<17.87524PC0<123.7CSE<119.1525CN<120.5PCSE<118.78531PCN1-216.1FOG0<111.763PC0<115.0PCSE<110.1967CN<114.1CSE<18.7610RN<114.4PCE<113.510614OCN2-315.3OCE<114.8TABLE2(Cont’d)BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTLakeConditionsatSetandLiftofGillNets2010SetLiftWeekMonthDateWeatherWindDirectionWaveHeight(feet)AirTemperature(centigrade)WeatherWindDirectionWaveHeight(feet)AirTemperature(centigrade)10615RE<116.5FOGW1-213.611621OC/RS<120.6FOGS2-318.412629CNE1-217.7CE<111.2630CN<117.7CE<111.81377PCSW<123.8RS1-221.478PC/FOGNW<122.2PCNE<120.014712PCN1-221.5PCE<117.3713CN1-223.4CSE<119.515719OC0<123.2FOGE<118.1720CSW1-222.9PCNW1-220.416729CW<123.5PCW2-321.4731OCNE<119.5CE<118.21889CS2-324.8FOGE<122.1810PCN<124.0PCSE<122.520823CN<122.9PCSE1-217.42191OCW1-222.4R/FOGSE<120.3TABLE2(Cont’d)BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTLakeConditionsatSetandLiftofGillNets2010SetLiftWeekMonthDateWeatherWindDirectionWaveHeight(feet)AirTemperature(centigrade)WeatherWindDirectionWaveHeight(feet)AirTemperature(centigrade)23914CNW<115.1CE<110.425927C0<113.6CN<110.726104CN<112.8CW1-26.4105C0<112.6CE<18.4Weather:C-ClearPC-PartlyCloudyOC-OverCastR-Rain

### W e e k M o n t h D a t e S t a t i o n S e t T i m e L i f t T i m e

2 A p r 1 9 1 1 9 : 2 0 0 6 : 1 2

2 1 9 : 1 4 0 6 : 0 6

3 1 9 : 5 0 0 6 : 4 1

4 1 9 : 5 8 0 6 : 4 8

5 1 9 : 2 8 0 6 : 2 0

6 1 9 : 3 6 0 6 : 2 9

7 2 1 : 1 2 0 7 : 0 3

8 2 0 : 0 8 0 6 : 5 5

2 A p r 2 2 1 1 9 : 3 0 0 6 : 0 8

2 1 9 : 2 5 0 6 : 0 0

3 1 9 : 5 4 0 6 : 3 7

4 2 0 : 0 0 0 6 : 4 4

5 1 9 : 3 6 0 6 : 1 6

6 1 9 : 4 2 0 6 : 2 4

7 2 0 : 1 3 0 7 : 0 1

8 2 0 : 0 7 0 6 : 5 3

3 A p r 2 8 1 1 9 : 4 6 0 6 : 1 7

2 1 9 : 4 0 0 6 : 1 0

3 2 0 : 0 9 0 6 : 4 5

4 2 0 : 1 4 0 6 : 5 1

5 1 9 : 5 2 0 6 : 2 3

6 1 9 : 5 7 0 6 : 3 3

7 2 0 : 2 6 0 7 : 0 8

8 2 0 : 2 0 0 7 : 0 0

4 M a y 6 1 2 0 : 0 5 0 6 : 0 1

2 1 9 : 5 9 0 5 : 5 5

3 2 0 : 2 7 0 6 : 3 6

4 2 0 : 3 3 0 6 : 4 0

5 2 0 : 1 1 0 6 : 1 2

6 2 0 : 1 7 0 6 : 2 4

7 2 0 : 4 4 0 7 : 0 0

8 2 0 : 3 9 0 6 : 5 0

5 M a y 1 1 1 1 9 : 3 8 0 6 : 0 6

2 1 9 : 3 2 0 6 : 0 0

3 1 9 : 5 9 0 6 : 3 3

4 2 0 : 0 5 0 6 : 4 0

5 1 9 : 4 3 0 6 : 1 4

6 1 9 : 4 8 0 6 : 2 3

7 2 0 : 1 6 0 6 : 5 5

8 2 0 : 1 0 0 6 : 4 8

5 M a y 1 2 1 1 9 : 4 2 0 5 : 5 4

2 1 9 : 3 7 0 5 : 4 7

H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. 

## T A B L E 3

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P R O J E C T



## T i m e s o f D a y f

o r S e t a n d L i f

t o f G i l l N e t s

2 0 1 0

## T A B L E 3 ( C o n t ’ d )

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P R O J E C T



## T i m e s o f D a y f

o r S e t a n d L i f

t o f G i l l N e t s

2 0 1 0

W e e k M o n t h D a t e S t a t i o n S e t T i m e L i f t T i m e

3 2 0 : 0 2 0 6 : 2 7

4 2 0 : 0 6 0 6 : 3 3

5 1 9 : 4 7 0 6 : 0 4

6 1 9 : 5 1 0 6 : 1 4

7 2 0 : 1 6 0 6 : 5 0

8 2 0 : 1 1 0 6 : 4 2

6 M a y 1 7 1 1 9 : 5 0 0 6 : 0 3

2 1 9 : 4 5 0 5 : 5 5

3 2 0 : 1 2 0 6 : 3 5

4 2 0 : 1 8 0 6 : 4 1

5 1 9 : 5 5 0 6 : 1 3

6 2 0 : 0 1 0 6 : 2 3

7 2 0 : 3 0 0 6 : 5 8

8 2 0 : 2 4 0 6 : 5 0

6 M a y 1 8 1 2 0 : 1 6 0 6 : 3 7

2 2 0 : 1 0 0 6 : 3 1

3 1 9 : 3 6 0 5 : 5 8

4 1 9 : 4 2 0 6 : 0 2

5 2 0 : 2 1 0 6 : 4 7

6 2 0 : 2 8 0 6 : 5 5

7 1 9 : 5 7 0 6 : 1 9

8 1 9 : 5 1 0 6 : 1 0

7 M a y 2 4 1 2 0 : 1 9 0 6 : 2 8

2 2 0 : 1 4 0 6 : 2 3

3 1 9 : 4 8 0 5 : 4 5

4 1 9 : 5 2 0 5 : 5 0

5 2 0 : 2 4 0 6 : 3 9

6 2 0 : 2 9 0 6 : 5 0

7 2 0 : 0 3 0 6 : 1 0

8 1 9 : 5 8 0 6 : 0 0

7 M a y 2 5 1 2 0 : 2 5 0 6 : 3 0

2 2 0 : 2 0 0 6 : 2 4

3 1 9 : 5 1 0 5 : 4 9

4 1 9 : 5 7 0 5 : 5 4

5 2 0 : 3 0 0 6 : 4 1

6 2 0 : 3 6 0 6 : 5 1

7 2 0 : 0 8 0 6 : 1 1

8 2 0 : 0 3 0 6 : 0 3

8 M a y 3 1 1 2 0 : 2 0 0 5 : 5 3

2 2 0 : 1 5 0 5 : 4 8

3 2 0 : 4 1 0 6 : 2 3

4 2 0 : 4 6 0 6 : 2 8

H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

.

## T A B L E 3 ( C o n t ’ d )

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P R O J E C T



## T i m e s o f D a y f

o r S e t a n d L i f

t o f G i l l N e t s

2 0 1 0

W e e k M o n t h D a t e S t a t i o n S e t T i m e L i f t T i m e

5 2 0 : 2 5 0 6 : 0 2

6 2 0 : 3 0 0 6 : 1 2

7 2 0 : 5 6 0 6 : 4 5

8 2 0 : 5 1 0 6 : 3 7

8 J u n 3 1 2 0 : 1 6 0 5 : 5 0

2 2 0 : 0 9 0 5 : 4 4

3 2 0 : 3 8 0 6 : 2 4

4 2 0 : 4 3 0 6 : 2 9

5 2 0 : 2 1 0 6 : 0 1

6 2 0 : 2 6 0 6 : 1 1

7 2 0 : 5 4 0 6 : 5 0

8 2 0 : 4 9 0 6 : 3 9

9 J u n 7 1 2 0 : 3 7 0 6 : 3 8

2 2 0 : 3 2 0 6 : 3 2

3 2 0 : 0 5 0 5 : 4 2

4 2 0 : 1 0 0 5 : 4 8

5 2 0 : 4 2 0 6 : 4 8

6 2 0 : 4 8 0 6 : 5 9

7 2 0 : 2 1 0 6 : 1 9

8 2 0 : 1 6 0 6 : 1 0

9 J u n 1 0 1 2 0 : 1 6 0 5 : 4 6

2 2 0 : 1 2 0 5 : 4 0

3 2 0 : 3 7 0 6 : 1 6

4 2 0 : 4 2 0 6 : 2 1

5 2 0 : 2 1 0 5 : 5 4

6 2 0 : 2 6 0 6 : 0 4

7 2 0 : 5 4 0 6 : 4 2

8 2 0 : 4 8 0 6 : 3 2

1 0 J u n 1 4 1 2 0 : 5 5 0 5 : 5 6

2 2 0 : 4 9 0 5 : 4 8

3 2 1 : 1 8 0 6 : 3 4

4 2 1 : 2 4 0 6 : 4 3

5 2 1 : 0 0 0 6 : 0 6

6 2 1 : 0 7 0 6 : 1 8

7 2 1 : 3 6 0 7 : 0 8

8 2 1 : 3 0 0 6 : 5 6

1 0 J u n 1 5 1 2 0 : 0 7 0 7 : 0 0

2 2 0 : 0 1 0 6 : 5 2

3 1 9 : 2 9 0 5 : 5 8

4 1 9 : 3 4 0 6 : 0 5

5 2 0 : 1 4 0 7 : 1 6

6 2 0 : 2 0 0 7 : 3 0

H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

. 

## T A B L E 3

## T A B L E 3 ( C o n t ’ d )

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P R O J E C T



## T i m e s o f D a y f

o r S e t a n d L i f

t o f G i l l N e t s

2 0 1 0

W e e k M o n t h D a t e S t a t i o n S e t T i m e L i f t T i m e

7 1 9 : 4 6 0 6 : 3 6

8 1 9 : 4 0 0 6 : 2 1

1 1 J u n 2 1 1 2 0 : 1 7 0 6 : 0 3

2 2 0 : 1 0 0 5 : 4 6

3 2 0 : 3 9 0 7 : 0 6

4 2 0 : 4 4 0 7 : 1 4

5 2 0 : 2 3 0 6 : 2 2

6 2 0 : 2 8 0 6 : 4 3

7 2 0 : 5 6 0 7 : 4 8

8 2 0 : 4 9 0 7 : 3 3

1 2 J u n 2 9 1 2 1 : 1 6 0 6 : 4 0

2 2 1 : 0 7 0 6 : 3 0

3 2 0 : 3 5 0 5 : 4 7

4 2 0 : 4 2 0 5 : 5 3

5 2 1 : 2 1 0 6 : 5 1

6 2 0 : 2 8 0 7 : 0 7

7 2 0 : 5 5 0 6 : 1 6

8 2 0 : 4 8 0 6 : 0 6

1 2 J u n 3 0 1 2 0 : 0 8 0 5 : 5 2

2 2 0 : 0 2 0 5 : 4 5

3 2 0 : 4 0 0 6 : 2 6

4 2 0 : 4 6 0 6 : 3 3

5 2 0 : 1 5 0 6 : 0 2

6 2 0 : 2 2 0 6 : 1 3

7 2 1 : 0 0 0 6 : 5 4

8 2 0 : 5 3 0 6 : 4 4

1 3 J u l 7 1 1 9 : 2 3 0 6 : 0 5

2 1 9 : 1 7 0 5 : 5 8

3 1 9 : 4 9 0 6 : 4 7

4 1 9 : 5 4 0 6 : 5 3

5 1 9 : 3 1 0 6 : 1 7

6 1 9 : 3 7 0 6 : 3 3

7 2 0 : 0 6 0 7 : 1 5

8 2 0 : 0 0 0 7 : 0 4

1 3 J u l 8 1 2 1 : 1 8 0 6 : 5 7

2 2 1 : 1 4 0 6 : 5 0

3 2 0 : 4 4 0 6 : 0 0

4 2 0 : 5 0 0 6 : 1 9

5 2 1 : 2 7 0 7 : 0 8

6 2 1 : 3 2 0 7 : 1 9

7 2 1 : 0 3 0 6 : 3 7

8 2 0 : 5 8 0 6 : 2 8

H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

.

## T A B L E 3 ( C o n t ’ d )

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P R O J E C T



## T i m e s o f D a y f

o r S e t a n d L i f

t o f G i l l N e t s

2 0 1 0

W e e k M o n t h D a t e S t a t i o n S e t T i m e L i f t T i m e

1 4 J u l 1 2 1 2 1 : 0 6 0 6 : 0 9

2 2 1 : 0 2 0 6 : 0 3

3 2 1 : 2 9 0 6 : 4 6

4 2 1 : 3 5 0 6 : 5 3

5 2 1 : 1 1 0 6 : 1 9

6 2 1 : 1 8 0 6 : 2 9

7 2 1 : 4 6 0 7 : 1 3

8 2 1 : 4 0 0 7 : 0 3

1 4 J u l 1 3 1 2 0 : 2 6 0 5 : 5 4

2 2 0 : 2 2 0 5 : 4 7

3 2 0 : 4 8 0 6 : 3 1

4 2 0 : 5 3 0 6 : 3 7

5 2 0 : 3 2 0 6 : 0 4

6 2 0 : 3 7 0 6 : 1 5

7 2 1 : 0 3 0 6 : 5 7

8 2 0 : 5 8 0 6 : 4 7

1 5 J u l 1 9 1 2 0 : 2 2 0 6 : 0 8

2 2 0 : 1 5 0 6 : 0 2

3 2 0 : 4 6 0 6 : 4 6

4 2 0 : 5 1 0 6 : 5 3

5 2 0 : 2 8 0 6 : 1 8

6 2 0 : 3 4 0 6 : 3 0

7 2 1 : 0 3 0 7 : 1 2

8 2 0 : 5 6 0 7 : 0 2

1 5 J u l 2 0 1 2 0 : 4 5 0 6 : 5 6

2 2 0 : 3 8 0 6 : 4 6

3 2 0 : 0 7 0 5 : 5 9

4 2 0 : 1 2 0 6 : 0 6

5 2 0 : 5 1 0 7 : 1 0

6 2 0 : 5 9 0 7 : 2 0

7 2 0 : 2 5 0 6 : 2 5

8 2 0 : 1 7 0 6 : 1 6

1 6 J u l 2 9 1 2 1 : 0 1 0 7 : 0 3

2 2 0 : 5 6 0 6 : 5 5

3 2 0 : 2 4 0 6 : 1 0

4 2 0 : 3 0 0 6 : 1 7

5 2 1 : 0 8 0 7 : 1 4

6 2 1 : 1 5 0 7 : 2 8

7 2 0 : 4 4 0 6 : 3 7

8 2 0 : 3 7 0 6 : 2 7

1 6 J u l 3 1 1 2 0 : 5 3 0 6 : 5 6

2 2 0 : 4 7 0 6 : 4 9

H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

.

## T A B L E 3 ( C o n t ’ d )

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P R O J E C T



## T i m e s o f D a y f

o r S e t a n d L i f

t o f G i l l N e t s

2 0 1 0

W e e k M o n t h D a t e S t a t i o n S e t T i m e L i f t T i m e

3 2 0 : 1 9 0 6 : 0 4

4 2 0 : 2 4 0 6 : 1 0

5 2 0 : 5 8 0 7 : 0 8

6 2 1 : 0 4 0 7 : 2 0

7 2 0 : 3 7 0 6 : 3 6

8 2 0 : 3 0 0 6 : 2 3

1 8 A u g 9 1 2 0 : 5 7 0 7 : 0 2

2 2 0 : 5 0 0 6 : 5 4

3 2 0 : 2 3 0 6 : 1 2

4 2 0 : 2 8 0 6 : 1 8

5 2 1 : 0 4 0 7 : 1 3

6 2 1 : 1 2 0 7 : 2 6

7 2 0 : 4 1 0 6 : 3 9

8 2 0 : 3 4 0 6 : 2 8

1 8 A u g 1 0 1 2 0 : 4 5 0 7 : 0 0

2 2 0 : 4 1 0 6 : 5 2

3 2 0 : 1 5 0 6 : 1 1

4 2 0 : 2 0 0 6 : 1 7

5 2 0 : 5 1 0 7 : 1 9

6 2 0 : 5 6 0 7 : 3 0

7 2 0 : 3 1 0 6 : 3 8

8 2 0 : 2 5 0 6 : 2 8

2 0 A u g 2 3 1 2 0 : 3 2 0 6 : 4 4

2 2 0 : 2 7 0 6 : 3 8

3 2 0 : 5 0 0 7 : 3 2

4 2 0 : 5 5 0 7 : 4 1

5 2 0 : 3 6 0 6 : 5 4

6 2 0 : 4 2 0 7 : 0 5

7 2 1 : 0 5 0 8 : 0 0

8 2 1 : 0 0 0 7 : 4 9

2 1 S e p 1 1 1 9 : 3 3 0 7 : 0 1

2 1 9 : 2 7 0 6 : 5 5

3 1 9 : 5 7 0 7 : 3 0

4 2 0 : 0 2 0 7 : 3 6

5 1 9 : 3 9 0 7 : 1 0

6 1 9 : 4 6 0 7 : 1 9

7 2 0 : 1 3 0 7 : 5 4

8 2 0 : 0 8 0 7 : 4 4

2 3 S e p 1 4 1 1 9 : 4 0 0 6 : 1 3

2 1 9 : 3 5 0 6 : 0 5

3 1 9 : 5 7 0 6 : 4 7

4 2 0 : 0 1 0 6 : 5 4

H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

.

## T A B L E 3 ( C o n t ’ d )

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P R O J E C T



## T i m e s o f D a y f

o r S e t a n d L i f

t o f G i l l N e t s

2 0 1 0

W e e k M o n t h D a t e S t a t i o n S e t T i m e L i f t T i m e

5 1 9 : 4 3 0 6 : 2 4

6 1 9 : 4 9 0 6 : 3 3

7 2 0 : 1 0 0 7 : 1 5

8 2 0 : 0 5 0 7 : 0 3

2 5 S e p 2 7 1 1 8 : 5 3 0 7 : 5 4

2 1 8 : 4 7 0 7 : 4 9

3 1 9 : 1 7 0 7 : 1 3

4 1 9 : 2 2 0 7 : 1 9

5 1 8 : 5 9 0 8 : 0 4

6 1 9 : 0 6 0 8 : 1 4

7 1 9 : 3 9 0 7 : 3 6

8 1 9 : 3 1 0 7 : 2 7

2 6 O c t 4 1 1 8 : 4 4 0 5 : 5 9

2 1 8 : 3 9 0 5 : 4 8

3 1 9 : 0 6 0 6 : 3 6

4 1 9 : 1 1 0 5 : 4 4

5 1 8 : 5 0 0 6 : 1 0

6 1 8 : 5 5 0 6 : 2 0

7 1 9 : 2 4 0 7 : 0 6

8 1 9 : 1 9 0 6 : 5 6

2 6 O c t 5 1 1 9 : 0 7 0 7 : 3 6

2 1 9 : 0 1 0 7 : 2 2

3 1 8 : 3 4 0 6 : 4 6

4 1 8 : 4 0 0 6 : 5 5

5 1 9 : 1 2 0 7 : 4 8

6 1 9 : 1 8 0 7 : 5 8

7 1 8 : 5 0 0 7 : 1 6

8 1 8 : 4 5 0 7 : 0 6

H D R M i c h i g a n

, I n c

.

### 6 7 8 4 5 3 2 1 D a y M o n t h W e e k

4 9 4 8 4 7 5 0 4 5 3 9 4 0 4 2 1 9 A p r 2

5 0 4 7 4 8 4 9 4 2 4 0 3 9 4 5 2 2

4 8 4 9 5 0 4 7 4 3 4 5 3 9 4 2 2 8 A p r 3

4 9 5 0 4 8 4 7 4 3 4 2 3 9 4 5 6 M a y 4

4 7 4 8 5 0 4 9 4 5 3 9 4 3 4 2 1 1 M a y 5

4 7 4 8 5 0 4 9 4 5 4 3 3 9 4 2 1 2

5 0 4 7 4 8 4 9 3 9 4 2 4 3 4 5 1 7 M a y 6

4 7 5 0 4 8 4 9 3 9 4 2 4 3 4 5 1 8

5 0 4 8 4 7 4 9 4 3 4 5 3 9 4 2 2 4 M a y 7

5 0 4 7 4 8 4 9 4 5 4 3 3 9 4 2 2 5

4 8 4 9 5 0 4 7 4 3 4 5 4 2 3 9 3 1 M a y 8

4 8 4 7 5 0 4 9 3 9 4 5 4 3 4 2 3

4 7 4 9 5 0 4 8 4 5 4 3 4 2 3 9 7 J u n 9

4 7 4 8 5 0 4 9 4 5 4 3 3 9 4 2 1 0

4 7 4 9 4 8 5 0 4 5 4 2 3 9 4 3 1 4 J u n 1 0

5 0 4 9 4 8 4 7 4 2 4 5 4 3 3 9 1 5

4 8 5 0 4 7 4 9 4 5 4 2 3 9 4 3 2 1 J u n 1 1

4 9 4 7 4 8 5 0 4 3 4 4 4 2 4 5 2 9 J u n 1 2

4 9 4 8 4 7 5 0 4 3 4 4 4 2 4 5 3 0

5 0 4 7 4 9 4 8 4 3 4 4 4 2 4 5 7 J u l 1 3

4 9 5 0 4 8 4 7 4 5 4 2 4 3 4 4 8

4 7 5 0 4 8 4 9 4 4 4 3 4 2 4 5 1 2 J u l 1 4

5 0 4 8 4 7 4 9 4 2 4 3 4 5 4 4 1 3

4 7 4 8 5 0 4 9 4 5 4 4 4 3 4 2 1 9 J u l 1 5

4 7 5 0 4 8 4 9 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 2 0

4 8 4 7 4 6 5 0 4 5 4 4 4 3 4 2 2 9 J u l 1 6

4 7 4 8 5 0 4 6 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 3 1

4 7 5 0 4 6 4 8 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 9 A u g 1 8

4 7 4 6 5 0 4 8 4 5 4 3 4 4 4 2 1 0

4 6 4 8 4 7 5 0 4 4 4 2 4 5 4 3 2 3 A u g 2 0

5 0 4 7 4 8 4 6 4 4 4 2 4 5 4 3 1 S e p 2 1

4 7 4 6 4 8 5 0 4 3 4 4 4 2 4 5 2 7 S e p 2 5

4 8 4 6 4 7 5 0 4 3 4 5 4 2 4 4 4 O c t 2 6

5 0 4 8 4 6 4 7 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 5 S t a t i o n #

H D R M i c h i g a n , I n c

.



## T A B L E 4

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I

T O R I N G P R O G

R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P R O J E C T



## N e t N u m b e r U s a g e f

o r G i l l N e t S a m p l i n g

2 0 1 0HDRMichigan,Inc.TABLE5-1BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTGillNettingSetWaterTemperatures(centigrade)2010STATION#WeekMonthDate123456782Apr196.16.28.58.15.96.16.36.1226.56.28.78.36.16.47.06.73Apr286.37.19.08.15.65.66.66.74May610.610.911.511.68.010.110.810.25May118.27.87.37.17.47.27.16.9127.98.18.08.17.37.57.77.56May178.38.68.910.38.28.38.48.3188.48.711.810.47.88.48.78.67May2415.014.813.913.312.712.512.211.92514.814.813.813.713.613.313.112.78May3113.313.113.314.712.813.312.913.3312.813.215.215.211.012.112.614.29Jun78.210.812.411.96.37.611.811.41011.010.912.011.711.010.711.111.010Jun1412.312.013.713.511.311.311.713.01512.511.110.510.411.911.210.610.911Jun2119.219.718.218.717.817.816.619.312Jun2919.720.120.820.918.219.219.820.33019.519.520.719.919.118.419.219.013Jul722.622.922.522.022.021.921.721.8823.623.723.323.522.822.722.522.114Jul1223.924.024.624.322.422.423.623.41322.122.323.122.921.121.822.922.715Jul1924.224.524.424.123.223.123.423.92024.825.224.624.223.523.823.423.616Jul2924.224.525.025.424.023.924.124.03123.723.723.323.423.723.623.523.418Aug924.824.924.323.923.824.023.423.31024.424.424.723.923.923.524.424.020Aug2319.819.921.921.617.018.321.521.221Sep123.423.523.223.022.622.622.822.823Sep1417.817.918.218.217.817.718.017.925Sep2716.716.816.616.316.216.216.016.026Oct47.78.911.010.37.18.39.110.058.18.99.49.47.58.58.28.0HDRMichigan,Inc.TABLE5-2BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTGillNettingLiftWaterTemperatures(centigrade)2010STATION#WeekMonthDate123456782Apr195.45.76.36.35.15.35.85.8225.65.66.56.45.85.86.05.93Apr285.76.06.46.95.65.86.26.34May67.67.510.09.87.58.19.79.95May117.97.56.96.97.06.97.27.4128.28.37.67.57.06.96.87.26May177.87.98.48.47.88.08.38.3188.38.38.68.57.67.88.38.57May2413.513.612.612.112.712.812.512.22513.513.613.012.813.713.712.912.68May3112.912.612.812.712.912.812.612.3312.612.013.213.310.612.312.513.69Jun79.49.410.910.87.49.89.910.31010.610.510.59.610.810.510.19.610Jun1410.810.69.710.69.89.710.310.41513.012.411.111.213.212.812.112.011Jun2119.319.318.918.818.919.118.918.912Jun2918.819.019.119.018.918.918.818.33017.517.118.117.717.617.915.817.613Jul722.422.421.821.721.821.921.621.6821.922.322.122.122.022.021.922.314Jul1220.520.821.221.221.221.220.321.11319.219.218.617.820.419.319.819.815Jul1922.923.123.023.122.822.822.922.92023.923.923.023.223.823.723.123.116Jul2923.523.423.923.823.623.623.523.73123.323.323.122.923.423.323.223.218Aug923.623.623.523.523.223.223.223.21023.323.423.523.523.323.323.523.520Aug2319.019.620.020.119.020.521.021.121Sep122.622.622.422.522.622.522.522.523Sep1417.217.417.517.617.417.617.417.525Sep2715.815.715.615.515.815.815.615.626Oct47.78.09.09.17.97.09.09.258.38.79.08.98.28.18.38.0TABLE6BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTFishReleasedintheField2010TargetSpeciesNon-TargetSpeciesWeekMonthDateChinookSalmonSteelheadLakeTroutBrownTroutYellowPerchCohoSalmonAlewifeChannelCatfishRoundGobyRed-horseRoundWhitefishWhiteSuckerFresh-waterDrumWalleyeLakeSturgeonGizzardShad2419444221763428134561551151512336517325181321275241452512853143631419671161042106142TABLE6(Cont’d)BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTFishReleasedintheField2010TargetSpeciesNon-TargetSpeciesWeekMonthDateChinookSalmonSteelheadLakeTroutBrownTroutYellowPerchCohoSalmonAlewifeChannelCatfishRoundGobyRed-horseRoundWhitefishWhiteSuckerFresh-waterDrumWalleyeLakeSturgeonGizzardShad10615111162112629133126301181377111781471221713115719720167297311889810122082312191122391431TABLE6(Cont’d)BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTFishReleasedintheField2010TargetSpeciesNon-TargetSpeciesWeekMonthDateChinookSalmonSteelheadLakeTroutBrownTroutYellowPerchCohoSalmonAlewifeChannelCatfishRoundGobyRed-horseRoundWhitefishWhiteSuckerFresh-waterDrumWalleyeLakeSturgeonGizzardShad259271312261041411052911Total8278301165152135362

# T A B L E 7

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P R O J E C T



# S u m m a r y o f F i s h H a n d l e d i n F i s h D i s p o s i t i o n ( p o u n d s )

2 0 1 0

W e e k M o n t h D a t e Y e l l o w

P e r c h L a k e

T r o u t C h i n o o k

/

C o h o

S a l m o n B r o w n

T r o u t A l l

O t h e r s T o t a l s

2 4 1 9 2 8 2 5 1 0 6 3

4 2 2 1 0 5 2 2 2 6 1 5 3

3 4 2 8 0

. 5 1 0 5 1 5

. 5

4 5 6 6 5 4 5 3 1 1 4 1

5 5 1 1 7 5 9 1 6 1 0 0

5 1 2 8 5 1 3 1 6 1 1 4

6 5 1 7 2 8 1 9 2 3 7 0

5 1 8 3 0 1 8 9 5 7

7 5 2 4 3 0 2 2 6 6 1 1 8

5 2 5 1 8 1 5 3 9 7 2

8 5 3 1 1 3 5 4 6 8 2

6 3 2 0 8 2 1 0 2

9 6 7 2 0 8 4 3 7 1

6 1 0 5 1 6 2 1

1 0 6 1 4 1 5 2 2 3 7

6 1 5 1 1 1 0 2 1

1 1 6 2 1 5 2 0 2 5

1 2 6 2 9 4 2 1 4 5 1 5 1

6 3 0 1 5 6 5 7

1 3 7 7 2 8 2 8 4

7 8 0

. 5 2 9 0 9 2

. 5

1 4 7 1 2 0

. 5 1 3 5 1 3 5

. 5

7 1 3 0

. 5 1 7 8 7 9

. 5

# T A B L E 7 ( C o n t ' d )

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P R O J E C T



# S u m m a r y o f F i s h H a n d l e d i n F i s h D i s p o s i t i o n ( p o u n d s )

2 0 1 0

W e e k M o n t h D a t e Y e l l o w

P e r c h L a k e

T r o u t C h i n o o k

/

C o h o

S a l m o n B r o w n

T r o u t A l l

O t h e r s T o t a l s

1 5 7 1 9 0

. 5 5 0 5 0

. 5

7 2 0 0

. 5 4 3 4 3

. 5

1 6 7 2 9 1 0 1 0

7 3 1 1 1 8 1 9

1 8 8 9 3 5 3 8 7 3

8 1 0 1 0 1 4 2 4

2 0 8 2 3 3 1 0 2 6 1 4 0 1 7 9

2 1 9 1 4 0 1 0 5 0

2 3 9 1 4 1 2 1 9 2 1 7 3 2 7 8

2 5 9 2 7 6 0 2 2 0 6 3 3 7 6 2 3

2 6 1 0 4 3 8 8 7 2 1 1 1 6 0 6 3 1

2 6 1 0 5 3 3 8 1 6 2 2 0 5 7 4

T o t a l s 1 1 1

, 3 6 7 6 1 1

. 5 2 4 8

. 5 2

, 1 7 9 4

, 4 1 7

# T A B L E 8

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P R O J E C T



# S u m m a r y o f F i s h D i s p o s i t i o n ( p o u n d s ) t o C a r l s o n ' s F a r m

2 0 1 0

W e e k M o n t h D a t e Y e l l o w

P e r c h L a k e T r o u t C h i n o o k /

C o h o

S a l m o n B r o w n

T r o u t A l l

O t h e r s T o t a l s

2 4 1 9 1 0 1 0

4 2 2 2 6 2 6

3 4 2 8 5 5

4 5 6 2 5 2 5

5 5 1 1 1 3 1 3

5 1 2 5 5

6 5 1 7 1 5 1 5

5 1 8 4 4

7 5 2 4 5 5 5 5

5 2 5 3 3 3 3

8 5 3 1 4 5 4 5

6 3 6 5 6 5

9 6 7 4 0 4 0

6 1 0 1 5 1 5

1 0 6 1 4 1 6 1 6

6 1 5 1 0 1 0

1 1 6 2 1 5 2 0 2 5

1 2 6 2 9 2 1 1 0 1 1 2

6 3 0 5 0 5 0

1 3 7 7 2 8 2 8 4

7 8 0

. 5 2 9 0 9 2

. 5

1 4 7 1 2 7 5 7 5

7 1 3 5 0 5 0

# T A B L E 8 ( C o n t ' d )

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P R O J E C T



# S u m m a r y o f F i s h D i s p o s i t i o n ( p o u n d s ) t o C a r l s o n ' s F a r m

2 0 1 0

W e e k M o n t h D a t e Y e l l o w

P e r c h L a k e T r o u t C h i n o o k /

C o h o

S a l m o n B r o w n

T r o u t A l l

O t h e r s T o t a l s

1 5 7 1 9 0

. 5 5 0 5 0

. 5

7 2 0 0

. 5 4 3 4 3

. 5

1 6 7 2 9 1 0 1 0

7 3 1 1 1 8 1 9

1 8 8 9 3 5 3 8 7 3

8 1 0 1 0 1 4 2 4

2 0 8 2 3 5 5 5 5

2 1 9 1 4 0 1 0 5 0

2 3 9 1 4 4 5 4 5

2 5 9 2 7 2 6 5 2 6 5

2 6 1 0 4 6 8

. 5 6 8

. 5

2 6 1 0 5 9 9

. 5 9 9

. 5

T o t a l s 2 8 5 1 1

. 5 1

, 5 7 5 1

, 6 7 3

. 5

# T A B L E 9

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P R O J E C T



# S u m m a r y o f F i s h D i s p o s i t i o n ( p o u n d s )

t o t h e B e n z i e C o u n t y C o u n c i l o n A g i n g

2 0 1 0

W e e k M o n t h D a t e Y e l l o w

P e r c h

> 8

. 5 " L a k e

T r o u t

> 1 0 " C h i n o o k

/

C o h o

S a l m o n

> 1 0 " S t e e l

h e a d

> 1 0 " B r o w n

T r o u t

> 1 0 " W a l l e y e

.

> 1 0 " W h i t e

f i s h

> 1 0 " T o t a l s

2 4 1 9 2 8 2 5 5 3

4 2 2 1 0 5 2 2 1 2 7

3 4 2 8 0

. 5 1 0 1 0

. 5

4 5 6 6 5 1 4 5 5 1 1 6

5 5 1 1 7 5 9 3 8 7

5 1 2 8 5 1 3 7 4 1 0 9

6 5 1 7 2 8 1 9 8 5 5

5 1 8 3 0 1 8 5 5 3

7 5 2 4 3 0 2 2 8 3 6 3

5 2 5 1 8 1 5 5 1 3 9

8 5 3 1 1 3 5 1 3 7

6 3 2 0 1 7 3 7

9 6 7 2 0 8 3 3 1

6 1 0 5 1 6

1 0 6 1 4 1 5 6 2 1

6 1 5 1 1 1 1

1 1 6 2 1

1 2 6 2 9 4 3 5 3 9

6 3 0 1 5 1 7

1 3 7 7

7 8

1 4 7 1 2 0

. 5 6 0 6 0

. 5

7 1 3 0

. 5 1 2 8 2 9

. 5

# T A B L E 9 ( C o n t ' d )

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P R O J E C T



# S u m m a r y o f F i s h D i s p o s i t i o n ( p o u n d s )

t o t h e B e n z i e C o u n t y C o u n c i l o n A g i n g

2 0 1 0

W e e k M o n t h D a t e Y e l l o w

P e r c h

> 8

. 5 " L a k e

T r o u t

> 1 0 " C h i n o o k

/

C o h o

S a l m o n

> 1 0 " S t e e l

h e a d

> 1 0 " B r o w n

T r o u t

> 1 0 " W a l l e y e

.

> 1 0 " W h i t e

f i s h

> 1 0 " T o t a l s

1 5 7 1 9

7 2 0

1 6 7 2 9

7 3 1

1 8 8 9

8 1 0

2 0 8 2 3 3 1 0 2 6 1 2 4

2 1 9 1

2 3 9 1 4 1 2 1 9 2 1 2 5 3 2 3 3

2 5 9 2 7 6 0 2 2 0 6 2 2 5 0 3 5 8

2 6 1 0 4 3 8 3 7 2 1 1 5 6 0 5 3 1

2 6 1 0 5 3 3 0 1 6 5 0 6 5 4 6 1

T o t a l s 9 1

, 3 5 4 5 2 6

. 5 1 2 3 7 3 5 8 2 1 3 2

, 6 9 8

. 5

# T A B L E 1 0

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P R O J E C T



# R e c o r d o f Y e l l o w P e r c h S a m p l e s F r o z e n

f o r M i c h i g a n D e p a r t m e n t o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s

2 0 1 0

P e r M D N R r e q u e s t

, H D R M i c h i g a n , I n c

. n o l o n g e r c o l l e c t s a n d f r e e z e s y e l l o w p e r c h

.

# T A B L E 1 1

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P R O J E C T



# S u m m a r y o f F i s h D i s p o s i t i o n ( p o u n d s )

t o ( E N T E R G Y

, P a l i s a d e s ) f o r R a d i o l o g i c a l A n a l y s i s

2 0 1 0

W e e k M o n t h D a t e S p e c i e s W e i g h t

2 6 1 0 4 L a k e T r o u t 5

G i z z a r d S h a d 1 0

W h i t e S u c k e r 1 0

R e d h o r s e S u c k e r 5

S p o t t a i l S h i n e r 1

A l e w i f e 0

. 5

2 6 1 0 5 L a k e T r o u t 8

R e d h o r s e S u c k e r 5

S p o t t a i l S h i n e r 0

. 2 5

A l e w i f e 0

. 2 5

T o t a l 4 5

# T A B L E 1 2

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O A G E P R O J E C T



# D a t a o n S a l m o n i d s w i t h C o d e d W i r e T a g s

2 0 1 0

W e e k M o n t h D a t e S p e c i e s L e n g t h

( m m ) W e i g h t

( l b s )

2 1 9 1 C h i n o o k S a l m o n 7 6 5 1 2

. 5

2 3 9 1 4 C h i n o o k S a l m o n 7 0 0 8

. 5

9 1 4 C h i n o o k S a l m o n 5 1 0 3

. 5

2 5 9 2 7 C h i n o o k S a l m o n 8 8 5 1 6

9 2 7 C h i n o o k S a l m o n 7 9 0 1 2

9 2 7 C h i n o o k S a l m o n 7 9 0 1 2

. 5

2 6 1 0 5 L a k e T r o u t 7 0 5 8

. 2

1 0 5 L a k e T r o u t 6 9 0 7

1 0 5 L a k e T r o u t 5 9 5 4

. 5

1 0 5 L a k e T r o u t 6 7 3 6

. 2

1 0 5 L a k e T r o u t 7 5 0 9

. 5

# T A B L E 1 3

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P R O J E C T



# L i s t o f S p e c i e s i n t h e V o u c h e r C o l l e c t i o n

2 0 1 0

S P E C I E S P R E S E R V E D E X I S T I N G P H O T O D A T E P I C T U R E T A K E N

A L E W I F E X

B L A C K B U F F A L O X

B L A C K B U L

L H E A D X

B L A C K C R A P P I

E X

B L O A T E R C H U B X

B O W F I N X

B R O O K T R O U T X

B R O W N T R O U T X

B U R B O T X

C H A N N E L C A T F I S H X

C H I N O O K S A L M O N X

C O H O S A L M O N X

C O M M O N C A R P X

C O M M O N S H I N E R X

F R E S H W A T E R D R U M X

G I Z Z A R D S H A D X

L A K E C H U B N O S P E C I M E N A V A I L A B L E

. F I S H E S O F W I S C O N S I N

B E C K E R

L A K E S T U R G E O N X

L A K E T R O U T X

L A K E H E R R I N G S P E C I M E N I N U

. M

. M U S E U M X

L A K E W H I T E F I S H X

L A R G E M O U T H B A S S X

L O N G N O S E D A C E X

L O N G N O S E G A R X

L O N G N O S E S U C K

E R X

M O T T L E D S C U L P I N X

N O R T H E R N P I K

E X

Q U I L L B A C K N O S P E C I M E N A V A I L A B L E F I S H E S O F W I S C O N S I N

B E C K E R

# T A B L E 1 3 ( C o n t ’ d )

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P R O J E C T



# L i s t o f S p e c i e s i n t h e V o u c h e r C o l l e c t i o n

2 0 1 0

P U M P K I N S E E D X

R A I N B O W S M E L T X

R E D H O R S E X

R O C K B A S S X

R O U N D W H I T E F I S H X

R O U N D G O B Y X

S E A L A M P R E Y X

S M A L L M O U T H B A S S X

S P O T T A I L S H I N E R X

S T E E L H E A D X

T H R E E S P I N E S T I C K

L E B A C K X

T R O U T

- P E R C H X

W A L L E Y E X

W H I T E P E R C H X

W H I T E S U C K

E R X

Y E L L O W P E R C H 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 Septemb er 8 - September 24, 2010 are

supplied on following pages.Plant Shutdown data - week 23 September 14 2010ScalingSppStation 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 Bottom Mid Surface Bottom Mid Surface Bottom Mid Surface Bottom Mid Surface Inside Outside Data Large ForageAlewives 4-5"0 00AlewifeAlewives > 5"0 000Smelt 4-5"0 0SmeltSmelt > 5"0 000Brown Trout 4-5"0 0Brown Trout 5-12"0 0Brown Trout > 12"1 10Chinook Salmon 4-5"0 0Chinook Salmon 5-12"1 1 11Chinook Salmon 12-20"1102Chinook 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"11 0Game FishYellow Perch > 5"1 1 0040Chubs 4-5"0 0Chubs > 5"0 0Burbot0 0Carp0 0Freshwater Drum1 1 2 04Gizzard Shad33 0Longnose Sucker0 0Redhorse Sucker212211 3 3 9Round Goby1 01Round Whitefish11 02Spottail Shiner16 2 9 0White Perch0 0White Sucker2 22 2Quillback Carp0 0Rock Bass0 0Smallmouth Bass0 0channel catfish0 0lake herring0 0lake whitefish0 0northern pike0 0sea lampery0 0trout perch0 0lake sturgeon0 08 3 1 1 0 2 4 0 0 19 7 5 25 58Station Totals10 3 15 5Totals12 3 4 31Station 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 Reco rd of Nets in Use

2010

# T A B L E A

B A R R I E R N E T M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M

L U D I N G T O N P U M P E D S T O R A G E P R O J E C T



# N e t R e p a i r H i s t o r y

2 0 1 0

N E T

N O

. D A T E 1 " 1

. 5 " 2 " 2

. 5 " 2

. 7 5 " 3 " 4 " 4

. 5 " 5 " 6 " 7 "

4 5 4 / 9 X X X

4 5 4 / 1 2 X X X X X

3 9 4 / 1 6 X X X

4 2 4 / 1 6 X X X X

4 2 4 / 1 9 X

4 3 4 / 1 9 X X X X X

4 4 6 / 2 X X X

4 4 6 / 1 0 X X X X X X

4 4 7 / 2 1 X

5 0 8 / 1 1 X

4 5 8 / 1 1 X

4 3 9 / 1 X

T h e m a r k ( X ) i n d i c a t e s w h i c h m e s h w a s r e p a i r e d e i t h e r b y m e n d i n g o r p a n e l r e p l a c e m e n t

.TABLEBBARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTInspectionRecordofNetsinUse2010PANELMESHSIZENET#STATUS1′′1.50′′2.00′′2.50′′2.75”3.00”4.00”4.50”5.00”6.00”7.00”1DESTROYED10/972IN-USEOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKFIX3DESTROYED9/24/084DESTROYED10/975DESTROYED10/976DESTROYED10/977DESTROYED5/16/048IN-USEOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK9DESTROYED9/24/9810DESTROYED10/9711DESTROYED10/9712DESTROYED10/9713DESTROYED10/9714DESTROYED10/9715DESTROYED10/9716DESTROYED10/97TABLEB(Cont’d)BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTInspectionRecordofNetsinUse2010PANELMESHSIZENET#STATUS1′′1.50′′2.00′′2.50′′2.75′′3.00′′4.00′′4.50′′5.00′′6.00′′7.00′′17DESTROYED10/5/9918DESTROYED9/24/9819IN-USEOKOKOKFIXOKOKOKOKOKOKOK20DESTROYED10/5/9921IN-USEOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKINSPECT22DESTROYED7/27/9823IN-USEOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKFIXINSPECT24IN-USEOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK25IN-USEOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK26IN-USEOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK27DESTROYED8/6/9928IN-USEOKOKFIXFIXOKOKOKOKOKFIXFIX29DESTROYED10/5/99TABLEB(Cont’d)BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTInspectionRecordofNetsinUse2010PANELMESHSIZENET#STATUS1′′1.50′′2.00′′2.50′′2.75′′3.00′′4.00′′4.50′′5.00′′6.00′′7.00′′30DESTROYED7/27/9831IN-USEOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK32IN-USEOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKINSPECT33IN-USEOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK34IN-USEFIXOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKINSPECTNEEDSCLEANING35IN-USEOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK36DESTROYED10/5/9937DESTROYED8/6/9938IN-USEOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK39IN-USEOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK40IN-USEOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK41IN-USEOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKNEEDSCLEANINGTABLEB(Cont’d)BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTInspectionRecordofNetsinUse2010PANELMESHSIZENET#STATUS1′′1.50′′2.00′′2.50′′2.75′′3.00′′4.00′′4.50′′5.00′′6.00′′7.00′′42IN-USEOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK43IN-USEOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK44IN-USEOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK45IN-USEOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK46IN-USEOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK47IN-USEOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK48IN-USEOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK49IN-USEOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK50IN-USEOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK51IN-USEOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKNEEDSCLEANING

# Appendix F-IV.

Length Frequency of Yellow Perch

2010TABLEABARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTLengthFrequencyofYellowPerchin25-MillimeterSizeGroups2010TotalLength(mm)WeekMonthDay75100125150175200225250275300325350Totals853111126294121813781114712112147131121571911215720111672911167316410188922188102220823211149TABLEA(Cont’d)BARRIERNETMONITORINGPROGRAMLUDINGTONPUMPEDSTORAGEPROJECTLengthFrequencyofYellowPerchin25-MillimeterSizeGroups2010TotalLength(mm)WeekMonthDay75100125150175200225250275300325350Totals2391411225927358Totals14131363253151

## 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 2009 10 pumping and generating)

........comments received after December 3, 2009 10 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.