BEFORE THE

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

4 AMEREN ENERGY GENERATING )

COMPANY,

)

Petitioner

)

vs.

)Cause No. PCB 2009-038

6 ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL )

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

)

THE HEARING BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

10 BOARD, taken in the above-entitled case before Ann Marie

11 Hollo, CSR, RPR, RMR, and Notary Public for Montgomery

12 County, State of Illinois, before HEARING OFFICER CAROL

13 WEBB, at 9:00 o'clock A.M., on June 23, 2009, at City of

14 Litchfield City Hall Chambers, 120 East Ryder Street,

15 Litchfield, Illinois 62056, pursuant to notice.

Keefe Reporting Company

11 North 44th Street

Belleville, Illinois 62226

(618)277-0190

(800)244-0190

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

APPEARANCES:

Illinois Pollution Control Board

3 100 West Randolph Street

Suite 11-500

4 Chicago, Illinois 60601

By: Carol Webb, Esq.

Hearing Officer with the Pollution Control Board

and

Anand Rao and Alisa Liu, Pollution Control Board's

technical unit

8 Schiff Hardin, LLP

6600 Sears Tower

9 Chicago, Illinois 60606

(312) 258-5516

10 grodriguez@schiffhardin.com

By: Gabriel M. Rodriguez, Esq. and Amy Antoniolli, Esq.

On behalf of the Petitioner

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

13 1021 North Grand Avenue East

Springfield, Illinois 62794

14 (217) 782-3362

By: Deborah Williams, Esq. and Joey Logan-Wilkey, Esq.

On behalf of the Respondent

17 ALSO PRESENT: Susan Knowles, Esq., Ameren Services

Michael J. Smallwood, Ameren Services

Roy Smogor, IEPA

Teri Holland, IEPA

Rachel Feser, intern, IEPA

Colin Clark, intern, IEPA

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

I N D E X

2 WITNESS

PAGE

3 JAMES L. WILLIAMS, JR.

Examination by Mr. Rodriguez

11, 253

Examination by Ms. Williams

58, 90, 96

Examination by Mr. Rao

60, 69, 75, 81

Examination by Ms. Liu

74, 86

7 JAMES B. McLAREN, Ph.D.

Examination by Mr. Rodriguez

Examination by Ms. Williams

89, 95, 118

Examination by Ms Liu

111, 191, 193, 215

Examination by Ms. Logan-Wilkey

169, 193

11 ANN B. SHORTELLE, Ph.D.

Examination by Mr. Rodriguez

Examination by Ms. Logan-Wilkey

218, 222

Examination by Ms. Liu

226, 236

14 MICHAEL SMALLWOOD

Examination by Mr. Rodriguez

220, 256

Examination by Ms. Logan-Wilkey

221, 261

Examination by Ms. Williams

261

LUNCH BREAK -- Page 117

E X H I B I T S

20 NUMBER

ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE

22 Exhibit Number 1

Exhibit Number 2

23 Exhibit Number 3

Exhibit Number 4

205

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Good morning. My

name is Carol Webb, and I'm a hearing officer

with the Pollution Control Board. Joining me

today are Anand Rao and Alisa Liu from the

Board's technical unit. This is the hearing

for PCB 09-38, Ameren Energy Generating Company

versus IEPA. It is June 23rd, and we are

beginning at 9:00 a.m.

I will note for the record that there are

several members of the public present. At

issue in this case is Ameren's petition to

modify the thermal standards that apply to

heated effluent discharge from its Coffeen

Power Station to the artificial cooling lake

known as Coffeen Lake.

The Pollution Control Board members will

make the final decision in this case. My

purpose is to conduct the hearing in a neutral

and orderly manner so that we have a clear

record of the proceedings.

If you are a member of the public who

would like to speak at today's hearing, please

listen carefully to the following

announcements: I will call for public comment

at the conclusion of the proceedings. While

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

your comments may include questions for the

Board to consider in its final ruling, neither

Ameren, the IEPA, nor the Board are required to

answer your questions at this hearing. Written

comments may be submitted to the clerk of the

Pollution Control Board in our Chicago office.

The address is 100 West Randolph Street,

Suite 11-500, Chicago, Illinois 60601. And I

can give you that address again at the

conclusion of the proceedings. Please do not

send public comments to the Springfield office.

As I will further discuss at the end of this

hearing, the public comment deadline will be

July 13th.

This hearing was noticed pursuant to the

Act and the Board's rules and will be conducted

pursuant to Sections 101.600 through 101.632 of

the Board's procedural rules.

At this time, I will ask the parties to

please make their appearances on the record.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Hello. My name is Amy

Antoniolli, and I'm here from Schiff Hardin on

behalf of Ameren Energy Generating Company.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: My name is Gabriel

Rodriguez. I'm also from Schiff Hardin, and

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

I'm here on behalf of Ameren Energy as well.

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: I'm Joey Logan-Wilkey,

and I'm here on behalf of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency.

MS. WILLIAMS: Deborah Williams on behalf

of the Environmental Protection Agency,

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Thank you.

Are there any preliminary matters to

discuss on the record? Anybody?

MS. WILLIAMS: Can I ask a procedural

question from your introduction?

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Yes.

MS. WILLIAMS: I know when you had

mentioned you would take public comment that

the public questions would not have to be

answered today. Is this a contested case? I

mean, are we treating this as a contested case

proceedings or a quasi regulatory --

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Well, it is an

adjudicatory case.

MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: And then would the public

have a certain timeframe after this hearing as

to those, to submit comments? Does that end

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

after --

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: To submit written

comments.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Or is it up until the

time --

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Well, I'm going to

set a public comment deadline of July 13th,

which will be one week after the transcript is

filed.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Okay.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Does anybody else

have any other procedural questions before we

begin? Okay.

Would the petitioner like to make any

opening statement?

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Yes. As I've introduced

myself earlier, I'm Amy Antoniolli, and I'm

here on behalf of Ameren Energy Generating

Company.

Thank you, Madam Hearing Officer and the

TU for being here and allowing us to present

our testimony today.

We have with us today three experts who

will testify to matters that we're discussing

for this petition. To my right is Dr. Ann

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

Shortelle, a limnologist. To the right of Ann

is Dr. James McLaren, a biologist. And to the

right of Dr. McLaren is Mr. James Williams from

Ameren, and he's the plant manager at the

Coffeen Power Plant. We also have here Michael

Smallwood who is an engineer in the

environmental science department with Ameren.

And we don't have testimony prepared for him

today, but he's happy to answer questions

should they arise. And Susan Knowles, who is

the assistant general counsel at Ameren.

So we'd like to start by saying in this

petition, Ameren seeks a modification to the

specific thermal limit that was granted by the

Board for Coffeen Lake in 1982. The petition

for specific thermal limit is to provide a

procedure that's specifically designed for

discharger to artificial cooling lakes. And it

allows relief from the Board's temperature

limits in the way that it's adjudicatory in

nature, which is the proceedings we're here at

today.

The standard for review, the Board has

provided specific level of justification for

these types of proceedings, which is adopted in

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

Section 302.211 of the Board's rules. Under

this level of justification, the petitioner

must show that the lake is capable of

providing -- provides conditions capable of

supporting shellfish, fish and wildlife and

recreational uses that are consistent with good

management practices.

And the level of justification also

requires that the petitioner demonstrate that

it controls its thermal effluent in a way

that's economically reasonable and technically

feasible.

We've met with IEPA several times on this

petition before the petition was filed and

subsequently, and we thank them for taking a

look at this petition so closely, and as well

as the Board for having developed the

substantive questions that we've already

provided answers to.

And also in this specific petition that we

filed with the Board, we're requesting a

modification to the thermal limits that

currently apply to our thermal effluent only

during the months of May and October. We do

not seek any changes to the limits during any

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

other month.

And we expect that in this proceeding, it

will show that under the proposed modification,

Coffeen Lake will continue to be able to

support a healthy fishery and recreational uses

that it currently already supports.

So with that, I will turn it over to

Mr. Rodriguez to introduce the witness.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Before -- I just

want to ask, does EPA have any opening

statements?

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: No thank you.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Go ahead and begin.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Madam Hearing

Officer.

At this time, we would like to introduce

each of our witnesses and have each of them

summarize their testimony that will be entered

into the record today. And then we'll present

the entire -- all the witnesses as a panel for

cross examination.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: We're going to begin with

Mr. Williams.

Can you swear in the witness.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Will the court

reporter swear in the witness.

[WHEREUPON THE WITNESS WAS SWORN

BY THE NOTARY PUBLIC.]

JAMES WILLIAMS, JR.,

6 having been first duly sworn by the Notary Public, testifies

7 and says as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

9 BY MR. RODRIGUEZ:

Q Mr. Williams, can you state your full name

11 for the record please.

A James Leon Williams, Jr.

Q And can you briefly state how long you've

14 been with Ameren and the positions you've held with

15 the company.

A Yes. I've been with Ameren since 1986. I

17 was a technical support superintendent at the Newton

18 Power Station. In 2001, I transferred to Coffeen

19 plant as a plant manager and have been there ever

20 since.

Q You've pre-filed testimony in this

22 proceeding; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q I am handing you a document, and I'll ask

25 you if you can identify this document for the

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 record.

A Yes. This is my pre-filed testimony I

3 submitted.

Q And that is a true and accurate statement

5 of your testimony today?

A Yes.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: We would move for the

introduction of the pre-filed testimony of

James L. Williams, Jr. into the record as if

read.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Exhibit 1 is

admitted.

[WHEREBY, EXHIBIT NUMBER 1 WAS

ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE.]

15 BY MR. RODRIGUEZ:

Q You've also brought with you today some

17 visual aids, have you not?

A Yes, I have.

Q Will these visual aids help you in

20 summarizing your testimony this morning?

A Yes. They will review our current

22 standard in our proposed standard.

Q And these exhibits are -- well, why don't

24 you tell us what these exhibits are.

A The --

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

Q Feel free to stand. Oh, great.

A The first exhibit -- let me make sure

3 everybody can see this.

This is our current standard. As you

5 can see, in the months of June, July, August and

6 September, we have a hundred and five degree monthly

7 average that we must obtain, and a hundred and

8 twelve degree max temperature with the 3 percent.

Q Let me interrupt you for a second. These

10 are enlargements of exhibits that are attached to

11 your pre-filed testimony; is that correct?

A Yes, these are enlargements of Exhibit 1,

13 and the second one is Exhibit 2.

Q Okay. Very well.

Now, did you -- go ahead. I'm sorry.

16 Go ahead and summarize your testimony for us this

17 morning.

A Sure. As I mentioned earlier, this is the

19 summer months that our current standard allows. And

20 then in the winter months, we have the standard of a

21 89-degree average, monthly average, and a 94-degree

22 max. And each one of these has a 2 percent or

23 3 percent in the summer that we can exceed those

24 hours, but it's still part of our operating

25 printout.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

Exhibit 2 -- thanks

2 Mike -- illustrates our proposed standard. As

3 mentioned earlier, we're not changing our

4 temperature limits. What we're asking for is, in

5 the shoulder months of May and October, to have an

6 interim limit established as we gradually go into

7 the summer months. Still not seeing our limits, but

8 to allow a more gradual transition into the summer

9 months.

And in my pre-filed testimony, as I

11 indicated back in 1997, we did seek and were awarded

12 a variance to allow us to include the May and

13 October time periods into a variance to allow us to

14 operate in 1997. However, '99, there was a fish

15 kill. There was some extreme weather in 1999.

16 Other lakes in the state had similar issues. But

17 that was terminated then in 1999, so we reverted

18 back to our current standard.

Since that time, we invested

20 $26 million in the Coffeen Station into a 70-acre

21 cooling basin, a 48-cell cooling tower which allows

22 us to operate more efficiently in these shoulder

23 months. It allows to us fill the 70-acre cooling

24 basin with water and allow it to cool at night. And

25 then we mix it in with our mixing zone during

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 extreme high temperatures, as well as the cooling

2 towers we can run 24-7 to help maintain our monthly

3 average. However, even with that investment, during

4 most recently, unseasonal warm temperature as well

5 as our lake level, we were down as much as 10 feet

6 in our lake due to the weather conditions and lack

7 of rain. It really does not allow us to meet this

8 standard without even derating the unit, taking the

9 unit off, or changing my operations somehow to

10 comply with this standard.

We have looked at other options. In

12 the pre-filed testimony, we indicated that we can't

13 invest around 18 million and help our cooling tower.

14 It's a hundred and seventy-five thousand gallon

15 permit cooling tower, but the cost is $18 million.

16 And in the pre-filed testimony, we did an analysis

17 on that and had about an 11 1/2 year payback. When

18 Ameren went to deregulate it, we do analyze all of

19 our capital expense, all of our projects. We did an

20 EVA analysis to analyze economic benefit of such

21 investment. Since the testimony was admitted --

MS. WILLIAMS: I think he needs to explain

that.

24 BY MR. RODRIGUEZ:

Q Yeah. Why don't you explain for the

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 record what "EVA" stands for.

A Yeah. Sorry about that.

It's our economic value added. It

4 takes into account many items to determine whether

5 or not a project is feasible, and it makes business

6 and economic sense.

And initially when we did the EVA, it

8 did show 11 1/2 year payback, which meant I can

9 invest the 18 million, and in 11 1/2 years, it would

10 pay back on a capital -- a piece of equipment that

11 would typically have a 15-year or capital life.

Since then, as I mentioned, we are in

13 a deregulated environment. And we annually review

14 all of our capital projects. And in this EVA model,

15 it does show our forward price curves, as well as

16 any additional environmental projects we may have.

17 And when we reran the analysis, it does come back

18 that it is a negative $2.7 million. So it is not

19 economically viable.

We also did take another look at the

21 model and wanted to look at specifically the months

22 of May and October. The first run of the EVA, our

23 economic analysis, we just split each month up,

24 divided by 12. You know, what our forward price

25 curve will be and our potential sale. And we took a

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 look at derates. And in May and October, around 250

2 megawatts is what we would be experiencing if we did

3 have -- it's our estimate that we would see in order

4 to comply with the current standard, what we would

5 derate our units.

So all that was thrown back into the

7 model and reran, which now shows a difference

8 between what was originally submitted and in our

9 current -- with the major factor being the forward

10 price curves. And with the deregulated marketplace,

11 we are driven by market conditions.

Prior to deregulation, if we wanted

13 to invest in an $18 million cooling tower, we would

14 present that to the Commerce Commission and

15 hopefully be able to get that into the reg. base.

Now, in a deregulated world, we are

17 just in -- it's the market conditions. To whatever

18 drives the market would be how we would pay for

19 those items.

So we reran the EVA, and it came

21 back that it is not economically viable to install

22 an $18 million cooling tower. Thus, we're here

23 looking for some revisement in the standard.

We do like to consider Coffeen as a

25 low-cost energy provider. We feel we are good

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 neighbors to Montgomery County. We do provide

2 low-cost energy. So every time we would derate or

3 take a unit off, it would require our retail

4 customers -- we'd have to go pay the next higher

5 price for power. So if I'm not available to run

6 within our MISO footprint, we'd have to go back, and

7 the next higher megawatt would be what our retail

8 customers would be charged. So there is a benefit

9 if Coffeen is running, and we can come up with a way

10 to keep from derating or taking these units off.

As I mentioned, you know, Ameren is

12 very interested in our environmental footprint in

13 the state. We've recently installed about a

14 hundred-million-dollar SCR, which removes -- SCR is

15 selective catalytic reduction to remove nox. Both

16 Coffeen units are equipped with SCRs, and they are

17 running by design or better for nox removal. We

18 invested over a hundred million dollars for those

19 two SCRs. We are currently installing flue gas to

20 desulphurization, FGD systems, which removes the SO2

21 over $600 million we are spending there. So Coffeen

22 does have an environmental footprint in the state.

23 We are proud of that, as well as we are proud of our

24 relationship with IDNR.

We do value the lake. One of our

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 corporate values is stewardship. One of the things

2 we want to do is leave the lake in a better

3 condition than it was when we started. So all that

4 is of value to us.

The IDNR and the lake is a great

6 fishery. We work well as a team. And I think

7 talking to those folks, they've had over 30

8 tournaments. So far, it is a great fishery. We

9 think with this standard, what we are trying to

10 relay is, if we can transition into these summer

11 months, it will not be a negative impact on the

12 lake.

And recently, it was wrote in an

14 article that it's one of the hidden jewels in

15 Illinois is our lake. Since that article has come

16 out, we've had some more fishermen. So I don't know

17 if it's hidden anymore, but it is a great fishery,

18 and we do value that. But that is summary of my

19 testimony.

Q Okay. Let me just ask one or two

21 questions, Mr. Williams. You had indicated that in

22 the new EVA that there was an assumption made about

23 250 megawatt hours. That would be the increase in

24 or the maximum amount of generation you could get if

25 you were to install this new piece of equipment; is

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 that correct?

A Yes, that is correct. During those

3 shoulder months, in order to comply with the

4 standard, I would estimate I would have to either

5 derate, take a unit off, or change my operating

6 methods in the equivalent of 250 megawatts in May

7 and 250 megawatts in October, yes.

Q And the analysis assumes you would get the

9 benefit of that entire 250 megawatts per hour for

10 the entire month?

A Yeah. The economic value added model

12 would assume that we would get that benefit, and

13 that would be part of how we would help pay for

14 these enhancements.

Q Now, in fact, do you really derate that

16 often in May, in October?

A Yeah. We have taken units off. We have

18 been the last unit on and the first unit off at

19 night. We've actually taken -- derated a unit a

20 half load, our minimum load. And, yes, I would

21 expect to see that type of derate.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you for your time.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Thank you. Oh, I'm

sorry.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Williams.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Before we continue

with our next witness, I just want to remind

the Board that we are going to do all of the

cross examinations or questions after each

witness has given their summary of their

testimony.

MS. WILLIAMS: Can we clarify, are

these -- were these entered with Exhibit 1,

these charts?

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: They're attached.

MS. WILLIAMS: So just for the record, he

was referring to them as Exhibit 1 and

Exhibit 2, their attachment.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: They're attachment 1 and

attachment 2 to his pre-filed testimony. And

if you'd like us to enter them into the record

as exhibits, we're prepared to.

MS. WILLIAMS: No. The only thing I would

ask at this time is whether there are extra

copies of the testimony for the members of the

public if they don't have any.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Sure. Let me get all of

them at once.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: And they are also

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

available on our website as well if you are

missing anything.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. We'd like to

present Dr. McLaren as our next witness. Would

you swear in the witness.

[WHEREUPON THE WITNESS WAS SWORN

BY THE NOTARY PUBLIC.]

JAMES McLAREN, PH.D.,

9 having been first duly sworn by the Notary Public, testifies

10 and says as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

12 BY MR. RODRIGUEZ:

Q Dr. McLaren, can you state your full name

14 for the record please.

A My name is James Bernard McLaren.

Q And you are a zoologist, correct?

A A zoologist or a fisheries biologist.

Q And you've pre-filed testimony in this

19 case?

A Yes, I have.

Q Okay. I'm going to show you a document

22 and ask you if you can identify it for the record

23 please.

A This document is the pre-filed testimony

25 that I've filed.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

Q And this is a true and complete statement

2 of your testimony today; is that correct?

A Yes, it is.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: We move to admit the

pre-filed testimony of James B. McLaren, Ph.D.

as Exhibit 2 as if read into the record.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Exhibit 2 is

admitted.

[WHEREBY, EXHIBIT NUMBER 2 WAS

ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE.]

11 BY MR. RODRIGUEZ:

Q You have also brought with you today some

13 visual aids; is that correct?

A Yes, I have.

Q Okay. And these are enlargements from the

16 report that you have filed and was attached to the

17 original petition for the thermal standard?

A That's right.

Q Okay. Will these enlargements help you

20 summarize your testimony this morning?

A They will. I've brought two enlargements.

22 And what I would like to do is when I need them, to

23 go up and illustrate the point that I'm trying to

24 make.

Q Okay. Well, with that, can you now

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 briefly summarize your testimony this morning.

A Yes, I will.

Good morning. My name is James

4 McLaren. I'm a fisheries biologist employed by ASA

5 Analysis & Communication where I've worked for the

6 past five years as a senior scientist. My office is

7 located in Buffalo, New York. I received a

8 Bachelor's degree in fisheries science from Cornell

9 University in 1968. A Master's degree in science in

10 zoology from the Pennsylvania State University in

11 1970, and a Ph.D. in zoology from the Pennsylvania

12 State University in 1978.

I have over 35 years of experience

14 serving clients in both the private and public

15 sectors, including the Clean Water Act,

16 Section 316(a) and (b), demonstrations for power

17 plants and impact assessments for aquatic

18 communities.

My firm, ASA, was retained by Ameren

20 to analyze the potential effects of modifying the

21 site-specific thermal standards for May and October

22 on the aquatic community of Coffeen Lake. As has

23 been previously explained on several instances, the

24 proposed revisions to thermal standards are limited

25 to the months of May and October. They are, for May

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 and October, a mean temperature measured at the

2 surface monitoring location at the edge of the

3 mixing zone in Coffeen Lake. A mean temperature of

4 96 degrees for the period in question and 96 degrees

5 Fahrenheit, and a maximum temperature of a hundred

6 and two degrees Fahrenheit not to be exceeded

7 2 percent of the time.

The proposed limits are intermediate

9 between the existing summer and non-summer limits

10 allowing the more gradual and natural transition of

11 the lake's thermal regime from April to June and

12 from September to November.

Now, we produced a report entitled,

14 "Evaluation of Potential Adverse Impacts from

15 Revised Site-Specific Thermal Standards in May and

16 October for Coffeen Lake," dated March 2008, and it

17 is, I believe, Exhibit Number 11.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Attached to the original

petition.

DR. McLAREN: Yes.

The approach that we used for our analysis

applied the essential components of the USEPA's

ecological risk assessment framework. Treating

temperatures as the environmental stressor, and

three game fish species -- largemouth bass,

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

channel catfish and bluegills as the receptors.

These species were chosen to be representative

of the lake's fish community.

We relied on multiple lines of evidence to

asses the risk from increasing thermal limits

in May and October. We performed both a

retrospective and a prospective or predictive

assessment of the thermal effects on the fish

community.

Our investigation revealed that Coffeen

Lake presently supports a balanced indigenous

aquatic community and a thriving recreational

fishery. The fish species populations have

reproduced and thrived at temperatures that are

warmer than the temperatures that are being

proposed for May and October. The aquatic

community has adapted to present thermal regime

and would experience only marginal changes in

the thermal loading during the two transition

months.

Let me explain what the retrospective

assessment is that I'm talking about. A

retrospective assessment provides the best

evidence, the strongest evidence of the

long-term effects because it integrates all

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

aspects of the thermal environment as well as

all trophic levels in the fish.

We're very fortunate, in that the basis of

our analysis to have a long-term database on

the fish community and the aquatic environment

in Coffeen Lake data collected by the Southern

Illinois University at Carbondale from 1997 to

2007, both biological and temperature and

dissolved oxygen data. The data that SIU

collected are the results of studies that were

mandated by the Board. For the five-year

thermal variance for May and October, it was

granted -- issued back in July of 1997. This

has been alluded to previously by Mr. Williams.

The SIU data that was collected during

this time period was supplemented by data

collected by the Department of Natural

Resources and electrofishing Coffeen Lake

during the same years.

We used the 1997 to 2004 population data

to assess the fish abundance, growth,

reproduction, recruitment of young and body

condition of the three species in the lake.

And we used water column data that came from

weekly surveys through the spring and summer

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

and into early fall, collected by SIU at four

locations within the lake. And one location,

each of four segments, the recordings were made

from the surface to the bottom at 1/2 meter

increments.

The SIU studies focussed on the three

primary recreational species that I spoke

of -- the largemouth bass, channel catfish and

bluegill, and thus this was the basis of

information for our analysis. And we're very

fortunate to have this long-term database of

hard data. It's a very unusual -- for hard

evidence, it's very unusual to have this kind

of evidence and this amount of data collected,

and the expensive program to be able to assess

what the current effects are of the thermal

regime on the fish.

We found that the three fish species

19 that produced abundant, viable population through

20 natural reproduction in the lake. From our

21 retrospective assessment, we found in our conclusion

22 that the lake, in its deepest portions, within the

23 main cooling loop between the discharge and the

24 intake is stratified nearly continually from about

25 May or June through October and November, and is

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 frequently stratified in the remaining months

2 because of the discharge of -- the thermal discharge

3 from the plant.

There is a diversity of habitat

5 available at any time. Thermal refuge is available

6 outside the cooling loop and the upper part of the

7 western arm of the lake and the large embayments on

8 the western arm and at depths beneath the surface

9 oriented thermal plume. The epilimnion remains

10 oxygenated with geoconcentrations usually well in

11 excess of 5 milligrams per liter.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Dr. McLaren, can you give

an explanation about the epilimnion for the

record.

DR. McLAREN: In stratified lakes, because

of the difference in the density of the water,

usually because of the temperature, you have

layers called epilimnion, which is above a

layer called a metalimnion where there's a

thermocline. There's a rapid decrease in

temperature. And then the densest water

remains at the bottom in a layer that's called

hypolimnion.

So the epilimnion is the region where fish

and possibly the metalimnion where fish would

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

generally remain during periods of

stratification within the lake.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Thank you.

DR. McLAREN: The resident or

representative important species, the three

that we're speaking about, we found exhibited

abundance, growth and body condition that was

comparable to or better than those in other

regional or national water bodies for which

data are available. We found that the survival

and growth of the early life stages, the eggs

and the larvae, particularly for largemouth

bass, apparently are improved by the stable

warmer temperatures that occur in the late

winter and early spring, and are improved by

the prolonged growth season that results from

the thermal discharge to the lake. We found

that there was no evidence of a carryover of

warmer temperatures occurring during May into

the summer months as was demonstrated by an

analysis that we did, a correlation analysis,

between degree days measured in May and degree

days in June and October.

"Degree days" is not a household term, and

I need to explain what that is. The degree

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

days is an index of heat exposure. It's

commonly used in the ecological investigations

and is computed as the difference between a

mean water temperature for the period in

question and a biologically meaningful

threshold summed over a period of time. We use

the daily mean temperature measured at the

surface of mixing zone boundary as the index to

the heat input to the lake. And we chose 60

degrees Fahrenheit as a threshold temperature

because it's commonly used as a lower limit for

largemouth bass spawning and for growth.

This is the very first exhibit that I

would like to show. This is the regression

analysis that we had done. Hopefully you have

an understanding of the degree days after that.

In May versus the degree days occurring in June

through September. And these are the actual --

19 BY MR. RODRIGUEZ:

Q Jim, let me interrupt you for a second.

21 This is figure 2-17 of your report, which is Exhibit

22 11 in the petition?

A It is. It's figure 2-17 of our report,

24 and it's also an attachment to the direct testimony

25 that was pre-filed.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

Q Pre-filed testimony. All right.

A This is a plot of the degree days

3 occurring in May against June through October.

4 There was not a significant relationship. 2007 was

5 a particularly warm year, and it was a particularly

6 warm May. So there was a relationship in that year,

7 but there are several years where we had more warm

8 Mays, such as 1998, 2000 and 2001 where the summer

9 degree days, the heat built up through that time was

10 less than usual.

The reason for this to occur, we

12 believe, is that through time, the meteorological

13 conditions are the controlling factors of the

14 temperature, and the temperature that occurs within

15 May can easily be raised by the summertime

16 temperature, the effects of the meteorological

17 conditions.

The lake dissipates heat through

19 surface exchange with the atmosphere. That's

20 influenced by ambient air temperatures, relative

21 humidity, wind and wave reaction and solar

22 radiation.

The other part of our assessment, the

24 prospective assessment, predicted how the thermal

25 environment during May and October might be altered

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 by the revised thermal standards and how fish might

2 react to this. It consisted of two lines of

3 evidence. The species specific thermal tolerance

4 and mathematical modeling of surface temperatures

5 under conditions of high ambient air and water

6 temperatures and full generation or heat loading.

We relied upon a model run by

8 Sargent & Lundy. It's the Lake-T model, which is

9 used in lakes such as Coffeen Lake. It models

10 temperature under varying operation conditions, and

11 it's also a model that was used for the design and

12 operation of Coffeen Lake.

It estimated the near-surface

14 temperatures from the plant discharge to the intake

15 under maximum sustainable generation. That's

16 greater than 90 percent generation capacity. And

17 for the year that we used as the primary

18 year -- 1987 -- the actual operation for that model

19 was 97 percent capacity.

It also uses ambient temperatures

21 that were derived from the national -- or ambient

22 weather conditions derived from the National Weather

23 Service data from Springfield, Illinois. We use

24 meteorological data collected by the National

25 Weather Service for 1987, and that was used to

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 model, to simulate the warmer than normal spring

2 ambient temperatures. The surface temperatures were

3 analyzed because they would represent the highest

4 temperatures to which fish would be exposed. In

5 other words, worst case.

From our prospective assessment, we

7 reached the following conclusions: That warmer

8 winter temperatures and early spring temperatures

9 promoted earlier spawning and development of the

10 young, especially for largemouth bass and channel

11 catfish. This would result in the completion of the

12 early life stages of eggs and larvae before May so

13 that the more heat-tolerant juvenile and adult life

14 stages would predominate during May and subsequent

15 months under the new proposed thermal limits.

As for bluegills, they'd been

17 reproducing successfully in the summertime at

18 temperatures well in excess of the proposed May

19 limits, and thus their reproduction should not be

20 adversely affected.

Juvenile and adult fish will avoid

22 temperatures exceeding those species-specific

23 preferences, and this has been demonstrated by past

24 studies of fish movements and distribution in

25 Coffeen Lake. And this is referenced in our report.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

Temperatures much cooler than at the

2 surface of the discharge zone are present at depths

3 and in the remainder of the lake. For example,

4 temperatures at depth in May can be as much as 18

5 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than at the surface, and

6 in October, 13 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit at depth

7 cooler than at the surface. And typically the

8 temperatures at the intake on the western arm of the

9 lake can be as much as 10 or 15 degrees cooler than

10 in the discharge zone. So there's a progressive

11 cooling, obviously, of the water as it moves from

12 the discharge to the opposite end of the lake in the

13 4.1 meter -- or 4.1 mile loop.

A fish can take advantage of natural

15 and power station related diol (phonetic) cycles and

16 lake temperatures that can be on the order of 3 or 4

17 degrees Fahrenheit. If necessary, they can take

18 advantage of being able to recover from short-term

19 stresses at the warmest temperatures during the time

20 period when daily temperatures are lower.

And studies that were conducted in

22 1998 and 1999 by SIU have shown that largemouth bass

23 can temporarily occupy suboptimal or temperature or

24 DO water as necessary, and are physiologically

25 adapted to do so to optimize their environment.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 These studies also have shown, demonstrated or at

2 least indicated that these largemouth bass in

3 Coffeen Lake may have evolved a higher heat

4 tolerance than in other populations. And this is

5 being demonstrated by the preferred temperature that

6 these fish, sonic tagged fish were found within the

7 lake during the summer.

Modeling has shown that the revised

9 limits allow a more gradual increase in temperatures

10 and are rapid within days convergence with predicted

11 June and November temperatures.

Now, this is the Sargent & Lundy

13 model that I was speaking of. And it is -- I don't

14 have a pen, my pointer.

This is the Sargent & Lundy Lake-T

16 model that I was talking about, which we used to be

17 able to -- under the absolute worst conditions

18 during the months of May and October, what

19 temperatures would be experienced within the lake.

20 And this is a plot of the temperatures under the

21 current, which is the dotted line and the proposed

22 thermal limits for May and October. And, again,

23 this is Figure 4.4 of our report and also an

24 attachment to our pre-filed -- my pre-filed

25 testimony.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

Q That's 4-4, figure 4-4 to your pre-filed

2 testimony.

A Yes, that's right.

And as illustrated here, under the

5 current limit, there's a rapid -- there's -- with

6 the model, it demonstrates with using full capacity,

7 these are the worst-case conditions. There can be a

8 very rapid increase in the water temperature at the

9 end of May when you transition from the non-summer

10 to the summer limits. And this can be a very

11 stressful thing, and it certainly is not a natural

12 situation.

Under the proposed limits, you can

14 see that it is a more gradual -- albeit, it does

15 jump up and down on the basis of the meteorological

16 conditions on the data from 1987, the date that that

17 occurred. And this, again, is for October where

18 there can be a rapid decrease, but this is the

19 increase that would occur in the worst conditions in

20 October. When I say that, the evidence, that there

21 is not a carryover of temperatures and a rapid

22 convergence from the model ran under from June

23 throughout the summer under the existing conditions.

24 So you can see that the temperatures converge very

25 closely, even though the temperatures are warmer in

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 May, within a matter of days. The time that the

2 water is required to circulate from the discharge to

3 the intake, the traveling time, within a matter of

4 days, there's a convergence of temperatures under

5 what would be existing or will exist in the existing

6 thermal limits. And the same is rapid conversion

7 here in October.

So this, the evidence that we get

9 from the model corroborates the evidence that we

10 were looking at in terms of the regression of degree

11 days in May versus October, June through October,

12 and that there would not be a carryover of the

13 warmer May temperatures.

Now, fish kills have been a special

15 concern in Coffeen Lake in the past. Fish kills in

16 the past have occurred on occasion during times of

17 abnormally warm summer temperatures or unusual

18 meteorological conditions. But from the years of

19 data from 1997 to 2004, the data collected by

20 Southern Illinois University, they've been able to

21 find no detectable long-term effects that these fish

22 kills have had on the fish population. And, in

23 fact, that the fish losses during these events would

24 represent a very small fraction of the affected

25 populations. We are convinced that the fish kills

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 are unlikely to occur in May and October since the

2 conditions that have caused previous fish kills in

3 terms of temperature or dissolved oxygen

4 concentrations would not occur during the months of

5 May or October.

Also the station has adopted several

7 measures to avoid conditions that might have been

8 responsible in the past for fish kills. As

9 Mr. Williams had explained, since the year 2000,

10 there's been an installation of a 70-acre

11 supplemental cooling pond, installation of a 48-cell

12 helper cooling towers, and there's been intensive

13 monitoring of water temperatures in the cooling

14 loop. These measures should eliminate or greatly

15 reduce the occurrence of fish kills.

In conclusion, from multiple lines of

17 evidence in our investigation, it indicates that the

18 proposed limits for May and October do not present

19 an appreciable risk to the fish community, lake

20 community and the fish populations. Also there are

21 areas in the lake that provide temperature and

22 dissolved oxygen concentrations that can serve as

23 refuges, if needed, but we don't expect this to be

24 needed because the changes in temperature would be

25 marginal in May and October.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Dr. McLaren.

We would now like to introduce

Dr. Shortelle.

Would you please swear the witness.

[WHEREUPON THE WITNESS WAS SWORN

BY THE NOTARY PUBLIC.]

MR. RODRIGUEZ: And I'm keeping a list

here of words for the court reporter that we

may need to, at the next break, help her with

some of the spellings.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Good idea.

ANN B. SHORTELLE, Ph.D.,

13 having been first duly sworn by the Notary Public, deposeth

14 and saith as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

16 BY MR. RODRIGUEZ:

Q Dr. Shortelle, can you state your full

18 name for the record please.

A Ann Burquist (sp) Shortelle.

Q And you are a limnologist; is that

21 correct?

A That's correct.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: We'll add that one to the

list.

Q Can you briefly summarize your

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

educational and professional background for me.

A Yes. I have a Bachelor's of Science in

3 Biology from Mercer University, and I have my Ph.D.

4 in limnology from the University of Notre Dame. I

5 have worked in consulting for about 24 years, 20 of

6 those years with MACTEC Engineering and Consulting.

7 I'm currently a chief scientist with MACTEC.

Q And you've pre-filed testimony in this

9 case, have you not?

A I have.

Q I'm showing you a document, and asking you

12 if you can identify it for the record please.

A Yes.

Q And what is this document?

A This is my pre-filed testimony with its

16 attachment.

Q Is this a true and complete and correct

18 statement of your testimony today?

A Yes, it is.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: I'd like to introduce for

the record the pre-filed testimony of Ann B.

Shortelle, Ph.D. as fully read.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Exhibit 3 is

admitted.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

[WHEREBY, EXHIBIT NUMBER 3 WAS

ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE.]

3 BY MR. RODRIGUEZ:

Q Dr. Shortelle, you've also brought some

5 visual aids with you today as well, have you not?

A Yes, I have.

Q And these are enlargements of exhibits

8 that are contained in your report?

A Yes.

Q And your report was attached to your

11 pre-filed testimony; is that correct?

A Yes, that's correct.

Q And I would like to ask you now if you

14 could summarize your testimony this morning using

15 your visual aid.

A Yes, I will.

MACTEC was engaged by Ameren to

18 evaluate the effects of the proposed modifications

19 to the current site-specific thermal standards on

20 phosphorous and mercury. The issue is whether the

21 proposed change would result in significant

22 increases in internal or within lake phosphorous

23 cycling or in lake mercury methylation.

And this is the report which is an

25 attachment to my testimony that we produced that

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 includes all of our analyses with regard to that

2 question.

And as a result of our analyses, we

4 concluded that the proposed modifications to thermal

5 limits in May and October will not result in

6 significant increases in internal phosphorous

7 loading or in lake mercury methylation over current

8 lake conditions.

I'd like to start by discussing

10 phosphorous. Phosphorous in sediments may be

11 rereleased to lake water and can serve as a source

12 of nutrients. This potential release is dependent

13 upon conditions at the sediment water interface. So

14 right where the sediment and the water meet.

The mere presence of thermal

16 stratification, which is normally present in lakes

17 and reservoirs that are similar to Coffeen lake and

18 which includes Coffeen Lake, does not indicate that

19 significant internal phosphorous loading will occur.

20 And, in fact, our analysis showed that phosphorous

21 and chlorophyll data from Coffeen Lake do not

22 indicate significant internal phosphorous loading to

23 Coffeen Lake at this time. Our report discusses

24 this in detail, but basically in the review of the

25 data, there are no season trends with regard to

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 phosphorous and Chlorophyll-a. This is a classic

2 limnological pattern that you would observe in a

3 lake that had significant internal phosphorous

4 loading. There's no seasonal spike in concentration

5 following fall turnover. Internal phosphorous

6 loading thus is not a dominant process in Coffeen

7 Lake.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Dr. Shortelle, can I stop

for you a minute? And would you explain what

fall turnover is for the record? And also

maybe a little explanation about why you use

Chlorophyll-a in your analysis.

DR. SHORTELLE: Sure. I would be happy

to. I'll take the latter first.

Chlorophyll-a is produced by green plants.

These may be large plants that we're sort of

normally used to seeing, but also very small

plants in the water called phytoplankton or

algae. And they respond to nutrients and grow

better with more nutrients just like when we

fertilize our yard and the grass grows. So if

you fertilize the lake with nutrients like

nitrogen or phosphorous -- and in this case,

we're talking about phosphorous -- you would

expect more phytoplankton to grow, and we can

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

use Chlorophyll-a as one of the indications of

how much phytoplankton there are in the lake.

And, in fact, that's one of the reasons why

Coffeen Lake has been listed as impaired

because it's been found by the Illinois EPA to

be limited by phosphorous. And it's impaired

for aesthetics and a variety of uses, all of

which are related to too much nutrients, too

many nutrients, too much phosphorous.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Fall turnover.

DR. SHORTELLE: Fall turnover.

When a lake is stratified that Dr. McLaren

had described to you previously, you find that

the epilimnion, that upper layer of water and

the hypolimnion are separated by a density

gradient that persists doing the summer months

when it's quite warm out. It's much cooler at

the bottom of the lake. And this happens in

most temperate lakes of any depth. It's very

normal for mesotrophic and eutrophic lakes,

productive lakes, of which Coffeen is one.

When the weather begins to cool off, the

epilimnion, the upper waters of the lake, begin

to cool because the weather is getting cooler,

and they're losing heat. The waters are losing

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

heat. And eventually the temperatures in the

upper portion of the lake and the bottom

portion of the lake get very similar. You get

a brisk windstorm or something of that nature,

and the whole lake mixes in the fall. It's

very classic temperate lake in its occurrence,

and it's called fall turnover.

If you had significant release of

phosphorous from the sediments into the

hypolimnion during those summer periods of

stratification, when the lake turns over, you

will classically see a big boost of phosphorous

that's evident when you compare, you know,

immediately the phosphorous or chlorophyll

levels after turnover to the stratified levels.

That is not seen in Coffeen Lake.

So from that, I conclude that internal

phosphorous loading is not now a dominant

factor in the loading to Coffeen Lake in terms

of phosphorous. It's occurring. It occurs in

any lake, but not a dominant factor at this

time.

In fact, review of the TMDL documents that

are available suggest that external phosphorous

loading; in other words, phosphorous that's

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

coming in from the watershed -- this watershed

is dominated by agriculture. Agricultural,

where they're likely doing the same sorts of

things we're doing with our

lawns -- fertilizing them. Then you get rain,

rain washes sediments into the water body,

Coffeen Lake, and with that, comes phosphorous

as well.

We know that this is occurring because we

can see in the areas of the lake that are

closest and out of the influence of the cooling

water loop, we see that phosphorous and

Chlorophyll-a are highest there. And we see

that that area of the lake is filling in with

sediments, soils that are washing in from the

watershed.

Okay. So in reviewing the TMDL that was

issued in 2007, I was a little bit confused as

to why there was such an emphasis on internal

phosphorous loading for this lake, because it

appears that it's a misconception that this is

a current significant problem. And the issue,

I believe, stems from an error that occurred in

the modeling that was completed in the 2007

TMDL report for the lake. Some of these errors

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

were addressed in the recent 2009 addendum.

So the original TMDL document has put

emphasis on internal loading of phosphorous

that's really not supported by the data, and in

fact, stems from an error in the modeling, the

BATHTUB modeling. And that was lessened

somewhat, partially corrected in the 2009

addendum.

I think I'd like to talk to you for a

couple of minutes about what MACTEC did. We

used five years of the data that Dr. McLaren

referred to. The depth profiles -- that

included temperature in oxygen to

quantitatively evaluate the extent and

consequences of anoxia or the lack of oxygen.

And we did this on a spatial -- with GIS to

look at it spatially to see, you know, where in

the lake are we getting sediment anoxia that

would be giving us conditions that would

promote phosphorous flux from the sediments to

the water column.

This analysis produced a series of maps.

This is one of them.

24 BY MR. RODRIGUEZ:

Q For the record we're referring to Figure

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 2-18, 2-18 of your report?

A And that's on Page 2-23 if you're looking

3 at a copy of the report specifically.

The analysis produced maps that

5 showed the area of the lake bottom in kind of an

6 orangey color that is anoxic right at the bottom of

7 the water column. It is not showing areas where the

8 entire water column is devoid of oxygen. In fact,

9 we found no such cases at all. There's anoxia right

10 down hugging the bottom. And this is, again, very

11 typical and normal for productive lakes in temperate

12 zones like Coffeen.

And there's always, regardless of

14 month, and including the most thermally heated

15 months of the summer, there's always oxygenating

16 water not only in the upper hypolimnion, but in the

17 epilimnetic waters of the lake. So there's no sense

18 that in this lake, we have large dead zones where,

19 you know, nothing can survive.

So for this figure, this is a

21 representation of our analysis for May. It shows

22 the current condition in orange. This is the area

23 of anoxia at the sediment water interface that would

24 be producing a higher than oxygenated flux of

25 phosphorous into the water column of the

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 hypolimnion. And this sort of pinkish-red color,

2 which you can see just in a few areas, is our

3 modeled results if the modification in permit limits

4 is granted. So a small change here. And in this

5 one, this is the same lake. The same lake. Only

6 for October.

Q Just for the record, this is Figure 2-19

8 of your report, which is attached to your pre-filed

9 testimony; is that correct?

A That is correct. And it's on Page 2-24.

So, again, just enlarged today so

12 that people can see it a little bit more readily.

13 And this shows the conditions we're predicting.

14 Well, current prediction for October, and then the

15 slight additional amount of bed sediment that would

16 be present in October if the permit change were to

17 occur.

So let's look at this another way.

19 This is Figure 2-20 of my report on Page 2-25. And

20 this graph shows three different analyses of

21 loading. The blue bars are predicted loadings of

22 phosphorous to Coffeen Lake, annual loading, okay?

23 The first two columns are the total loadings

24 predicted in the 2009 TMDL recently issued. And I

25 applied two different estimates of internal loading

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 based upon our analysis. One is the one that was

2 used actually in the 2009 report, the flux rate.

3 And the other one, a higher flux rate that I thought

4 was more appropriate for the lake.

Using those two analyses, the

6 incremental increase from the May and October

7 phosphorous flux into the lake just for May and just

8 for October, if the permit criteria are changed, is

9 from a half a percent to 1.1 percent increase in

10 phosphorous. I think it would be difficult to even

11 measure this in the field. It's a very, very small

12 amount. It's not a significant amount.

We also did our own analysis, a

14 BATHTUB modeling, an analysis of loading, which we

15 think is more reasonable for the lake. It is less

16 than presented in the 2009 TMDL, because that TMDL

17 document still includes, I think, more internal

18 loading than is warranted. But under our analysis,

19 the increase is still only 1.5 percent annual

20 phosphorous loading.

Okay. I'm going to sit down for a

22 minute. I'll be back.

Okay. I'm going to move on to

24 mercury. Coffeen Lake is on the 303(d) list

25 impaired for mercury. Mercury cycling is very

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 complicated, but mercury methylation is of

2 particular interest in this situation because it's

3 methylmercury that tends to accumulate in the food

4 web and is the dominant form of mercury that's found

5 in fish because of that.

Methylation of mercury is affected by

7 multiple parameters, and it's not based solely on

8 thermal stratification. So one of the things I

9 would ask you to do first is to look at Table 3-1 in

10 my report, which is on Page 3-4. This is a summary

11 of mercury in fish data from state and federal

12 studies. And in Coffeen Lake, largemouth bass were

13 measured, and they are among the very lowest in

14 mercury concentration, below the average for the

15 county, for Montgomery County, and below virtually

16 all the rest of the data available for the

17 surrounding counties. There are only three other

18 lakes on that table that have concentrations that

19 are the same or below those that were observed for

20 fish tissue mercury concentrations in those studies.

Turning now to Figure 2-3 in my

22 report, which is on Page 3-5.

Q For the record, is that Figure 2-3 or

24 Figure 3-2?

A 3-2.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

Q 3-2 of your report. Thank you.

A This is entitled, "Illinois Largemouth

3 Bass Mercury Concentration." So now we're looking

4 only at mercury in largemouth bass.

In Montgomery County, that's the

6 green bar, quite low amongst the counties shown

7 here. And the star shows that Lake Coffeen is even

8 lower than the average found in Montgomery County

9 overall. There are many counties with much higher

10 averages. And also of note, the national average

11 for largemouth bass mercury concentration in fish

12 filet tissue is just over half a milligram per

13 liter. So up at this point, that's the national

14 average. So these counties in Illinois, a lot of

15 them are doing a lot better than that.

So the question might be why are

17 Coffeen fish comparatively low in mercury? Well,

18 one major factor is that one of the primary drivers,

19 if you will, for mercury concentration in fish

20 tissue, regardless of the cycling dynamics, is how

21 much mercury you have in that system to begin with.

22 You can have slightly higher and slightly lower

23 dynamics of whether, you know, mercury cycling is

24 going up or down, but you start with a particular

25 amount of mercury. And that mercury is associated

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 with the entire watershed that feeds into that water

2 body. That is driven in the agricultural areas of

3 Coffeen Lake and the surrounding Illinois counties

4 by atmospheric deposition. So if you have a larger

5 watershed, basically you have a larger basket or

6 capture zone for mercury to get into the lake.

We note that the ratio of watershed

8 to lake area, which is a common metric that's used

9 in limnology and in environmental sciences to help

10 people understand the size of the water body

11 relative to the size of the watershed; for Coffeen,

12 it's a relatively modest ratio. In other words, the

13 watershed is not large compared to the size of the

14 water body. But we note in looking at a number of

15 the other lakes that have TMDL, so that I could

16 review the data, that their ratios tend to be much

17 higher. In other words, their watersheds are larger

18 on average than, you know, when put in a ratio sense

19 with their water body. So they're gathering more

20 mercury. Their initial conditions, if you will,

21 from which to put mercury into fish is larger

22 because of that. Obviously, the watershed size and

23 the lake size are not changing as a result of the

24 proposed thermal limits change.

So we find that mercury is quite low

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 in Coffeen Lake, and changes to the thermal standard

2 during May and October will not increase the overall

3 mass of mercury in the lake. The incremental

4 effects that might occur for mercury in terms of,

5 you know, minor changes in methylation would be

6 similar to the sorts of magnitude we've assessed for

7 phosphorous cycling. And, regionally, mercury

8 loading reductions will have a significant effect.

9 Basically about a 33 percent reduction in fish is

10 necessary to remove the impairment. And

11 proportional reductions are expected from decreased

12 atmospheric loads of mercury.

So we would conclude from that, that

14 although a change in thermal limits in May and

15 October may have some theoretical changes in mercury

16 cycling, they're likely not going to be measurable.

17 And the mercury in the lake itself is low, as

18 demonstrated by national and state surveys, and

19 expected to remain low because the watershed that

20 feeds the lake is of modest size compared to the

21 size of Coffeen Lake.

So in conclusion, the proposed

23 modifications to current site-specific thermal

24 standards in Coffeen Lake will not result in

25 significant increases in phosphorous loading

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 internally or in mercury methylation over current

2 lake levels.

Q Dr. Shortelle, you may have done this, and

4 it may not be necessary, but for the avoidance of

5 all doubt, can you take just a moment to state what

6 a TMDL is, what TMDL stands for?

A Total maximum daily load is a TMDL.

8 Basically, water bodies that are determined to be

9 impaired for one or more factors could be -- you

10 know, it could be mercury, it could be phosphorous,

11 it could be any number of water quality related

12 standards and their uses are considered to be

13 impaired.

Under the Clean Water Act, EPA or

15 state-designated authorities must evaluate that

16 impairment and develop the total maximum daily load

17 of that constituent that the lake can actually

18 handle, if you will. And it's composed of point

19 source loads, nonpoint source loads, margin of

20 safety, and you come up with a total maximum daily

21 load. Those are published. People can comment on

22 them. Typically if they're put out by the State,

23 the Federal USEPA will review them and countersign

24 them, and then they become approved. And these

25 plans have -- or these reports have suggested plans

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 in them or a path forward to reduce that constituent

2 that's causing the impairment over time. So that at

3 the end of the day, water quality hopefully would be

4 improved, and eventually that lake or river or

5 stream would be off the impaired list.

Q Thank you.

Madam Hearing Officer, that concludes

8 the presentation of the summary of the testimony on

9 Direct. We would at this time make our witnesses

10 available for questioning from other parties.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. I would

suggest we maybe take a five-minute break to

give our witnesses a chance to perhaps find a

water fountain. So we'll go off the record.

[WHEREUPON THERE WAS A SHORT

DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD.]

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: We will go back on

the record.

We will now have an opportunity for the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to

cross-examine or question the three witnesses

that just testified. We're going to be doing

this somewhat more informally than we normally

do. Questions may be directed to a particular

witness or to the entire panel of the three

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

witnesses. Ms. Williams has also agreed that

the Board's technical unit may ask follow-up

questions to her questions if it's relevant at

the time. So we'll just sort of play it by

ear.

Ms. Williams, I'll let you go ahead and

start your questioning.

JAMES WILLIAMS, JR.

CROSS EXAMINATION

10 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q Good morning, Mr. Williams.

A Good morning.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Excuse me for the

interruption. I'll just remind everybody that

they are still under oath. Go ahead.

16 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q I'd like to start off talking a little bit

18 about this concept of derating. Can you just sort

19 of define for us how you're using that term,

20 "derate."

A Absolutely. We monitor the conditions of

22 the lake routinely. And in order to comply, we will

23 actually take a unit from full load. Our total

24 megawatt output net from Coffeen is 900 megawatts.

25 So I would derate it. I would take the unit down to

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 700 megawatts. Thus puts less heat load into the

2 lake, and we could comply with those standards by

3 derating a unit.

Q So I mean, the way I'm understanding it

5 from your testimony is, it's a pretty simple

6 concept. It just means operating at less than

7 something less than full capacity?

A That is correct.

Q So it could be anywhere from slightly less

10 to zero, I suppose? And it would be considered

11 derating? Or do you call it something different if

12 you took it off, took a unit off line?

A If we took a unit off line, we would call

14 that an outage, take the unit completely off. I am

15 restricted on minimum load. I cannot go down to

16 zero; I cannot go down to 10. On each unit, I do

17 have a specific minimum load, again, with the

18 technology that we have available at the station.

Q Can you explain the minimum load for each

20 unit.

A Yeah. The minimum load for unit one -- we

22 have two generating units. One is a 360 megawatt

23 gross. Unit two is a 590 megawatt gross. Unit one,

24 I can go down to 240 minimum load. Unit two, I can

25 go down to 450 minimum load.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

Q Does the Coffeen Station typically derate

2 in June through September?

A No other reason than lake thermal. There

4 may be specific equipment that may have issues, but

5 typically not.

Q Do you ever have to derate in the winter

7 months to meet thermal limits?

A None that I recall outside those shoulder

9 months, October.

Q So sometimes you would derate in June

11 through September, and at this time, also in May and

12 October, but from November through April, you never

13 derate?

A Due to thermal.

Q That you're aware of?

A That I'm aware of.

Q Just if there would be a outage or

18 maintenance issue?

A That is correct.

MR. RAO: Can I ask a follow-up?

MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.

EXAMINATION

23 BY MR. RAO:

Q You said that you don't derate between

25 during the winter months or summer months for any

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 reason other than the lake issues. Do you derate

2 for any other -- related to any other, like the

3 power demand?

A This spring was the first time, due to

5 deregulation and the grid. There had been some

6 maintenance on transmission lines in the state. We

7 were derated in spring due to what we call

8 congestion, how much voltage we can put across

9 lines. This was the first time I've seen that type

10 of derate. Other than fan failures or equipment

11 failures, we would not derate.

Q So other than lake-related issues, both

13 the units will operate at full capacity or whatever

14 the normal capacity is?

A That is correct.

MR. RAO: Thank you.

17 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q Let's talk about that. Full capacity. I

19 mean, you said full capacity, normal capacity. I

20 think you've identified 950 megawatts.

A I will --

Q That's not what you're always operating

23 at, is it?

A Yeah. The 950 is a gross, what we call

25 950 gross. We take some of that electricity for

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 auxilliary power, and we say 900 net. So the

2 difference in those two numbers, one is a gross

3 generation number; one is a net generation number,

4 and the number I referred to is 900 net. It takes

5 all our auxiliaries off of that. And the other

6 numbers I quoted as capacity, 590 and 360, are gross

7 megawatt numbers.

Q Now, I believe I read in the documentation

9 that Ameren had been operating at 66 percent

10 capacity from 2002 to 2006; is that correct?

DR. McLAREN: That is correct.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay.

DR. McLAREN: That's from the ASA report.

14 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q Is it also correct that Ameren plans to

16 operate at 90 percent capacity by 2011?

A (By Mr. Williams) That is correct.

Q What would you say that the capacity is

19 today?

A I believe we are slightly under 80 percent

21 to date.

Q And when you say "to date," you mean

23 before 2009, right?

A Yeah, 2009, yes.

Q What was the capacity, percent capacity

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 before Ameren came to the Board in 1997 for

2 variance? Do you know?

A No. I'd have to review the data. That's

4 easily obtained. I just don't know off the top of

5 my head.

Q Do you think it was less than 66 percent?

A I would say it was not less than

8 66 percent.

Q Can you explain the reason that Ameren is

10 planning to go from, I guess, you say slightly less

11 than 80 percent today to 90 percent in 2011?

A The capacity factors are calculated with

13 major outages. We go in and maintain the units.

14 Some of those years, we do have four- or five-,

15 six-week outages. As we move forward, all of our

16 maintenance outages should be completed, and we

17 should be at the 90 percent capacity.

Q So you're not going to have maintenance

19 issues that would require a shutdown after 2011?

A There's a new maintenance -- not upgrades,

21 but, you know, we go in and repair the equipment,

22 and we hope to gain operating capacity with those

23 repairs. With the scrubber going in -- unit one

24 scrubber will go in operation this fall; unit two

25 early next year. With those, we have new ID fans

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 and items like that, that we would not expect to

2 have maintenance on.

Q Would you agree that most Ameren

4 facilities probably derate to meet thermal limits?

A I'm just aware of Coffeen. Other Ameren

6 facilities are either on rivers. Newton is on a

7 lake, and I'm not aware of their derating.

Q You don't believe they do, or you're not

9 aware one way or another?

A The time period I was there, we did not.

Q And does that mean you operated at a

12 hundred percent capacity factor?

A No. I would estimate in the 90s, but not

14 at a hundred.

Q Okay.

A Some of that would be driven by market

17 conditions and the ability to sell the power.

Q So by 2011 -- well, and even today, I

19 guess, would you consider within your definition of

20 derating to go from 80 percent capacity down to

21 66 percent capacity where those stations were

22 operating in the early 2000s? That would be

23 considered a derate?

MR. RODRIGUEZ: I'm sorry. Could you read

the question back.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

[WHEREBY THE REQUESTED PORTION

OF THE RECORD WAS READ BY THE

COURT REPORTER.]

MS. WILLIAMS: Do you understand? Do you

want me to try to rephrase? Does the witness

understand?

MR. RODRIGUEZ: I'm not sure I understood

the time period that you're asking.

9 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q What I was trying to ask -- because I

11 think I changed in the middle. In 2002 to 2006,

12 according to the petition, the station was operating

13 at 66 percent capacity, 66 percent capacity. Today

14 we're around 80 percent-ish, right? And then in

15 2011, it would be 90. Let's say today, if you had

16 to go from 80 percent to 66 percent, would you

17 define that as a derate?

A In the deregulated environment, yes, that

19 would be a derate. In order to be profitable, I

20 would want to be in that 90 percent to be able to

21 sell my power at the lowest cost to our customers.

22 And if I was at 66, I would consider that a derate.

Q Okay. In the Sargent & Lundy report that

24 was Exhibit 15 to the petition, they had a fact I

25 just wanted to verify with you. They stated that

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 the original limits for this station were based on a

2 thousand megawatt station at 60 percent capacity

3 factor. Do you agree with that? Did I say 60? At

4 a 70 percent capacity.

A I believe early S & L designed criteria

6 did use 70 percent capacity.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Also to note, we don't

have the other Sargent & Lundy report here with

us today. If there's specific questions

regarding this report, we can try to have a

follow-up.

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay.

Q They also state that the plan is to

go to 1,026 megawatts; is that correct?

A I'm not sure of the thousand twenty-six

16 megawatts, but, yes, there is an increase in

17 megawatts, yes, for that study.

Q For the study?

A We looked at what upgrade could be done to

20 enhance the throughput and primarily in the

21 turbines. But that number today, I would not agree

22 with.

Q Let me read to you what it says and see if

24 you agree with this statement that they make. I'm

25 looking at Exhibit 15 now to the petition. And the

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 pages are not numbered. Well, sort of numbered.

2 There's a -- oh, okay. They are numbered up here.

3 5 of 13.

And the second paragraph of text, it

5 states, quote, "Future growth electrical output of

6 the plant, including burning a higher percentage of

7 Illinois coal, and steam turbine and induced draft

8 fan upgrades is expected to be 1,026 megawatts."

A Yes, I agree with that statement.

Q Can you explain these upgrades that he's

11 referring to?

A Yes. At the time of the study, there are

13 some turbine higher efficiency. Without additional

14 steam flow, you can obtain the additional megawatt

15 output. And it would include those upgrades in

16 order to get to the thousand twenty-six.

Q So I'm not sure I'm understanding your

18 answer. Do you mean these were upgrades that were

19 considered, but are not being done right now?

A All of those upgrades have not been

21 completed at this time.

Q Okay. Are they still planned?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Thank you.

Were you involved at all in the 1997

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 variance petition before the Board?

A No, I was not.

Q Have you reviewed the Board's opinion in

4 that?

A Yes, I have.

Q Is it your understanding that Ameren

7 argued in that case that installation of

8 supplemental cooling was economically unreasonable

9 at that time?

A I don't recall that statement.

Q Do you agree that Ameren installed

12 supplemental cooling subsequent to that proceeding?

A Yes.

Q How often is supplemental cooling used at

15 the Coffeen Station?

A It's used daily during the summer months

17 and shoulder months.

Q Daily meaning every day?

A Yes, ma'am.

Q And for how many hours a day?

A We have two operating models. To protect

22 the upper limit, we will fill the basin during the

23 day, shut those pumps off and allow it to cool

24 overnight, and then use the basin then during the

25 peak time of the day to go into the mix zone. If

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 our average is what we're trying to work with, then

2 we will use it around the clock. Both methods, the

3 basin is in use around the clock. The pumps would

4 not be running, and one would, but we are still

5 using the basin as residence time to allow

6 additional cooling before we open up the pump or

7 turn the pumps on and put it into the lake.

Q Okay. Let's talk about the helper towers

9 now. Is it one tower?

A We have 48 cells. It's basically three

11 towers or three chains of towers.

Q And how often is that tower used?

A During those same periods, shoulder months

14 and summer months, with the exception of

15 maintenance, they'll be running daily.

Q For the entire day?

A Yes.

MR. RAO: Can I ask a follow-up question?

MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.

EXAMINATION

21 BY MR. RAO:

Q In your testimony when you talk about this

23 48-cell cooling tower, how does this cooling tower

24 compare with the helper towers evaluated by Sargent

25 & Lundy as compliance alternatives in terms of flow

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 capacity?

A I know the additional towers, the new

3 proposed is a hundred seventy-five thousand gallon

4 per min tower. Without looking, I don't know the

5 capacity of the three, of the 48-cell tower we have.

Q Okay. Do you think it's higher than the

7 output towers or maybe lower?

A I really don't know. I'd have to look.

MR. RAO: Thank you.

10 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q On Page 2 of your testimony, you state

12 that, quote, "The need for relief is greater now

13 than it has been in the past due to more frequent

14 high summer temperatures especially in periods of

15 low lake levels." What do you mean by more frequent

16 high summer temperatures, and what data do you have

17 to support that?

A As I think the testimony has indicated,

19 the past few summers have been extremely high. Lack

20 of rain -- that our lake was 10-foot low until late

21 last fall that we started actually getting lake

22 level. Today, we are overflowing, or we were last

23 week. It stopped today or yesterday. But so the

24 data we have is the meteorological data as well as

25 the lake level indications we would have.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

Q So you're using lake level as an indicator

2 of ambient temperatures?

A We were using lake level as heat

4 dissipation. Heat dissipation is your surface area

5 of the lake, and as the lake level goes down, you

6 lose surface area and that affects our cooling

7 ability as well as throughput through the lake.

Q But what causes these periods of low lake

9 levels?

A No rain.

Q Is that the only causes as far as you

12 know?

A We do have internal losses. You have

14 losses, seepage, just internal, but the capacity is

15 not that great. So mainly it's primarily due to

16 lack of rainfall.

Q Next I'd like you to explain the last

18 sentence on Page 3 of your pre-filed testimony, and

19 I'll read it to you.

Quote, "Incurring substantial

21 additional costs for enhanced cooling technologies

22 investigated beyond those investments already made

23 by the company is not economically reasonable, as

24 none of these alternatives would provide a

25 substantial environmental benefit." Can you explain

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 the economic reasonable analysis here?

A Yes. As I mentioned in my testimony, we

3 use the Economic Value Added model. It reviews the

4 assumed megawatt gain. It looks at the future price

5 curve. It looks at our cost for electricity to

6 make. We look at all of our depreciation. It runs

7 the whole economic model of the investment.

And when I mentioned it's not

9 economically feasible, it shows a net present value

10 of a minus $2.7 million to do this project. And

11 that's with the $18 million cash outflow, outlay,

12 and that is put into the model. So all those

13 assumptions are run and looked at economically

14 whether or not it would be feasible to do the

15 project.

Q So it will cost $18 million to build the

17 towers, the cooling towers?

A The hundred seventy-five thousand GPM

19 unit, yes, ma'am.

Q Which is the largest of the three

21 considered? Or was I correct?

A I'm not familiar with the capacity of the

23 existing towers.

Q There are a few areas where I've noticed

25 kind of documents or models or concepts that are

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 referred to that I don't know that I can find in the

2 record, and this is one of those. So there was some

3 economic information provided with the petition, but

4 I don't believe I could find anything in the record

5 regarding your updated analysis. Am I correct in

6 that?

MR. RODRIGUEZ: You mean the written

analysis? Are you asking about a written

analysis?

MS. WILLIAMS: I'm asking about -- there

was a change in Ameren's position between the

filing of the petition and the filing of the

pre-filed testimony. So I didn't find any

documentation of the basis for that change of

opinion. I mean, you've explained it, but I

didn't find any numbers, any runs of the model,

any report.

Q Is that correct? It's just your

narrative?

A No, that is correct.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Right. We provided an

explanation. No charts to contain the numbers.

MR. RAO: We had the same question, too.

We didn't find that information, and I have

this question here about whether there is an

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

analysis updated that's not part of the record.

If so, would it be possible to provide it?

MR. RODRIGUEZ: We can do that.

EXAMINATION

5 BY MS. LIU:

Q But to put it into context, you threw out

7 the number negative 2.7 million. That means it's

8 not economically viable. At zero, does it become

9 economically viable, or does it have to be a

10 positive number?

A I'd have to review that, but you'd want it

12 to be a payback period before you'd make an

13 investment and lose $2.7 million through the life of

14 a cooling tower is what that analysis would show.

15 Before the life of that cooling tower, I'd have

16 to -- I'd lose money there, and plus the cooling

17 tower would be at the end of its life. You'd

18 make -- that's what this analysis would take into

19 account, the full life expectancy of the cooling

20 towers. So, yes, that's correct.

MS. LIU: Thank you.

22 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q Just to follow up on the Board's question.

Do you believe that's the economic

25 reasonableness test that the Board should consider

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 whether or not Ameren can make a profit off of the

2 installation of the treatment technology?

A No, I don't believe the profit. It needs

4 to be a payback to be economically viable.

Q So it needs to be zero before it's

6 considered economically reasonable by the Board?

A Yes, and it would be considered, correct.

MR. RAO: Ms. Williams, before you move

on, outages and this derating, are we still on

that?

MS. WILLIAMS: I think I'm done with

derating. I have more economic questions.

MR. RAO: I have one question.

EXAMINATION

15 BY MR. RAO:

Q Mr. Williams, on Page 3 of your pre-filed

17 testimony, you note that one of the ways Ameren

18 complies with the thermal standards is also by, you

19 know, scheduling plant outages or extending forced

20 outages during those shoulder months. Could you

21 explain for the record how many times Ameren has

22 relied on planned outages or forced outages to

23 comply with the standards since 1999?

A The specific number of times, I couldn't

25 accurately tell you since '99. I do know frequently

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 we have to take a spring outage, and more frequently

2 in the October period, we would take those outages.

3 I know for the past three or four years, we have

4 taken outage in those months. Early in 2000, I'd

5 have to go back and review. By knowing the past few

6 years, we've done that, taken those outages.

Q With these planned outages, is it

8 something that you do every year with both the

9 units?

A No, it's not. If we have known issues,

11 you know, we'll get -- we're tying the scrubber in,

12 we'll have a short outage, we will do maintenance.

13 Sometimes that may be one week, two weeks, or we can

14 tie it into a forced outage. When we have capital

15 improvements that would require a unit to be off, it

16 would have a scheduled outage, but it's not routine.

17 I would say every four or five years, a unit would

18 be expected to be off for four to five weeks. Other

19 than that, it would be short planned outages in the

20 spring and fall. Unless there's large capital

21 projects or the turbine upgrades, we would not have

22 a scheduled outage in those periods. And as well,

23 you know, it is market driven. When the weather

24 gets hot, we're expected to produce. So the timing

25 is tough as well.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

Q So if you do have these planned scheduled

2 outages, if you want to schedule it during the

3 shoulder months, are there any operational concerns?

4 Or is it purely that financial concerns about

5 meeting the demand during those months?

A There are -- depending on summer versus

7 winter, I mean there are some operational issues

8 with temperature. I wouldn't want both units down

9 in February and freeze up plant water systems.

10 Typically in the spring, there would not be a

11 problem operationally to be off, other than the

12 market conditions.

MR. RAO: Okay. Thank you.

14 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q You state in your testimony -- I think

16 it's on Page 5 -- that you call Coffeen a lower cost

17 generator of electricity. Can you explain who you

18 are lower cost than, or how you are determining that

19 you are a lower cost generator?

A Absolutely. Ameren Energy Generating is

21 part of MISO, the Midwest Independent Supply

22 Organization. Each day we bid in our price by

23 9:00 o'clock this morning for tomorrow, and I'm not

24 aware of their prices. I do know if I'm picked up

25 and running, I am cheaper than other units that are

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 off. So it's real imperative that when I bid in

2 those days, I am bid in such that I will be running.

3 Coffeen is pretty much ran as a baseload unit, which

4 therefore would surmise that I am at a cheaper cost

5 than our competition. I do not know their prices.

Q Why don't you explain that term, "baseload

7 generator."

A We're running all the time. With the

9 exception of the congestion issue that we discussed

10 a few minutes ago, Coffeen had been expected to be

11 running all the time. Unless there was a forced

12 outage, tube leak, we would be expected to run, turn

13 the unit around and come right back up and supply

14 the grid with power, which would tell us we are one

15 of the lowest cost providers. And when we're not

16 running, the Midwest Independent Supply

17 Organization, they would go pick up the next higher

18 cost unit. Therefore the price retail would be

19 higher.

Q So do you think this increase in capacity,

21 is that a reflection of you being a lower cost

22 generator, the ability to operate at higher

23 capacity?

A The plant has always been -- has been at

25 the ability to run with the higher capacity without

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 the exception of these maintenance outages. There

2 are times when we have ran at higher capacities

3 during the summer. We will run 90 plus capacity.

4 When we schedule these large outages, it does take

5 away your hours, and your capacity is lower. So we

6 would have been able to run at those capacities

7 prior as well, and now it is market driven.

Q And the way you've described the MISO

9 process, you can't, as you sit here today, tell us

10 you charge less per kilowatt hour than the another,

11 quote, "power plant" in Illinois per se?

A Just internal to my organization. I do

13 not know what external companies prices are.

Q So would you say you're a lower cost

15 generator than other Ameren facilities --

A Yes.

Q Than all other Ameren facilities in

18 Illinois?

A No.

Q Who would be lower?

A The Newton plant would be lower.

Q Are Coffeen and Newton the lowest?

A Yes. And that's really driven by fuel

24 price and transportation costs, not operating

25 ability, is the difference between Coffeen and

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 Newton. Our transportation costs for fuel is higher

2 than it would be to get to Newton. Operating wise,

3 we're real close.

Q And how many plants does Ameren own in

5 Illinois?

A We have Hutsonville, Meredosia, Grand

7 Tower, Newton, Coffeen. And then we have two, the

8 former Soko (sp) plants, Edwards and Duck Creek,

9 coal-fired plants. So how many was that?

Q I don't know, but that's quite a few.

Does Ameren believe that the cost of

12 them installing the flue gas desulphurization and

13 selective catalytic reduction technology is

14 economically reasonable?

A I do not think so.

Q Because?

A We're over $600 million for SO2 removal,

18 mandated we put these in.

Q But it was an investment that the company

20 made to comply with Board requirements?

A Yes.

Q Is that correct? Can you tell us -- well,

23 I think I'm going to move off of that.

MR. RAO: I have a question about the

cost.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

EXAMINATION

2 BY MR. RAO:

Q On Page 4 of your testimony, you note that

4 since the analysis made by Sargent & Lundy in 2007,

5 the market prices for capacity and energy had fallen

6 considerably. Can you speculate why that's

7 happened? Or if you can answer more definitively,

8 that's fine, too.

A Well, if I knew the real reason, I'd be

10 other places right now. Typically, what I look

11 at -- and this is just myself, you know -- gas

12 prices, natural gas price, a lot of things that

13 drive power prices, and we go out and look -- it's

14 almost a commodity where you can track and trade.

15 And it is shown that the power prices have

16 continually dropped, and I think it's driven more by

17 the prices of energy.

Q Do you think this trend is going to

19 continue in the foreseeable future?

A I think in the near future, yes. I hope

21 it does pick back up as the economy picks up. I

22 think that's a driving factor as well. But, yeah,

23 our models do indicate that we hope it does pick

24 back up, yes.

Q So does the model kind of account for any,

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 you know, change in terms of the costs, or you know,

2 the prices are increasing all the time? Or when you

3 read it, this analysis, was it just reflecting that

4 the prices are going to go down in the future?

A No. The data that I reviewed of the model

6 does show increase in future price curves. It does

7 take that into consideration, as well as some

8 allowances for CO2 in future environmental prices.

9 So it does take that into account.

Q Okay. And in this report that you would

11 be submitting in the future, it will explain all

12 this information that was put into the model and

13 explains the analysis?

A It will have the data in the model that

15 shows what those prices would be, yes.

MR. RAO: Okay. Thanks.

17 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q As you sit here today, can you tell us the

19 difference in price that resulted in the change, in

20 your opinion, in your testimony? So what was the

21 price that the original report was based on versus

22 what you looked at and submitted your pre-filed

23 testimony?

A Not without looking at the analysis. I do

25 not have that off the top of my head.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

Q Can you tell us why Ameren chose not to

2 raise the level of Coffeen Lake by 3 feet as

3 indicated in the 2007 TMDL?

A The part that I'm aware of is, it was

5 pulled due to the fact that we are reviewing the dam

6 at Coffeen. Does it make it a higher class dam?

7 And we're reviewing the engineering behind that,

8 what modifications need to be done. So it's pulled

9 to continue engineering on that. It just has not

10 been resubmitted right now.

Q Are there plans to resubmit that in the

12 future when that's completed?

A Potentially. I'm not aware of when that

14 would be.

Q Or "if"?

A Or "if," that's correct.

Q Can you explain why Ameren is seeking to

18 pump water from Shoal Creek and how much additional

19 water will be pumped?

A Briefly, we are looking to be able to pump

21 from Shoal Creek the FGD, the flue gas

22 desulfurization, scrubbers that we are putting in,

23 utilize water from our lake. It's estimated, full

24 load, around 2 million gallons a day draw on the

25 lake. Therefore we need to be able to pump capacity

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 out of Shoal Creek in the high-flow periods.

Q Do you know how much do you plan to pump?

A It would be an estimate. I'm not for sure

4 what the total capacity is. What we're looking at

5 is being able to pump in the spring. And when you

6 have flow in the East Fork Shoal Creek, I'm not sure

7 what those capacities would be or estimated at. You

8 know, the studies we've looked at during normal

9 weather conditions, it would be sufficient to

10 support the 2 million gallon drawdown annually. The

11 2 million gallons is daily.

Q Okay.

A But we have to look at the East Fork Shoal

14 Creek on an annual basis just because it does not

15 flow all the time. So we are looking at annual flow

16 through that creek.

Q What impact will the need for

18 2 million gallons a day have on the lake levels and

19 temperatures?

A Okay. Can you repeat that question

21 please?

Q So we have described the need for -- if I

23 am paraphrasing your testimony correctly, the need

24 for an additional 2 million gallons per day?

A That's correct.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

Q And that 2 million gallons per day would

2 be needed for what? Let's go through that again.

A Okay, yeah. I understand your question

4 now.

Yeah, the 2 million drawdown, we will

6 need to maintain lake level to cool the plant, as

7 well as -- you know, it depends on meteorological

8 events. Are we going to have a hot summer? Are we

9 going to have a drought? So I can't really give you

10 an answer on what our expected temperature losses

11 would be. You know, are we going to have a lot of

12 sun one summer and no rain? But, no, the lake and

13 the level would be needed for capacity to cool the

14 plant as it is designed and intended to do.

Q I guess is your answer there would be no

16 impact on lake levels from today? I mean, is that

17 the answer?

A I can't say that. I don't know how much

19 rain we're going to get in the month of May,

20 October.

We are going to take an additional

22 2 million gallons a day from Coffeen Lake for the

23 scrubber operation. Now, if we have enough rain to

24 cover that, and what we can get from potentially

25 from East Fork Shoal Creek, we would not expect a

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 negative impact on the lake level barring normal

2 weather conditions.

Q And then so you're going to take

4 2 million gallons per day from the lake? And

5 annually from Shoal Creek, you plan to take

6 2 million? You didn't say 2 million gallons

7 annually?

A No, no. I do not know that. I don't know

9 what the capacity in a given period would be from

10 the lake.

What I'm trying to say is, the study

12 we've done and looked at for East Fork Shoal Creek

13 under normal weather conditions, normal rainfall

14 amounts, the amount of capacity we can gain from

15 East Fork Shoal Creek during its periods where it

16 does have flow, and our normal 2 million gallons a

17 day use for the scrubber, will maintain our lake

18 level. Now, once we get into a higher drought

19 period, we may lower lake level.

MS. LIU: May I follow up?

EXAMINATION

22 BY MS. LIU:

Q What happens to the 2 million gallons? Do

24 you treat it and put it back into the lake? Or does

25 it go to a sewage treatment plant? Or does it

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 evaporate?

A Most of it is evaporated. Once -- and

3 real quick, our FGD is a Hitachi design, what I call

4 a shower versus the BATHTUB scrubbers. It is a

5 shower. We spray this limestone slurry on the gas

6 as it comes up. The slurry then is collected at the

7 bottom of the absorber, and then we will pump it

8 across the road and dewater. So we will dewater

9 some of that and bring it back in. Most of the

10 losses will be during evaporation. We're applying

11 this slurry into our gas treatment and will be

12 evaporated, correct.

13 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q And the water that is returned in the

15 plant will go?

A That will go back into the lime slurry

17 into the absorber.

Q So it's a closed loop?

A Yes, ma'am.

Q Do you agree in the 2007 SIUC study, there

21 was a reference that stated that the mean monthly

22 temperatures in 2003 to 2006 in Coffeen Lake were

23 higher than in 1999. Do you agree?

A I'd have to go with what the data said. I

25 would agree with the data.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

Q Could this be due to an increased

2 production we've just talked about?

A It could be due to a number of factors,

4 including weather conditions, lack of rainfall. It

5 could be one of the conditions, yes.

Q Do you agree that the maximum hourly

7 temperatures at the edge of Ameren's mixing zone in

8 the summer months have actually been cooler since

9 1999? Now I'm talking about maximum hourly

10 temperatures. So the first question was about the

11 mean monthly temperatures. This question is about

12 maximum. Are you aware one way or another?

A I think we've taken operational control

14 and managed those temperatures very well.

Q Do you think that maximum temperatures can

16 be more lethal to fish than averages?

A My personal belief is "yes."

Q What do you mean in your testimony when

19 you say in paragraph 10 -- or when you use the

20 phrase in paragraph 10, "environmentally

21 acceptable"? Can you explain that term in your

22 testimony?

A What I was referring to in that case was

24 an acceptable method of cooling, additional cooling

25 capacity.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

Q So when you say that the study concluded

2 that modifying the limits in May and October is

3 proposed by Ameren is expected to be environmentally

4 acceptable, that's what you mean when you just

5 testified?

MR. RODRIGUEZ: I think you're misstating

it. I mean, paragraph 10 is reciting a

statement out of her conclusions drawn by ASA.

He's not making a judgment on his own in

paragraph 10.

MS. WILLIAMS: He's just quoting?

MR. RODRIGUEZ: The ASA study concluded

something.

MR. WILLIAMS: That would be Jim.

JAMES McLAREN, Ph.D.

CROSS EXAMINATION

17 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q Can you go ahead and define -- do you

19 think that's a quote in your report?

A I'd like you to repeat the question

21 please.

Q Mr. Williams' testimony states that the

23 ASA study concluded that modifying the limits in May

24 and October, as proposed by Ameren, is expected to

25 be environmentally acceptable. He's not citing to a

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 page or a quote, but he's summarizing your report?

A Yes, I would agree with that.

Q And how did you define that term

4 "environmentally acceptable"?

A Environmentally acceptable, in many

6 senses, but mostly relying upon the historic

7 information that we have on what the lake regime,

8 the thermal regime has been, and the fact that we're

9 dealing with temperatures that are lower than

10 experienced for the full summer period, we see no

11 reason why it shouldn't be environmentally

12 acceptable. Historic data has shown that the lake

13 has adapted and is functioning at these

14 temperatures.

MS. WILLIAMS: I think I have quite a few

more questions in this area for Dr. McLaren,

but I'll move on until we get to his questions.

JAMES WILLIAMS, JR.,

CROSS EXAMINATION

20 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q In paragraph 11, Mr. Williams, I'm going

22 to read you another quote here. It says, "If

23 adopted, these limits would more realistically

24 reflect the natural thermal environment where

25 temperatures fluctuate daily or weekly while

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 increasing in the spring or decreasing in the fall."

Would you say that 89 degrees

3 Fahrenheit reflects background winter water

4 temperatures anywhere in Illinois?

A I wouldn't know what other lakes are. I

6 mean --

DR. McLAREN: That sounds like a question

that I should probably answer. Should I

restate that? Or would you please?

MS. ANTONIOLLI: I would object on the

ground of relevancy. I think we're talking

about Coffeen Lake here.

13 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q What I'm trying to get at -- and that's

15 fine. We can move on, but the statement is that it

16 will realistically reflect a natural thermal

17 environment. So I think my question is getting at,

18 do you think that even the winter limits that

19 Coffeen is subject to in any way attempted to

20 reflect a -- realistically reflect a natural winter

21 environment?

A My statement reflects that if I have a

23 gradual increase in May versus a sharp increase

24 June 1, it would be a natural progression of

25 temperature of the lake.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

MS. WILLIAMS: I think that's a good

transition to a few questions that I have about

your permit limits. Why don't we move on to

that topic unless you have anything.

MR. RAO: No.

6 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q Okay. I'll start -- I'm going to kind of

8 walk through the thermal limits, which are contained

9 in your NPDES permit, which is Exhibit 1, to the

10 petition. And the first question that I have about

11 that is that -- well, these limits are contained in

12 special condition 5, correct?

A Correct.

Q And one of the requirements is that Ameren

15 take measurements at the outside edge of the mixing

16 zone; is that correct?

A That is correct.

Q Can you describe to us where those thermal

19 measurements are taken.

A Yeah. We have a mixing zone acreage right

21 outside the discharge that's measured at that point,

22 26-acre mix zone.

Q And I believe you provided a map to the

24 Board in your response to their questions. I think

25 it was Attachment A that drew a little line --

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

MR. RODRIGUEZ: I don't think he did, but

Ameren did.

3 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q Oh, Ameren did. Have you seen the map

5 that I'm talking about?

A I don't believe so. I've seen maps, but I

7 have not, the one you're referencing.

MS. WILLIAMS: Do you mind if I show him

this?

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Go ahead.

MS. WILLIAMS: I'm showing the witness a

document marked attachment A, revised Coffeen

site diagram.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay.

15 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q And I believe that there are three white

17 lines marked on that map that are identifying mixing

18 zone edge; is that correct?

A That is correct.

Q Can you explain why there's three lines?

A I think -- I would refer -- this must have

22 been used for the study to raise the elevation

23 3 feet. If you raise the elevation, you will have

24 more capacity. So the closest to the discharge

25 would be the 593 level, and then our normal pool of

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 590 and then a pool of 588. And that was there to

2 be able to run models. And if we were at 2 foot

3 below, where would our mix zone acreage be?

Q So I think my question for you on this

5 point is, how do you determine where the temperature

6 loggers are placed at any given time? How do you

7 determine where this line is?

A You do a mathematical calculation based on

9 the slopes and the capacity and make that

10 determination where the 26 acres of water would be.

11 And we don't move that based on lake level being

12 low. It would be based on our normal pool. So when

13 we're at lake levels down 10 feet, I don't go out

14 and move my temperature monitor. It's the

15 site-specific per our permit. And we might be able

16 to ask Mr. Smallwood the specifics, but that's my

17 reference.

Q And I believe it states in the

19 permit -- this is just sort of a clarification I

20 want to clear up between Dr. McLaren's and

21 Mr. Williams' testimony.

I believe that your testimony,

23 Mr. Williams, indicates that the measurements are

24 taken at a depth of 18 inches? Does that sound

25 correct? Or maybe I'm just reading from the

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 language of the permit that says a depth of

2 18 inches.

A I believe that's in the permit, but I'd

4 have to reference the permit for the exact -- I

5 believe it's more than that, but I don't know the

6 exact number unless someone else does.

JAMES McLAREN, Ph.D.

CROSS EXAMINATION

9 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q Dr. McLaren, do you have an opinion on how

11 deep the measurements are taken?

A My understanding is it's at 28 inches.

Q And can you tell me what you're basing

14 that on, your understanding? I mean, what you think

15 you looked at to find that?

A I believe I'm basing that on information

17 that was in the SIUC reports.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: I'm sorry. Could you read

that question.

[WHEREBY THE REQUESTED PORTION

OF THE RECORD WAS READ BY THE

COURT REPORTER.]

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

JAMES WILLIAMS, JR.

CROSS EXAMINATION

3 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q Are you familiar with the NPDES permit,

5 Mr. Williams?

A Yes.

Q Do you have a copy of it in front of you?

A No.

MS. WILLIAMS: Would counsel agree to

stipulate that the permits measurements should

be taken at 18 inches? Or would you rather

that I ask him questions from the permit

itself?

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Well, the permit -- I

think the permit speaks for itself.

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. I don't want to

waste a lot of time on this. There just

definitely is some inconsistencies in the

record that Ameren submitted about whether

temperature is taken at 18 inches or 28 inches.

So I would like maybe that to be cleared up in

THE post-hearing comments from Ameren.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: We'll agree to that.

MS. WILLIAMS: I mean, it's not that

significant. I just think it's an

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

inconsistency I'd like to see cleared up.

Q Mr. Williams, do you have any

information or data about what the temperatures

are within the mixing zone, what the actual

effluent discharge temperatures are?

A I would have a discharge out of the main

7 condenser temperature as it goes into the discharge

8 flume prior to the mixing zone so I know what

9 temperature is leaving each of the condensers.

Q And what would be a maximum for that

11 temperature?

A Again, depending on weather conditions, we

13 typically will have a Delta T across our condensers

14 20 degrees. So we would pick up 20 degrees from our

15 intake.

Q And so you take intake measurements as

17 well then?

A Yes.

Q And are those in the record? I don't know

20 if I saw any intake temperature measurements in the

21 record.

A I'm not aware of any, no, unless it's in

23 the data. I'm not aware of it.

DR. McLAREN: It's in -- the data intake

temperatures are -- we do present some intake

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

temperatures in our data.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: But let's clarify. Are we

talking intake temperatures at the intake? Or

were you asking Jim about intake coming off the

condensers?

MS. WILLIAMS: He was saying that it's a

20 Delta T from intake. So I was asking about

intake temperatures because I could use that to

determine the effluent temperatures. I was

just going to --

MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah. We will have a

temperature exiting the plant prior to the mix

zone.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Also this map that we

were referring to before as Attachment A to the

Hearing Officer's answers -- or answers to the

Hearing Officer's questions, also shows the

monitoring locations on there. So if that

would help, you can see where we monitor.

MS. WILLIAMS: It's up to the Board, but I

would think some of that data would be helpful

to be submitted as part of the record.

Q So going back to the permit itself,

special condition 5 states that the thermal

discharge shall not result in the temperature

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

which exceeds 105 degrees Fahrenheit as a

monthly average, June through September, a

hundred and twelve degrees Fahrenheit as the

maximum for more than 3 percent of the hours

during that same period. Mr. Williams, is

there any limit on the absolute maximum? Do

you understand what I mean by using that term?

A Any time we're over the 112, we record

9 that. I'm not aware of a max over that.

Q You're not aware of any required absolute

11 maximum, correct?

A No, that's correct.

Q Do you know what the highest maximum ever

14 measured has been?

A No, I don't.

Q Do you think it would be safe to recreate

17 in water that was 112 degrees?

A Define "recreate." Boat, fish? Yeah,

19 there would be areas on the lake where you could

20 recreate at, yes.

Q Areas? Other areas? Or it would be okay

22 to be within the 112-degree areas?

A We don't allow folks in the discharge

24 flume or in that area of the lake or toward the

25 intake of the plant.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

100

Q Okay. Maybe I should have asked that

2 question first. Where is the public restricted on

3 this map here? Where?

A On which map?

Q I'm looking at attachment --

A On the intake side -- I'm just

7 estimating -- it's probably a hundred yards from the

8 intake. And on the discharge side, I'm not familiar

9 with how far that would be.

Q Would you be familiar with whether it's

11 farther from the discharge point than the 26-acre

12 mixing zone?

A Yes.

Q So somewhere outside the mixing zone

15 you'll also prohibit recreation?

A That's correct.

Q I believe Ameren has referred to the

18 eastern arm of Coffeen Lake as segment 1? Does that

19 make sense? I'm sorry. I'll show you the map

20 again.

Are you aware of whether public

22 access is allowed within Segment 1 on the map of

23 Attachment A to the answers to the Board's

24 questions?

A I'm not for sure where on the discharge

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

101

1 side public access is. If it is at the mix zone, in

2 the mix zone or outside. I'm aware of the intake,

3 but I'm not confident on the discharge arm.

Q Okay. Thank you.

What is the limiting factor that

6 requires Ameren to derate? The average temperatures

7 or the 3 percent excursion hours? Do you understand

8 my question?

A Yeah. I try to operate as to maintain

10 that monthly average.

Q Okay. So when you're forced to derate,

12 it's generally because you're in danger of violating

13 those average limits?

A That is correct.

Q Either for May or for the summer months?

A And as I mentioned, we do have the cooling

17 basin. I do operate to protect the max. You know,

18 how I operate the basin. I do protect those max

19 temperatures. And I can cool the water at night,

20 and then put it in. So I do operate in the summer

21 to protect both. I utilize the -- it's kind of

22 tough, because we do have two operating type models.

23 But, you know, I do use the cooling towers to

24 protect that average. I run those all the time.

25 And I do utilize in the summer months to protect

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

102

1 that max. I do utilize the basin in operating mode

2 to protect that max. But when I'm going through my

3 monthly average, it is typically the hardest thing

4 for me to comply with, and that's why we operate and

5 derate because it's tougher to bring that monthly

6 average down toward the end of those months --

Q Right.

A -- just mathematically.

So to really answer your question, I

10 operate both. I'm running the basin to protect the

11 max temperature in the towers to keep my average

12 down.

Q And, you know, typically -- and I think

14 that the Agency typically sees these facilities have

15 issues with excursion hours. We'll say you can only

16 have 3 percent hours over your max, 2 percent hours

17 over your max, and that will be a limiting factor.

Can you explain, though, in this case

19 why if the average is primarily your limiting

20 factor, you are asking the Board for an increase in

21 the max as well? Would Ameren be able to operate as

22 requested under the relief with just the average

23 temperature changing for May in October?

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Can you provide an

example of how that relief might look, be

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

103

worded?

MS. WILLIAMS: I think it would be easier

for the witness if I did that.

Q And what I'm referring to is if,

like, currently in the winter, it says 94

degrees Fahrenheit is a maximum for more than

2 percent of the hours, right, if that's the

winter maximum?

A Yes.

Q And is that what you're asking for, is the

11 average? I don't know. Can we put -- you know

12 what? Would it help me to put your exhibits back up

13 here?

A That's fine.

It would be the proposed one, Mike.

MS. WILLIAMS: You're right, Amy. It's

hard to envision how that would look. I

guess --

MR. WILLIAMS: I guess what you're saying

on that max, you know, if my 94 max stayed the

same, the proposed monthly average would be

below. It would be 94.

23 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q Exactly. Well, I guess more what I'm

25 getting at is, do you really need this hundred and

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

104

1 two degree max, and could something less than that

2 be maintained and still allow the operational

3 conditions you're looking for? Or is this the

4 minimum level of relief that Ameren thinks they need

5 to get the operation they want to get out of the

6 plant?

A I believe that was the model, and that was

8 the min. I couldn't make that a hundred and four or

9 a hundred and three, but I believe the model has

10 indicated that to be the min number.

Q But if you made it a hundred and one, you

12 would still have to derate more frequently?

A There would be some operational change,

14 correct.

Q Can you tell us about how many excursion

16 hours Ameren takes advantage of over the course of a

17 year?

A I don't know specifically each year. I

19 know the past since 2002, we have not reached the

20 3 percent or the 2 percent.

Q Since 2002? Is that what you're saying?

A Yes. I know of -- and I don't think we

23 did prior to that, but I'm not for sure.

You know, from an operational

25 standpoint, whenever you get to those high

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

105

1 temperatures, that goes into your monthly average.

2 So it's beneficial to keep those high temperatures

3 down to keep your monthly. The higher I get on

4 those excursion temperatures, the harder it is to

5 maintain the monthly average. Therefore I try to

6 operate the best I can to keep that, as I mentioned

7 earlier, the monthly average down. The higher

8 excursion temperatures you get, it drives your

9 monthly average up, so.

Q Are you familiar with the thermal limits

11 at Newton or any of the other plants?

A Not current, no.

Q On Page 2 of the document that was titled,

14 "Ameren's Response to the Agency's Recommendation,"

15 Ameren states, quote, "Under anticipated operating

16 conditions, Ameren only expects to see current

17 temperature limits during unusually warm May or

18 October months."

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Could you read the

question back.

MS. WILLIAMS: Actually, I haven't asked

the question yet. I just read from the report.

So do you want me to read the quote again?

MR. RODRIGUEZ: I just hadn't caught up to

you yet.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

106

1 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q I think what I'm sort of looking -- and

3 asking is the converse, and I think you sort of

4 already answered it. If the Board was to increase

5 the number of excursion hours under your current

6 standard -- so right now you have 89-degree monthly

7 average and 94-degree max in May and October with

8 only 2 percent excursion hours. Would 3 percent

9 excursion hours make a difference, or some

10 additional number of excursion hours allow Ameren to

11 increase production without having to ask for

12 additional relief?

A You'd have to have Dr. McLaren explain the

14 effects on fish, but the higher the excursion

15 temperatures allowed would make them much tougher to

16 maintain the monthly average. If I'm allowed to run

17 at hotter temperatures for shorter periods of time,

18 I've got to compensate at lower temperatures to take

19 into account that excursion. So --

Q Right.

A -- operationally wise, it would not, in my

22 opinion, be of benefit.

Q So your general answer about that is no

24 different for May and October? Because May and

25 October, as you've described, are a little bit

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

107

1 transitional. So there's going to be cooler nights

2 and what have you. But you think it's still the

3 same concept? You're going to be --

A Yes.

Q Okay. Do you know what the expected

6 maximums will be under the proposed relief? Do you

7 understand my question? I'm not sure I --

A No, I don't.

Q So we have -- the relief is requesting a

10 monthly average of 96, and a max of a hundred and

11 two, and then 2 percent, hours you could go over a

12 hundred and two. So because the average is a

13 limiting factor -- well, do you know what the

14 average is expected to be at the edge of the mixing

15 zone? Would it be right at 96?

A No, I don't know what that number would

17 be.

Q You don't know what it would be? Okay.

Do you know what the max would be

20 able to have and maintain that average?

A No. All I know is based on the modeling,

22 those would be the min temperatures that we would

23 expect under normal operating conditions and weather

24 conditions.

Q So the modeling -- because I mean, doesn't

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

108

1 the modeling have some predicted numbers? So you're

2 saying the modeling may predict what the average

3 will be, but that is under predicted weather

4 conditions as well, correct?

A Predicted weather and capacity factors and

6 operating concerns, yes.

Q So that could change? That could increase

8 the actual temperatures?

A Operationally not, but then again, if you

10 go long periods without rain, extremely long warm

11 periods that would be unseasonable, it would affect

12 that temperature.

Q Do you have more issues with May or more

14 issues with October under the current standard?

A Recently it's been more the October

16 period.

Q And when you said recently it's been more

18 October, does that mean prior to that it was more

19 May, or prior to that it was more equal?

A Prior to that, it was more equal. We had

21 issues, both.

Q And were you involved in the 2007

23 provisional areas --

A Yes.

Q -- request? And what led to that

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

109

1 situation?

A Pretty much the same issues. We had low

3 lake levels, high temperatures, exceedingly long

4 periods of time with high temperatures.

Q And do you recall what relief was granted

6 to Ameren in that provisional variance?

A Not for 2007.

Q You don't recall? Is that what you mean

9 by "no"?

A Yes.

Q Okay.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: That provisional hearing

is attached as Exhibit 2.

MS. WILLIAMS: And I mean, just for the

record, the variance that's attached as Exhibit

2 is unsigned by the petitioner. Is there a

copy that was signed and accepted that you know

of?

MS. ANTONIOLLI: I think we can provide

that. We'll check that.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: If there is one, we will.

MS. KNOWLES: If there is.

23 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q If Ameren were to have an absolute max in

25 its relief, would you be able to comply with that

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

110

1 operationally? So if your relief said something

2 more along the lines of what I'm familiar with,

3 which is shall not exceed "X" for more than

4 2 percent of the hours and at no time shall it

5 exceed "Y," would you be able to fit that into your

6 operational?

A Again, it would be dependent on weather.

8 If I was told to comply, I would shut both units

9 down.

Q But there must be an absolute max where

11 you have to shut them down anyway, right, at some

12 point to maintain your averages?

A Absolutely.

Q Okay.

A And we look at that daily, what our

16 monthly average is and what our max temperatures

17 are. And if we can't comply to meet our existing

18 standards, then we either bring the units off,

19 derate them, do whatever it takes to make sure the

20 standard is met.

Q So that's something you can determine on a

22 daily basis by following your monitoring over the

23 previous days of the month?

A That's correct.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

111

EXAMINATION

2 BY MR. LIU:

Q So basically the max would change

4 depending on the history?

A That, and what our average is. If we are

6 running real close to the 96 monthly average, and

7 we're in October, and maybe that max is a hundred

8 and two, maybe less than that, then we'd have to

9 start taking action.

And that's really why the 2 percent

11 or the 3 percent -- you know, it's a moving target

12 for us because we must comply. So if I'm already

13 high on -- toward the end of the month, high on my

14 average, that hundred and two would put me over. So

15 I can't run at that temperature. So I'd have to

16 take action then. Even though I've got that max,

17 and I have hours available, I still can't do it to

18 comply with my monthly average. So I will start

19 taking action. Bringing units off, derating them to

20 maintain that monthly average, so.

And it gets -- you know, like I said,

22 a couple times a day we're watching that towards the

23 end of the second week of October. We may already

24 be up high on toward our average. And that max, we

25 just can't maintain that, or go over. And it really

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

112

1 would hurt our average. So we take proactive

2 measures and start early in October. We rarely wait

3 until the last week of October to do anything.

4 We're doing things the second week of October to

5 comply.

And you asked, you know, previously

7 about the May. You know, we've had outages in May.

8 So, yeah, more recently, it's been all of October

9 has been our issue.

10 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q I believe you mentioned earlier that

12 Coffeen Lake has been discharging recently. I don't

13 know. Did you say it stopped? Into the creek? So

14 normally -- is it correct that normally it does

15 not -- the lake itself does not overflow back into

16 Shoal Creek; is that correct?

A It hasn't in the near future very often,

18 but it has -- since late last fall, we've had

19 significant rainfall in the area. And we had been

20 overflowing most of the spring into East Fork Shoal

21 Creek from the lake.

Q Most of this past spring you're saying?

A That is correct.

Q Is there any process to monitor the

25 temperature at that overflow point?

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

113

A I don't believe so.

Q Is there any modeling that's done that

3 would tell you what the temperature would be at that

4 point?

A I'm not familiar with those models.

Q All I'm trying to get at is, that part of

7 the condition of Ameren's relief is that the

8 temperature, when the lake does flow over, comply

9 with the generalized standards. Now I'm assuming in

10 most cases then, those are periods of high flow,

11 cooler temperatures, but I was just trying to

12 determine whether there's any way of documenting

13 that that condition is being met.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Wait. We don't have that

condition correct.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: It's not in the NPDES.

Are you referring to the NPDES permit?

MS. WILLIAMS: No, the relief. It's a

condition of the relief.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Of the relief. We don't

have the relief.

MS. WILLIAMS: No, no, right. I'm not

suggesting that the permits says you have to

monitor there. I'm just asking the question of

whether there's any way to determine.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

114

MR. RODRIGUEZ: If the relief were

correct.

MS. WILLIAMS: No. Under the current

relief. Whether the condition to meet general

use standards at the point the lake discharges.

So anybody who gets relief under this provision

must also comply with general use standards at

the point their lake discharges into.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Are you looking at the

Board order granting relief?

MS. WILLIAMS: Can you hand me the -- I

think it is in the Board order, but I was

looking more at the requirements for -- I mean,

do you disagree with that, that that's one of

the requirements for an artificial cooling

lake?

MR. RODRIGUEZ: If the relief were granted

as the provision, and it provides that the

Board as part of the relief granted, which

included the condition --

MS. WILLIAMS: And then you're suggesting

that the Board did not actually include such a

condition?

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Are we talking -- I'm not

sure. Which board are you talking about?

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

115

1 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q So when it says -- and I mean, I don't

3 want to get it off of that.

But 302.211 (j) is very clear that

5 all discharges from the artificial cooling lake to

6 other waters of the State comply with applicable

7 provisions of Subsections B through E of 302.211.

So I didn't look specifically at

9 whether that was in the Board order or not, but I

10 was just trying to get at whether we know through

11 measured data whether that is accurate or not. And

12 your answer is "no," correct?

A Yeah. There wouldn't be any relevant

14 indication.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: And for the record,

302.211 (j) says what it says, so.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Ms. Williams, can I

just ask you, do you still have quite a bit

more for this witness?

MS. WILLIAMS: I actually just think I

have a few more, but I think should be able to

finish for a reasonable lunch break.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay.

24 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q I believe -- okay. Ameren states probably

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

116

1 in a couple places, but the one I'm referencing here

2 is Page 7 of their response to the Agency's

3 recommendation. That they have installed the

4 70-acre supplemental cooling basin and helper

5 cooling tower. And this has helped prevent fish

6 kills. Can you explain why? Or do you agree that

7 that has helped prevent fish kills?

A Since we've installed and operated those

9 two devices, I'm not aware of any fish kills.

Q And can you explain how that works? Not

11 how the clean tower works.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: I'm going to object

because I don't think that's what this

paragraph says. So you may want to show it to

him.

MS. WILLIAMS: Oh, okay. You don't think

that's the position?

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah. I don't think it

says that.

MS. WILLIAMS: Yeah, because I did not

quote this.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: I mean, for the record, I

think the sentence you're referring to is since

the installation of these enhancements? The

SIUC report? Is that the sentence you're

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

117

referring to?

MS. WILLIAMS: Let's move on then. That's

fine. I mean, I think the witness said he

agreed that there haven't been any. So that's

a little different than saying that the cooling

tower has resulted in that, right?

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Right.

MS. WILLIAMS: And I think I was sort of

trying to get at the same point of -- well,

anyway, we'll just move on. That's fine.

I don't think I have much more. I guess

I'd like to look over when we take a break and

see if there might be one or two that I want to

ask, but I think I'm pretty much done. Or if

you can give me a five-minute break, I can

look.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Well, let's go off

the record and discuss what we want to do so

you don't have to type all this.

[WHEREUPON THERE WAS A SHORT

DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD.]

[LUNCH BREAK.]

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

118

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Ms. Williams, you

may call -- you may continue with your next

witness.

MS. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon. I'm going

to move on to questions for Dr. McLaren.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: I just want to

remind the witnesses again you are still under

oath.

JAMES McLAREN, Ph.D.

CROSS EXAMINATION

11 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q The first question, Dr. McLaren, is have

13 you ever been involved in any 316(a) or 316(b)

14 demonstrations in Illinois?

A I have not. And not 316(a). I have been

16 involved with several 316(b) studies that Ameren is

17 conducting in the State of Illinois.

Q And at which facilities are those?

A At Meredosia, Grand Tower, Coffeen,

20 Newton, Hutsonville.

Q Have you been involved in 316(a)

22 demonstrations in other states?

A Yes, I have.

Q Can you tell us which states?

A Most recently in New York and New Jersey.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

119

Q And were the studies that you reference in

2 your CV regarding the Finger Lakes, were those

3 entrainment type studies, or were they thermal

4 studies?

A They were 316(b). They were entrainment

6 impingement type studies. There was a -- I should

7 correct that. There was a 316(a) related study in

8 one of the -- at one of the power plants.

Q Do you know which one?

A It was the Gowdy Plant and the New York

11 State Electric & Gas in the southern interior of New

12 York.

Q Have you written or published any papers

14 on thermal tolerance of fish?

A No, I have not.

Q And what areas do you consider yourself an

17 expert?

A In fisheries science, fish ecology, fish

19 behavior, aquatic ecology, and related -- there

20 could be a long list, but they're all interrelated.

Q Would you consider yourself an expert in

22 thermal tolerance of fish?

A Yes.

Q You state on Page 1 of your testimony that

25 you are hired to conduct, quote, "an evaluation of

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

120

1 the potential for adverse ecological impacts from a

2 proposed modification to the current site-specific

3 thermal standards applicable to Coffeen Lake." Can

4 you tell us specifically what proposed -- what

5 impacts you looked for?

A The impact I looked for was to the

7 biological -- the population parameters for the

8 three key species that we've got our database

9 for -- largemouth bass, channel catfish and

10 bluegill. And relied upon the existing database and

11 the literature background as to other sources of

12 information for thermal inputs to cooling lakes.

But specifically the data themselves

14 were what were collected by SIUC, IDNR and involved

15 growth rates, mortality rates, recruitment indices

16 of abundance, relative abundance, and in some cases,

17 absolute abundance, condition factors and species

18 composition, that sort of information.

Q When you talk about literature, did you do

20 a literature review or a literature search? Or how

21 did you go about researching the literature?

A I have, and my company has an extensive

23 literature library on information like this. And

24 when I found lead to other information, I would

25 follow it up. I have not done a computerized

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

121

1 literature search, but I haven't found that

2 necessary.

Q Can you explain why it wasn't necessary?

4 Just because you were able to find enough in your

5 library or what? Explain to me why.

A I did it the hard way. I did searches

7 through journals and also the Internet searches. So

8 if you are able to accept a literature search

9 through the Internet, certainly I've done quite a

10 bit of that.

Q On Page 2 of your testimony, I believe

12 that you testified that the 316(a) technical

13 guidance manual is merely a guide in this case

14 because the Coffeen Station is not changing any

15 design parameters of its generating equipment that

16 would affect its thermal effluent discharge. Would

17 you -- and this is not a quote. So I first will ask

18 you if you agree that's a correct paraphrase of your

19 testimony?

A I'd like to actually see it.

Q Sure.

A The testimony.

MS. WILLIAMS: Do you want me to show it

to him?

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Which paragraph are you

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

122

talking about?

MS. WILLIAMS: Three. The first couple of

sentences in three.

DR. McLAREN: That's correct. That was a

proper statement.

6 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q Will the thermal effluent temperatures go

8 up if the relief is granted?

A They may, depending on the station's need

10 and the weather conditions.

Q What operationally will cause temperature

12 to go up?

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Temperatures where?

14 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q The effluent.

A What we're requesting is relief for the

17 situations when weather conditions, warm weather

18 conditions and the requirement of additional

19 generation would have the effect of ending up with a

20 derating of -- a derating situation for the plant

21 generation, so.

Q So I guess what I'm getting at here, and

23 I'm not sure I stated my question very clear, but

24 what I'm hearing you say is that increase in power

25 generation would not be considered a major change in

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

123

1 operational mode as you're using that phrase in your

2 testimony, correct?

A What we're asking for is a relief for the

4 situations where -- because of situations the

5 thermal limits could be exceeded.

Q Right.

A That's where the relief is. I'm not aware

8 that the generation -- this is not an intent for

9 increased generation alone.

Q Are you suggesting that the limits are

11 being violated now?

A In the past, there have been times -- no,

13 they're not violated, but the company, the plant has

14 had to derate in order to not violate, and they've

15 not violated.

Q Correct. And they've done that for many

17 years, correct?

A Most recently it's been more important

19 because during, let's say, within the past three

20 years, warm spring temperatures have created the

21 situation, and electric demand, electric generation

22 demand have created the situation where they could

23 be in violation if they had not taken measures to

24 stay within their limits.

Q Do you recall our discussion in

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

124

1 Mr. Williams' testimony about the Sargent & Lundy

2 report discussing the increase, the changes that are

3 going to be made that will allow for an increase in

4 the maximum capacity to 1,000 megawatts?

A I'm aware that that's a possibility, but I

6 think I'm really not the person to be able to

7 testify as to what that really entails.

Q I just want to be clear that I understand.

9 Knowing that that's there, knowing that they will be

10 able to operate at a higher capacity, if the relief

11 is granted, what you mean when you say that there

12 will not be a change to the operational mode in this

13 case. Or actually what you say is, is not changing

14 any design parameters of its generating equipment, I

15 guess. So the upgrades described in the

16 Sargent & Lundy report, you do not consider them a

17 change to any design parameters? Is that correct or

18 incorrect?

A My understanding is that it's not a change

20 in the design parameters. It's a change, a

21 potential change in the operational needs. And I'm

22 aware that there is a requirement for additional

23 power because of the scrubbers that are being

24 installed for compliance with their equality.

Q On Page 2 of your testimony, you state

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

125

1 that Coffeen Lake supports a thriving fishery.

MR. RAO: If you don't mind, I think

Mr. Williams wanted to add more to that point.

MR. WILLIAMS: The study concerning the

operating of the units does not provide

additional heat input into the lake, if that's

your question. It's an upgrade in the

efficiency of the turbines, and it allows the

additional upgrade. We're not putting more

heat into the lake, if that was the question

you were asking.

MS. WILLIAMS: Well, that helps answer my

question I think, yeah.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. Thank you.

MS. WILLIAMS: I don't know if I

understand why.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's to do with the rotor

size, the blading design. You get more use out

of the work of the energy. It's the newer

turbine designs. But your steam -- no more

steam input is going through the unit;

therefore, no additional heat load into the

condenser. It's just an efficiency upgrade.

MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you.

Do you want me to repeat the question I

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

126

asked, Dr. McLaren?

MR. RODRIGUEZ: You probably need to, yes.

3 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q At the bottom of Page 2 of your testimony

5 you state that Coffeen Lake supports a thriving

6 fishery. And can you tell us what you mean by a

7 thriving fishery?

A (By Dr. McLaren) The lake is supporting a

9 great number of fishing tournaments that are

10 in -- specifically largemouth bass, but also there's

11 an active fishery for several other species,

12 including the channel catfish, white crappie. I

13 understand there are flathead catfish, white bass.

14 So there's several recreational species.

And the fishing -- there's surveys

16 that have been conducted by the Department of

17 Natural Resources that actually quantify the amount

18 of fishing pressure in the harvest. And all those

19 show to me that it is a very active fishery.

20 There's apparently an increasing demand, too, for

21 the support fishery that's there, including the

22 involvement of interscholastic teams from high

23 schools getting the experience on Coffeen Lake.

Q Is the concept of a thriving fishery

25 different than the concept of a balanced indigenous

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

127

1 community?

A Fisheries are managed, and this is a

3 particularly well-managed fishery. They're managed

4 for particular sport fish, more often than not. So

5 you would look at it in terms of the importance of a

6 particular game species that are being fished for

7 and exploited, but also for the overall community

8 composition. So the fish themselves that are being

9 managed are only a component of the overall balanced

10 community. And in all probability, you wouldn't

11 have a strong recreational fishery if you didn't

12 have a balanced community.

Q So do you believe there is a balanced

14 indigenous community in Coffeen Lake?

A I think it is balanced, yes.

Q I think it's in paragraph -- yes.

17 Paragraph 4 of your testimony, you state that recent

18 316(a) assessments have shown that the decision

19 criteria from the USEPA draft 316(a) guidance is

20 congruent with the 1998 guidelines for ecological

21 risk assessment. Are you following --

A Yes.

Q -- the section I'm talking about?

Do you have any citations to 316(a)

25 assessments that have shown this?

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

128

A We have conducted several 316(a)

2 demonstrations and in the process of doing so with

3 the general framework of the ecological risk

4 assessment. These are what might be called gray

5 literature because they're being prepared for our

6 clients. And we do have published literature on the

7 application of the ecological risk assessment

8 guidelines for 316(b) demonstrations that our firm

9 has published for Electric Power Research Institute.

10 And those references could be -- well, actually they

11 are cited here. They're 2002.

Q These are for 316(b)?

A The principles are very much the same.

14 It's the detail that changes.

The important thing is the fact that

16 you are looking at multiple lines of evidence and

17 that you are identifying the stressors and the

18 receptors and so forth. So it's a systematic

19 framework that is designed for not only chemical,

20 but also physical or whatever types of stressors

21 that can be adapted.

So our efforts that we've had in the

23 past -- well, actually, over 10 to 12 years have

24 been in that direction, that we have adopted since

25 the framework has come out, kinds of investigations

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

129

1 that would be patterned after the basic structure

2 and basic approaches of the ecological risk

3 assessment.

Q And I mean, what I'm getting at here, I

5 understand that you feel that the 316(a) and the

6 316(b) scenarios are similar or comparable, but in

7 this particular statement in your testimony, you say

8 recent 316(a) assessments have shown, and then at

9 the end when you provide a citation, it's to 316(b)

10 document. So I'm just wondering which 316(a)

11 assessments you're referring to in that statement.

A We have done 316(a) assessments for power

13 plants in the New York Metropolitan Area for Key

14 Span, now National Grid; for Public Service

15 Electric & Gas, and several others that follow the

16 kinds of structure that I'm talking about using the

17 ecological risk assessment type investigation.

The ecological risk assessment was

19 designed specifically for chemical stressors to

20 begin with, but then the EPA has actually suggested

21 that it could be adapted for any kinds of stressors.

Q Can you explain how you are defining the

23 term "fish passage" in Paragraph 8 of Page 5 of your

24 testimony? I think it says available data showed

25 that fish passage will not be impaired by the

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

130

1 marginal increases in water temperature during May

2 and October. If you could define "fish passage" for

3 us.

A Fish passage in this case is the movements

5 of fish within Coffeen Lake. It could be from one

6 arm of the lake to the other. It could be from one

7 cove of the lake to another. It could be -- it's

8 from the surface to depths, whatever.

Q And how does the mixing zone affect this

10 passage in this case?

A The mixing zone in my assessment is not

12 preventing fish passage. There are studies that

13 have been done by SIU. As I was mentioning during

14 my verbal testimony, sonic tag studies that have

15 shown specifically a largemouth bass and channel

16 catfish, that fish have moved freely within the lake

17 and commonly up to a mile or more, which is a

18 considerable distance.

Q Do you agree that entrapment of fish has

20 occurred in coves near the mixing zone resulting in

21 fish kills?

A This is a phenomenon that's been described

23 by SIU in their annual reports as a possible reason

24 for some limited fish mortality during the few of

25 their fish kills that they recorded. So I am

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

131

1 basically citing what they have said, but I would

2 agree that this could happen on rare instances where

3 fish are occupying a cove within the lake. And

4 they're citing specifically within the discharge arm

5 where they have taken refuge, but with a prolonged

6 temperature increase, have for one reason or

7 another, not vacated that water for temperatures in

8 the lake better suited for their preference, their

9 tolerance.

So on occasion, some limited numbers

11 of fish have been killed. And I think they've cited

12 two, and possibly three instances in the past, seven

13 years during the periods of their study, that that

14 might have happened. They described the fish that

15 were in that kill as being small, less than 7 inches

16 in length, and probably could have been or very

17 likely could have been schooling.

Q Could have been what?

A Schooling fish.

Q Okay. Do you consider this phenomenon

21 consistent with your definition of fish passage?

A Yes. Yes, I do. There are very few of

23 these instances that have happened. And when

24 they've happened, it happens once. And then after

25 that, even though the temperatures may remain

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

132

1 elevated for the remainder of the summer months,

2 there aren't any additional fish kills. So what I

3 would interpret that as, is that it's the odd group

4 of fish to which this is happening, and that passage

5 has been available for the others. There's

6 certainly a lot more fish in the lake than have been

7 observed to be killed during these events.

Q Okay. I'm trying to understand why you

9 consider it consistent with your definition.

10 Because of the number? Or because of the phenomenon

11 itself being consistent? I mean, to me, it seems

12 that if you're describing a phenomenon where fish

13 are trapped, and they cannot leave the cove, that

14 would be inconsistent with protecting for fish

15 passage. So explain to me why you don't agree.

A First of all, I don't know that they

17 cannot, but it's evident that they did not.

Q Okay.

A And we do have our hard evidence that fish

20 do move. Why these fish didn't move, I can't tell

21 you. I don't know. Maybe they could have moved and

22 they didn't. But as I was explaining, it's the rare

23 instance, and therefore fish are -- I think there's

24 a very ample demonstration that fish are moving to

25 areas that they can tolerate because they do

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

133

1 survive, and in the long run they do very well.

Q Is it correct that SIUC concluded that the

3 cause of these entrapments was sudden temperature

4 rise?

A Yes, sudden and prolonged temperature

6 rise.

Q Is it possible for a localized fish kill

8 to occur without being detected by humans?

A Fish kills is a very ambiguous term. I'm

10 not sure that I've ever seen a clear definition of

11 what a fish kill is, except when it's compared to a

12 massive kill, one of a size so as to be noticeable

13 to onlookers.

The Coffeen Lake, during the studies

15 that we've referred to, the SIU studies, was visited

16 by the staff on a weekly basis. So they had a lot

17 of time to be able to observe whether or not fish

18 kills were occurring. They did, on occasion, find

19 one or two fish that were floating, which could be

20 fish that have been caught and released. Everyone

21 knows who's ever been fishing that if you release a

22 fish that's been caught, there's a possibility of

23 delayed mortality of the fish. I wouldn't call that

24 a fish kill. I would call a fish kill something

25 that's noticeable and would be noticeable to the

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

134

1 public. And when such thing occurs, it is reported,

2 and the IDNR sends a representative to investigate

3 it. And the IDNR keeps a record in a file of fish

4 kills on lakes within the state.

Q Is it true that the SIUC researchers

6 concluded that at least some of the angling related

7 fish mortalities were caused by -- were in part

8 caused by thermal stress as well?

A I believe they did say that, but even if

10 they didn't, I would agree with that.

Q You would agree? Okay.

A That is a situation that can occur, and

13 whether or not the fish are kept or whatever, I

14 would say that that would be a byproduct of fishing,

15 whether it's commercial or recreational.

Q And you would agree, I assume, that fish

17 mortality is not the only negative impact, potential

18 negative impact on fish, correct?

A There are acute, and there are chronic

20 impacts on fish. So we were looking in terms of

21 both acute and chronic as was SIU.

Q I'd like to ask a few questions about

23 degree days because I'm not familiar with this

24 concept entirely. Do you know of any states that

25 have relied on degree days in setting water quality

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

135

1 standards?

A I would venture to say that that would be

3 a misapplication of degree days.

Q Okay. What would be a proper application

5 of the concept?

A Well, obviously what we did. It's used as

7 a heat input index when you're investigating the

8 effects of various variables or factors on a

9 population, whether it be fish or anything else.

10 And you want to investigate the effects of

11 temperature.

Degree days is a very useful index

13 that will allow you to measure what the overall

14 longer term heat input would be. It doesn't

15 differentiate what the instantaneous temperature of

16 water is, but it's a very reliable estimate as to

17 the sustained temperature.

When -- a question had arisen on

19 that, because it is such a familiar index to me and

20 throughout my career. I checked on just -- I am a

21 member of the American Fisheries Society, and I did

22 a literature search on the AFS publications and

23 found a hundred and eighty-five references to degree

24 days. So I think that's a very good indication that

25 it's a very commonly used index in scientific

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

136

1 investigations.

Q I think that would be good -- if we can

3 put back up the chart with the years on the degrees

4 days.

Can you explain for us why you

6 conclude that years with more degree days in May do

7 not also have more degree days in June or October?

8 Does that make sense?

A That chart shows the scatter plot of the

10 data points that we have available from the SIU

11 data. And they are temperatures that were measured

12 at the mixing zone boundary on a daily basis, the

13 mean daily temperatures. And that as I explained

14 the degree day, that is the difference between the

15 mean daily temperature and the threshold that we

16 used of 60 degrees Fahrenheit. As it turns out

17 during the period of time, most all temperatures are

18 greater than 60 degrees Fahrenheit. So there's no

19 exclusion of any days or anything like that.

This is a linear correlation analysis

21 regressing the May degree days on the remainder of

22 the growth period from June through October. So

23 we're looking for a statistical relationship. Is

24 there a consistent relationship where a warm May is

25 followed by a warm growth season or the remainder of

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

137

1 the year?

Q So can you -- I'm sorry. Can you go back

3 and repeat that for me? Maybe I missed it from your

4 testimony. What period are you saying that

5 virtually all the days are over 60 degrees?

A From the beginning of May through the end

7 of October, most of the days at the mixing zone

8 boundary are going to be greater than 60 degrees at

9 the surface.

Q Well, then how is this a useful tool?

A Because it integrates temperatures through

12 time. It isn't the number of days that are over 60

13 degrees. It's the difference between the

14 temperature itself for that day and 60 degrees. So

15 on warm summers when, let's say, a particular day is

16 85 degrees in one year, and it's 60 degrees in

17 another year, there's a difference there of

18 15-degree days. That's the measurement. That's the

19 index. So sustained warmer temperatures within a

20 particular year can be very different.

MS. WILLIAMS: Why don't you repeat what

you were saying.

DR. McLAREN: What he was pointing out, I

believe I said 15 degrees is the difference

between 85 and 60, and it's 25.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

138

MS. WILLIAMS: That's good. A lawyer can

do correct math.

DR. McLAREN: Well, he has the calculator

with him.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's about as far as I

go.

7 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q Isn't it true that that concept is used

9 primarily with regard to growing days; is that

10 correct?

A It can be used -- frequently, or probably

12 most frequently is a growth -- is related to growth.

13 But growth is a very important parameter for us to

14 be dealing with, and it's probably the biggest

15 difference in what makes Coffeen Lake such a great

16 fishery. It's a prolonged growth season and earlier

17 growth and development.

Q Did you look at any study that has used

19 the concept in the way that we're talking about

20 using here today?

A Yes, yes. In fact, one is cited in the

22 report. And it's for growth recruitment and several

23 other parameters, which they use three days.

Q In the literature cited?

I mean, I think I already asked you

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

139

1 if any states use this in setting standards, and you

2 answered that that would be an inappropriate use of

3 it. But is it -- well, point me to which study

4 you're talking about. Does that study look at

5 degree days in the context of setting a thermal

6 criteria or an individual source?

A The study itself is referenced in

8 Section 6 of our report on Page 6-1. This

9 particular one is authored by R.C. Beams

10 Durford (sp) and J.A. North, published in 1995.

11 "Growth Natural Mortality and Predicted Response to

12 Fishing for Largemouth Bass and Smallmouth Bass in

13 North America." I think you had two questions

14 there. That's the answer to your first question.

Q So, okay. I'm sorry, yes. So this study,

16 does this deal with fishing as opposed to thermal

17 conditions?

A It's the thermal regime. It's the thermal

19 environment. What effect does temperature have on

20 the welfare of the fishery.

Q And was it studying a natural --

A Yes, natural.

Q -- welfare?

A Natural, meaning that it was a non-cooling

25 lake. I believe that that was the case. I would

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

140

1 have to check, but I'm pretty sure it was.

Q I believe you testified -- your testimony

3 about how you selected 60 degrees. In your

4 testimony, I believe you referenced largemouth bass

5 spawning, correct?

A Yes.

Q Did you say something in your narrative

8 this morning about growth? I mean, I would expect

9 from what little I know about the concept, that most

10 of the studies look at the growth, the temperature

11 for growth. Is there a trigger? Or is "trigger" a

12 good word for the degree days?

A I think I understand what you mean, but --

Q I guess I'm asking, why did you use

15 spawning rather than growth? Or if that's not an

16 accurate summary of what you did, tell me what you

17 did.

A Optimal temperatures for growth is a very

19 commonly used thermal tolerance limit. And growth

20 can lead to several other things that are important

21 to the biology of the fish, including reproductive

22 success, survival, food habits and so forth. And so

23 these are really interrelated.

And the literature is replete with

25 references to how temperature affects growth

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

141

1 positively, which in turn can help survival for

2 largemouth bass in particular. It allows them to

3 grow to a certain size that they can become fish

4 eaters, what are called piscivorous, and so that

5 their energy input is increased. So it's a positive

6 influence on several population parameters.

Q Both is or --

A Temperature.

Q Oh, temperature.

A I think you asked specifically about

11 spawning?

Q Is it correct you said in your testimony

13 6 degrees is the low level -- 60. Sorry. 60

14 degrees Fahrenheit is the lower end of the

15 largemouth spawning temperature; is that correct?

A That's right.

Q And what is the lower end of the preferred

18 growth temperature for largemouth bass; do you know?

A It's about 50 degrees.

Q Why did you select 60 instead of 50?

21 That's the question I was trying to ask, but I

22 didn't know the number to stick in it.

A Okay. It was a dual purpose. For one

24 thing, it's a biologically meaningful choice using

25 60 degrees, and I believe they used 50 degrees for

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

142

1 their study, as several others have, because it's a

2 reasonable representative of the lower growth limit.

3 But 60 degrees measured at the mixing zone boundary

4 would be equivalent to relief for the situations

5 very close to 50 degrees throughout the remainder of

6 the lake. So not only would 60 work for the

7 temperature within the discharge arm for spawning,

8 it would also be a good representative measure for

9 growth in the remainder of the lake.

Q When you say remainder of the lake, I

11 mean, you don't mean the entire remainder of the

12 lake, do you?

A I mean, areas where elevated temperature

14 or excess temperatures do not occur. So that's at

15 greater depths because we know --

Q Outside the cooling loop? Is that what

17 you're talking about?

A Not only outside the cooling loop, but at

19 depths beneath the thermal plume and in coves and in

20 embays.

Q You agree that largemouth bass are

22 spawning in May at Coffeen Lake?

A Yes. I would say the great majority of

24 spawning would be over by May. What happens in

25 cooling lakes is that fish will react to the

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

143

1 temperatures that are present in the waters that

2 they occupy, and that has been documented not only

3 in Coffeen Lake, but in Newton Lake and Lake

4 Sangchris and others is that there could be

5 different spawning times based upon the temperature

6 that's within that particular arm of the lake. So I

7 won't say that there would be absolutely no spawning

8 of largemouth bass in May, but the predominant

9 amount of spawning should be well over by May, and

10 it has been documented to occur into March and April

11 anyway.

Q Do you think that this relief will affect

13 the dates of spawning?

A No.

Q Why not?

A Because it would be after the peak

17 spawning period.

Q Did you look -- this may seem silly, but I

19 think when you pointed to your chart, you indicated

20 if you look at 2007 --

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Which chart are we looking

at?

MS. WILLIAMS: Figure 2-17.

Q One could see an example of a point

where the total degree days -- well, can you

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

144

explain again what you were saying that this

point in 2007 does show a correlation?

A No. In order to have a correlation, you

4 have to have a number of data points. One data

5 point does not a correlation make.

Q Is 2006 a data point?

A It's the overall pattern.

When you do any egression, it's a

9 matter of predictability. How well does that

10 particular variable predict what will happen under

11 certain circumstances? And that's what we're

12 dealing with here. You're using multiple data

13 points, because obviously you don't predict on the

14 basis of one year or two years. It's on the basis

15 of several years.

What this relationship is showing us

17 is that in some instances, you can have both the

18 warm spring and a warm summer as in 2007. And we

19 know it because that's been one of the trigger years

20 for this whole relief effort. But that you can also

21 have a warm May, as in 2001 or 2000, followed by a

22 very moderate or cooled summertime. The reason

23 being is what determines the summer temperature,

24 June through -- or June through whatever months you

25 want -- and this is June through October -- is not

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

145

1 what has occurred in May, but what are the

2 conditions during the summer that influence the

3 ability of Coffeen Lake to shed its heat load.

Q Is it your testimony that when there are

5 more degree days in May through September, there is

6 a correlation with more degree days in October?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Did you look for a correlation

9 between maximum temperatures and impacts on fish?

A I did. I didn't run a statistical

11 analysis of it, but I did look at the maximum

12 temperatures within each of the years. And it was

13 apparent to me, just looking at that, that there

14 wasn't a relationship. So I didn't proceed any

15 further.

Q And if there had been a relationship,

17 would that have changed your opinion?

A I would have to see what the results were.

Q On Page 7, you state that 200 or fewer

20 fish recovered is considered a limited fish kill.

A Yes.

Q What would you consider for a lake this

23 size a medium or a large fish kill?

A I have been aware of fish kills that have

25 been caused by factors other than temperature that

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

146

1 are greater, much greater in magnitude than that.

2 It would have to be in the context of the population

3 size that you're dealing with.

I think the important thing is here,

5 if you've only got five fish, losing two of them, is

6 that an important -- is that a fish kill? If you

7 have a fairly large population -- if you lose 200

8 fish, is that a limited fish kill? And to put that

9 into context, you'd have to put it in terms of what

10 you believe the population size to be and how does

11 it relate to the numbers of fish there lost.

And in the long run, when something

13 like that happens, do you see a depressed abundance

14 in future years of the fish or any other indicator

15 that this fish kill has affected the population

16 status?

So when I say limited fish kill, in

18 many cases here -- I don't remember exactly on this

19 one -- but 200 fish is not a difficult number of

20 fish to get, especially when they're small. When we

21 go out and collect fish from a cove with

22 electrofishing, we can get well over 200 fish in

23 five minutes. So on that basis, I would say that is

24 limited.

Q So it's relative?

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

147

A It is relative.

Q On Page 8, Paragraph 15, the first

3 sentence of that paragraph states, "Since 1999, the

4 station has adopted several measures to avoid

5 thermal conditions similar to those that might have

6 led to the 1999 fish effect." What specifically do

7 you believe caused the 1999 event that can be

8 mitigated? So one factor was certainly weather.

9 Nothing they could do to mitigate the weather. So

10 what are you referring to in this sentence?

A At that time, the supplemental cooling

12 towers and the cooling lake were not installed. So

13 the only control that the station would have would

14 be in the input of heat to the lake, derating or

15 something like that. The station did monitor

16 temperatures at that time, but now they've got a

17 tool to keep temperatures at a lower level than they

18 had in 1999 overall. The heat input to the lake

19 through heat loss, through the cooling pond and the

20 cooling towers would help.

Q But the average temperatures at the edge

22 of the mixing zone has not gone down since

23 installation of this technology, have they?

A I'm not sure. I would have to look to

25 verify that. Temperature being what it is, I don't

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

148

1 recall that I looked at an average temperature for a

2 whole season or anything like that, but I have

3 looked specifically at temperature patterns. And in

4 our report, we actually do show what the mean daily

5 temperatures were for the years that fish kills

6 occurred. I haven't looked at specifically,

7 say -- except for degree days. We did the analysis

8 of degree days, but not in terms of maximum

9 temperature or average temperature. The degree days

10 probably would be a fairly good reflection of the

11 average temperature.

So on that basis, we do show in the

13 report in one of our figures that the years, the

14 most recent years, I believe from 2004 through

15 2007 -- in our report Figure 2-16, there's a plot of

16 the degree days on a monthly basis. And from that,

17 also a ranking of years and degree days, and the

18 four most recent years were ranked higher in terms

19 of heat exposures, so.

Q Which I think I remember which table

21 you're referring to.

A I'm sorry. I can be more explicit. It's

23 Table 2-2 in our report on Page 224.

So even though the temperature or the

25 cumulative temperature -- if you want to call it

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

149

1 that, the degree day index -- is higher during these

2 most recent years, the kind of fish kill that

3 occurred in 1999 has not occurred during this time

4 period.

Q Do you have an opinion about why?

A My opinion is, it's part of it, that it

7 would be the use of the cooling towers.

Q But how?

A By leveling off the temperature inputs.

Q Could it be the maximum?

A It could be.

Q Okay.

A Probably a very but overriding factor is

14 the weather. And from all indications, that what

15 caused that one anomalous type kill that we referred

16 to in July of 1999, was a situation -- I don't want

17 to call it the perfect storm, but I think it's been

18 used every once in a while, of a very prolonged

19 period of high ambient temperatures, relative

20 humidity, very calm weather and cloud cover. And

21 that particular instance was reflected in fish kills

22 that occurred outside of Coffeen Lake as well as

23 including some non-cooling lakes.

Q Turning back to Page 8 again of your

25 testimony. In Paragraph 16, you state that you

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

150

1 looked at the thermal requirements of the lake's

2 fish populations as reported in the literature,

3 correct?

A Mm-hmm, yes.

Q And the end of your report, I believe you

6 provide a table with some Appendix A?

A Yes.

Q Does this table reflect the literature

9 you're referring to?

A Yes.

Q Does it reflect all the literature you

12 looked at or certain literature that you selected

13 for use?

A It was literature that best represented

15 what we are experiencing here. It's not all the

16 literature. The main reason it's not all the

17 literature is that these laboratory studies have

18 relied -- which determine temperature tolerance in

19 terms of what's known as upper incipient lethal

20 temperature or the critical maximum temperature, are

21 where fish are acclimated to a certain temperature

22 and then exposed very quickly in the case of the

23 upper incipient lethal temperature or in fairly

24 rapid steps in the case of critical thermal maximum.

Stepping up the temperature, the

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

151

1 important thing being, the variable being what

2 temperature fish have been acclimated to. So if

3 you're looking at the literature for fish that have

4 been acclimated to very cool temperatures, the UILT

5 is going to be lower than the higher acclimation

6 temperature. So these data are the available data

7 that we have for a high acclimation temperature,

8 something much closer to the realistic conditions

9 that we are dealing with here.

Q Okay. So you --

A It's the chronic exposure to warmer

12 temperatures to which they are acclimated.

Q You set aside studies that you found that

14 have lower acclimation temperatures?

A As being inappropriate, because the fish

16 would not have been acclimated to those temperatures

17 when experiencing these.

Q Did you have a specific cutoff of where

19 you decided to throw out a study? Or did you just

20 look for studies with the highest --

A I've looked for studies that had the

22 higher acclimation temperatures, something where

23 there isn't such a drastic temperature change.

The reason that we relied on a

25 limited scale on this type of data is that it gives

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

152

1 us an indication. I think thermal preference is a

2 very good temperature tolerance variable. But we

3 know what would be the temperatures that would be

4 best for the species that we should allow that they

5 would be present within Coffeen Lake and not

6 necessarily at the edge of the mixing zone.

MS. WILLIAMS: Can we put the proposed

standard site back up?

Q Can you tell me, Dr. McLaren, what is

the -- I'm going to call it lethal end point.

Is that acceptable? I assume you might have

used a UILT, or you might have used a CTM

study, depending on what were the data. Is

that correct? Or did you only use UILT studies

in your research?

A We used whatever was available.

Q So can I refer to them collectively as

18 lethal end points for now?

A Okay.

Q What is the lethal end point for

21 largemouth bass?

A Well, what we've provided in Appendix A

23 for an adult largemouth bass -- let's say it's

24 acclimated to 30 degrees centigrade. The maximum

25 temperature in this case -- I believe it was UILT,

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

153

1 upper incipient lethal temperature, was 36.4 degrees

2 centigrade.

Q Uh-oh. Can you translate for us?

A Well, I can, because I did the calculation

5 myself once.

Q How about 97? I don't know if that's --

A It's 97, about 97.3 degrees. I'd have to

8 get the calculator.

Q So you're saying that's the upper

10 incipient lethal temperature for largemouth bass?

A That laboratory study tells us that. I'm

12 not saying that that's true necessarily.

Q What about bluegill?

A It would be an appendix. As it turns out,

15 most of those species have very similar temperatures

16 that are derived that way in laboratory studies.

Q I still want you to point to me the one

18 for bluegill.

A Well, a bluegill, an adult bluegill, a CTM

20 value that was published by a fairly standard

21 fisheries reference was 41.5 degrees centigrade. So

22 multiply that by approximately 2, and add 32

23 degrees, and it's pretty darn warm.

Q But then you found another study at 38.3?

A Well, it was acclimated to a temperature

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

154

1 of 16 degrees Fahrenheit lower. That's quite a

2 shot. Bluegills are a good example of very

3 heat-tolerant species.

Q Okay. Would you say the same about

5 largemouth bass?

A Yes.

Q What about channel catfish?

A There's not as much information, but from

9 the looks of it, they're not very different. They

10 are also heat-tolerant species.

Q Would you say white crappie is a heat

12 tolerant --

A Not as heat tolerant, no, as the others.

Q Did you look at what the avoidance

15 temperatures or the optimum temperatures were for

16 the three species you focussed on?

A Yes, I did.

Q Okay. And can you tell us? Are they in

19 Appendix A as well?

A We did not include that. So I don't have

21 them readily available, but I do have a little bit.

The preference temperature for, let's

23 say, largemouth bass in the literature has been

24 fairly wide range from the approximately -- well,

25 from 79.7 degrees, 79.7 Fahrenheit to 89.6 degrees

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

155

1 Fahrenheit. That would be the final

2 preferendum (phonetic).

Q Would you agree, Dr. McLaren, that looking

4 at the literature, that either of the lethal end

5 points that are used would likely be exceeded with

6 the three species that we're looking at by the

7 maximum temperatures for May and October?

A Yes, they would be.

Q Okay.

A The maximum temperatures outside are at

11 the boundary of the mixing zone at the surface. The

12 key thing to remember is that the temperature, as I

13 had mentioned in my verbal testimony, the

14 temperature at depth and at distance from that

15 particular location can be very much cooler on the

16 order of 10 to 15 degrees cooler, and that's within

17 the cooling.

Q I mean, would you agree, though, that if

19 the entire cooling loop uniformly was at the limits

20 of the relief requested, that even these three

21 fairly thermal tolerant species would not be living

22 there?

A You're asking me to -- let me make sure I

24 understand what you're asking.

Q I'm sorry. That's kind of complex. Go

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

156

1 ahead.

A You're saying if the lake were isothermal?

Q Right.

A Uniform temperature at these limits, would

5 it be suitable habitat?

Q Right.

A No, it would not. But, of course, that's

8 not the situation and won't be in the cooling lake.

9 Certainly this cooling lake.

Q Right. And in your opinion, it's

11 environmentally acceptable that fish need to leave

12 portions of the lake, correct? I mean, is that

13 accurate?

A Every environment has that -- every

15 natural environment has that situation. If I go to

16 any water body where there's -- fish are allowed to

17 immigrate or emigrate, egress or ingress, you're

18 going to find a difference in the species

19 composition determined by this temperature

20 preference for those species. And some temperatures

21 can be very much higher than what we're dealing

22 with, and the fish avoid them. That's what fish do.

Q Would there be a point at which too large

24 of the lake is being used? Is no longer suitable

25 habitat? Is there some point at which you would say

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

157

1 that is too much?

A Yes.

Q Do you know what that point would be?

A I don't from the kind of information that

5 we were discussing. I do from what we have.

We have 10 years or 8 years of

7 biological data -- and this is a rare opportunity.

8 There aren't too many water bodies where you have

9 eight consecutive years of detailed fishery

10 statistics to work with like we do here. And the

11 indicators that you would have would be if you can

12 find a relationship between the population

13 parameters, like growth, survival, reproduction,

14 life-stage occurrence and so forth, and temperature,

15 or if you find fish kills. On a massive scale, that

16 would be significant. So we have the very best, and

17 I propose much better, truer information from this

18 kind of study than we do from laboratory studies.

19 It actually says this is the way a population

20 responds to this condition.

Q On Page 3-1 of your report -- and I think

22 there's also a footnote on Page 9 of the petition,

23 there's a statement that says, "The representative

24 with RIS" -- what's the "I" stand for?

A Important.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

158

Q Important. Sorry. "Of the representative

2 important species should be chosen to adequately

3 represent those not chosen." Can you explain why

4 largemouth bass, channel catfish and bluegill

5 adequately represent the other species not chosen,

6 including white crappie and gizzard shad?

A I can from two aspects.

One is that these three species are

9 the basis, the primary basis, or at least three of

10 the bases for species for a recreational fishery.

11 It's the fish species that are being managed for it

12 by the DNR. One of the criteria for RIS is either

13 commercially or recreationally important species,

14 which they are.

Secondly, they

16 reproduce -- self-reproducing populations within the

17 lake. If they didn't reproduce in the lake, it

18 wouldn't be a good representative species.

There are lots of species that are

20 transient, or they are stocked, and they certainly

21 wouldn't be representative.

And they are also representative

23 because they are predatory species that will reflect

24 the status of the lower trophic levels. In reality,

25 too, that they are also the species for which we

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

159

1 have data to work with in the long-term database.

Q That doesn't hurt.

A The hard fact reality is that the

4 decisions that were made back in the 1980s and '90s,

5 that those were the species of interest. And the

6 reason being that although white crappie has been a

7 valuable sport fish in the lake at times, it's a

8 very cyclic species. That's very poorly understood

9 on why it's cyclic. It depends upon periodic

10 success of your classes. And if you have a year

11 class failure, you can have a very changing

12 structure that wouldn't be very conducive to trying

13 to detect changes unless you happen to know that

14 it's temperature related influence that causes a

15 year class failure. I haven't found anybody in my

16 field who can tell me that.

And gizzard shad -- you did

18 ask -- let me finish that.

Q Yes.

A Gizzard shad wasn't used primarily because

21 gizzard shad traditionally can reproduce the heck

22 out of a lake or any other water body. They're just

23 a very abundant forage species, but it's more

24 difficult to get a good clear index of their

25 abundance using the gear that's been used by the

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

160

1 DNR, and that's nearshore. That's a pelagic

2 species. So we don't have an effective pelagic

3 fishing gear to track those. But traditionally

4 those have not been the limiting factor. They may

5 have limited the abundance of other species, but

6 they, themselves, have done very well.

Q But just to be clear, in looking at

8 representativeness in this context,

9 representativeness of a range of thermal tolerance

10 was not a factor that was considered; is that

11 correct?

A It was not a direct factor. This is a

13 lake that has been managed for these species and

14 have survived in these species. So they are a good

15 indicator species for the fish composition of the

16 community that exists.

Q On Page 9, you discuss Sargent & Lundy's

18 study, and you refer to it as near-worst case

19 operating conditions, and it looks at mean daily

20 temperatures. Can you just tell me is this term

21 "mean daily temperatures" different than a daily

22 average? I think maybe there's some different terms

23 used.

A You have to be very careful in the

25 wording, and I'm not sure that this is the case

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

161

1 here. But a mean daily average and a daily mean

2 average could be two different things.

Q And do you know if they are two different

4 things?

A In this case, they are daily averages.

Q Okay. And it's different obviously than

7 the daily maximum --

A Yes.

Q -- obviously? Okay.

So the Lake-T modeling, this is the

11 Lake-T modeling you're talking about?

A This is.

Q Is this one-dimensional modeling provided

14 anywhere in the record?

A I'm sorry. What was the question?

Q The information -- another document that I

17 could not find, I believe, was the modeling. I did

18 not see anything in here except for your description

19 and your testimony and in the petition about them of

20 modeling.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: You're asking about the

Lake-T modeling in Sargent & Lundy? And

Sargent & Lundy provided a little bit of

follow-up, but other than that, we don't have

them here with us today. So I left them out.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

162

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay.

Q Do you know what then the near-worst

case means as to those worst cases?

A I know what I meant.

Q Okay. I'm sorry. What did you mean?

A That was actually my terminology. It's

7 near-worst case because the model was run, as I had

8 explained, with using 1987 as a warmer than average

9 ambient spring temperatures. So the meteorological

10 conditions were conducive to warmer temperatures for

11 the base year that they used and also the operation

12 or the heat loading.

The model was run to find what limits

14 would be if the plant were operated under the

15 existing thermal limits and under the proposed

16 thermal limits. And they used at maximum

17 generation, which nominally was called greater than

18 90 percent operation, but in actuality, it could be

19 significantly higher than 90 percent.

As I said in my verbal testimony,

21 it's my understanding that all of a sudden, the

22 generation was 97 percent. And the model was

23 allowed on a day-by-day basis to put in this maximum

24 heat input until the temperature rose within 3

25 degrees of the limit, in which case they would kick

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

163

1 in the helper towers.

As background, the cooling pond loop

3 was operating, but they managed keeping the

4 temperatures below the maximum and the mean by

5 operating the cooling towers. So that's what we

6 say, a warmer than average ambient temperature with

7 the plant running full out, while staying within the

8 temperature limits of either proposed or existing.

In reality, for the reasons that Jim

10 Williams delineated, the plant would not be expected

11 to be doing this all the time. They're not going to

12 be running maximum in the months of May.

Q Would you agree that if the fish in this

14 lake were already stressed, that increasing the

15 temperatures in May and October would increase their

16 stress?

A That's a hypothetical that I would find to

18 be unrealistic. No, I don't believe that the fish

19 are already stressed. So this is a hypothetical

20 that I would need to know a lot more information

21 than that.

Q I think I'll save that for some of Joey's

23 questions when she gets more into that.

In your report, I believe you

25 indicated that with regard to the UILT and the CTM

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

164

1 lethal end points, that it is common to use a

2 2 degree Celsius safety factor. Would those end

3 points in establishing --

A Yes, that's routinely used.

Q Okay. Thank you.

And I think it's on Page 4-3 of your

7 report, you indicate that the modeling results found

8 that the median temperature will be 95 degrees

9 Fahrenheit in May. Is there anywhere I can look?

MR. RODRIGUEZ: I'm sorry. What page did

you say?

MS. WILLIAMS: 4-3.

DR. McLAREN: That's operating under this

near-worst condition.

15 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q And I just want to clarify. I mean, I

17 think you may have already -- there's nowhere I can

18 look in the record to find those numbers myself,

19 right? If I want to see what's the max or what's

20 the average going to be the first week in May versus

21 the last week in May, there's nothing that's been

22 provided so far for me to see that in the records;

23 is that correct?

MR. RODRIGUEZ: I have no idea where

you're even talking about right now. Where are

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

165

you? Are we talking about a particular figure?

MS. WILLIAMS: He's referencing details

from the modeling that was done. And I'm

asking -- and it's on Page 4-3.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Of the ASA report.

MS. WILLIAMS: Of his report, yeah.

Q According to the model, the median

temperature, 58 percentile at the edge of the

mixing zone during May would be approximately

95 degrees Fahrenheit under the proposed

standards compared to approximately 88 degrees

Fahrenheit on existing. I would like to know,

for example, what the average is? That's a

median, right? That's different than a

average. I don't know much math, but I know

there's a difference. I would like to know

what the maximum is going to be. But that

information, is that in here somewhere where I

can find it in the charts?

A Yes.

Q Okay.

A Yes. It is shown actually for the 1987

23 base year in that figure that I had up on the board,

24 Figure 4-4. It shows the actual daily temperatures

25 that were modeled. It actually shows the mean daily

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

166

1 temperatures that were modeled on a day-to-day basis

2 with the 1987 base year. The solid line being the

3 solid line.

And as I said, it's an artificial

5 construct because the modeler is maximizing the

6 potential output of the lake while keeping the

7 temperature at the mean threat, of the mean limit of

8 96 degrees Fahrenheit. So it's not a coincidence

9 that the median temperature would be 95 degrees

10 Fahrenheit when it's artificially being run to get

11 there.

Q Okay. I think it would be a lot more

13 helpful to me if we had the actual data. And that

14 may just be my inability to line up these little

15 numbers with the lines.

A Okay. This is the figure that I'm talking

17 about, 4-4.

Q Okay.

A The other one shows the percentiles.

20 Figure 4-1 and 4-2 show the percentiles, and that's

21 where the median would come from, but the actual

22 temperatures, the actual mean daily temperatures are

23 plotted on 4-4.

Q Okay. Thank you. That's very helpful.

A And as a reminder, those are temperatures

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

167

1 at the mixing zone boundary surface.

Q Right. Would you agree with

3 regard -- because I think you testified earlier when

4 you were using this exhibit about your conclusion,

5 that for a period during May and October, there's

6 going to be a difference between current and

7 proposed, but that those differences will come

8 together relatively quickly, right?

A Yes.

Q I would like to talk about October from

11 this chart. I'm having a hard time -- is

12 October 1st the little black line between

13 September 29th and October 13th? Or is that --

A Well, I can't tell you, looking at which

15 data is actually which date. But it looks to me

16 like -- well, certainly we're in October well before

17 the temperatures start to diverge there.

Q Okay. Because what I see in these two

19 graphs is there's a precipitous drop either way

20 prior to them then going back up under this relief;

21 is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Are you concerned at all that this relief

24 will alter this natural pattern at this point in the

25 fall of increasing temperatures when they have been

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

168

1 going down so? So in your --

A No, I'm not, no. If you look with this

3 rapid drop, that rapid drop is occurring regardless

4 of what the thermal limits are. And it's a natural

5 phenomenon because the nights get colder and the

6 days get shorter, and that's going to occur.

Q But under the --

A But under the revised limits, the

9 temperature will hit a bit of a plateau according to

10 these worst-case situations, but the temperature

11 difference is not very great and would converge by

12 the beginning of November.

Actually, as a fisheries biologist, I

14 clap my hands because that lengthens the growing

15 season for the fish. It gives them a better ability

16 to bulk up for the winter probably better over

17 winter survival to attain larger growths. That sort

18 of thing happens in the fish hatchery.

Q As a fisheries biologist, are you

20 concerned at all about whether the winter

21 temperatures are sufficiently low to allow for a

22 natural processes?

A No. I'm only aware of one or two species

24 that have to go through a refractory winter period

25 to bring about spawning, and those species don't

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

169

1 occur in this lake.

Q Would you be able to say that most species

3 do not need that period? Or is it just something

4 that's not known at this time?

A I'm not aware of anything I've seen in the

6 literature that would contradict that most species

7 do not need.

Q So you believe most species do not?

A I don't think that's the controlling

10 factor. It's the oddity in my experience that they

11 have to have the cold temperature. And I think

12 yellow perch is the one species that I recall has to

13 have that. Certainly it's not the species that

14 we're dealing with in this lake.

MS. WILLIAMS: I think I'm going to turn

this over to my cocounsel. I've just tried to

help you -- Dr. McLaren, I tried to focus on

what you call the prospective study type

issues. I think Ms. Logan's questions are

going to look at the retrospective issue.

CROSS EXAMINATION

22 BY MS. LOGAN-WILKEY:

Q Good afternoon. Are you familiar with the

24 lake management report done by IDNR done in 2007?

A Yes, I am.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

170

Q It was attached as Exhibit 12 to the

2 petition.

On Page 9 of your answers to the

4 Hearing Officer order, you state that the fish have

5 frequently demonstrated exemplary growth and

6 condition.

A Yes.

Q Can you explain to me what you mean by

9 exemplary growth and condition?

A Well, let's do growth first.

Growth, we have reported in our

12 report here where we've compared mean size at age

13 for young, at a year, and older fish. And I think

14 we will follow by age within this population versus

15 other populations in the Midwest and in the South,

16 and Southeast. And we found for some species, like

17 the largemouth bass, that Newton Lake is the only

18 other lake that had fish growth as great as we have

19 here. That's including some of the southern lakes,

20 including all the southern lakes that I found in my

21 survey. I'm not saying that there can't be another

22 lake somewhere, but in readily available

23 information, some species like largemouth bass are

24 larger and remain so throughout their lifespan.

Q What about condition?

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

171

A Condition factor that's used most

2 currently right now is a relative weight index, and

3 that's a ratio of the weight of the fish, the mean

4 weight of the fish for an ideal weight for that

5 species across its range with an index of 100

6 representing a optimal condition and a good

7 management target.

Q Okay. Do you have that report in front of

9 you? Or would you like to look at it? I wanted to

10 get into some specific questions about each species

11 of the fish.

A I don't know if I have it here in front of

13 me.

Q I have it if you need a copy.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Do you guys have an extra

copy?

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: Yeah, we do. That is

Attachment 12 to the petition, the lake

management status report in 2007.

DR. McLAREN: Okay. Thank you.

21 BY MS. LOGAN-WILKEY:

Q If you look at Page 2 of the report, it

23 states that bluegill had a catch per unit effort

24 ranging from 60 to 89.

A Bluegill from 60 to 89, yes.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

172

Q And the lake management program goal is

2 greater than 100; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q What do you think the reason is maybe for

5 that? Do you think that temperature could be having

6 an effect on bluegill for the catch per unit effort

7 numbers seen?

A The answer to that is, in the long-term

9 database that I looked at, I don't think so. I

10 think there are more controlling factors than

11 temperature because they're undersized, and

12 typically they're very small and in poor condition.

Q Okay.

A But I don't see that as -- I saw no

15 evidence that it was temperature doing that.

Q Okay. So you stated that they tend to be

17 small in the lake. What is the relative weight for

18 bluegill if you look there on Page 2?

A Yes. The relative weight has ranged from

20 82 to 89.

Q And what is the lake management program

22 goal?

A 90. 90 is the minimum, 90 to a hundred

24 and ten.

Q Ninety to a hundred and ten. I guess what

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

173

1 would your thinking be as far as to why they aren't

2 reaching the lake management program goals for

3 relative weight and for the catch per unit effort?

4 If you want to take those one at a time.

A Well, relative weight, I would guess to be

6 because they're overpopulated for their food base,

7 or they're competing with other species that are

8 insectivorous. And that's a very common phenomenon

9 in bluegill, particularly in almost -- in several

10 bluegill lakes. You can have one -- not necessarily

11 regional thing, that they're doing very well, and

12 others that they become stunted in their growth. So

13 we have, I think, in our analysis in our report, we

14 show very strong evidence that they're becoming

15 stunted.

Q Okay.

A That they're doing very well in their

18 first or second year, but then after that, they're

19 smaller at a particular age than in other

20 populations. And that's typically what happens in

21 stunted bluegills. And fisheries

22 scientists -- fisheries managers, let me say, have

23 made a living at it trying to get over that hump.

Q Okay. And you said that they are stunted.

25 And in the DNR report and the narrative there states

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

174

1 that they're continuing to struggle. So would you

2 say this is just typical of what we see with

3 bluegill in lakes and not related to temperature?

A It happens in probably more than half the

5 lakes. And it's happened from my reading of the

6 record, from the earliest studies that have been

7 done on Coffeen Lake and other lakes that are

8 comparable.

Q Okay. Does feeding tend to slow down with

10 higher temperatures in the summer in bluegill? How

11 do they react as far as their feeding goes?

A They're adapted to fairly warm

13 temperatures. So is there a point where they stop

14 feeding? Yes. Have they reached that point? I

15 don't think so.

Q Do you know what that point would be?

A No, but you'd have to think that it was

18 close to the upper range of their preferred

19 temperature.

Q And what did you say that temperature is,

21 the range of their temperature?

A I don't have that in front of me, but

23 since the lethal temperatures are fairly high, the

24 preferred temperatures would be high, too.

Q On Page 3-7 of the ASA report, you state

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

175

1 that competition for food is limiting the growth of

2 bluegill.

A That would be my reading.

Q Could the competition be caused by higher

5 temperatures in the winter? Because there are so

6 many of them, they're growing, and then there are

7 too many of them for the food population that they

8 have?

A I didn't see any evidence.

First of all, the kinds of things

11 that we see happening here occur in non-cooling

12 lakes. It's not specific to this particular lake or

13 the cooling lakes in general. So there's more than

14 adequate explanations, and I can't pinpoint which

15 one they are, but the net result of it is that they

16 are stunting. The growth is poor.

Q Okay. Do bluegill generally have higher

18 food demands when temperatures are warmer?

A Yes.

Q They do? Okay.

So those demands would slow down in

22 the winter?

A Yes. At the same time, in an unheated

24 lake, they would slow down. In a heated lake,

25 during the wintertime, you're probably in a good

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

176

1 optimal range. So what I would expect to occur in a

2 lake that's a cooling lake is that the growth season

3 would be -- on a species like that, certainly in the

4 spring and in the fall -- and I wouldn't be

5 surprised in the winter as well -- as long as food

6 is available, and it would be typical that in warmer

7 lakes, that the growth can slow down in the

8 summertime at higher temperatures.

Q Okay. Now, if you could turn to the

10 channel catfish. The report states that the catch

11 per unit effort has met the objective greater than

12 10. What does it say about relative weight per

13 catfish in 2006?

A Yes. This is the DNR status report.

Q I'm sorry, yes. The lake management.

A Okay. The lake management status report?

Q Yes.

A Channel catfish?

Q Channel catfish.

A Could you repeat that?

Q In 2006. Sure. The catch per unit effort

22 has met the objective of greater than 10.

A Yes.

Q What does it say about relative weight per

25 channel catfish in 2006?

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

177

A In some years -- oh, in 2006, it's just

2 below it. It's at 85 rather than 90.

Q Okay. And what was it in 2003? Or I'm

4 sorry. In 2000?

A In 2000, it was 93.

Q And on Page 3 in the narrative, what does

7 DNR say about catfish, the channel catfish

8 population?

A Do you want me to read it?

Q Yes. Could you read that for me?

A "Conversely, channel catfish abundance has

12 risen over the past two samples. The fall 2006

13 catch effort was 11 fish per hour which relates to

14 the four-year mean of seven fish per hour. This

15 population continues in anguish."

Q I would just ask you to stop there. What

17 do you think they mean by that, that it continues in

18 anguish? Are they talking about the size or of the

19 abundance?

A I have no idea.

Q Okay.

A I'm not anguished about it.

Q Okay. And then they go on to state that

24 body condition has declined since this increase and

25 catch per unit effort has come to fruition. What

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

178

1 could be the cause? Is that, again, competition for

2 food? Or could that be an effective temperature?

3 Or why do you think that --

A I think it's a competition for food,

5 crippling the population size and probably

6 maintaining the same food base.

Q Would you say that by warming the lake, we

8 are seeing greater abundance, but lower quality

9 fish?

A No.

Q No?

A Fish -- year to year, it's very variable

13 in terms of reproduction particularly. You know,

14 all the stars have to align to get an

15 exceptional -- that's a metaphor. All the

16 variables, particularly the abiotic, the physical

17 variables, timing and so forth have to align to have

18 an exceptional year class.

There's something that's happened

20 within the past two, three years here for channel

21 catfish and largemouth bass that has caused

22 excellent reproduction of these species, and it's

23 increasing the abundance of the small fish.

Now, I'd have to look again, but I

25 think that -- I have to remember if -- the large

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

179

1 fish have increased in abundance for channel

2 catfish. So in this case, I think what's happening

3 is there's a recruitment of strong year classes from

4 early 2000, 2001 period to the most recent years

5 where we're having more and larger catfish in the

6 population. You see that in terms of the index that

7 they refer to as the RSD 20 and the RSD 18. That's

8 relative stock density. That's the ratio of fish

9 larger than 18 inches or larger than 20 inches

10 compared to a stock size fish.

Q Okay. And looking at your ASA report, I

12 believe this is Page 3-21 and Figure 3-20 -- Figure

13 3-10 on Page 3-21. If we look there at the size of

14 the catfish, and we exclude the year 1997, isn't

15 there a trend of the fish becoming smaller as we

16 approach from 2000 -- well, actually, it looks like

17 in all of those years, is there a negative relation

18 if we exclude 1997, the relative weight of catfish?

A I would venture that if we exclude 2004,

20 you'd have a flatline. I'm not sure why we'd want

21 to exclude 1997.

Q Well, just looking at the more recent

23 years and past few years, from 1998 forward, during

24 the time that SIU was conducting the studies, would

25 you see --

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

180

A I'm sorry. When I look at that, I see no

2 relationship between degree days and the mean

3 relative weight. Once you start pulling out gears,

4 you can do that ad nauseam.

Q That's fine. We will move on then.

Turning to the Coffeen Lake, the

7 report states that in 2000, the catch per unit

8 effort was 168. And has it decreased or increased

9 since 2000 looking at those numbers?

A It's decreased dramatically.

Q Has relative weight also decreased in

12 those years?

A Yes, it has, in 2004 and 2006.

Q Could this be attributable to the lake

15 temperature? Or what would you think would be

16 causing the decline in gizzard shad?

A I have two theories. One is the

18 introduction of threadfin shad to the lake. As

19 you'll see THS on the bottom, threadfin shad only

20 began appearing in the lake in the late -- I forget.

21 1998, 1999, something like that. Somehow it was

22 introduced to the lake. It wasn't introduced by the

23 DNR. Probably a bucket, a bait bucket from

24 fishermen. Or as it happens in some places in the

25 country, the fishermen take fish management into

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

181

1 their own hands, and they'll add more fish.

Anyway, the threadfin shad has become

3 established as a competitor for gizzard shad.

Q Are threadfin shad -- excuse me. I'm

5 sorry.

A Threadfin shad is a natural competitor of

7 the gizzard shad.

Q Okay. Are threadfin shad more tolerant of

9 heat than gizzard shad?

A Yes. Their natural distribution is a

11 little bit further south than the gizzard shad.

Q So you'd be more likely to see gizzard

13 shad in an Illinois lake and threadfin shad in a

14 southern lake?

A Yes.

Q Is that your testimony?

A Yes.

Q On Page 9 of the DNR report, it states the

19 gizzard shad population was large and of desirable

20 size to support both small and large predator fishes

21 in 2000. Would you say that based on the catch per

22 unit effort and relative weight measured by IDNR in

23 2006, the gizzard shad population was large and of a

24 size to support small and large predator fish?

A I'm sorry. I lost you. What page are we?

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

182

Q Page 9 of the DNR report.

A Oh, of the DNR report.

Q Yes. They're discussing the size of

4 gizzard shad in 2000 compared to 2006.

A Okay. Gizzard shad population is large

6 and of desirable size to support both small and

7 large predator fish.

Q And then if you compare to the 2006

9 numbers for gizzard shad population, would you state

10 that it is still large of the size to support the

11 small and large predator fish? Can you tell that

12 from looking at their numbers?

A No, I really couldn't.

Q Okay.

A I'm very -- as I said earlier, I'm very

16 hesitant about indices of abundance for pelagic fish

17 using a sampling gear that's used in the literal

18 zone. I don't know how accurate that is.

It may be that the population has

20 really changed a lot, but because it's a schooling

21 fish, you can miss them entirely during your

22 sampling, or you really get into them thick. It's a

23 pretty high variability. So I don't know if these

24 changes in abundance and relative weight are real or

25 not. If they are real, I have some ideas on why.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

183

1 As I said, a competition thing. But I also happen

2 to know that these poor two species are trying to

3 support a large predator base that keeps getting

4 larger in that lake with stocking of striped bass

5 and species like that. So it's possible that this

6 is a temporary situation where the gizzard shad are

7 competing and then getting eaten at a fairly rapid

8 rate by an abundance of predator species.

Q Okay. And then if we look at the report,

10 once again the DNR report, on what they see in the

11 white crappie population, it shows that they're

12 declining as well. Can you take a look? And the

13 numbers are the catch per unit effort was 45 to 65

14 in 1997 to '99, 25 in 2000, 26 in 2001, 37 in 2003

15 and 11 in 2006.

A Yes.

Q Do you have any thoughts on what could be

18 causing the decline in the white crappie?

A I think there's been recent failure of

20 reproduction for the species. A weak year class or

21 two, that might have brought that about.

What they observed was an abundance

23 of large fish and a relative abundance of large fish

24 and the reduction in the numbers of small fish. And

25 as I said, this species is cyclic, and it has been

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

184

1 in the history of this lake, so much so that when

2 decisions were being made about what species to

3 study back in 1997, they excluded white crappie

4 because they were very hard to find. So apparently

5 they made a comeback since 1997, but they may be

6 fading again, and that's typical of that species.

Q Okay. And then turning to what the IDNR

8 report says on largemouth bass. The catch per unit

9 effort has steadily increased, but IDNR notes a

10 reduction of the larger fish; is that correct? You

11 can look on Page 3 of the narrative.

A Yes.

Q I believe it's so stated there. And what

14 do you think the reason may be for the decline in

15 the larger fish and largemouth bass?

A Two possible reasons. The one that

17 strikes me as perhaps the strongest is that fishing

18 pressure has gotten pretty intense on this species.

Q Okay.

A So they may be exploited to a point where

21 the larger fish are being removed by the fish.

Q Could it also be again competition for

23 food and not enough of the forage fish?

A No.

Q No?

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

185

A I don't think so, because the relative

2 weight is exceptional and the growth rates is

3 exceptional. So I don't think it's a food thing. I

4 think it's either exploitation of the large fish or

5 pure arithmetic, because relative stocked density,

6 as I said, is the index of the number of fish above

7 a certain size to the stock density. If you

8 increase the number of small fish, proportionately

9 the larger fish are going to look less abundant. I

10 don't know how much of that, because I don't have

11 the data in front of me, but I'd be suspicious that

12 there could be some of that going on, too.

Q Okay. Do the higher temperatures have an

14 effect on the feeding of the largemouth bass?

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Which higher temperatures?

16 BY MS. LOGAN-WILKEY:

Q During the summer. During, say, June

18 through September.

A Higher than what?

Q The temperatures in June through

21 September, do they have an effect on feeding the

22 largemouth bass?

A I have seen nothing that would indicate

24 any negative effect. As I said, the growth rates

25 have been very good. And by summertime, largemouth

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

186

1 bass have reached the size that they become

2 piscivorous and will feed on the gizzard shad and

3 the threadfin shad and grow very well. So I haven't

4 seen any evidence of temperature limiting of the

5 growth. Actually just the opposite.

Q Okay. I'm going to turn now back to the

7 idea of entrapment of fish and specifically ask some

8 questions from the March 2007 SIU report.

A Okay.

Q And you're familiar with this report,

11 correct?

A Yes.

Q Okay. From 1997 to 2006, SIU measured how

14 much of the lake was available to the fish as a

15 percentage at a water temperature below -- I'm

16 sorry -- within 87 to 96 degrees Fahrenheit and

17 above dissolved oxygen levels of 1 to 4 parts per

18 million.

In 2006, SIU found three dates where

20 conditions appeared to be critical to a point where

21 fish could be compelled to locate some type of a

22 thermal refuge to avoid short-term thermal stress.

23 Do you think that it is acceptable for fish to be

24 stressed and need to seek refuge during those

25 temperatures?

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

187

A Is it acceptable for them? That's what

2 they do.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Let me interrupt. Can you

tell me what part of the fish report, SIU

report you're citing?

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: I'm looking at Page 5.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Of?

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: Of the SIU -- I believe

it's the 2007 report. The dates were -- it's

about halfway down the page, Page 5 of the

2007, on June 22nd, July 19th and August 3rd in

2006. Those three dates were dates where

conditions appeared to be critical to a point

where fish would be compelled to locate to seek

thermal refuge to avoid short-term thermal

stress. Page 5. It's the second paragraph.

DR. McLAREN: I've got the paragraph.

18 BY MS. LOGAN-WILKEY:

Q Okay. I guess what I'm getting at is this

20 idea of eroded fish habitats, and whether it's

21 appropriate for the fish to need to seek refuge from

22 the high water temperatures and being entrapped in

23 the cove areas.

A I couldn't pass judgment on something like

25 that. The temperatures are periodically or perhaps

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

188

1 invariably going to be -- and dissolved oxygen

2 concentration are going to be limiting. And yet the

3 evidence shows and in the following sentence, the

4 fact that no fish kill occurred underscores the

5 resilience and adaptability of fishes to extreme

6 environmental conditions over time.

Q But what may have happened if the

8 temperatures had remained high or ambient

9 temperatures had remained high to a point after

10 those dates where the fish still could not leave

11 those coves and if the habitat became basically even

12 more critical? And then the area in the coves had

13 too high of temperatures, and they can't escape the

14 idea of entrapment, and then the fish kill could

15 occur?

MS. ANTONIOLLI: That's a lot of

speculation in that question.

18 BY MS. LOGAN-WILKEY:

Q Well, but that's what happened in 1999,

20 correct?

MS. ANTONIOLLI: That's not the fish kill

we're talking about here, the 2006 one.

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: There wasn't one.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: I'm not sure.

DR. McLAREN: Are you asking can the

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

189

conditions that occurred in July of 1999 occur

again? I don't understand what your question

is.

4 BY MS. LOGAN-WILKEY:

Q My question is simply whether or

6 not -- let me rephrase it.

A Okay.

Q Are eroded fish habitats consistent, from

9 your perspective, capable of supporting fish?

MR. RODRIGUEZ: I'm going to object

because they're not talking about the eroding

habitat. So I'll just make that objection for

the record.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: I'm sorry,

Mr. Rodriguez. I couldn't hear you.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: I'm just objecting for the

record that this paragraph really doesn't deal

with -- doesn't mention the concept of eroded

habitat as SIU has used that term in the

reports.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: I'm not sure I

followed the question myself. I'm just

worried, you know, maybe if you could just, you

know, make the questions a little more clear

just to make sure that the Board could follow

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

190

what point you're trying to make, and the

witness, more importantly, can give you the

information.

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: Sure. I'll just go

ahead.

Q The bottom of that paragraph, it

states, however, if conditions eroded further

than were witnessed on 3 August, it is most

likely that a large-scale fish kill could have

occurred. So your testimony would be that

that's a possibility if conditions had eroded

further?

A Empathetically, what they're stating, I

14 wouldn't disagree with them.

Q And in July of 2001, there was a fish kill

16 that involved 546 channel catfish and 65 largemouth

17 bass following a period of prolonged tidewater

18 temperatures.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Where are we now?

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: Let me find the page

number for this then.

MR. LIU: Would you mind if I asked a

follow-up question to clarify the term "eroded

fish habitat"?

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: Sure. That would be

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

191

fine.

EXAMINATION

3 BY MR. LIU:

Q I think in the SIU study on Page 10, when

5 it talks about eroded fish habitats, it says that

6 forage species often inhabit water, temperatures

7 near their thermal maximum, because their food

8 supply is more abundant there. So is the eroded

9 fish habitat a place where the food supply is

10 abundant, but the fish get trapped because of this

11 lethal hot temperature that swings by? Or does the

12 abundant food supply die because of the lethally hot

13 temperatures?

A Fish have to be very adaptable. As it

15 turns out, their preferred temperatures are often

16 very close to a point where they can become

17 stressed. They've got to manage their lives so that

18 they are not only in the right conditions as far as

19 the physical conditions, but that the food supply is

20 available, too. Fish have been known to go outside

21 their preferred habitats to get fed, and then return

22 back to where they're most comfortable. That

23 happens in several species, by going -- changing the

24 depth following a school of fish that's their prey.

25 So they're balancing all these various needs. And I

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

192

1 think that's what that comes down to.

As far as being -- this "habitat

3 erosion" is a term that SIU has used to define

4 entrapment within coves where it's a very localized

5 fish kill. That in that particular habitat, these

6 fish are there and have been exposed to something

7 that amounts to lethal conditions. And it's that

8 particular group of fish that experience the

9 mortality.

So that's a reference where they

11 could have been where they were to take advantage of

12 food, and then -- I don't want to be

13 anthropomorphic, but made the choice between food

14 and being comfortable, and maybe in this case they

15 made the wrong choice.

MR. RAO: It's like the paw in the bottle.

DR. McLAREN: What's that?

MR. RAO: It's like the paw in the bottle,

where a monkey puts its paw in a bottle to get

the food out, but it cannot get the food out of

there, but it doesn't want to get the paw out

of the bottle either.

DR. McLAREN: Well, yeah. There is

conflicting motivation there. I think that's

what they're referring to. I didn't write

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

193

that. So that would be what I would guess.

EXAMINATION

3 BY MR. LIU:

Q When I hear the term erosion and water

5 settling, I think like stream bank erosion, but

6 that's totally different?

A Habitat erosion is reduction in the volume

8 of water that falls within predefined limits of

9 temperature and dissolved oxygen. Comfort zone.

CROSS EXAMINATION

11 BY MS. LOGAN-WILKEY:

Q On page -- I'm sorry. It's on Page 10 of

13 the 2007 SIU study, the fish kill I was referring to

14 in July of 2001 involving 546 channel catfish and 65

15 largemouth bass following a period of prolonged

16 tidewater temperatures. Did that fish kill, to your

17 knowledge, involve eroded fish habitats as well?

A I'm sorry. I've lost you. Where? Is

19 this the same report?

Q Page 10, the 2007 SIU report on Page 10.

A Okay. I see it.

Q The first full paragraph there in the

23 middle of the page.

It states that mixing zone surface

25 water temperatures began prolonged increase and

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

194

1 remained at temperatures of at least a hundred

2 degrees Fahrenheit on July 7th in 2001.

Then if you go do down further in the

4 paragraph, it says that the prolonged nature of the

5 high water temperatures after July 7th likely caused

6 an eroding of co-habitat in the discharge mixing

7 zone which resulted in the July 10th fish kill.

A Yes.

Q Okay.

A It does say that.

Q My question is, going from there, if we

12 raise the temperatures in May and October, and we

13 have no maximum temperature, might we see eroding

14 fish habitats occurring during those months as

15 well --

A No.

Q -- as what happened here? No? You don't

18 believe we would see that?

A No.

Q What if we were to have an unseasonably

21 high ambient temperature in May or October? Then is

22 there a possibility that we would see an eroded fish

23 habitat?

A No, because Mr. Williams would do what he

25 could to drop the temperatures if that were the

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

195

1 case. The relief that's being asked for are

2 temperatures that are considerably lower than the

3 summer temperatures. So before it ever got to that,

4 the station would have at least done what it would

5 have to do to comply with the thermal standards.

6 And if that still meant that the fish died, then I

7 would say it would be a natural-cause fish kill.

Q Okay. I believe it was your testimony

9 that there would be a more natural increase in

10 temperature in the lake under the proposed

11 standards.

A Yes.

Q Okay.

A A more gradual transition.

Q Okay. So when you say that by heating the

16 lake sooner more gradually, is it true that fish

17 would not become trapped by sudden heated discharges

18 later in the summer because they would earlier avoid

19 those areas of the lake?

A One could hypothesize that. That's

21 something I'd certainly like to know if that's true.

22 If I understand what your question is -- maybe you

23 need to restate your question for me.

Q Maybe I should.

What I'm trying to get at is

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

196

1 whether -- you say that there would be -- I believe

2 your testimony is that there would be a more gradual

3 increase in the temperatures in those parts of the

4 lake where fish had become trapped in previous

5 years; is that correct? Am I understanding that?

A It could do that.

Q Okay. Is that your testimony? My

8 understanding is that that is your testimony, that

9 fish would have a gradual increase in the water

10 temperatures so that fish would not become trapped

11 in those areas later in the summer because they

12 would already be avoiding those temperatures?

A I don't believe I've ever written in the

14 testimony those two together. I said there is a

15 more natural transition. And, actually, in my

16 verbal testimony, I said that more natural

17 transition could avoid fish being trapped and

18 rapidly rising temperatures in the month of May.

Q Okay. Because fish would not be in those

20 areas? Is that what you're saying?

A No, no. Primarily the more gradual is

22 that there would give more opportunity for the fish

23 to acclimate to the rising temperatures, and

24 possibly hypothetically give them the opportunity to

25 react, to leave those temperatures seeking more

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

197

1 suitable temperatures before the point where those

2 temperatures could become stressed.

Q So would it be correct to say that less of

4 the lake as a percentage would be available at that

5 point in time where they were leaving those areas of

6 higher temperatures?

A Less of the lake? It could be very

8 marginally less, but if you lose some habitat,

9 obviously there's a reduction. So --

Q Okay.

A -- I don't anticipate that to happen in

12 the months of May or October, though.

Q So you would still expect to see fish in

14 those areas?

A Yes, I would.

Q In May and October?

A Yes, I would.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Excuse me,

Ms. Logan-Wilkey. Do you still have quite a

few more questions for this witness?

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: I need to go through

and probably remove some of the questions that

Debbie has asked so that we aren't being

repetitive.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Well, why don't

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

198

we -- since we've been going for about two

hours, why don't we take a five-minute break

for our poor court reporter and anyone else who

may need a short rest. And so let's go off the

record.

[WHEREBY A SHORT BREAK WAS

TAKEN.]

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Let's go ahead and

go back on the record. And we will continue

with Ms. Logan-Wilkey.

11 BY MS. LOGAN-WILKEY:

Q I'm going to turn now to Chapter 14 of the

13 2000 SIU study. Are you familiar with that chapter

14 as well?

A Yes.

Q Okay. On Pages 14-11 --

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Let me interrupt. It's

unclear to me whether this was made a part of

the record. So I have some extra copies of it,

I think, and we could submit it now as part of

the -- introduce it into the record. Were you

planning to?

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: I believe it's Exhibit

3 of the Agency recommendation, but we can go

ahead and make it an exhibit.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

199

MR. RODRIGUEZ: If it is, that's fine.

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: Okay.

Q As dissolved oxygen declines at lower

depths, do fish tend to move up into the warmer

water resulting in higher body temperatures to

obtain dissolved oxygen needed for survival?

Would you agree with that?

A That's what they found.

Q And on Page 14-17 of Chapter 14 of the

10 2000 SIU study, it states that largemouth bass have

11 an ability to cool faster and retain cooler

12 temperatures longer. Would you agree with that?

A Where on Page 17 are you reading?

Q Okay.

A 14-17?

Q Let me turn to it. The second paragraph

17 there on 14-17.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: The second full paragraph?

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: The first full

paragraph.

Q The internal body cavity of the

largemouth bass has a longer initial

temperature lag when warming than when cooling,

and they retain their cooler temperatures for

longer periods of time. This means the

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

200

largemouth bass can cool faster, retain cooler

temperatures for longer time periods. Thus

largemouth bass may be utilizing areas of lower

dissolved oxygen as a thermal regulatory

process.

A I remember reading something like that,

7 but I don't see that on this page.

Q Are you aware --

MR. RODRIGUEZ: I think she may have a

different copy. You may want to get the

exhibit from her, rather than what you've got,

because I don't see it in 14-17 either.

DR. McLAREN: Unfortunately these things

are probably still in Word. So they are going

to print out in different pages.

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: That's possible because

I did print them from a disc that Amber

provided, so.

DR. McLAREN: I think it would be up here.

I'll just be looking at yours.

I have a lot of difficulty with that first

sentence, understanding what they're saying in

the first sentence. But what they do say is

that they use the lag time and in internal

temperatures to their advantage.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

201

1 BY MS. LOGAN-WILKEY:

Q So that they school faster and retain

3 cooler temperatures longer? Is that -- would you

4 agree with that? Or are you familiar with the idea

5 that SIU is presenting here?

A I am familiar with what they were saying.

Q Do you agree with that?

A What they're saying -- well, it's not for

9 me to agree or not to agree. They're the ones that

10 did the study.

But my interpretation of what they

12 were saying is that there is a lag time so that the

13 external -- the internal temperature doesn't reflect

14 the external temperature until after this lag time.

15 So they can go into warmer temperatures and remain

16 cool, and then go back to the cooler temperatures

17 again without having felt the full impact of the

18 warmer temperatures. So their internal temperature

19 lag time allows them to take advantage of and

20 optimize their habitat that they can

21 temporarily -- they can temporarily occupy a warm

22 temperature to get it dissolved oxygen that they

23 want. In fact, I know that to mean no -- I know

24 that to be what they intended to say because one of

25 the authors told me that in a recent conversation,

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

202

1 so.

Q Okay. Do you know whether channel catfish

3 are able to do this as well?

A They don't have the kind of data

5 unfortunately on channel catfish that they do in

6 largemouth bass. So we don't have the data. At

7 least I'm not aware of the data that would tell us

8 "yes" or "no."

Q Okay. And what about bluegill? Do we

10 have data showing that?

A We don't have data on bluegill.

Q Going back to Chapter 1 of the 2000 study,

13 on Page 3.

A 2007 study?

Q I'm sorry. The 2000 study, Chapter 1,

16 Page 3.

A Oh, 2000. Chapter 1, Page 3.

Q Yes.

A I don't have that.

Q Okay.

A I'll trade you.

Q Okay. Actually, I may have more questions

23 from that chapter if you want to hold on to that.

A Okay.

Q This report is Chapter 1 of the 2000 SIU

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

203

1 study, which is Exhibit 3 of the Agency's

2 recommendation, I believe.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: I have Exhibit 2 as the

February 2004 report.

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: Exhibit 3.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Exhibit 3.

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: Of the Agency

recommendation.

MR. RAO: Is that the November 2000

report?

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: Yes, Page 3.

DR. McLAREN: This is the third page?

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: Yes.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: You may want to refer an

actual paragraph and the start of the paragraph

because the pages aren't numbered.

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: Okay. I'm sorry. I

think we should just mark this as an exhibit,

the Chapter 1 overview of the results from the

SIU study.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: We can mark that as

Exhibit 4.

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: It's from the SIU study

from 2000.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Does anyone have

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

204

any exhibit labels, either party?

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Do you have a copy?

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Do you have a copy

that you can file with us?

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: Yes.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Are you using it

right now?

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: I'm using it right now.

I can give him another one.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Thanks.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Joey, how much of

this -- are you going to use this as an exhibit

beginning with Chapter 1 overview?

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: Yeah, Chapter 1

overview. I have a question from Page 3.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Okay.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Did you already

move to admit this, or are you going to wait

until after you use it?

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: I'll make a motion now

to admit it as our Agency Exhibit 1. Would

that be correct?

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: No. I'll just mark

it as Exhibit 4.

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: Exhibit 4? Okay.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

205

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: And there's no

objection?

MR. RODRIGUEZ: I just want to make sure

we know what the entire exhibit consists of.

How many pages is that?

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: It's unnumbered. It's

Chapter 1, the overview of results. That's the

beginning of the chapter, and it ends with

Figure 1.15.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Got it.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Okay.

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: Okay.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Then Exhibit 4 will

be admitted.

[WHEREBY, EXHIBIT NUMBER 4 WAS

MARKED AND ADMITTED INTO

EVIDENCE.]

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: Thanks.

Q If you turn to the third page -- and

I apologize that the pages apparently are not

numbered, but let me find it.

SIU states that if the fish require refuge

from the potentially stressful temperatures,

then it is important to determine if suitable

habitat is available. Fish movement is

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

206

monitored to determine habitat utilization.

And my question is, what do we use other

than temperatures to determine whether or not

there is suitable habitat for the fish?

A What do we -- what did they use?

Q What would you use? What would you

7 consider to be another indicator other than

8 temperature of a suitable habitat?

A Oh, wow. That would be a rather long list

10 of potential variables from depth, light, currents,

11 dissolved oxygen, pH. It's the cue that fish use

12 for selecting their habitats. Substrate type, prey

13 abundance.

Q Dissolved oxygen would be one?

A Dissolved oxygen would be one.

Q Okay. And what determines the effect of

17 the stress of higher temperatures on fish? In other

18 words, are there other factors that would come into

19 play that may determine whether or not the

20 temperatures will put stress on the fish?

A You could have multiple stressors. So I

22 think what you're asking, can there be other

23 stressors besides temperature? And I'd say "yes."

Q Okay. And if you have a lower dissolved

25 oxygen level, would that increase the amount of

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

207

1 stress, the higher temperature that would be placed

2 on the fish?

A Not simply lower. It has to be lower than

4 their tolerance level for dissolved oxygen.

Q Okay. So if we had a lower than their

6 tolerance level of dissolved oxygen, then the

7 temperature may place a greater amount of stress on

8 the fish, a higher temperature?

A There could be an interaction of the

10 stressors.

Q Do you have any information on the level

12 of macrophytes that are in the lake?

A That was not part of the most recent

14 study. The answer to that is, I don't have much,

15 no. I have an understanding -- I've been told, but

16 I've looked at the reports that -- lake management

17 status report makes mention of macrophyte removal.

18 And also that at times, macrophytes are not very

19 abundant, and other times they're very abundant.

20 Beyond that, I'm not aware of any available data on

21 it.

Q Okay. Does temperature have an effect on

23 the growth of macrophytes?

A It's a species specific thing with

25 macrophytes, just as with fish and other organisms.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

208

1 So macrophytes can have tolerance limits the same as

2 other organisms. So temperature can have an effect,

3 but typically it's not really a terrific or

4 well-used indicator of temperature.

Q Okay. Would the temperatures under the

6 proposed standards affect macrophyte growth in

7 Coffeen Lake with the species we have there? Are

8 you aware of that?

A I wouldn't anticipate any effect of the

10 proposed May and October standards on plants, no,

11 the macrophytes.

Q In turning to -- this is going to be

13 somewhat difficult because there aren't page

14 numbers. But the conclusion in Chapter 1, which has

15 been marked as Exhibit 4, the conclusion page, if

16 you turn -- it's just before the first table about

17 halfway through the packet of information. It's the

18 last page of the narrative, and it's marked

19 "Conclusions" towards the top there.

A Yes, I see it.

Q Okay. If you look at about the middle of

22 the page, it states the fish appear to be

23 sacrificing higher oxygen levels for lower

24 temperatures.

A Yes.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

209

Q And this is discussing around -- during

2 the time period of the 1999 fish kill. Do you think

3 that that is something that's acceptable for the

4 fish to be sacrificing higher levels of oxygen for

5 lower temperatures? Would that provide stress on

6 the fish?

A What I would say is that the fish are

8 reacting to the temperature levels and the DO levels

9 as they do. They seek the conditions that give them

10 the best opportunity for survival and reduction in

11 stress. I couldn't begin to put any kind of a value

12 judgment on that, but it is what fish do.

Q But would it provide additional stress on

14 the fish? The idea of having to sacrifice the

15 higher oxygen levels for the lower temperatures?

16 Would that provide stress on the fish, plus cause

17 stress on the fish?

A Theoretically it could.

Q It could lead to a fish kill as it did in

20 1999?

A Under extreme conditions it could. As I

22 said, we actually have the post facto data to tell

23 us whether it did or not.

Q Right. Would you say that there's a bit

25 of a catch 22 in that the high surface temperatures

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

210

1 force fish deeper for refuge where DO levels are the

2 lowest?

A A catch 22?

Q In other words, that they have to choose,

5 one or the other, a comfortable temperature versus

6 adequate dissolved oxygen levels under extreme

7 weather temperatures? Or lake temperatures. Excuse

8 me.

A I would say that this is part of the life

10 history of fish, that they're always making

11 selections to optimize their habitat. It's not

12 uncommon that they would do that sort of thing.

13 Whether or not those conditions are conducive to

14 survival and the well-being of the fish is something

15 that we have determined through the long-term

16 database.

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: Okay. That's all we

have. That's all we have for this witness.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Thank you.

MR. RAO: I have some questions for

Mr. McLaren.

EXAMINATION

23 BY MR. RAO:

Q Dr. McLaren, on Page 12 of your pre-filed

25 testimony, you note that assuming Ameren's request

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

211

1 for relief is granted, the company and DNR have

2 discussed developing study plans that investigate

3 the ability of fish to avoid exposure to stress by

4 seeking preferred temperatures within the lake

5 environment. First, is this study something that

6 Ameren is going to do only if relief is granted? Is

7 that how it's approached?

A I'm sorry. I can't answer that question.

MR. RAO: Anyone on the panel?

MS. KNOWLES: That's correct.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. The answer is "yes."

MR. RAO: Okay. If so, what do

you -- what other plans in terms of once the

study is done and the results are produced, how

are the results going to be evaluated in terms

of the requested thermal standard? If the

studies come out not supporting what's being

considered in this proceeding, how is Ameren

going to proceed?

MS. ANTONIOLLI: I think the study would

continue to proceed in the way and to the

manner in which they've been conducted over the

past several years. Does that answer your

question?

MR. RAO: That's right. Some of the

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

212

previous proceedings, a study like this would

be part of a condition of granting a thermal

standard. And is that what's Ameren intent is

to add this as part of -- make it a condition

of granting the requested relief?

MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's not part of the

request for relief, no. We would be doing

these studies and monitoring the health of the

fishery, but we're not asking that that be

included into some kind of condition, or that

there be some kind of conditional outcome as a

result. We're seeking permanent relief. And

these studies will be conducted pursuant to the

agreement that we have with DNR.

MR. RAO: And would the results of the

studies be publicly available for the Agency to

review or anyone else interested to review it,

the results?

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: We can make them available.

MR. LIU: Would the studies involve the

three RIS that were used previously?

MR. RODRIGUEZ: I don't know that the

study has been designed yet exactly, but Jim

would be --

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

213

DR. McLAREN: We did only sketch out the

scope of a study with the intention that if

studies were to proceed, that the details would

be worked out and possibly in cooperation with

the Department of Natural Resources. So those

kinds of decisions probably would be made at

that time. I would be very surprised that it

didn't include at least those three species.

MR. RAO: What's the impetus for the

study? Was there some concern expressed by DNR

about this petition before the Board? Or is it

just Ameren decided to do this study?

MR. RODRIGUEZ: It was in the context of

the conversation that we were having with them,

with the petition, and they had expressed an

indication. You know, an indication that the

studies -- you know, we had a database, and,

you know, that has now stopped, and that they

wanted to see -- they were interested in seeing

that collection of data get through.

MR. LIU: Are they expecting it to

continue forever or a period of three years or

something like that? Did they discuss a

timeframe?

MS. WILLIAMS: Can I just interrupt a

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

214

second? I think it's pretty unusual at a

hearing not to swear the attorneys in if

they're answering the actual questions.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: We actually don't have --

MS. WILLIAMS: I just would like you to be

sworn in.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: I'm not a witness. So

maybe we can just have him answer, or somebody

from the company may want to get sworn. You'll

have to get sworn in.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Well, wait. Let me

stop. Are these questions that --

MR. RAO: It's based on Dr. McLaren's

testimony when they talk about the study.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: But they're not

questions that you could answer, Dr. McLaren?

They're basically what Ameren's policy is going

to be?

DR. McLAREN: I can only answer my input

into concepts for the study, but I cannot

determine -- make these decisions for Ameren.

So that's why. I'd like to, but I can't.

MR. RAO: You can address it in your

briefs, too.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: We could do that.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

215

MS. ANTONIOLLI: We might be able to, if

it's possible, to keep the -- you know, have

some time period after this hearing to be able

to submit more information that might help,

either before our briefing period starts. I

don't know if that's --

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Maybe we could do

something like that, because I, too, don't -- I

would prefer not to obviously have Ameren's

attorneys act as witnesses in the proceeding.

So perhaps when we're off the record, we can

have another perhaps hearing officer with

supplemental Board questions, you know, and we

can allow both parties to comment on that, if

that's an acceptable solution for now.

MR. RAO: Yes. I think all the questions

are on the record pretty much, yeah.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. Did you have

anything more?

MR. RAO: No.

MR. LIU: I do.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: I'm sorry, Lisa.

EXAMINATION

24 BY MR. LIU:

Q In the paragraph after that, there is also

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

216

1 a mention of the study of three-year fish stocking

2 pilot study. Are you aware if that's going to

3 include the RIS species as well or just new species

4 that might be introduced?

A (By Dr. McLaren) I'll begin to -- the

6 discussion was that we would review -- that we could

7 review species that would be thermally adapted to

8 the lake that would be attractive to the managers,

9 the lake managers of DNR. They had some ideas of

10 species that were of interest for us to evaluate.

11 It could be stocked, but this was all in preliminary

12 conversations with them.

But I think in that testimony, there

14 may also be offering of stocking for replacement of

15 fish in the case of fish kills, which could

16 theoretically involve the three primary species or

17 at least one or two. I think -- I don't think we

18 need any more bluegills.

MR. LIU: Maybe one other question you

could address is what the outcome of those

studies would be in terms of affecting any type

of relief that might be granted if the study

shows that perhaps there is a problem? Is

there a way that we can craft the mechanism

into the relief such that it can be addressed

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

217

through that kind of a study?

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Okay.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Okay.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Do you have

anything further?

MR. LIU: Along those lines, I was

wondering if we could ask the Agency a

question.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Yeah. Do you want

to wait until they've asked their questions of

the third witness?

MR. LIU: Just to keep the record

together, I don't know.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Pardon me?

MR. LIU: To keep the record together, it

might be a good idea just to do it now.

MS. WILLIAMS: If we have somebody that

can answer. We don't on the --

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay.

MR. LIU: We were just wondering if the

Agency would consider attaching some sort of a

condition to any relief granted, what the

Agency might consider it looking like?

MS. WILLIAMS: We'll probably have to

consider that --

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

218

MR. LIU: Studies or something like it has

in the past? If that's something you could do

either now or later.

MR. RAO: You can change your mind of

course.

MS. WILLIAMS: I think we'd have to

consider to address that in a post-hearing

comment probably.

MR. LIU: Okay.

MR. RAO: Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Are we ready to go

on, or did you have more? Okay. All right.

Are you ready to go on to the third

witness?

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: Yes, we are.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: And, oh, I also

still need Exhibit 4.

[DOCUMENT TENDERED.]

ANN B. SHORTELLE, Ph.D.

CROSS EXAMINATION

21 BY MS. LOGAN-WILKEY:

Q Good afternoon. I have a few questions

23 obviously about phosphorous, and then we'll move

24 into mercury from there. So to start out in your

25 model, what phosphorous flux rate did you use to

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

219

1 calculate the internal loading of phosphorous?

A We used two. We used the one that

3 Illinois EPA used in the 2009 addendum, TMD addendum

4 document. That was 2.2 milligrams per square meter

5 per day. And the other one that we chose

6 coincidentally was double that amount. It's

7 referenced as Hagard (sp) et al 2005, and it's

8 4.4 milligrams per square meter per day.

MR. LIU: Where is that?

DR. SHORTELLE: I'm sorry.

MR. LIU: Does that appear in your report?

DR. SHORTELLE: It should. It's

referenced on 2-13, but I'm not sure if the

actual numbers are present there or on another

page, but those are indeed the values on

Page 2-13, the last paragraph. I've got the

references, but not the exact numbers.

18 BY MS. LOGAN-WILKEY:

Q You referred to something -- you referred

20 to it as the 2009 Illinois EPA addendum.

A The TMDL addendum for Greenville and

22 Coffeen Lakes.

Q Who prepared that addendum?

A Who prepared it? I'm not sure. Hansen

25 Professional Services, I believe.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

220

Q And was Hansen Professional Services

2 retained by Ameren to prepare the 2009 addendum?

A I don't know.

Q You don't know? Okay.

Do you know if that's the finalized

6 document, whether that's been approved?

A It's very new. I don't know if it's

8 approved. It may still be draft.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Perhaps, would you like

clarification on this issue?

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: Sure.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. Could we at this

point swear in an Ameren employee who could

probably shed light on this?

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Sure.

[WHEREUPON THE WITNESS WAS SWORN

BY THE NOTARY PUBLIC.]

MICHAEL SMALLWOOD,

19 having been first duly sworn by the Notary Public, testifies

20 and says as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

22 BY MR. RODRIGUEZ:

Q Can you state your name for the record.

A Yes. My name is Michael Smallwood.

Q What do you do for a living?

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

221

A I'm an environmental engineer for Ameren.

Q And do you have information to share here

3 with respect to the TMDL that was done in Coffeen?

A Yes, I do.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Okay.

CROSS EXAMINATION

7 BY MS. LOGAN-WILKEY:

Q Can you describe for me how this 2009

9 addendum TMDL came about?

A It was in response to an Agency request

11 regarding our Section 41 permit for the East Fork

12 Shoal Creek project.

Q Is it finalized?

A As of Monday, yes.

Q It was finalized this past Monday?

A That's correct.

Q Yesterday?

A Yes.

Q Do you know whether that's been approved

20 by the United States Environmental Protection

21 Agency?

A To my knowledge, no, not at this time.

Q Are you aware that it does need approval

24 from the USEPA?

A No, I'm not aware.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

222

Q You're not aware of that? Okay.

No further questions for that

3 witness. Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. Thank you.

ANN B. SHORTELLE, Ph.D.,

FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION

7 BY MS. LOGAN-WILKEY:

Q Going back to the different flux rates

9 that can be used to calculate internal phosphorous,

10 why did you choose the 2009 addendum and the Hagard

11 2005 flux rates for the calculation for Coffeen

12 Lake?

A Well, the one that was used in the 2009

14 addendum, I was trying to be consistent with as many

15 of the assumptions that had been used for the TMDL

16 documents in the past, anything that I thought was

17 reasonable and that we could stay consistent with.

18 That was a goal.

Q Do you know what flux rate was used in the

20 2007 TMDL?

A Not off the top of my head. Although I do

22 know that they inappropriately invoked internal

23 loading from the BATHTUB model, and that's just one

24 of the issues with that BATHTUB model, but it's a

25 different situation. They're not picking a flux

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

223

1 rate. Certainly one would -- because they're not

2 fluxing from a bottom area like we did, but

3 certainly there's a calculation within the BATHTUB

4 model that was invoked. Basically they used the

5 internal loading to true up their model because they

6 couldn't get it to calibrate.

Q So would the use of different flux rates

8 result in higher internal loading calculations for

9 phosphorous?

A If the flux rates were higher, yes.

Q But based upon which flux rate you used,

12 you do get a different result, correct?

A Either higher or lower.

Q Right, correct. Higher or lower just

15 depending on what flux rate is used?

Do you know what the ranges of

17 possible flux rates that can be used to determine

18 the calculation?

A Well, I think the two that were used here

20 are appropriate for, you know, central USA

21 reservoirs, but there's a fairly wide range. It

22 depends on the sediment types and a whole raft of

23 variables.

Q Okay. Do you know what the range,

25 possible range is, even though it may be very broad?

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

224

A Not off the top of my head.

Q What's the highest flux rate you've seen

3 used for internal loading phosphorous?

A In a reservoir?

Q Yes.

A I don't know that off the top of my head

7 either, but it probably could be in certain areas of

8 the country maybe double this at least. You know,

9 places that might have more year-round loading

10 rates, that kind of thing.

Q So would you say --

A Very lucky sediments, something like that.

13 I don't think that would be applicable here, but

14 maybe up to something like 10. There's a range for

15 sure.

Q Okay. So there may be a range starting at

17 2.2 or even lower, all the way up to 10?

A Or lower, depending on, you know, what

19 kind of lake or reservoir or wetland system that

20 you're dealing with.

Q Okay. Now, you predicted an increase of

22 329.1 to 658.1 kilograms of phosphorous per year due

23 to the increased May and October standard; is that

24 correct?

A I'm sorry. Could you repeat those

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

225

1 numbers?

Q Sure. And I can give you the page number

3 that I'm looking at as well. It's Page 2-13 of your

4 report.

You state that the estimate ranges

6 from 329.1 kilograms phosphorous per year to 658.1

7 kilograms of phosphorous per year.

A Under existing permit conditions.

Q So that's under existing permit

10 conditions.

And then what do we see being added

12 from the May and October temperature increases?

13 What increase in internal phosphorous did you find

14 would occur due to the temperature increase? I'm

15 looking at Page 2-25. I think that --

MS. WILLIAMS: Can you put up the exhibit

that she was looking at?

MR. SMALLWOOD: Sure.

DR. SHORTELLE: The blue bar graph, but

the specific numbers using those two flux rates

was an additional -- in round numbers, 48

kilograms of phosphorous per year to 96

kilograms of phosphorous per year. Under the

new permit conditions, that would be added to

the other, and that's for the internal only.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

226

1 BY MS. LOGAN-WILKEY:

Q So there would be an increase of internal

3 phosphorous of 48 kilograms phosphorous per year to

4 96 kilograms phosphorous per year under the proposed

5 standards for May and October?

A Yes.

Q Okay.

MR. LIU: May I ask a follow-up?

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: Sure.

EXAMINATION

11 BY MS. LIU:

Q Dr. Shortelle, I was looking for the math,

13 how you arrived at those numbers. Is that something

14 that you got by running a model?

A These numbers are not from the BATHTUB

16 model.

Q Okay.

A Although I did run the BATHTUB model with

19 our assumption, and that's where you see the loading

20 bar. That last bar on the -- is our estimate.

Q Okay.

A But the math we did, we used spatial

23 analysis. So we estimated the area of the sediments

24 to which these flux rates would be likely

25 appropriate. And then month by month, the amount of

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

227

1 phosphorous that would be generated during those

2 conditions, and tallied them up.

So the 48 kilograms and to 96

4 kilograms is an estimate of -- if the permit

5 conditions were changed, what's the little bit more

6 of phosphorous that might be fluxed into the

7 hypolimnion during that May and October timeframe.

8 But we used a combination of, you know, the

9 numerical analysis and our GAS spacial analysis to

10 get those numbers.

Q I don't remember actually seeing that in

12 your report.

A Described or?

Q Not the numbers or your calculations or

15 the demonstration discussing it.

A Well, I don't know that -- I mean, they're

17 summarized here, but I could potentially provide a

18 appendix.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, we can do that.

MR. LIU: And the very specific numbers,

32 -- or 329.1.

DR. SHORTELLE: And I'm rounding them just

now, because you know, you can calculate any

specific numbers that you want, but, yeah.

MR. LIU: It would be helpful just to see

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

228

the backup calculations.

DR. SHORTELLE: Sure. We definitely have

that.

MR. LIU: I appreciate that.

DR. SHORTELLE: We definitely have that.

MS. LIU: I'm sorry to interrupt.

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: You're fine.

Q Now, in your study on Page 2-22, you

state the increased temperatures in May and

October will increase the stratification of the

lake increasing the total number of anoxic

days. Is that correct?

A I'm sorry. On this page?

Q 2-22, Table 2-5.

A Oh, the table, yeah.

Q The current and predicted days with anoxic

17 sediment conditions.

A Yes.

Q So this increase in anoxic days goes from

20 18 to 23 under first segment 1 under the proposed

21 standards, and 17 to 25 for May, and segment 2 under

22 the proposed standards; is that correct?

A Correct.

Q And then for October, we see an increase

25 in segment 1 from one day to a total of 13?

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

229

A Correct.

Q And one day in segment 2 in October and

3 then a resulting 11 total days under the proposed

4 standards for October?

A Yeah, that was our estimate, yes.

Q Okay. And then is your testimony that you

7 also predict an increase of 8 percent sediment

8 surface area being exposed to anoxia during May and

9 October?

A Are you looking at Table 2-6?

Q Just a moment, and I'll give you a page

12 number here.

A I see it here on the text on Page 2-22.

Q Yes, that's correct.

A I believe that was our estimate of the

16 additional area. You know, in round numbers for

17 that time period.

Q Okay. Now, can you say that the

19 phosphorous you see that's going to increase the

20 48.08 to the 6.17 kilograms phosphorous per year, is

21 it your testimony that that will or will not reach

22 the epilimnion?

A It's my testimony that it will not.

Q So where will the phosphorous go then?

A Well, it goes into the hypolimnion, which

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

230

1 is where the rest of it is during that -- you know,

2 that's fluxed from the sediments during that time

3 period. And during the time period that there's

4 anoxia present at the sediment surface water

5 interface, phosphorous is fluxing out, but other

6 phosphorous is raining down. So that there's a

7 net -- you know, either increase or decrease in the

8 hypolimnion over time. But that amount is still so

9 small distributed across the hypolimnion in the

10 lake, that when you mix that with the entire lake

11 volume into the epilimnion, you don't see a boost in

12 phosphorous concentration. Obviously it's

13 incrementally a tiny bit more, but you don't see a

14 number, an increase in phosphorous in the surface

15 waters that would fuel an alga bloom.

Q Basically did you calculate phosphorous by

17 averaging sites 1, 2 and 3? Or did you look at the

18 sites separately in determining whether there would

19 be an increase?

A Our analysis for the sediment flux you're

21 talking about was by segments. And then we summed

22 it all up. The graph that's up here is summed, but

23 our analysis was done by segment.

Q Okay. Is your testimony that site 3

25 contains more Chlorophyll-a than sites 1 and 2?

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

231

A Okay. We have to be a little bit careful

2 here because the segments are consistent with the

3 Southern Illinois segments.

Q Okay.

A Okay? Independent of that, or not

6 associated with that, there are three sampling

7 locations for the lake, ROG 1, 2 and 3. Those are

8 the data that they appear in the TMDL documents

9 pulled out of the storette. ROG 3 is located in

10 that upper northern arm of the lake. We could put

11 up a -- and I think there might be a copy of it in

12 here.

MR. WILLIAMS: You've got a picture of the

lake.

DR. SHORTELLE: Excuse me?

MR. WILLIAMS: There's a picture of the

lake.

18 BY MS. LOGAN-WILKEY:

Q On Page 2-23, would that be an

20 appropriate --

A What would effectively be second segment

22 4, but I'm quite sure there's also a picture of it

23 in here as well, if I could find it.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: On Page 2-20.

MR. RAO: Are you on Page 2-11?

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

232

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: 2-7.

DR. SHORTELLE: They're on 2-9, and

they're also on 2-7. Figure 2-5 shows the

sampling locations and also figure 2-8 on

Page 2-9. So ROG 3 has higher chlorophyll. I

believe that's statistically significantly

higher than the other two segments.

Phosphorous is, you know, numerically

higher. I'm not sure that it was statistically

significantly higher, but it's elevated up in

the upper arm presumably because of external

washing in from the watershed.

13 BY MS. LOGAN-WILKEY:

Q Is phosphorous the only factor that

15 affects Chlorophyll-a levels in the lake?

A No.

Q No? What are the other factors that may

18 influence the levels of Chlorophyll-a that we would

19 see?

A Oh. I mean, that could be like the fish

21 laundry list that we heard earlier. Light

22 availability. Well, you know --

Q Does heat affect Chlorophyll-a levels?

A It can. I mean, chlorophyll is being

25 produced by living organisms. So if it's warmer,

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

233

1 their metabolic process and enzymatic processes are

2 accelerated up to a point. So they could be making

3 more chlorophyll at warmer temperatures. If they're

4 in the dark, they might die and shut down. Plants

5 have to have light. That's by no means an

6 exhaustive list.

Q Okay. I am going to move now to mercury.

I'm sorry. I need to go back. I

9 need to turn to the next page. I have a couple

10 questions about phosphorous before we move on to

11 mercury.

A Okay.

Q Are you aware that the 2007 TMDL was based

14 on Ameren's commitment to increase the lake, the

15 level of the dam -- excuse me -- by 3 feet?

A The 2007?

Q The TMDL, yes.

A No, I'm not aware of that.

Q You're not aware of Ameren's commitment to

20 raise the level of the dam by 3 feet?

A I'm not aware that the 2007 --

MR. RODRIGUEZ: I'm going to object. I

don't think that's in the record anywhere.

MS. WILLIAMS: Is the addendum in the

record anywhere?

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

234

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah.

MS. WILLIAMS: It is?

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Well, I don't know whether

it is either. I don't know about this

commitment either. I'm not sure about that

commitment.

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: I'll just withdraw the

question and rephrase the question.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Thank you.

10 BY MS. LOGAN-WILKEY:

Q Are you aware whether the 2009 addendum

12 has different scenarios for meeting the phosphorous?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Can you explain those to me.

A I don't have a copy of it in front of me.

16 I can't explain all of them, but -- and we

17 looked -- for our document, we specifically looked

18 at the base case because that was the one that was

19 consistent with 2007 and is based on the standard

20 pool for the -- our normal pool for the lake at

21 590 feet, but it does include a series of other

22 scenarios that were modeled with the BATHTUB model,

23 exploring, use of water from other sources like you

24 had heard talked about earlier here today, and

25 potential raising of the lake level. These, I

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

235

1 think, are to evaluate because of the effects of the

2 scrubbers, when the scrubbers come on line, the

3 amount of water that they're going to consume, use.

Q Is one of those scenarios, does one of

5 those scenarios in the 2009 addendum involve raising

6 the level of the dam by 3 feet?

A Yes.

Q Are you aware --

A Yes.

Q It does?

A Yes.

Q And what effect does raising the dam have

13 on the phosphorous levels on the lake?

A Oh, I think that would be positive.

Q So it would help?

A Help? I mean --

Q The phosphorous?

A Well, if you take a bowl, and it's got "X"

19 amount of phosphorous in it, that's going to have a

20 concentration based on the volume of the bowl. If

21 you increase the volume, it's dilution.

Q Right. So it would be a positive benefit

23 as far as the phosphorous?

A If you increase the volume of the lake,

25 and you do not change the phosphorous inputs from

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

236

1 any sources, the concentration will go down.

Q Okay. Thank you. I'm going to move to

3 mercury now.

MR. LIU: Could I follow up please?

EXAMINATION

6 BY MS. LIU:

Q Would raising the dam 3 feet and raising

8 the level of the lake 3 feet also have other

9 environmental issues associated with changing the

10 contour of the stream?

A Absolutely.

MR. LIU: Okay.

13 BY MS. LOGAN-WILKEY:

Q Okay. As far as mercury goes, what

15 mercury data were looked at for Coffeen Lake other

16 than the fish tissue data to determine that mercury

17 levels in the lake are, as you, I think, have stated

18 in your testimony, low?

A Well, the fish tissue data, you know,

20 available from storette which include -- I think --

21 I'm not sure if all these data are in storette, but

22 there's the federal survey that was done and the

23 state survey that was done. Those fish tissue

24 concentrations do demonstrate that the available

25 data for Coffeen Lake is low relative to its

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

237

1 neighbors, I would say.

Q So the fish tissue data would demonstrate

3 that the fish tissue from fish in the Coffeen Lake

4 are low possibly compared to other similar lakes?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Do we have any data that shows what

7 actual water concentrations of mercury are on

8 Coffeen Lake?

A I did not find any waterborne total

10 mercury or methylmercury data.

Q Are you assuming that levels are low based

12 on the watershed to lake area size?

A I'm assuming the levels are low based on

14 the fish. Those are the integrators for mercury and

15 I believe the basis of the impairment.

Q Okay. Did temperature factor in the

17 methylation of mercury in your opinion?

A It can be.

Q Do you agree that increasing the

20 temperatures may promote methylation?

A It may.

Q Isn't that your testimony on Page 3-12 of

23 your report?

A It may, yes.

Q It may? Okay.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

238

Would decreases in DO also increase

2 the production of methylmercury, or could they?

A They could. If there's sufficient change

4 in oxygen depletion at the sediment water interface,

5 for example.

Q So if temperature increases, increase in

7 sediment in the lake, that we may see an increase in

8 mercury? Is that your testimony?

A Well, I don't think we expect to see a

10 temperature change in the bottom at the lake, but I

11 think we do expect to see in May and October, a

12 small incremental change in the area that is anoxic.

13 And if a significant amount of methylation were

14 occurring in those bottom sediments or from those

15 bottom sediments, that would increase by that

16 incremental amount.

Q On Page 3-6 of your report, you state that

18 largemouth bass in Coffeen Lake had concentrations

19 of .08 and .09 milligrams per kilogram, and that the

20 33 percent reduction in mercury would be needed to

21 reach .06 milligrams per kilogram; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Will the proposed temperatures for May and

24 October aid in reducing the mercury levels in the

25 lake to .06 milligrams per kilogram in your opinion?

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

239

A The change in temperature is not going to

2 affect the amount of mercury in the lake.

Q We would just see an incremental increase?

A Not in the amount of mercury in the lake,

5 no.

Q In the methylation of mercury?

A Possibly, possibly, possibly.

8 Theoretically it's possible.

Q Okay. On Page 3-6 of your report, you

10 also state that water levels impact the mercury; is

11 that correct?

A I'm sorry. Where are you now?

Q Page 3-6, 3.2, paragraph 3.2 there at the

14 bottom.

A Yes, but not water levels in the sense of

16 what if we add 3 feet of freeboard to the lake.

17 This refers to wetland areas specifically or

18 floodplains where you see repeated raising and

19 lowering of water and exposing of sediments. Those

20 kinds of events have been shown in some cases to

21 foster mercury methylation. That's not relevant to

22 Coffeen Lake, per se. It could occur in the

23 watershed, I guess.

Q Okay. So would an increase in the dam by

25 3 feet lead to lower mercury levels? Or you

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

240

1 don't -- it's your testimony you don't think so?

A There is nothing about -- well, it's my

3 testimony -- it will be my testimony that raising

4 the level of the lake will have no effect on mercury

5 amounts in the lake.

Q So it wouldn't have a similar effect that

7 phosphorous would have by being diluted and be at a

8 lower concentration?

A That would be -- that's different than the

10 amount of mercury that's in the lake. Concentration

11 would be diluted.

Q I'm sorry. The concentration then would

13 decrease if we did see an increase in the dam by

14 3 feet?

A By the same mechanism, dilution, that we

16 just talked about with phosphorous.

Q Okay. Thank you.

Earlier in your testimony regarding

19 the size of the watershed was that Coffeen has a

20 relatively small watershed; is that correct?

A I don't remember if I said small. I think

22 I might have said modest relative to the other ones

23 that I was looking at.

Q Okay.

A It's kind of middle of the road. There

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

241

1 are some that are very tiny, you know, in some

2 places where lakes, you know, are larger than their

3 contributing watershed around the edge. Coffeen is

4 not like that obviously, but it's modest compared to

5 many others.

Q Okay. I think you stated that the

7 watershed area and the surface area is 12 to 1, the

8 ratio is 12 to 1. Is that accurate?

A Approximately. Something like that. 13

10 to 1, 12 to 1.

Q Okay. In going back to phosphorous, you

12 were comparing Coffeen Lake to Greenville Lake,

13 correct?

A In this document?

Q Yes.

A Yes.

Q Okay. And do you know how deep Greenville

18 Lake is compared to Coffeen Lake?

A Not off the top of my head. But there are

20 depths reported in the TMDL document, the 2007 TMDL

21 document.

Q Do you know whether Coffeen Lake is

23 deeper, has the deeper maximum depth?

A It's larger in surface area. I'd have to

25 look it up.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

242

Q Okay. Would that make a difference in

2 phosphorous that you would expect to see the depth

3 of the lake?

A Can you restate your question?

Q Sure. What I'm trying to get at is, it

6 seems there's a comparison in the report between

7 Greenville Lake and Coffeen Lake, okay? And Coffeen

8 Lake is a lake of approximately a thousand acres; is

9 that correct?

A Yes.

Q And Greenville is much smaller; is that

12 correct?

A Yes.

Q And could we also assume that it's a

15 deeper lake? Coffeen Lake is a deeper lake?

A It may be.

Q May? Okay. Are you aware that Greenville

18 Lake is not a heated lake?

A I'm not aware of that.

Q You're not aware whether it's heated or

21 not? Okay.

Are you aware that the watershed

23 area, the surface area ratio of Greenville Lake is

24 35 to 1? Does that approximately sound accurate?

A I mean, I don't dispute it, but I didn't

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

243

1 look at that.

Q Okay.

A I mean, I did not -- if I implied that I

4 specifically was trying to compare those two lakes,

5 I need to set the record straight about that. I

6 used the graphs in the 2007 IEPA TMDL document and

7 similar graphs that we updated with more recent

8 phosphorous and chlorophyll data to illustrate what

9 it looks like when a lake demonstrates an internal

10 mode that is significant and when they don't.

The only reason -- I'm not picking

12 Greenville Lake because I think it's a perfect match

13 to Coffeen Lake. They're in the same TMDL document.

14 So the IEPA graphs are on the same page, and I'm

15 just using those to illustrate a point.

Q Okay. So going back to the idea that the

17 watershed is larger for Greenville Lake; are you

18 aware of that, whether it is larger for Greenville

19 Lake?

A I wouldn't have been off the top of my

21 head, but I believe you.

Q So you're not aware whether that the

23 watershed area is compared -- comparing Coffeen Lake

24 to Greenville Lake?

A I mean, I read the TMDL document. I don't

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

244

1 remember it off the top of my head.

Q Okay. That's fine. So regarding Coffeen

3 Lake, is it your testimony that the mercury coming

4 into the lake is limited due to the size of the

5 watershed?

A Well, it's limited compared to some of the

7 other -- if we go back to the graph and the

8 comparison of other lakes in nearby counties, it

9 seems apparent that Coffeen Lake has lower mercury

10 in fish. One potential explanation is it has less

11 mercury overall. And since I'm not aware of point

12 sources or significant point sources or significant

13 other sources of mercury in these areas, I think the

14 primary one being atmospheric deposition. So if you

15 take a very large watershed, you've got a much

16 bigger area to capture external inputs into the

17 lake. It's not the only possible factor in

18 determining what the overall mercury amount is in a

19 lake. The size of the lake matters, other factors

20 matter, but it helps us to understand the data that

21 we have. Because many of the other lakes that have

22 higher mercury in fish have much, much, much larger

23 watersheds.

Q Okay. So would you expect to see the same

25 type of reasoning applied -- would you apply the

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

245

1 same type of reasoning to phosphorous that the size

2 of the watershed may have a negative impact on the

3 amount of phosphorous coming in or maybe limiting

4 it?

A Oh, absolutely. I think these lakes, the

6 ones that I've been looking at in the TMDL documents

7 that I've been reviewing, their agricultural

8 primarily -- and they have significant amounts of

9 phosphorous coming in from the watershed. That's

10 not the same as what's their internal load. One

11 doesn't necessarily predict the other unless you

12 look at a significant time series.

Q So if Coffeen Lake had a larger watershed,

14 we have more phosphorous coming in, but there's a

15 smaller watershed, and we're seeing the levels

16 coming in that are coming in?

A I think that the initial estimates in the

18 2007 TMDL document are not accurate and demonstrably

19 not accurate. I think there are significant

20 phosphorous loading from the watershed. That

21 doesn't mean internal loading is zero. It's not

22 zero in any stratified lake. It's the normal

23 process of the lake.

But in Coffeen Lake currently, and if

25 we go to the permit changes that are being

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

246

1 requested, that picture doesn't change. The

2 internal loading due to phosphorous in Lake Coffeen

3 is currently a minor player that does not manifest

4 itself into the epilimnion where it can fuel primary

5 production. And that's where the impairment is

6 driven from. Impairment is associated with what's

7 going on. You know, the aesthetic value, too much

8 chlorophyll, whatever. All it is, is looking at

9 that epilimnetic phosphorous. That's the basis, I

10 think, for the impairment.

Currently Coffeen Lake does not show

12 significant internal loading fueling that problem,

13 and the change that's being requested in thermal

14 limits for May and October do not alter that

15 conclusion. It's a de minimis increase. 1 percent,

16 plus or minus a half a percent of the total loading.

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: Okay. Thank you.

That's all we have.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Does the Board have

any further questions for anyone on the panel?

MR. RAO: No, but I have maybe a couple

questions for the Agency, just clarification

about that 2007 TMDL.

Earlier I think Dr. Shortelle, when she

described the TMDL process, she mentioned

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

247

how -- you know, once the TMDL is published for

public comments and before it's finalized. Did

the Agency receive any comments regarding the

errors in the TMDL when it was published for

public comment?

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: We don't know. We can

get that information.

MR. RAO: If you can find that out.

Also has the 2007 TMDL been approved by

the USEPA?

MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.

MR. RAO: Okay. Thanks. That's all I

have.

MR. LIU: Actually, there is one more

thing. Since we have so many people from the

Agency, can we introduce them?

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Sure. Well, why

don't we -- do you want to do that now? I was

going to give the petitioners an opportunity to

Redirect.

Did you have any Redirect you wanted to do

on your own witnesses?

MR. RODRIGUEZ: I think so, but could we

take five minutes for me to --

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Sure. In fact, why

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

248

don't we just go ahead. We do have several

people here from IEPA. Maybe we can

just -- because I think we don't know who you

are.

MS. HOLLAND: I don't know who I am either

half of the time. My name is Teri Holland. I

work in the Bureau of Water, Surface Water

Section, Lakes Unit.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. And you are?

MR. SMOGOR: I'm Roy Smogor with the

Bureau of Water. I'm in the Surface Water

Section with the Streams Unit.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay.

MS. WILLIAMS: I also have two interns

with me.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: I recognize one

intern. We have two interns.

MS. WILLIAMS: Identify yourselves.

MS. FESER: I'm Rachel Feser. That's

F-E-S-E-R. I'm in the Bureau of Water for the

next couple of months in legal enforcement.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay.

MR. CLARK: I'm Colin Clark. I'm in water

registry.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. Welcome.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

249

Would you -- if you like, we can go ahead and

take our public comment.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Why don't we do that.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Let's go ahead.

And which one of you ladies would like to speak

first? Okay. If you'd please stand and maybe

stand at the perch, and if you could give us

your name as well.

MS. BATES: Yes. My name is Mary A.

Bates. I'm an adversely affected person. I

live at 936 Vandalia Street in Hillsboro,

Illinois. My family and friends frequently

visit Coffeen Lake, and I have many friends

living near Coffeen Lake that participate in

the tournaments.

I have concerns about the Coffeen Lake,

especially if the Deer Run Mine proceeds, and

it is likely that water coming into the lake

will be greatly reduced. The mine will subside

the area above the lake watershed with the

stated average in the permit application of

5.7 feet.

My question is, has anyone looked at the

combined environmental impact of what is

happening in the area with Deer Run Mine and

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

250

this proposal from Ameren? Has an

environmental impact study been done? And if

so, by whom? Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: All right. Ma'am,

would you like to make a comment?

Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. You can't answer

her question. The question is presented to the

Board. The Board will review the question when

they read the transcript. We've got a court

reporter who will prepare a transcript for us,

and they will consider that in their final

opinion and order.

MS. DECLUE: Okay. I'm Mary Ellen DeClue.

I live in Litchfield.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Could you please

spell your last name.

MS. DECLUE: Mary Ellen, two words.

DeClue, D-E-C-L-U-E, like I have no clue?

Clue.

All right. I live in Litchfield on Lake

Lou Yaeger. It's a beautiful lake. So I

appreciate your concern on Coffeen Lake. We

need to take care of our wonderful resources

like that.

My kind of suggestion is, we've talked

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

251

about Coffeen Lake is impaired. The dissolved

oxygen is extremely low. I mean, it's really

hurting for the fish. And I was under the

impression that as you increase the temperature

of the water, metabolic rates in fish increase,

which means they need more oxygen. So I can

see where there's, you know, potentially a

problem in actually promoting a good fishery

situation. Is there any way that the oxygen

level in the lake can be addressed? I mean, I

know we have thermal stress, but I mean is

there a way to have, like, fountains or

bubbles? Or, "aeration," I guess is the word

I'm looking for. Does that promote -- you

can't answer it? Okay.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: The Board will

consider that question when it takes up the

issue.

MS. DECLUE: And about the mercury? I was

under the impression the mercury we're talking

about comes from burning coal. And so if

there's less water, less watershed, that means

there's less coal dust around, all right?

Gillespie Lake right now, they have warned

about eating fish due to high mercury. So I

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

252

don't know. Are there any other lakes around

here that have that same warning about high

mercury levels in fish not to eat?

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Yeah, this really

isn't a question-answering kind of proceeding.

It's more like a judicial proceeding. It's not

like our regulatory proceeding. So really

we're not here to answer questions. Like I

said, you can pose questions to the Board for

their consideration.

MS. DECLUE: Who's the Board?

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: The Illinois

Pollution Control Board members.

MS. DECLUE: So I need to write a letter?

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Well, you don't

need to, because they'll be reading this

transcript, but you are more than welcome to

write a letter.

MS. DECLUE: Then included in that, why is

it 5 milligrams per liter to dissolved oxygen?

What is that magic number? The 5? I mean, I'm

just curious why that particular number was

chosen.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Well, like I said,

this really isn't a proceeding to answer.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

253

MS. DECLUE: I wish we had a question and

answer.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Yeah. In a

regulatory proceeding, you may get more answers

to your questions, but this is an adjudicatory

proceeding.

MR. DELCUE: Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Thank you.

Would you still like to take a break, or

would you like to --

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Could we take just five

minutes?

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Yeah.

[WHEREBY A SHORT BREAK WAS

TAKEN.]

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: We're back on the

record, and Petitioner's attorney is going to

ask for some Redirect testimony from the

witnesses.

JAMES WILLIAMS, JR.,

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

22 BY MR. RODRIGUEZ:

Q Mr. Williams, I just have a couple of

24 points here I wanted to clarify and for

25 clarification of some earlier testimony.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

254

First, when you were talking

2 about -- your scrubbers are going into the plant now

3 this year; is that correct?

A That's correct. Unit one will be in

5 service the end of this year and unit two primarily

6 March of 2002.

Q And those scrubbers are designed to

8 control for what pollutant?

A Mainly to remove SO2. We do have a

10 benefit of some mercury reduction. Our overall

11 compliance plan would have us in mercury reduction

12 by 2015, I believe.

Q Let me ask you about the -- you talked

14 earlier today about some -- you're going to have

15 some increased capacity as a result of some of these

16 efficiency projects that are going forward?

A Yeah. We talked about the increased

18 output of the Coffeen generating station, and those

19 are primarily due to efficiency upgrades with the

20 turbine set. The majority of that power that will

21 be produced will go to power the scrubbers. The

22 scrubbers take an auxiliary load of 40 megawatts,

23 and that was a way to increase that and be able to

24 use the power to power the FGD systems.

Q Some of your increased power will be used

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

255

1 to power some of these pollution control devices?

A That is correct.

Q Okay. Finally, let me ask you; there was

4 some discussion earlier today about 90 percent

5 capacity factors, and I think it was in the context

6 of Sargent & Lundy work and some projects with

7 respect to power capacity factor for the Coffeen

8 Station in 2014, I think. And I think the number

9 they were using was 90 percent; is that correct?

A Yeah, that is correct. When we

11 talked -- you know, the capacity factor, that's for

12 the annual capacity. During the summer, we would

13 expect to be in the high 90s. That's when the power

14 is needed. And we would be expected to be in the 90

15 plus. And then the study would be 90 for the annual

16 year, but during those summer months, we would be in

17 the high 90 percent capacity factor.

Q In fact, is that true today?

A Yes.

Q And was that true five years ago?

A Yes.

Q Okay. So during the summer months, when

23 these thermal limits are in play, and in May and

24 October as well, you already are operating at

25 capacity factors that are at or above 90?

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

256

A Yes, as long as I'm in compliance with my

2 standards.

Q Okay. So what we're talking about then in

4 terms of the Sargent & Lundy projections and into

5 2014, what we're talking about there is an annual

6 capacity level?

A That's an annual capacity factor.

Q Which would include periods of time that

9 were really unaffected by our relief, that the

10 relief that we're requesting today?

A That is correct.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. I would like to ask

Mr. Smallwood for some clarification.

MICHAEL SMALLWOOD

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

16 BY MR. RODRIGUEZ:

Q First of all, there was some discussion

18 earlier about the TMDL and more importantly the TMDL

19 addendum. And are you familiar with the work

20 of -- in the TMDL project in negotiation with the

21 Agency?

A Yes.

Q In fact, is that a project that you've

24 been working on?

A That's correct.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

257

Q Could you provide for the Hearing Officer

2 and the Board an explanation of the background of

3 the work that might and the discussions between the

4 Agency and Ameren on the TMDL addendum.

A Certainly. For the Section 401, water

6 quality certification, to support East Fork Shoal

7 Creek Project, which was discussed earlier as a

8 mechanism to provide additional water supply to

9 Coffeen Lake, we were advised by the Agency that we

10 would need to revise the existing TMDL to

11 incorporate those new water flows to account for any

12 increased phosphorous into the lake from East Fork

13 Shoal Creek.

Q Okay. And there was some discussion also

15 about increasing the level of the lake itself?

A That's correct. The revised TMDL, Ameren

17 thought it in our best interests that we evaluated

18 approximately 10 to 12 different scenarios of

19 different water supply sources that we thought may

20 be viable to provide water to the lake. That's not

21 to say that we may or may not do these. And there

22 is no prioritization based on those. Raising the

23 dam spillway 3 feet was one of those options as well

24 as pumping from various lakes and other streams in

25 the nearby area.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

258

Q And at one point, we heard a question

2 anyway as to whether there was a commitment by

3 Ameren to actually do a lake raise? Was that

4 something that was committed to be done?

A No. That was neither committed than the

6 previous 2007 TMDL document, nor was there any

7 commitment in the current revised one dated

8 essentially June 21, 2009. And a lot of that

9 references back to what Mr. Williams was stating

10 based on the economic evaluation that's done for any

11 kind of projects.

Q Okay. Let me change topics then to one

13 final matter. There was also a discussion earlier

14 today -- I believe it was in the morning

15 session -- about monitoring for temperature at the

16 edge of the mix zone. Do you recall that testimony?

A Yes, I do.

Q You were present this morning?

A Yes.

Q There was a question asked for -- I guess

21 there was implied in one of the questions that there

22 was a monitoring requirement in the NPDES permits

23 for the station, that the monitor or the monitor be

24 set at 18 inches below the surface of the water. Do

25 you recall that?

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

259

A Yes, I do.

Q Are you familiar with the NPDES permit for

3 the Coffeen Station?

A I am.

Q And do you know what the current

6 monitoring requirement is for the mixing zone?

A Quoting from special condition 5, the

8 second sentence of the NPDES permit, it states that

9 the edge of the mixing zone shall be a maximum area

10 of 26 acres in compliance with the following thermal

11 limitations determined by a fixed temperature

12 recorder set at the edge of the mixing zone below

13 the surface of the water.

Q And do you know where the recorder is set

15 at Coffeen Station?

A There are two monitors. One we designate

17 as a primary compliance monitor. The other is a

18 secondary just purely for backup data purposes.

19 They're both at the edge of the 26-acre mixing zone,

20 and the monitoring probe is 1 meter below the

21 surface of the water.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: I have no further

questions.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Thank you.

MS. WILLIAMS: Uh-oh. Do you guys know

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

260

how many inches are in a meter?

MR. SMALLWOOD: Approximately 39.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Did you have any?

MS. WILLIAMS: Can I ask just a quick

follow-up?

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Yeah. Go ahead.

MS. WILLIAMS: I think it's really quick.

I would like to draw your guys' attention

to your answer to question 4 to the Board's

questions. I'll just read -- can I just read?

MR. RODRIGUEZ: We'll find it.

MS. WILLIAMS: Page 11, the first sentence

of the answer to question 4 from the Board

states in order to ensure compliance with

temperature limits as set forth in the NPDES

permit, Ameren measures water temperature at a

depth of approximately 8 inches below surface

at the location.

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Okay.

MS. WILLIAMS: Do you want me just to ask

him to explain?

MR. RODRIGUEZ: I don't know, but it's not

consistent with the NPDES permit. So we may be

filing an errata.

MS. WILLIAMS: That would be fine. Just

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

261

so we can clear that up.

And then one other quick follow-up.

CROSS EXAMINATION

4 BY MS. WILLIAMS:

Q I guess is it Mr. Smallwood?

A Yes.

Q When you were referring to the June 21,

8 2009 addendum --

A Yes.

Q -- that was submitted to the Agency on

11 that date; is that correct?

A That's correct.

Q Have you heard anything back? I'm

14 assuming not yet, right?

A Not today. I've actually been out of the

16 office the last couple of days.

MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you.

CROSS EXAMINATION

19 BY MS. LOGAN-WILKEY:

Q I just have one quick question.

I think my question may not have been

22 phrased appropriately earlier regarding the issue of

23 raising the level of the dam by 3 feet. Would you

24 say that it's correct that the 2007 TMDL, those

25 numbers were based upon the dam being raised by

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

262

1 3 feet?

A I have no knowledge of that. I have read

3 and reviewed it. I just can't recall at this time.

4 I do recall that there was a statement in there that

5 it stated something to the effect that Ameren in the

6 future was going to raise the spillway by 3 feet,

7 but I don't think that was actually incorporated

8 into the modeling, but once again, that's something

9 we can verify.

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: Okay. We will do the

same. Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. Both sides

have made all the comments that they would like

to make? Is anyone making a closing statement

tonight?

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Sure. We have a little

bit of time.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. Sure.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: I think actually I'll do

it from here.

So we provided a lot more information

today and over the past couple weeks that we

hope -- that we believe supports the relief

that we seek in the petition for modified

thermal limit for Coffeen Lake.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

263

We've heard from Mr. Williams that Coffeen

supports the thriving fishery. We're heard

Dr. McLaren's analysis of historical data for

Coffeen Lake that supports his observation and

his prospective analysis anticipating that

Coffeen will continue to provide conditions

capable of supporting shellfish and wildlife.

Finally, Dr. Shortelle has provided her

opinion that the requested relief will have no

significant ecological impact.

And we would just like you to consider

this information for the record.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. Would the

EPA care to make any closing statements?

MS. WILLIAMS: I think we'll reserve it

for our briefs.

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Okay. The

transcript of these proceedings -- we've had a

discussion off the record.

The petitioner would like an expedited

transcript, and I have informed them that the

Board is not able to pay for that. However, if

Keefe Reporting would call the clerk's office,

Don Brown, I have no problem with working that

out. Somehow if we can somehow work it out

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

264

where the Board doesn't have to pay for an

expedited transcript, as far as I'm concerned,

you know, you can have it. If it doesn't work

out for any reason, and I can't imagine why, we

would otherwise have the transcript on July

6th.

Once we get the transcript, it will be

posted on the Board's website.

MS. WILLIAMS: Whether it's expedited or

not?

HEARING OFFICER WEBB: Right.

We are also taking the unusual step of not

setting a briefing schedule at hearing. During

the course of the proceeding, it was decided

that Petitioner would file some additional

supporting documentation. The parties have

agreed that the supporting documentation shall

be due by July 10th. And the parties have

agreed to meet for a status conference on

Monday, July 13th at 4:00 p.m. at which time a

briefing schedule will be set.

I do not think we have any further members

of the public here to make any comment. So I

will just state that I find all of the

witnesses testifying today to be credible. And

we will now adjourn the proceedings. I thank

you all for your participation.

[END OF PROCEEDING.]

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

265

NOTARIAL CERTIFICATE

I, ANN MARIE HOLLO, a Certified Shorthand Reporter

for the State of Illinois, CSR# 084-003476, and a duly

4 commissioned Notary Public within and for the State of

Illinois, do hereby certify that on June 23, 2009, there

5 came before me at the City of Litchfield City Hall Council

Chambers, 120 East Ryder Street, the foregoing hearing held

6 before the Illinois Pollution Control Board.

The Witnesses were first duly sworn to testify to

8 the truth and nothing but the truth of all knowledge

touching and concerning the matters in controversy in this

9 cause; that the witness was thereupon examined under oath

and said examination was reduced to writing. That this

10 transcript is a true and correct record of the testimony

given by the witnesses, and an accurate record of the said

11 hearing.

I further certify that I am neither attorney nor

counsel for nor related nor employed by any of the parties

13 to the action in which this deposition is taken; further,

that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or

14 counsel employed by the parties hereto or financially

interested in this action.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand

16 and seal on June 25, 2009.

My commission expires April 5, 2010.

________________________

Notary Public

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190