Fish Protection

Fish Protection at Cooling Water Intake Structures
A Technical Reference Manual – 2012 Update

3002000231
Fish Protection at Cooling Water Intake Structures
A Technical Reference Manual – 2012 Update
3002000231
Technical Update, February 2013
EPRI Project Manager

D. Dixon
ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 ▪ PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 ▪ USA
800.313.3774 ▪ 650.855.2121 ▪ askepri@epri.com ▪ www.epri.com
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF
WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI).
NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY
PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH
RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM
DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED
RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS
SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING
ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED
OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS
DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN
THIS DOCUMENT.
REFERENCE HEREIN TO ANY SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL PRODUCT, PROCESS, OR SERVICE BY ITS
TRADE NAME, TRADEMARK, MANUFACTURER, OR OTHERWISE, DOES NOT NECESSARILY
CONSTITUTE OR IMPLY ITS ENDORSEMENT, RECOMMENDATION, OR FAVORING BY EPRI.
THE FOLLOWING ORGANIZATION, UNDER CONTRACT TO EPRI, PREPARED THIS REPORT:
Alden Research Laboratory, Inc.
This is an EPRI Technical Update report. A Technical Update report is intended as an informal report of
continuing research, a meeting, or a topical study. It is not a final EPRI technical report.
NOTE
For further information about EPRI, call the EPRI Customer Assistance Center at 800.313.3774 or
e-mail askepri@epri.com.
Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHER…SHAPING THE FUTURE OF

ELECTRICITY are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright © 2013 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The following organization, under contract to the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI),
prepared this report:
Alden Research Laboratory, Inc.
30 Shrewsbury Street
Holden, MA 01520
Principal Investigators
J. Black
T. Hogan
K. Lamontagne
D. Giza
This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.
This publication is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following
manner:
Fish Protection at Cooling Water Intake Structures: A Technical Reference Manual – 2012
Update. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2013. 3002000231.
iii
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
This report provides an updated review of the state of knowledge on fish protection technologies
for use at power plant cooling water intake structures (CWISs) to meet requirements of §316(b)
of the Clean Water Act (CWA). While it is not possible to know with certainty how the §316(b)
Final Rule will look (it is scheduled to be issued on or before June 27, 2013), it is anticipated that
power generating facilities will have some flexibility in selecting fish protection technologies.
The information provided in this report can be used by power generators, resource managers, and
permitting agencies to determine the potential for different fish protection technologies to reduce
impingement and/or entrainment losses at CWISs. This report will be updated in 2013 in
accordance with the final EPA Existing Facility §316(b) Rule requirements.
Background
Section 316(b) of the CWA requires that the location, design, construction, and capacity of
CWISs reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. EPA
issued a final Rule for new (those constructed after January 1, 2001) facilities in 2001. On April
20, 2011, EPA proposed a revised §316(b) Rule for existing power plants and other industrial
facilities using cooling water. In June 2012, EPA, via a Notice of Data Availability, modified the
proposed impingement compliance options and added additional options for review and public
comment. Under the proposed Rule, facilities would use fish protection technologies to reduce
impingement and entrainment losses. Information on fish protection technologies and their
biological performance, in particular, is the subject of this report. A final §316(b) Rule for
existing power plants and other industrial facilities that use cooling water will be issued by EPA
on or before June 27, 2013.
Objective
The objective of this report is to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date review of the state of
knowledge on the performance, operational and maintenance requirements, and costs of CWIS
fish and shellfish protection technologies that can be used to meet the EPA §316(b) Rules for
new and existing power plants and other industrial facilities.
Approach
A literature search was conducted to identify available literature describing the application and
evaluation of fish protection technologies. All relevant reports and publications were reviewed,
and project design, study methods, and effectiveness results were summarized. A brief
description of each technology is provided, and permanent installations are discussed. Also, the
current and future status of each technology is assessed.
Results
Fish protection technologies are generally grouped into five functional categories—physical
barriers, collection systems, diversion systems, behavioral guidance devices, and flow reduction.
The performance, operational and maintenance issues, and documented installations of each
v
technology in each functional category are described in the report. The results of the review
indicate the importance of site-specific factors to the biological effectiveness and engineering
practicality of a technology. These factors include species and life stages present, facility design
and operating characteristics, and environmental factors (for example, debris loading) resulting
from physical, chemical, and hydrologic features.
No single intake technology proved effective and practical for all situations, even within
geographic regions. Information assembled and provided in this report, however, will be useful
in assessing which types of technologies would most likely provide protection to fish and
shellfish. The review also found that considerable opportunity exists to optimize the performance
of current technologies and to develop entirely new technologies.
Applications, Value, and Use
Information contained in this report will assist project owners, permit applicants, and others to
narrow the potentially applicable fish protection technologies to those that hold the greatest
potential to meet the national performance standards under the site-specific conditions of a given
facility. The information will also assist permit applicants to cost-effectively assemble and file
§316(b) NPDES permit application material—most important, the EPA proposed Rule and
expected Final Rule–required Comprehensive Technical Feasibility and Cost Evaluation Study.
Keywords
Clean Water Act Section 316(b)
Cooling water intake structures
Fish and shellfish protection
Fish protection technologies
vi
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1-1
Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act................................................................................. 1-1
Purpose of Technology Review ........................................................................................... 1-3
Approach and Report Organization...................................................................................... 1-3
Future Direction.................................................................................................................... 1-6
2 TRAVELING WATER SCREENS ........................................................................................... 2-1
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2-1
Unmodified Traveling Screens ............................................................................................. 2-2
Modified Traveling Screens.................................................................................................. 2-3
Case Studies – CWIS Application ...................................................................................... 2-14
Dunkirk Steam Station ................................................................................................. 2-14
Huntley Steam Station ................................................................................................. 2-21
Salem Generating Station ............................................................................................ 2-27
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant ............................................................................... 2-30
Somerset Station .......................................................................................................... 2-31
Arthur Kill Station ......................................................................................................... 2-33
Oswego Steam Station ................................................................................................ 2-38
Belle River Power Plant ............................................................................................... 2-40
Roseton Generating Station ......................................................................................... 2-42
Brayton Point Station ................................................................................................... 2-48
Prairie Island Generating Plant .................................................................................... 2-50
Big Bend Station .......................................................................................................... 2-52
Indian Point Generating Station ................................................................................... 2-58
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant ................................................................................... 2-65
Danskammer Point Generating Station ........................................................................ 2-70
Mystic Station ............................................................................................................... 2-74
Barney M. Davis Power Station ................................................................................... 2-75
Bowline Point Generating Station ................................................................................ 2-78
Oyster Creek Generating Station ................................................................................. 2-83
Hanford Reservation .................................................................................................... 2-85
Surry Power Station ..................................................................................................... 2-87
Manchester Street Station ............................................................................................ 2-88
Millstone Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3 .......................................................................... 2-90
Scattergood Generating Station ................................................................................... 2-91
H. A. Wagner Generating Station ................................................................................. 2-93
E. F. Barrett Generating Station ................................................................................... 2-94
Hudson Generating Station Station .............................................................................. 2-96
Potomac Generating Station ........................................................................................ 2-99
Fort Calhoun Station .................................................................................................. 2-104
vii
North Omaha Station ................................................................................................. 2-106
Case Studies – Laboratory Studies.................................................................................. 2-107
Laboratory Study, Redondo Beach, CA ..................................................................... 2-107
Laboratory Study, ESEERCO/Alden Research Laboratory........................................ 2-116
Laboratory Study, Tennessee Valley Authority .......................................................... 2-117
Laboratory Study – EPRI/Alden ................................................................................. 2-118
Laboratory Study – Hydrolo/Alden ............................................................................. 2-124
Laboratory Study – Aquaria/Alden ............................................................................. 2-141
3 STATIONARY SCREENS ...................................................................................................... 3-1
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 3-1
Case Studies – CWIS Application ........................................................................................ 3-1
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant ..................................................................................... 3-1
Case Studies – Field Studies ............................................................................................... 3-3
Oxbow Fish Hatchery Cascade Locks, Oregon ............................................................. 3-3
4 DRUM SCREENS ................................................................................................................... 4-1
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 4-1
Rotary Drum Screens........................................................................................................... 4-1
Angled Rotary Drum Screens .............................................................................................. 4-1
Case Studies – Rotary Drum Screens - Water Diversion Field Tests .................................. 4-3
Eagle Point Irrigation District .......................................................................................... 4-3
Irrigation Canal No. 1, City of Yakima, WA .................................................................... 4-3
Patterson Irrigation District ............................................................................................. 4-3
Pacific Power and Light .................................................................................................. 4-3
Various Sites – Idaho ..................................................................................................... 4-4
Woodbridge Fish Facility ................................................................................................ 4-4
Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District ...................................................................................... 4-4
Savage Rapids Diversion System .................................................................................. 4-4
Case Studies – Rotary Drum Screens – Hydroelectric Field Tests ...................................... 4-5
White River Hydroelectric Plant ..................................................................................... 4-5
Sizewell Power Station ................................................................................................... 4-5
Case Studies – Angled Rotary Drum Screens – Water Diversion Field Tests ..................... 4-6
Yakima River Basin ........................................................................................................ 4-6
5 CYLINDRICAL WEDGEWIRE SCREENS ............................................................................. 5-1
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 5-1
Logan Generating Plant ................................................................................................. 5-3
viii
Cope Station .................................................................................................................. 5-4
Eddystone Generating Station ....................................................................................... 5-4
Jeffrey Energy Center .................................................................................................... 5-5
Chalk Point Station ......................................................................................................... 5-7
Charles Point Recovery Facility ................................................................................... 5-10
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station .................................................................... 5-10
St. John’s River, FL ...................................................................................................... 5-14
J. H. Campbell, Unit 3 .................................................................................................. 5-15
Case Studies – Hydroelectric Application .......................................................................... 5-16
Arbuckle Mountain Hydroelectric Project ..................................................................... 5-16
Case Studies – Laboratory and Field Evaluations ............................................................. 5-16
Laboratory Test EPRI/EPA, Alden Research Laboratory ............................................. 5-16
Laboratory Evaluation – Delmarva Power and Light .................................................... 5-21
Laboratory Evaluation – Entergy/Alden ........................................................................ 5-25
Field Evaluation - Narragansett Bay, RI; Portage River, OH; and
Chesapeake Bay, VA ................................................................................................... 5-26
Field Evaluation - Haverstraw Bay, Hudson River, New York ...................................... 5-44
Field Evaluation – Mississippi River, Mississippi.......................................................... 5-51
Field Evaluation – Marin Municipal Water District Desalination (MMWD) Pilot Plant... 5-52
6 BARRIER NETS ..................................................................................................................... 6-1
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 6-1
Dallman Generating Station, Lake Springfield, Illinois ................................................... 6-6
Bowline Point Generating Station, Hudson River, New York ......................................... 6-7
Chalk Point Station ......................................................................................................... 6-9
J.P. Pulliam Plant, Fox River, Wisconsin ..................................................................... 6-12
Laskin, Colby Lake/Partridge River, Minnesota ........................................................... 6-14
Baker River, Baker River, Washington ......................................................................... 6-14
Arkansas Nuclear One, Dardanelle Reservoir, Arkansas ............................................ 6-15
LaSalle County Generating Station, Cooling Pond, Illinois .......................................... 6-16
Crystal Falls, Paint River, Michigan.............................................................................. 6-16
Highline Irrigation Canal, Highline Lake, Colorado....................................................... 6-16
Ludington Pumped Storage Plant, Lake Michigan, Michigan ....................................... 6-17
Pine Hydroelectric Project, Pine River, Wisconsin ....................................................... 6-19
Brule Hydroelectric Project, Brule River, Wisconsin..................................................... 6-21
Hayward Hydroelectric Project, Namekagon River, Wisconsin .................................... 6-22
Banks Lake, Columbia River, Washington ................................................................... 6-22
Puntledge Hydroelectric Project, British Columbia ....................................................... 6-23
Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, Lake Ontario, Ontario, Canada ....................... 6-24
Osage Hydropower Plant/Bagnell Dam, Osage River, Missouri .................................. 6-25
ix
J. R. Whiting Plant ........................................................................................................ 6-26
7 AQUATIC FILTER BARRIER ................................................................................................. 7-1
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 7-1
Lovett Generating Station .............................................................................................. 7-2
Bethlehem Energy Center .............................................................................................. 7-7
Case Studies – Field Evaluations ........................................................................................ 7-7
Pisces............................................................................................................................. 7-7
Case Studies – Laboratory Evaluations ............................................................................... 7-8
NYSDEC ........................................................................................................................ 7-8
Electric Power Research Institute .................................................................................. 7-9
8 POROUS DIKES .................................................................................................................... 8-1
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 8-1
Case Studies ........................................................................................................................ 8-1
Wisconsin Electric Power Plants – Field Test and CWIS Application ............................ 8-1
Brayton Point – Laboratory and Field Trials ................................................................... 8-2
Laboratory Evaluation – Kinetrics .................................................................................. 8-3
Laboratory Evaluation – Consumers Power ................................................................... 8-4
9 FISH PUMPS .......................................................................................................................... 9-1
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 9-1
Darlington Nuclear Generating Station .......................................................................... 9-1
Sioux Power Plant .......................................................................................................... 9-2
Monroe Power Plant ....................................................................................................... 9-7
Case Studies – Water Diversion Applications ...................................................................... 9-9
Red Bluff Research Pumping Plant ................................................................................ 9-9
Tracy Fish Collection Facility ....................................................................................... 9-17
Agricultural Pump Station, Cherry Creek, Washington ................................................ 9-23
R. H. Saunders Generating Station .............................................................................. 9-24
Case Studies – Laboratory Evaluations ............................................................................. 9-25
Laboratory Study – Ontario Hydro ............................................................................... 9-25
Laboratory Study – ESEERCO .................................................................................... 9-27
Laboratory Study – Nine-mile and Mystic Stations ...................................................... 9-31
10 ANGLED SCREENS .......................................................................................................... 10-1
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 10-1
Case Studies – CWIS Application ...................................................................................... 10-2
Oswego Steam Station ................................................................................................ 10-2
Brayton Point ................................................................................................................ 10-5
Danskammer Point ....................................................................................................... 10-7
x
White River Hydroelectric Project ................................................................................ 10-9
Weeks Falls Hydroelectric Project ............................................................................. 10-12
Case Studies – Laboratory and Field Studies .................................................................. 10-13
Field Study Newhalen River, Alaska .......................................................................... 10-13
Laboratory Evaluation – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Creston National Fish Hatchery ....... 10-14
Laboratory Study, Redondo Beach, CA ..................................................................... 10-17
Laboratory Study – ESEERCO .................................................................................. 10-21
Laboratory Study – Tennessee Valley Authority ........................................................ 10-24
Laboratory Study – Alden Research Laboratory ........................................................ 10-26
Laboratory Study - California ..................................................................................... 10-29
Laboratory Study – University of California, Davis ..................................................... 10-29
11 HIGH-VELOCITY SCREENS ............................................................................................. 11-1
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 11-1
Modular Inclined Screens (MIS) ......................................................................................... 11-1
Eicher Screens ................................................................................................................... 11-2
Case Studies – Hydroelectric Field Application ................................................................. 11-3
Green Island ................................................................................................................. 11-3
Puntledge Hydroelectric Project ................................................................................... 11-4
T. W Sullivan Plant ....................................................................................................... 11-5
Elwha Hydroelectric Project ......................................................................................... 11-6
Case Studies – Laboratory Studies .............................................................................. 11-8
Laboratory Study – Denver, CO ................................................................................... 11-8
EPRI/Alden Laboratory Study .................................................................................... 11-13
Hydraulic Model Study – Alden .................................................................................. 11-14
EPRI/University of Washington Laboratory Study ...................................................... 11-14
12 ANGLED BAR RACKS AND LOUVERS ........................................................................... 12-1
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 12-1
Case Studies – Hydroelectric and Water Diversion Applications ....................................... 12-2
Grand Falls – Windsor Hydroelectric Project ............................................................... 12-2
T. W. Sullivan Hydroelectric Project ............................................................................. 12-6
Vernon Hydroelectric Station ....................................................................................... 12-6
Tracy Fish Collection Facility ....................................................................................... 12-7
Holyoke Canal – Hadley Falls Hydroelectric Project .................................................... 12-9
Red Bluff Diversion Dam ............................................................................................ 12-10
Case Studies – Laboratory Evaluations ........................................................................... 12-13
EPRI ........................................................................................................................... 12-13
Laboratory Evaluation – EPRI .................................................................................... 12-18
Laboratory Evaluation – EPRI .................................................................................... 12-20
Laboratory Evaluation - Conte Anadromous Fish Research Center .......................... 12-22
xi
Laboratory Evaluation - Conte Anadromous Fish Research Center .......................... 12-23
Laboratory Study – Alden Research Laboratory ........................................................ 12-23
Laboratory Study – Redondo Beach Generating Station ........................................... 12-24
13 LIGHTS ............................................................................................................................... 13-1
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 13-1
Strobe Lights ...................................................................................................................... 13-1
Mercury Lights.................................................................................................................. 13-10
Other Light Sources ......................................................................................................... 13-14
Case Studies – Strobe Light – CWIS Field Tests ............................................................ 13-18
Milliken Steam Electric Station ................................................................................... 13-18
Roseton Generating Station ....................................................................................... 13-19
Pickering Generating Station ..................................................................................... 13-21
Case Studies – Strobe Light – Hydroelectric/Water Diversion Field Tests ...................... 13-22
Hiram M. Chittenden Locks ........................................................................................ 13-22
White Rapids Hydroelectric Project ............................................................................ 13-23
Burbank 3 Intake Channel .......................................................................................... 13-23
McNary Dam .............................................................................................................. 13-24
Mattaceunk Hydroelectric Project .............................................................................. 13-24
Four Mile Hydroelectric Project .................................................................................. 13-25
Rolfe Canal Hydroelectric Project .............................................................................. 13-26
Fort Halifax Hydroelectric Station ............................................................................... 13-27
York Haven Hydroelectric Project .............................................................................. 13-28
Hadley Falls Hydroelectric Project ............................................................................. 13-30
Puntledge Generating Station .................................................................................... 13-31
Rocky Reach Dam ..................................................................................................... 13-32
Seton Creek ............................................................................................................... 13-32
Case Studies – Strobe Light – Cage and Open Water Tests........................................... 13-33
Dworshak Dam ........................................................................................................... 13-33
Kingsford Hydroelectric Project .................................................................................. 13-35
Roza Diversion Dam .................................................................................................. 13-38
Ludington Pumped Storage ....................................................................................... 13-39
R. H. Saunders Generating Station ............................................................................ 13-40
Lake Oahe .................................................................................................................. 13-41
Grand Coulee Dam .................................................................................................... 13-42
Case Studies – Strobe Light – Laboratory Studies .......................................................... 13-44
Laboratory Study - Saimaa Fisheries Research and Aquaculture Station, Finland ... 13-44
Laboratory Study – Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) ........................... 13-46
Laboratory Study – University of Maryland ................................................................ 13-47
Laboratory Study – San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station ..................................... 13-48
Laboratory Study – Lee County Hyacinth Control District .......................................... 13-49
xii
Laboratory Study - Marine Biology Unit at Fawley, U.K. ............................................ 13-50
Laboratory Study – EPRI/University of Washington ................................................... 13-50
Laboratory Study – EPRI/University of Iowa .............................................................. 13-52
Laboratory Study, McIninch and Hocutt ..................................................................... 13-52
Laboratory Study – Ontario Hydro ............................................................................. 13-53
Laboratory Study - Simon Fraser University .............................................................. 13-53
Case Studies – Mercury Light – Hydroelectric Field Tests .............................................. 13-55
Weldon Dam, Mattaceunk Project .............................................................................. 13-55
Various Dutch Stations and Water Bodies ................................................................. 13-56
Poutès Dam ............................................................................................................... 13-57
Wanapum Dam .......................................................................................................... 13-57
Wapatox Canal Fish Screening Facility ..................................................................... 13-58
Annapolis Tidal Generating Station ............................................................................ 13-61
Bellows Falls Hydroelectric Project ............................................................................ 13-61
Priest Rapids Dam ..................................................................................................... 13-62
Cabot Station ............................................................................................................. 13-62
Case Studies – Mercury Lights – Cage Studies............................................................... 13-63
Kingsford Hydroelectric Station .................................................................................. 13-63
Case Studies – Mercury Lights – Laboratory Studies ...................................................... 13-63
Laboratory Study – Ontario Hydro ............................................................................. 13-64
Case Studies – Other Light – Hydroelectric Field Tests .................................................. 13-65
Richard B. Russell Pumped Storage Project ............................................................. 13-65
Halsou Hydroelectric Plant ......................................................................................... 13-65
Various Hydroelectric Projects in the Northeast – Weldon Dam, Mattaceunk
Hydroelectric Project, Rolfe Canal, Pejepscot Hydroelectric Project, Cabot Station.. 13-66
Rosa Diversion Dam .................................................................................................. 13-66
Case Studies – Other Light – Cage Tests........................................................................ 13-67
Case Studies – Other Light – Laboratory Studies ............................................................ 13-67
Laboratory Study – University of Maryland ................................................................ 13-67
Laboratory Study - Marine Biology Unit, Fawley, UK ................................................. 13-68
Laboratory Study – San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station ..................................... 13-69
Laboratory Study – South Dakota State University .................................................... 13-70
14 SOUND ............................................................................................................................... 14-1
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 14-1
Sound ........................................................................................................................... 14-1
Infrasound .................................................................................................................... 14-8
xiii
Case Studies – Sound – CWIS Field Trials ..................................................................... 14-11
Doel Nuclear Power Plant, Scheldt Estuary, Belgium ................................................ 14-11
James A. Fitzpatrick Power Plant .............................................................................. 14-12
Salem Generating Station .......................................................................................... 14-13
Arthur Kill Generating Station ..................................................................................... 14-15
Case Studies – Sound – Other Applications .................................................................... 14-16
Cresent and Visher Ferry Hydroelectric Project ......................................................... 14-16
White Rapids Hydroelectric Project ............................................................................ 14-19
Hiram M. Chittendon Locks ........................................................................................ 14-19
Richard B. Russell Pumped Storage Project ............................................................. 14-21
Pejepscot Hydroelectric Project ................................................................................. 14-22
Racine Hydroelectric Plant ......................................................................................... 14-22
Berrien Springs Hydroelectric Project and Buchanan Hydro Project ......................... 14-23
Georgiana Slough ...................................................................................................... 14-24
Wilkins Slough Pumping Station ................................................................................ 14-26
Institute of Freshwater Ecology’s River Laboratories, Frome River, Dorset, UK and
Blantyre Hydroelectric Station .................................................................................... 14-26
Bonneville Dam .......................................................................................................... 14-27
Fort Halifax Hydroelectric Project ............................................................................... 14-27
Vernon Hydroelectric Project ..................................................................................... 14-28
Lennox Generating Station ........................................................................................ 14-30
Seton Hydroelectric Station ........................................................................................ 14-30
Allegheny Reservoir ................................................................................................... 14-31
Arthur Kill Generating Station ..................................................................................... 14-31
Cage Tests – NYPA and ESEERCO ......................................................................... 14-32
Pickering Nuclear Generating Station ........................................................................ 14-33
Manimota Bay, Japan ................................................................................................ 14-34
Laboratory Study - Kinectrics ..................................................................................... 14-34
Case Studies – Infrasound – CWIS Application ............................................................... 14-35
Lake Borrevann, Norway; Tihange Nuclear Power Plant, River Muese, Belgium ...... 14-35
Annapolis Tidal Generation Station ............................................................................ 14-36
Case Studies – Infrasound – Other Applications ............................................................. 14-39
McNary Dam .............................................................................................................. 14-39
Roza Dam .................................................................................................................. 14-39
Rolfe Canal Hydroelectric Project .............................................................................. 14-40
Small Hydroelectric Intake, Sandvikselven, Norway .................................................. 14-42
Laboratory and Field Study, River Imsa, Norway ....................................................... 14-42
xiv
Sommaroyhamn, Norway ........................................................................................... 14-44
Laboratory Study – Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) ........................... 14-45
Laboratory Study, Oregon State University ................................................................ 14-46
Laboratory Study, Norway .......................................................................................... 14-46
15 AIR BUBBLE CURTAINS .................................................................................................. 15-1
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 15-1
Case Studies – CWIS Field Tests ...................................................................................... 15-2
Indian Point Generating Station ................................................................................... 15-2
Roseton Generating Station ......................................................................................... 15-5
Pickering Nuclear Generating Station .......................................................................... 15-5
Case Studies – Hydroelectric Field Tests .......................................................................... 15-5
White Rapids Hydroelectric Project .............................................................................. 15-5
Four Mile Hydroelectric Project .................................................................................... 15-6
Seton Hydroelectric Station .......................................................................................... 15-6
Heysham 1 and 2 Power Stations ................................................................................ 15-6
Case Studies – Laboratory Studies.................................................................................... 15-7
River Frome, UK .......................................................................................................... 15-7
Laboratory Studies, Various Locations ...................................................................... 15-10
Laboratory Study – Alden ........................................................................................... 15-11
16 HYBRID BEHAVIORAL BARRIERS .................................................................................. 16-1
Case Studies – Field Evaluations ...................................................................................... 16-1
Delaware Bay – PSEG/Alden Research Laboratory .................................................... 16-1
Lambton Generating Station ........................................................................................ 16-7
Plant Barry Generating Station .................................................................................... 16-9
Case Studies – Laboratory Evaluations ........................................................................... 16-12
Laboratory Study – PSEG/Alden Research Laboratory ............................................. 16-12
Laboratory/Hatchery Facility, Illinois Department of Natural Resources .................... 16-19
Laboratory Study - Kinetrics ....................................................................................... 16-21
17 OTHER FISH PROTECTION TECHNOLOGIES ................................................................ 17-1
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 17-1
Inclined Plane Screen ........................................................................................................ 17-1
Filtrex Candles ................................................................................................................... 17-1
Case Studies – Field Applications...................................................................................... 17-1
Taunton River, Dighton, MA ......................................................................................... 17-1
Case Studies – Laboratory................................................................................................. 17-4
Alden Research Laboratory ......................................................................................... 17-4
Guidance Walls ................................................................................................................ 17-12
Turbulence ....................................................................................................................... 17-12
Electric Barriers ................................................................................................................ 17-13
xv
Case Studies – Field Evaluation ...................................................................................... 17-13
Chicago Sanitary and Shipyard Canal ....................................................................... 17-13
Case Studies – Laboratory Evaluation ....................................................................... 17-15
18 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 18-1
xvi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Flush mounted traveling screen (modified from Mussalli et al. 1978).......................2-3
Figure 2-2 Schematic of a conventional traveling water screen ................................................2-4
Figure 2-3 Section of a traveling water screen modified for fish protection
(Ronafalvy et al. 2000) .............................................................................................................2-5
Figure 2-4 Section of an old fish basket design (left) and a new fish basket design (right)
illustrating the flow field created by each (Ronafalvy et al. 2000) ............................................2-5
Figure 2-5 Schematic of a Beaudrey WIP screen (Source: Beaudrey) ......................................2-7
Figure 2-6 Modified dual-flow screen at Dunkirk Station (Beak 1988) .....................................2-16
Figure 2-7 Somerset Station fish collection table (McLaren and Tuttle 2000) .........................2-32
Figure 2-8 Schematic diagram of the Belle River Power Plant sampling stations
(Freshwater Physicians, Inc. 1991) ........................................................................................2-41
Figure 2-9 Plan view of Roseton cooling water intake structure (modified from LMS 1991).... 2-43
Figure 2-10 Schematic of a dual-flow traveling intake screen (courtesy of U.S. Filter)............2-44
Figure 2-11 Section view of Roseton dual-flow traveling screen (LMS 1991)..........................2-45
Figure 2-12 Brayton Point angled traveling screen intake configuration (Davis et al. 1988).... 2-48
Figure 2-13 No-well screen (SWEC 1980) ...............................................................................2-52
Figure 2-14 Section view of Indian Point Generating Station Unit 1 CWIS (EA 1977).............2-58
Figure 2-15 Center-flow (Passavant) screen (Murray and Jinette 1978) .................................2-77
Figure 2-16 Bowline Point Station intake structure (King et al. 1978) ......................................2-79
Figure 2-17 Section view of 100-N intake structure (Page et al. 1977) ...................................2-85
Figure 2-18 Section view of HGP intake structure (Page et al. 1977) .....................................2-86
Figure 2-19 Schimetic of the Providence River showing Manchester Street Station and
approximate location of high- and low-pressure fish return lines (Marine Research 1997) .. 2-89
Figure 2-20 Hydrolox™ screen installed at the Barrett Generating Station, 2007 ...................2-95
Figure 2-21 Passavant-Geiger Multi-Disc™ Screen ................................................................2-99
Figure 2-22 Passavant-Geiger fish collection details .............................................................2-100
Figure 2-23 Image of Geiger screen installed at Fort Calhoun Station ..................................2-104
Figure 2-24 Test flume including isolation screen, traveling water screen, collection
trough, and collection net .....................................................................................................2-119
Figure 2-25 Hydrolox Screen™ installed in fish testing flume................................................2-125
Figure 2-26 Plan and section of prototype-scale test flume (EPRI 2010a) ............................2-131
Figure 2-27 Test flume for prototype-scale screen testing showing the three test
screens (EPRI 2009b). .........................................................................................................2-132
Figure 2-28 Ovivo screen collection system and PIT tag antenna locations..........................2-135
Figure 2-29 Common carp total survival on the OVIVO screen (left) and WIP screen
(right)....................................................................................................................................2-136
Figure 2-30 Golden shiner total survival on the OVIVO screen (left) and WIP screen
(right)....................................................................................................................................2-136
Figure 2-31 Time-to-impingement frequency (left) and length relationship (right) for
bluegill during Week 1 testing. .............................................................................................2-138
Figure 2-32 Time-to-impingement frequency (left) and length relationship (right) for
common carp during Week 1 testing. ..................................................................................2-139
xvii
Figure 2-33 Discharge line from the pump to the collection box (A) and inside view of
the collection box (B) ...........................................................................................................2-142
Figure 2-34 Prototype Beaudry WIP screen and pump .........................................................2-143
Figure 2-35 Adjusted survival for fathead minnow larvae using the Ricker model.................2-144
Figure 2-36 Taft Fisheries Research and Test Facility configured for the Phase II
biological evaluation of the Beaudrey WIP screen. ..............................................................2-146
Figure 2-37 Section view of fish return system testing loop with collection box at
the 4 ft discharge height.......................................................................................................2-149
Figure 2-38 Configuration of collection box at each discharge height; underwater, 2 ft,
and 4 ft. ................................................................................................................................2-149
Figure 2-39 Plan and section view of the Phase II fish return line testing facility...................2-152
Figure 2-40 Stone (A), rough carpet (B), fiber (C) and smooth (not shown) trough
substrate materials ...............................................................................................................2-153
Figure 2-41 Plan and elevation views of the Phase III fish return testing facility ...................2-155
Figure 2-42 The surrogate debris group included mylar (A), wood chips (B), and tinsel
(C) debris .............................................................................................................................2-156
Figure 2-43 The non-traditional debris group included plastic media (A), plywood
pieces (B), and beads (C) debris .........................................................................................2-156
Figure 3-1 Brunswick Plant layout and fish diversion barrier screen (Carolina Power
and Light 1985b) ......................................................................................................................3-2
Figure 3-2 Plan and side conceptual views of Farmer screen (Mesa 2012) ..............................3-4
Figure 4-1 Typical drum screen (EPRI 1986a) ..........................................................................4-2
Figure 5-1 Cylindrical wedgewire screen panel detail (modified from EPRI) .............................5-2
Figure 5-2 Cylindrical wedgewire screen intake (courtesy of Johnson Screens) .......................5-2
Figure 5-3 Wedgewire screen intake at the Logan Generating Plant (Ehrler and
Raifsnider 2000) .......................................................................................................................5-3
Figure 5-4 Wedgewire intake system at Eddystone Station (Veneziale 1991) ..........................5-5
Figure 5-5 Wedgewire screen intake system — Jeffrey Energy Center (Johnson and
Ettema 1988) ...........................................................................................................................5-7
Figure 5-6 Drawing of a bulkhead-mounted screen with cut away of wedgewire
configuration (Weisberg et al. 1987) ........................................................................................5-8
Figure 5-7 Fish testing facility and approximate location of cylindrical wedgewire
screens (EPRI 2003) ..............................................................................................................5-17
Figure 5-8 2001 wedgewire screen test facility (EPRI 2003) ...................................................5-17
Figure 5-9 2002 wedgewire screen test facility (EPRI 2003) ...................................................5-18
Figure 5-10 Johnson T-12 cylindrical wedgewire screen (white lines delineate sections
of the screen for which impingement locations were recorded) (EPRI 2003) ........................5-19
Figure 5-11 Schematic diagram of wedgewire test flume (Hanson et al. 1977).......................5-22
Figure 5-12 Test facility in plan and elevation view (EPRI 2005). ............................................5-27
Figure 5-13 Floating test facility (barge) – plan view (Alden 2010) ..........................................5-45
Figure 5-14 Floating test facility (barge) – elevation view (Alden 2010) ..................................5-45
Figure 5-15 Photographs showing the aluminum sleeve used to decrease the open
area of the 2.0-mm wedgewire screen (left) and the geometry of the control intake
cone (Alden 2010). .................................................................................................................5-46
Figure 5-16 Floating test facility (barge) with alternative sampling equipment. .......................5-46
Figure 5-17 Floating test facility (barge with standard sampling equipment) (Alden 2010) ..... 5-47
xviii
Figure 5-18 Test module with wire design (University of Iowa, Institute of Hydraulic
Research) ..............................................................................................................................5-51
Figure 5-19 MMWD pilot plant cylindrical narrow slot intake ...................................................5-53
Figure 6-1 Dallman barrier net installation 2003 ........................................................................6-7
Figure 6-2 Bowline Point barrier net configuration (LMS 1978) .................................................6-8
Figure 6-3 Bowline Point fine-mesh barrier net configuration (LMS 1994) ................................6-9
Figure 6-4 Chalk Point barrier net configuration (Loos 1986a, b) ............................................6-12
Figure 6-5 Baker River aerial photograph of barrier net ..........................................................6-15
Figure 6-6 Ludington aerial photograph of barrier net .............................................................6-19
Figure 6-7 Pine barrier net .......................................................................................................6-20
Figure 6-8 Brule barrier net ......................................................................................................6-21
Figure 6-9 Banks Lake fish barrier net – aerial photograph ....................................................6-23
Figure 6-10 Estimated annual fish iImpingement at the J. R. Whiting Plant from 1978
through 1984 (CPC 1984) ......................................................................................................6-27
Figure 7-1 Close-up of perforated AFB material (courtesy of Alden) .........................................7-1
Figure 7-2 Location of the Lovett Generating Station on the Hudson River, NY
(LMS 1996b) ............................................................................................................................7-2
Figure 7-3 Site plan of the AFB deployment at the Lovett Generating Station showing
sampling locations for entrainment sampling conducted between 1995 and 1999 (LMS
1998a,b). ..................................................................................................................................7-3
Figure 7-4 Site plan of the AFB deployment at the Lovett Generating Station showing
sampling locations for entrainment sampling conducted between 2004 and 2006
(ASA 2004). .............................................................................................................................7-3
Figure 7-5 Appearance of AFB pieces after 11, 20 and 29 days of exposure (moving
from left to right) to water in Bowline Pond at a depth of 3 ft (Henderson et al. 2001).............7-8
Figure 7-6 Hatching jars used in American shad egg impingement trials at the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) (photo courtesy Ed Radle,
NYSDEC). ................................................................................................................................7-9
Figure 7-7 Small test flume used in headloss and debris load testing (EPRI 2004). ...............7-10
Figure 7-8 Large flume used in the investigation of the effects of ambient sweeping currents
on headloss............................................................................................................................7-10
Figure 7-9 Biological testing facility comprised of 14 small acrylic test flumes (EPRI 2004) ... 7-11
Figure 9-1 Monroe Power Plant section view of fish pump system (Detroit Edison 1975)......... 9-8
Figure 9-2 Schematic of the Red Bluff Research Pumping Plant, Sacramento River, CA....... 9-10
Figure 9-3 Cut-away perspective of Archimedes lifts in bays 1 and 2 of the Red Bluff
Research Pumping Plant, Sacramento River, California. ......................................................9-11
Figure 9-4 Cut-away perspective of the Hidrostal pump in bay 3 of the Red Bluff Research
Pumping Plant, Sacramento River, California. .......................................................................9-11
Figure 9-5 Mean plasma cortisol concentrations (ng/mL; vertical bars represent 1 SE)
of Chinook salmon (A) at 0, 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 hrs after passage through Archimedes
lifts during 1998 (706 fish), (B) and 0, 1, 1.5, 3, 6, and 12 hrs after passage through
Archimedes lifts (720 fish) or (C) a Hidrostal pump (710 fish) during 1999. ..........................9-16
Figure 9-6 Cross-sectional view of the Hidrostal pump and fish injection ports (the
fish protective impeller shroud is not shown in this drawing) (Helfrich et al. 2001). ...............9-18
Figure 9-7 Cross-sectional view through the laboratory testing facility (Patrick and
Sim 1985)...............................................................................................................................9-25
xix
Figure 9-8 Jet pump test facility (ESEERCO 1981b) ...............................................................9-27
Figure 9-9 Hidrostal pump test facility (ESEERCO 1981b) ......................................................9-28
Figure 10-1 Oswego Unit 6 angled screen layout (LMS 1992) ................................................10-3
Figure 10-2 Oswego angled screen intake system dewatered (courtesy of Alden Research
Laboratory, Inc.) ....................................................................................................................10-4
Figure 10-3 Brayton Point Station Unit 4 angled screen intake structure fish return systems
(Davis et al. 1988) .................................................................................................................10-5
Figure 10-4 Danskammer angled screen system layout (LMS 1985) ......................................10-8
Figure 10-5 White River angled screen system — plan view (Dorratcague et al. 1996).......... 10-9
Figure 10-6 White River screen system — section view (Dorratcague et al. 1996) ...............10-10
Figure 10-7 White River angled screen diversion system (courtesy of U.S. Filter —
Johnson Screen) ..................................................................................................................10-11
Figure 10-8 Angled screen flume arrangement (plan) (Taft and Isakson 1983) ....................10-13
Figure 10-9 Test tank (A) showing (a) video camera, (b) test chamber, (c) velocity
meter), (d) cooling unit, and (e) propeller system. ...............................................................10-15
Figure 10-10 Total efficiency versus length for 1.5 mm mesh 1978 striped bass diversion
study (Taft et al. 1981b) .......................................................................................................10-22
Figure 10-11 Total efficiency versus length for 2.5 mm mesh 1978 striped bass diversion
study (Taft et al. 1981b) .......................................................................................................10-23
Figure 10-12 Diagram of the open-topped, glass water flume swimming chamber and
bypass channel ....................................................................................................................10-30
Figure 10-13 Flow maps of water velocities at middepth (8 cm) in the high-velocity,
high-bypass (60 cm/s with a 72 cm/s bypass) and intermediate-velocity (32 cm/sec)
treatments near the fish screen ..........................................................................................10-30
Figure 10-14 Mean (±SE) splittail hematocrit (%), plasma glucose (g/L), and lactate
concentrations (g/L) at rest and without flume exposure (-2 h), immediately after
swimming in the flume (0 h), and during recovery (0.5, 2, and 24h) for each velocity
treatment. .............................................................................................................................10-33
Figure 11-1 Modular inclined screen (Taft et al. 1995) ............................................................11-2
Figure 11-2 Eicher Screen (EPRI 1992a) ................................................................................11-3
Figure 11-3 Schematic of modular inclined screens (Taft et al 1997) ......................................11-4
Figure 11-4 Puntledge Eicher Screen System (Smith 1997) ...................................................11-5
Figure 11-5 Main features and operation of a typical high-velocity inclined profile-bar
screen (A). The section view (B) depicts the details of profile-bar position, arrangement,
and function (Wahl 2001). ......................................................................................................11-9
Figure 12-1 Orientation of angled bar racks and louvers slats. ...............................................12-1
Figure 12-2 Schematic diagram of the Grand Falls Power Canal, showing louver line,
bypass, and dam (Scruton et al. 2003) ..................................................................................12-3
Figure 12-3 Water velocity profiles along the louver array at eepths of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5,
and 2.0m in 1998 ..................................................................................................................12-4
Figure 12-4 Schematic diagram of the louver line and bypass facility indicating detection
cells (shaded circles) of 13 underwater antennae of the DSP telemetry system, as
deployed in 2000....................................................................................................................12-5
Figure 12-5 Fish guidance efficiencies (unadjusted) for Atlantic salmon smolts for the
5 years of monitoring, 1997 to 2001 (Scruton et al. 2003) .....................................................12-6
Figure 12-6 Holyoke louver system (Stira and Robinson 1997) ..............................................12-9
xx
Figure 12-7 Holyoke louver system (photo courtesy of Alden) ..............................................12-10
Figure 12-8 Red Bluff Diversion Dam and associated fish passage facilities (Vogel
et al. 1990) ...........................................................................................................................12-11
Figure 12-9 Louver screening efficiency for young Chinook salmon released into the
Tehama-Colusa Canal Headworks (Vogel et al. 1990) ........................................................12-12
Figure 12-10 Plan view of fish testing facility configured for tests with the bar rack and
louver arrays angled at 45 degrees to the approach flow (EPRI 2001) ...............................12-13
Figure 12-11 Plan view of fish testing facility configured for tests with the bar rack and
louver arrays angled at 15 degrees to the approach flow (EPRI 2001) ...............................12-13
Figure 12-12 Louver system at SONGS (EPRI 1987) ...........................................................12-25
Figure 13-1 Roseton intake structure behavioral barriers — section (EPRI 1999) ................13-20
Figure 13-2 1991 forebay and float positions, York Haven Hydroelectric Project
(Taft et al. 2001)...................................................................................................................13-29
Figure 13-3 1992 forebay and float positions, York Haven Hydroelectric Project
(Taft et al 2001)....................................................................................................................13-30
Figure 13-4 Vertical distance of yearling coho salmon above strobe lights that were
flashing five times/sec for 0 to 10 min (left) and the same distances for schools
during control treatments without strobe light (right) (Ploskey and Johnson 2001). ............13-37
Figure 13-5 Deployment of strobe lights and hydroacoustic transducers from fixed
barge (Simmons et al. 2002) ................................................................................................13-43
Figure 13-6 Percentage of Kokanee and sockeye salmon that responded to an overhead
shadow after strobe light exposure for various amounts of time as a function of time after
exposure. ...............................................................................................................................13-55
Figure 13-7 Modified light orientation Wapatox — plan view (EPRI 1990) ............................13-59
Figure 14-1 Locations of eight ultrasonic (122–128 kHz) projectors, a horizontally aimed,
500-kHz acoustic Doppler current profilers (ADCPs), 420-kHz, horizontally-aimed
single-beam transducers and vertically-aimed split-beam transducers (mounted
from the river bottom), and mobile hydroacoustic survey transects used for the
2008 evaluation of high-frequency sound at the Crescent Project (Dunning and
Gurshin 2012). .....................................................................................................................14-17
Figure 14-2 Mean number of adult eels within 1 m of the experimental sound projector
during attraction tests (Patrick et al. 2001) ..........................................................................14-35
Figure 14-3 Sketch of the River Imsa at the site of the fish trap. ...........................................14-43
Figure 15-1 Cross section of air bubbler array in front of intake bay 12 at Indian Point
Unit 1......................................................................................................................................15-3
Figure 16-1 Plan view of the sampling equipment and test area (PSEG 2005) .......................16-3
Figure 16-2 Avoidance probabilities (with 95% confidence intervals) by species and family... 16-6
Figure 16-3 Layout of the strobe light-acoustic hybrid system installed at Lambton
(Cord et al 2007) ....................................................................................................................16-8
Figure 16-4 Location of the strobe light frames within the stoplog slots of Units 4-5 CWIS... 16-10
Figure 16-5 Locations of the 3 sonic and 5 ultrasonic sound frequency transducers
inside the intake forebay of the Units 4-5 CWIS. .................................................................16-10
Figure 16-6 Overhead schematic of the test facility (PSEG 2003) .......................................16-14
Figure 16-7 Section and overhead view of the proposed sound system at Salem
(PSEG 2003)........................................................................................................................16-19
xxi
Figure 16-8 Mean number (±SD) of bighead carp attempts and repels observed in the
raceway with the activated sound and air system averaged across the three trials
(adapted from Figure 1 in Taylor et al. 2005). ......................................................................16-20
Figure 16-9 Mean number (±SD) of bighead carp found above the barrier. ..........................16-21
Figure 16-10 Efficiency comparisons for deterrence devices for five species (Patrick
et al. 2006b) .........................................................................................................................16-22
Figure 16-11 Comparison of fish (5 species) positions beyond 1.2 m-zone from
deterrence devices (Patrick et al. 2006b) ............................................................................16-22
Figure 17-1 Top candle array of IMOD shown with (left) and without (right) the
impingement enclosure box (Normandeau 2007). .................................................................17-2
Figure 17-2 Filtrex receiver box of IMOD (Normandeau 2007) ................................................17-3
Figure 17-3 Six individual Filtrex filter candles installed in the laboratory test facility. .............17-5
Figure 17-4 Schematic with approximate distances between system components and
egg and larvae release and collection locations and photograph of Filtrex Test Facility
(Alden 2007) ..........................................................................................................................17-6
Figure 17-5 Arrangement of antennas and hydrophones at the barrier
(Sparks et al. 2010)..............................................................................................................17-14
Figure 17-6 Overhead schematic of electric barrier test facility (Dawson et al. 2006) ...........17-16
xxii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Category groupings for fish protection technologies based on mode of action ......... 1-5
Table 2-1 Summary of information on modified coarse and fine-mesh traveling screen
installations and studies ...........................................................................................................2-8
Table 2-2 Dual-flow screen post-impingement survival study results — Dunkirk Steam Station
(August 1990–January 1991) (Lindsay 1991) ..........................................................................2-15
Table 2-3 Dunkirk Station early winter survival testing results (Beak 2000a) ..........................2-17
Table 2-4 Dunkirk Station impingement survival testing results for target species 1998–1999
(Beak 2000a) ...........................................................................................................................2-19
Table 2-5 Comparison of 24-hr impingement survival rates of target fish species at
Dunkirk Station before (1987 and 1990–1991) and after (1998–1999) installation
of the prototype dual-flow traveling screen (Beak 2000a) ......................................................2-20
Table 2-6 Collection efficiency results for Centrarchids (Beak 2000b) ....................................2-24
Table 2-7 Collection efficiency results for emerald shiner and rainbow smelt at the Huntley
Station (5 psi only) (Beak 2000b) ............................................................................................2-24
Table 2-8 Numbers of naturally impinged fish collected in fish and debris troughs at Huntley
Station (Beak 2000b) ..............................................................................................................2-24
Table 2-9 Results of impingement survival testing, Huntley Station, January, 1999
(Beak 2000b) .........................................................................................................................2-25
Table 2-10 Results of impingement survival testing, Huntley Station, October, 1999
(Beak 2000b) .........................................................................................................................2-26
Table 2-11 Results of 1997–1998 impingement survival study — Salem Generating Station
(Heimbuch 1999) ...................................................................................................................2-28
Table 2-12 Estimated survival rates for original and modified screen at Salem Generating
Station (Heimbuch 1999) .......................................................................................................2-29
Table 2-13 Initial and 96-hr seasonal survival rates of impinged fish at Somerset Station for
frequently impinged species (McLaren and Tuttle 2000) .......................................................2-33
Table 2-14 Twenty-four hour post-impingement survival of fish collected from one
unmodified and two Ristroph-modified dual-flow screens at the Arthur Kill Generating
Station (Consolidated Edison Company 1996) ......................................................................2-36
Table 2-15 Unit 5 conventional vertical traveling screen oost-impingement survival summary
Oswego Steam Station 1991 (LMS 1992) .............................................................................2-39
Table 2-16 Seasonal post-impingement survival Roseton Generating Station (LMS 1991) .... 2-47
Table 2-17 Impingement survival information — Brayton Point Station Unit 4
(Oct. 1984–March 1986) (Davis et al. 1988) ..........................................................................2-49
Table 2-18 Initial, latent, and overall survival by taxa and lifestage for 1984–1987
Prairie Island Generating Plant (Kuhl and Mueller 1988) .......................................................2-51
Table 2-19 Fish eggs — percent survival and hatchability Big Bend Plant
(Taft et al. 1981a)...................................................................................................................2-54
Table 2-20 Fish larvae — percent initial and latent survival at Big Bend
(Taft et al. 1981a)...................................................................................................................2-55
Table 2-21 Decapod zoea — percent initial and latent survival at Big Bend
(Taft et al. 1981a)...................................................................................................................2-55
Table 2-22 Decapod megalops — percent initial and latent survival at Big Bend
(Taft et al. 1981a)...................................................................................................................2-56
xxiii
Table 2-23 Comparison of initial survival (%) during the FMS survivability studies at
Big Bend Station (Brueggemeyer et al. 1988) .......................................................................2-57
Table 2-24 Comparison of fish egg hatchability and latent 48 hr survival (%) during the
prototype and FMS survivability studies (Brueggemeyer et al. 1988) ....................................2-57
Table 2-25 Survival (%) of fish collected from a Ristroph screen (fish sluice only) at
Indian Point Unit 2 and held for 96 hrs in situ; August 15 through December 27,
1985 (CONED 1986) ..............................................................................................................2-60
Table 2-26 Survival of fish collected from a Ristroph screen (fish sluice only) at
Indian Point Unit 2 and held for 96 hrs in situ; November 8 through December
27, 1985 (ConEd 1986) ..........................................................................................................2-62
Table 2-27 Initial and 96-hr survival for post-yolk-sac larvae and juveniles at Indian Point
Generating Station (EA 1977) ................................................................................................2-64
Table 2-28 Brunswick Station impingement survival study results: screen mortality —
1984 and 1985 (Carolina Power and Light 1985a) ................................................................2-67
Table 2-29 Brunswick Station impingement survival study results: control mortality —
1984 and 1985 (Carolina Power and Light 1985a) ................................................................2-69
Table 2-30 Initial and 84-hr survival by species, lifestage, and screenwash mode at the
Danskammer Point Plant (EA 1982) ......................................................................................2-72
Table 2-31 Initial and 84-hr survival of control species, lifestage, and screenwash mode
at the Danskammer Point Plant (EA 1982) ............................................................................2-73
Table 2-32 Mortality of winter flounder (SWEC 1981) .............................................................2-75
Table 2-33 Initial and 96-hr survival of white perch by screen operation mode at Bowline
Point Plant (King et al. 1978) .................................................................................................2-80
Table 2-34 Initial and 96-hr survival of white perch and striped bass by screen operation
mode at Bowline Point Plant (King et al. 1978) ......................................................................2-82
Table 2-35 Immediate and 48-hr survival of impinged fish and macroinvertebrates at
Oyster Creek Generating Station (Tatham et al. 1978) .........................................................2-84
Table 2-36 Initial and 48-h survival rates by species. ..............................................................2-90
Table 2-37 Millstone Unit 3 sluiceway survival of the 10 most abundant species following
various holding periods (NUSCO 1987). ................................................................................2-91
Table 2-38 Count and survival of fish impinged on the traveling screen at SGS
(Miller 2007) ...........................................................................................................................2-92
Table 2-39 Total number of the 15 most abundant species collected during impingement
studies at H. A. Wagner Generating Station ..........................................................................2-93
Table 2-40 48-hr mortality by species, number of species collected, and size range
by species. .............................................................................................................................2-96
Table 2-41 Total collected and percent survival by species sampled during 2005-2006 at the
Potomac River Generating Station (EPRI 2007). ...................................................................2-102
Table 2-42 LIM survival percentages for the fall and spring season’s most common species
sampled at the Potomac River Generating Station and five other plants with modified traveling
water screens (EPRI 2007). ...................................................................................................2-103
Table 2-43 Initial survival and number of individuals included in survival estimates by
species for monitoring at Fort Calhoun Station (EA 2011) ...................................................2-105
Table 2-44 Larval mean length passed versus mean length retained (LMS 1981)................2-108
Table 2-45 Adjusted mean impingement survival for each test species (LMS 1981) ............ 2-110
Table 2-46 Phase II impingement survival results (LMS 1981) .............................................2-115
xxiv
Table 2-47 48-hr mean percent survival of fish impinged on fine-mesh screens and
control groups at the TVA Laboratory (Tomljanovich et al. 1977) ........................................2-118
Table 2-48 Mean fork length (mm) ± standard error (SE), total number of fish tested
(n), survival at 48 hrs after testing, and the 95% confidence intervals (CI) by species
and velocity. .........................................................................................................................2-122
Table 2-49 Percent injury by species and velocity .................................................................2-123
Table 2-50 Survival and injury rates (%) by species and duration of impingement ...............2-124
Table 2-51 Summary of mortality rates by treatment condition .............................................2-126
Table 2-52 Summary of injury rates by treatment condition ..................................................2-127
Table 2-53 Summary of scale loss rates by treatment condition ...........................................2-128
Table 2-54 Survival rate by species, velocity, and duration in table-top studies with
0.5 mm screen mesh (EPRI 2010a). ....................................................................................2-130
Table 2-55 Screen, mesh size, approach velocity and species tested during
corresponding years. ...........................................................................................................2-133
Table 2-56 Percent of collected fish by species and week used for analyses
(TTI=Time-to-impingment; SISL=Survival, injury and scale loss) ........................................2-137
Table 2-57 Number of fish assessed, conditions and percent survival, injury, and
scale loss of <3% by species and week...............................................................................2-138
Table 2-58 Percent survival, injury and scale loss by species, number assessed, and
spraywash pressure .............................................................................................................2-139
Table 2-59 Mean, minimum, and maximum total length (mm), and total number of fish
tested at low (1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 ft/s) and high (3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 ft/s) approach velocities. ... 2-140
Table 2-60 Fathead minnow larval numbers collected and total survival for each velocity
tested and the controls.........................................................................................................2-143
Table 2-61 Fathead minnow egg numbers collected, total survival including and
excluding dead larvae for each velocity tested and the controls. .........................................2-145
Table 2-62 White perch larval numbers collected, total survival and adjusted survival for
each velocity tested and the controls. ..................................................................................2-147
Table 2-63 Species, lengths, and number measured of those fish used in Phase I testing... 2-150
Table 2-64 Mean (with standard deviation), minimum, and maximum fish fork length
(mm), and total number of treatment and control fish measured. ........................................2-154
Table 2-65 Mean (with standard deviation), minimum, and maximum fish fork length
(mm), and total number of treatment and control fish measured. ........................................2-154
Table 3-1 Mean density and mean biomass of selected species impinged at Brunswick,
1977-1985 (from Thompson 2000). .........................................................................................3-3
Table 5-1 Mean densities (numbers/1,000 m of water) of bay anchovies and naked gobies
3
collected in the bongo net from the canal, through each wedgewire exclusion screen, and
through an open port in 1982 and 1983 (Weisberg et al. 1987). .............................................5-9
Table 5-2 Density (no./m3) length (mm), and width (mm) of Mysidacea (opossum shrimp)
in entrainment sample sets collected January 3, 1979 (Browne 1979). ................................5-12
3
Table 5-3 Density (no./m ) length (mm), and width (mm) of Mysidacea (opossum shrimp)
in entrainment sample sets collected January 3, 1979 (Browne 1981). ................................5-13
Table 5-4 Wedgewire screen design and operation parameters evaluated during the
laboratory study (EPRI 2003) .................................................................................................5-20
Table 5-5 Impingement occurrence (Hanson et al. 1977) ........................................................5-24
xxv
Table 5-6 Mean density and standard deviation (SD) of grubby larvae collected at the
Sakkonet River site in ambient, control, and test samples during trials with 0.5 and
1.0 mm screens at slot velocities of 0.15 and 0.30 m/sec (EPRI 2005). ................................5-30
Table 5-7 Mean density and standard deviation (SD) of sand lance larvae collected at the
Sakkonet River site in ambient, control, and test samples during trials with 0.5 and 1.0 mm
screens at slot velocities of 0.15 and 0.30 m/sec (EPRI 2005). ............................................5-31
Table 5-8 Mean density and standard deviation (SD) of winter flounder larvae collected
at the Sakkonet River site in ambient, control, and test samples during trials with 0.5
and 1.0 mm screens at slot velocities of 0.15 and 0.30 m/sec (EPRI 2005). .........................5-32
Table 5-9 Mean density and standard deviation (SD) of larvae (all species) collected at the
Sakkonet River site in ambient, control, and test samples during trials with 0.5 and 1.0 mm
screens at slot velocities of 0.15 and 0.30 m/sec (EPRI 2005). ............................................5-33
Table 5-10 Mean density and standard deviation (SD) of eggs collected at the Sakonnet
River site in ambient, control, and test samples during trials with 0.5 and 1.0 mm screens
at slot velocities of 0.15 and 0.30 m/sec (EPRI 2005). ........................................................5-34
Table 5-11 Mean density and standard deviation (SD) of carp spp. larvae collected at the
Portage River site in ambient, control, and test samples during trials with 0.5 and 1.0 mm
screens at slot velocities of 0.15 and 0.30 m/sec (EPRI 2005). .............................................5-34
Table 5-12 Mean density and standard deviation (SD) of freshwater drum larvae collected
at the Portage River site in ambient, control, and test samples during trials with 0.5 and
Table 5-13 Mean density and standard deviation (SD) of shad larvae collected at the
Portage River site in ambient, control, and test samples during trials with 0.5 and
Table 5-14 Mean density and standard deviation (SD) of temperate bass larvae collected
at the Portage River site in ambient, control, and test samples during trials with 0.5 and
Table 5-15 Mean density and standard deviation (SD) of eggs collected at the Portage River
site in ambient, control, and test samples during trials with 0.5 and 1.0 mm screens at slot
velocities of 0.15 and 0.30 m/sec (EPRI 2005). .....................................................................5-37
Table 5-16 Mean density and standard deviation (SD) of naked goby larvae collected at
the Chesapeake Bay site in ambient, control, and test samples during trials with 0.5 and
1.0 mm screens at slot velocities of 0.15 and 0.30 m/sec (EPRI 2006b). ..............................5-40
Table 5-17 Mean density and standard deviation (SD) of bay anchovy larvae collected at
1.0 mm screens at slot velocities of 0.15 and 0.30 m/sec (EPRI 2006b). ............................5-41
Table 5-18 Mean density and standard deviation (SD) of skilletfish larvae collected at the
Chesapeake Bay site in ambient, control, and test samples during trials with 0.5 and
Table 5-19 Mean density and standard deviation (SD) of striped blenny larvae collected at
Table 5-20 Mean density and standard deviation (SD) of Northern pipefish larvae collected
at the Chesapeake Bay site in ambient, control, and test samples during trials with 0.5 and
Table 5-21 Summary of numbers of larvae collected through open pipe and wedgewire
screen unit and estimates of average reduction in entrainment densities due to wedgewire
screen unit, in comparison to open pipe. ...............................................................................5-48
xxvi
Table 5-22 Summary of numbers of larvae collected through open pipe and wedgewire
screen unit and estimates of average reduction in entrainment densities due to wedgewire
screen unit, in comparison to open pipe. ...............................................................................5-50
Table 5-23 Relative catches of larvae (Otto et al. 1981) ..........................................................5-52
Table 5-24 Numbers of larval fishes and fish eggs during entrainment and source water
sampling at Marin Municipal Water District Desalination (MMWD) pilot plant .......................5-54
Table 6-1 Existing barrier net installations, power plants/diversion field tests ..........................6-2
Table 6-2 Existing barrier net installations, hydroelectric/diversion field tests ...........................6-4
Table 6-3 Number of dead fish collected and prevent of fish collected considered too large to
pass through the mesh during pre- and post-net installation ...................................................6-26
Table 9-1 Species specific results of the Sioux fish return system 24-hr pumping and 24-hr
holding tests, March through December, 1981 (Union Electric Company 1982). ......................9-4
Table 9-2 Sioux fish return system 24-hour pumping and 24-hr holding tests, March through
December, 1981 (Union Electric Company 1982). ....................................................................9-6
Table 9-3 Survival for juvenile Chinook salmon in test groups used to compare Archimedes-1
and Archimedes-2 lifts on the Sacramento River at Red Bluff, CA (McNabb et al. 2003). ...... 9-13
Table 9-4 Survival of juvenile Chinook salmon in test groups used to compare the Archimedes
lifts and Hidrostal pump (McNabb et al. 2003). ........................................................................9-13
Table 9-5 Mean percent survival (S) and total numbers of fish collected from holding tanks (C)
for juvenile Chinook salmon and the four other most common fish species that were entrained
from the Sacramento River during 24-hr trials (N = 24) (McNabb et al. 2003) ........................9-14
Table 9-6 Estimates of overall treatment effects for juvenile Chinook salmon passed through the
Archimedes lifts and Hidrostal pump (Weber et al. 2002). .......................................................9-17
Table 9-7 Mean recovery and immediate and 96 hour survival of splittail passed through the
Hidrostal pump (treatment fish) compared with those of control fish (Helfrich et al. 2001). ..... 9-19
Table 9-8 Mean recovery and immediate and 96 hour survival of Chinook salmon passed
through the Hidrostal pump (treatment fish) compared with those of control fish (Helfrich
et al. 2001). ............................................................................................................................9-19
Table 9-9 Descaling and injury for quality control (handling), control (no pump passage), and
treatment (pump passage) groups of splittail (Helfrich et al. 2001). ........................................9-20
Table 9-10 Descaling and injury for quality control (handling), control (no pump passage), and
treatment (pump passage) groups of Chinook salmon (Helfrich et al. 2001). ..........................9-21
Table 9-11 Monthly number, total length range, and survival rate of native and nonnative
fish entrained and passed through the helical pump at the Tracy fish collection facility
(Helfrich et al. 2001). ................................................................................................................9-22
Table 9-12 Trial conditions tested. Reported capacities are site-specific electrical supply
limits. ........................................................................................................................................9-23
Table 9-13 Death and injury rates. Hydrostal pumps with two impeller/speed configurations:
Mmax, low-pitch impeller, maximum speed; Mopt, low-pitch impeller optimal speed; Smax, high-
pitch impeller, maximum speed; and Sopt, high-pitch impeller, optimal speed. ........................9-24
Table 9-14 Effectiveness of a Hidrostal pump in the live transfer of American eels (Anguilla
rostrata) (Patrick and Sim 1985) ..............................................................................................9-26
Table 9-15 Jet pump test results (ESEERCO 1981b) ..............................................................9-29
Table 9-16 Hidrostal test results from 1978 trials (ESEERCO 1981b).....................................9-29
Table 9-17 Hidrostal test results 1979 (ESEERCO 1981b) .....................................................9-29
Table 9-18 Hidrostal test results – yellow perch prolarvae (ESEERCO 1981b) ......................9-30
Table 9-19 Jet pump test results – yellow perch postlarvae (ESEERCO 1981b) ....................9-30
xxvii
Table 10-1 Diversion efficiency of angled screens at Brayton Point (Davis et al. 1988) .......... 10-7
Table 10-2 Mean number (SEs in parenthesis) of bull trout entrained and impinged on
various types of screen and the number surviving the experiments. ....................................10-16
Table 10-3 Results of diversion tests for all species (McGroddy et al. 1981) ........................10-18
Table 10-4 Comparison of predicted lengths for diversion and total efficiency between the
Redondo Beach study and the ESEERCO study (McGroddy et al. 1981) .............................10-21
Table 10-5 Results of 1979 testing showing predicted efficiencies based on larval lengths
(Taft et al. 1981b)...................................................................................................................10-24
Table 10-6 Physical and biological parameters investigated in each test flume
(Taft and Mussalli 1978) ........................................................................................................10-27
Table 10-7 Total number of tail contacts (T), total number of body contacts (B), swimming
velocity (cm/sec, V), total number of fish entering the bypass (E), and rheotaxis (angle of
fish to flow, R) of age-0 splittail exposed to a linear, wedge-wire fish screen. .......................10-32
Table 11-1 Number of fish and the percentage of fish descaled during observations made
at the T.W. Sullivan Plant in 1991 and 1992 (Clark and Cramer 1993). ..................................11-6
Table 11-2 Experimental design and number of replicates conducted for each screen type,
overflow rate (high= 25%, low= 10%), experimental group (three control and two treatment
groups), and nominal fish size-classes used to test survival and exclusion of fathead minnow
by high-velocity inclined profile-bar screens (Bestgen et al. 2004). .......................................11-10
Table 11-3 ANOVA results for models that assessed the effects of screen type, fish
release position, and screen by release position interaction on exclusion and survival
rates of various sizes of fathead minnow in tests of high-velocity, inclined, profile-bar
screens (Bestgen et al. 2004). .............................................................................................11-11
Table 11-4 Mean exclusion and survival rates (% SE and number of replicates in
parentheses) of 12.5-, 7.5-, and 5.0-mm TL fathead minnow released over four
different high-velocity inclined profile-bar screen configurations. .........................................11-12
Table 12-1 Fish length data (mm) for species tested with angled bar racks and louvers. ..... 12-15
Table 12-2 Summary of guidance efficiencies for bar rack and louver tests. ........................12-17
Table 12-3 Summary of results from age-1 lake sturgeon tests with bar racks and louvers
angled 15 degrees to the approach flow. ...............................................................................12-19
Table 12-4 Summary of results from shortnose sturgeon tests with bar racks and louvers
angled 15 degrees to the approach flow. ...............................................................................12-20
Table 12-5 Summary of results from American eel guidance trials with bar racks and louvers
angled 45 degrees to the approach flow (Amaral et al. 2003). ..............................................12-21
Table 12-6 Summary of results from American eel guidance trials with bar racks and louvers
angled 15 degrees to the approach flow.. ..............................................................................12-22
Table 13-1 Summary of strobe light testing conducted during field, cage, and laboratory
studies.....................................................................................................................................13-4
Table 13-2 Summary of mercury light testing conducted during field, cage, and laboratory
studies..................................................................................................................................13-11
Table 13-3 Summary of tests conducted with other types of light sources during field,
cage, and laboratory studies .................................................................................................13-15
Table 13-4 Strobe light testing results for Spirit Lake and Lake Pend Oreille. .......................13-35
Table 13-5 Median swimming speed (v) of experimental fish before and after the strobe
light was switched on. ..........................................................................................................13-45
Table 13-6 Mean swimming speed (v) and standard deviation for experimental fish before
and after exposure to light in the different rounds. ................................................................13-46
xxviii
Table 13-7 Number of observations, mean and standard deviation of the fish’s turning
angle (in degrees) after exposure to light. ............................................................................13-46
Table 13-8 Integrated power for various regions of the spectrum emitted by the strobe
light. ......................................................................................................................................13-54
Table 14-1 Summary of tests conducted with sound devices during field, cage, and
laboratory studies....................................................................................................................14-3
Table 14-2 Summary of tests conducted with infrasound devices during field, cage, and
laboratory studies...................................................................................................................14-9
Table 14-3 Number of fish collected by species at the four collection sites. ..........................14-38
Table 15-1 Total number of fish, average number per day and percent of total collected
from the four intake bays at Indian Point Unit 1 for three time intervals..................................15-4
Table 15-2 Heysham 2 bubble curtain percent impingement reduction ...................................15-7
Table 15-3 Number of replicates at each time period for each operating system
(Welton et al. 2002) .................................................................................................................15-8
Table 15-4 Efficiencies of BAFFs with 95% CL during hours of daylight (0500–2100 hrs)
and darkness (2100–0500 hrs) (Welton et al. 2002) ...............................................................15-9
Table 15-5 Estimated efficiencies of the BAFFs over the smolt season during daylight and
darkness hours (Welton et al. 2002) ....................................................................................15-10
Table 16-1 Summary of avoidance probabilities (95% confidence limits in parentheses) for
species and families with sufficient data for conducting statistical analyses...........................16-7
Table 16-2 Common name, scientific name and percent collected of the predominant fish
species collected during each evaluation type ......................................................................16-11
Table 16-3 Results of the MLE Split-Plot analyses of the transformed (natural log)
impingement rates using the SPSS mixed procedure. .........................................................16-12
Table 16-4 Treatment effectiveness (i.e. ability to elicit avoidance) ranked from highest
(1) to lowest (7) based on avoidance probabilities estimated for the three time intervals..... 16-17
Table 17-1 Impingement estimates for eggs, yolk-sac larvae (YSL), and post yolk-sac
larvae (PYSL) of river herring and white perch (Normandeau 2007). .....................................17-4
Table 17-2 Survival rates for American shad eggs ..................................................................17-7
Table 17-3 Survival rates for American shad larvae. ...............................................................17-8
Table 17-4 Survival rates for blueback herring eggs tested with clear and turbid water. ......... 17-9
Table 17-5 Survival rates for alewife and blueback herring larvae tested with clear and
turbid water. ..........................................................................................................................17-11
xxix
1
INTRODUCTION
This technical update provides a comprehensive review of fish protection technologies for
possible application at cooling water intake structures (CWISs), as well as other types of water
intakes. The information presented can be used as input into a preliminary evaluation of fish
protection technology alternatives for use at a given site to meet the requirements of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed Clean Water Act (CWA) §316(b) Rule for
existing facilities and the final Rule for new facilities as subsequently discussed. This report will
be revised appropriately in accordance with a final rule for existing CWIS when that Rule is
issued by EPA as final in 2013. The case studies provided in this report demonstrate that the
potential biological effectiveness and engineering practicability of a given technology will be
site-specific and will be strongly influenced by the species and life stages to be protected, the
design and operating characteristics of the plant, and the factors associated with geographic
location and waterbody type. In the following discussion, the status of each technology is
presented along with comments on important factors that influence the potential for effective
application at a given site. For those technologies that have not been fully developed, EPRI
identifies the additional information that is needed to better define potential effectiveness.
It should be pointed out that the fact that a technology has not been evaluated to date for
potential application at CWISs does not imply that it may not be effective. Conversely, the fact
that a technology has been evaluated extensively does not necessarily serve as proof that the
technology is effective. Finally, while research related to fish protection technologies for
hydroelectric and irrigation projects has been conducted, in large part, independently from that
for steam electric applications, the combined data and knowledge gained from all research
should be used in evaluating the potential application of a given technology at a selected site.
Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act

In 1972, Congress passed the CWA and §316(b) of the CWA applied directly to regulating the
impacts of CWIS on aquatic life. Specifically, §316(b) requires EPA to ensure that “the
location, design, construction and capacity of cooling water intake structures shall reflect the
best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact” (EPA 1972, 2002).
EPA issued a Rule in 1977 to implement the CWA §316(b) requirements. However, because of a
legal challenge, the regulation was remanded. EPA took no follow-up action to correct the
issues raised by the litigation. Permitting authorities subsequently issued §316(b) permits in
inconsistent ways including following the guidance provided by EPA or using best professional
judgment (BPJ). In 1994, a coalition of environmental groups sued EPA over failure to
promulgate national standards enforcing CWA §316(b) requirements. As a result, EPA entered
into a consent decree to develop, in phases, final regulations for both existing and new facilities
that use CWIS. A Phase I Rule for new facilities was issued in 2001 (EPA 2001). The Phase I
Rule essentially requires closed-cycle cooling systems or comparable performing intake
technologies as best technology available (BTA) to minimize adverse environmental impact. In
2004, EPA promulgated a Phase II Rule (EPA 2004) to implement regulations for existing power
plants that withdraw > 50 million gallons per day (MGD) of cooling water and later a Phase III
1-1
Rule for existing power plants withdrawing < 50 MGD and all other industrial facilities that use
cooling water. Phase II and III were subsequently challenged and later remanded for revision.
On April 20, 2011, EPA proposed a revised §316(b) Rule for existing power plants and other
industrial facilities using cooling water (a combined Phase II and III regulatory action) (EPA
2011). Performance standards and monitoring requirements were proposed for reducing
impingement and entrainment mortality. The proposed rule defines impingeable sized organisms
as those that will be collected on a 3/8 inch screen while entrainable organisms are those which
will pass through a 3/8 inch screen. Relative to impingement, for existing facilities with
withdrawals greater than 2 MGD, two compliance alternatives were provided to reduce
impingement mortality. The first was direct biological monitoring to demonstrate that
impingement mortality was no more than 12% annually and 31% monthly and the second was to
demonstrate the through-screen velocity did not exceed 0.5 ft/sec. EPA based these values on
analysis of post-impingement survival data from facilities with modified traveling screens and
fish return systems and from fish swim speed data, respectively. Relative to entrainment, the
compliance standard would be determined by the permitting authority on a “case-by-case” basis.
To support this determination, facilities withdrawing more than 125 MGD actual intake flow
must submit a number of studies that characterize the presence of early life stages in the source
water that are susceptible to entrainment, the extent of entrainment mortality caused by the plant,
and an evaluation of entrainment reduction options as well as their environmental impacts and
benefits. At a minimum, facilities are required to evaluate use of closed-cycle cooling and fine-
mesh screens.
On June 11, 2012, EPA published a Notice of Data Availability Relating to Impingement Control
Requirements (NODA) (EPA 2012) and requested comment on a number of issues. EPA
proposed potential modifications to the two compliance alternatives and provided a discussion of
four additional compliance alternatives that were being considered. These six alternatives
include:
• Alternative 1 – The Proposed Rule required installation of modified traveling screens and
meeting impingement mortality standards of no more than 12% annually and 31%
monthly, verified by biological monitoring. Additionally, impingement of shellfish
(crustaceans such as shrimp, crabs, or lobsters) must be reduced to the level achieved by
a properly maintained barrier net or other exclusion device. The NODA added that this
approach may include taking credit for new or existing fish protection technologies or
modifications using a calculation baseline approach to meet the performance standards
and that the EPA may revise the numeric criteria. The NODA also indicated that the
shellfish technology requirement might be dropped but that shellfish might need to meet
the impingement mortality reduction requirement.
• Alternative 2 – The Proposed Rule required facilities to demonstrate the maximum
through-screen intake velocity does not exceed 0.5 ft/s under all flow conditions. In the
NODA, the EPA indicated potential flexibility relative to meeting the velocity criterion
under all flow conditions, potential relief from the proposed Rule requirement for no
more than 15% screen blockage, fish entrapment, and proposed a methodology for
measuring compliance.
• Alternative 3 – Consideration of a “site-specific” approach in which the determination for
the impingement reduction BTA would be made in much the same manner as the BPJ
1-2
determination for entrainment. This alternative may be available either generally or
based on a demonstration that other alternatives are not feasible.
• Alternative 4 – Consideration of a “streamlined” or pre-approved approach in which
modified traveling water screens would be installed, followed by a two-year
“optimization study” with no requirement to perform direct biological compliance
monitoring.
• Alternative 5 – Consideration for use of a “defined” technology that would potentially
include offshore velocity caps and/or closed-cycle recirculating systems. Facilities that
employed these technologies would only have to demonstrate they are in place to be in
compliance.
• Alternative 6 – Consideration of an exemption for facilities with “low levels of
impingement”
Additionally, under either Compliance Alternative 1 or 2, if there is potential for entrapment of
fish or shellfish passage must be provided for their return to the source waterbody or existing
traveling water screens must be modified with the fish protection features of Compliance
Alternative 1. In the NODA, the EPA requested information or data for examples of where
addressing entrapment might not be feasible, suggesting it may modify this requirement. The
§316(b) Final Rule is scheduled to be issued on or before June 27, 2013.
Purpose of Technology Review

A thorough understanding of fish protection technologies that have potential for application at
CWISs is needed to adequately understand the potential technological options available to power
generating companies to reduce impingement and entrainment losses at power plant intakes.
EPRI has prepared this technical update as a means to disseminate information on the evaluation
and application of existing and emerging fish protection technologies. The main objectives of
this project were to: (1) gather all available information on permanent installations of fish
protection technologies and related research efforts; (2) assess the current status of each
technology; and (3) provide summaries of study methods and results for guidance in future
technology evaluations. The focus of these efforts was on the identification and evaluation of
fish protection technologies installed at CWISs. However, many studies have been conducted at
other types of water intakes or have evaluated technologies in controlled experiments or field
trials. Therefore, a considerable amount of the information presented in this report describes
such research.
Approach and Report Organization

EPRI conducted a comprehensive literature search to gather available information on technology
evaluations and to obtain updated information on older evaluations. EPRI reviewed the
information obtained for relevance to the report’s objectives. EPRI summarized relevant
publications (e.g., journal articles, industry and agency reports, conference papers) describing the
evaluations and effectiveness results. EPRI presents site descriptions, study equipment and
methods, and effectiveness results for each study reviewed. Within the discussions of each
technology, EPRI presents past experience in the following order: (1) full-scale applications at
CWISs, (2) other full-scale applications (e.g., hydroelectric, irrigation), and (3) pilot and
1-3
laboratory studies. Based on study results, EPRI provides a summary of the technology status.
The information EPRI provides in this report, while extensive, might not represent all of the
available information on a given technology. Some studies may not have been found during the
literature search or may not be publically available. Further, EPRI limits the results of each
study, and the conclusions drawn from them, to the objectives of that study. Therefore, relevant
questions that might be raised concerning a given technology or its effectiveness may not have
been addressed in some studies.
Fish protection technologies can be grouped into four categories based on their mode of action
(i.e., means by which they provide fish protection). These groups include physical barriers,
collection and return systems, diversion systems, and behavioral guidance devices. The
technologies that are included in each of these groups and their mode of action are listed in Table
1-1. In some cases, slight modifications to an existing technology can alter its mode of action.
For example, a traveling water screen mounted perpendicular to the approach flow can act as a
physical barrier or collection system, if equipped with fish lifting buckets and fish return line. If
the screens are mounted at an angle to the approach flow (to guide fish to a bypass), then the
screens act as a diversion system. Because a technology can have more than one mode of action,
the discussions of technologies within this report have not been grouped by mode of action.
1-4
Table 1-1
Category groupings for fish protection technologies based on mode of action
Technology Category Mode of Action System/Technology
Physical Barriers Physically block fish passage Traveling screens

(usually in combination with low Stationary screens
water velocity) Drum screens
Cylindrical wedge wire screens
Barrier nets
Aquatic filter barrier
Porous dikes
Radial wells
Artificial filter beds
Rotary disk screens
Collection Systems Actively or passively collect fish for Modified traveling screens
transport through a return system Fish pumps
Diversion Systems Divert fish to a return system or safe Angled screens

area Modular Inclined Screen
Eicher Screen
Angled rotary drum screens
Louvers
Inclined plane screens
Vertical/horizontal traveling
screens
Behavioral Guidance Alter or take advantage of natural Strobe light

Technologies behavior patterns to repel or attract Mercury light
(impingement only) fish Other light sources
Acoustic systems
Infrasound
Air bubble curtains
Hybrid systems
Other behavioral technologies
Flow Reduction Reduces the amount of flow and Variable speed pumps
number of fish entering the CWIS. Reduced pump operation
Will also reduce velocity Closed-cycle cooling
(Cooling Towers)
In this report, EPRI presents all available information on fish protection technologies in detail.
Emphasis is placed on information that is most applicable to CWISs, but studies at hydroelectric,
irrigation, and other water intakes are also presented. Regarding CWIS applications, the
information presented does not presume that a technology is actually a part of, or a backfit to, the
CWIS. At many sites, protection technologies might be installed at a location remote from the
CWIS. For example, a barrier net or behavioral device placed at the entrance to a canal leading
to a CWIS can be an effective fish protection technology without being an intake structure
technology per se. Site-specific design and operational considerations will determine the best
location for the installation of a given technology. This report provides the input necessary to
make such determinations.
In this report, EPRI has included a section that allows users to find references to fish protection
technologies based on the species evaluated. This table will aid users in finding the relevant
1-5
information for species of concern at a given facility. This section has not been updated to
reflect additional materials added to the technology document from its previous version;
however, following release of the final EPA §316(b) Rule for existing facilities, the table will be
updated accordingly.
Future Direction
This technology manual is a work-in-progress and additional information will be added in 2013
when a final EPA §316(b) Rule for existing facilities is issued. Increasingly, fish protection at
water intakes is becoming a global concern, especially in Western Europe and the U.K. This
manual will be expanded in 2013 to include more international information. In addition, data on
on-going fish protection projects continue to become available, and the 2013 Technical Report
will include addition material identified since this report was issued.
1-6
2
TRAVELING WATER SCREENS
Introduction
This chapter discusses traditional traveling water screens, as well as screens that have been
modified to increase fish survival. Conventional traveling water screens have been modified to
improve survival of impinged fish during the duration of their impingement on and spraywash
removal from the screens. The first modifications to traveling screens to protect fish were made
at Virginia Electric Power (VEP)’s Surry Station in 1976. The Ristroph screens, named for the
engineer that designed them, had a screen basket equipped with a water-filled lifting bucket to
hold collected organisms as they were carried upward with the rotation of the screen (White and
Brehmer 1977). Modified screens typically operate continuously to minimize impingement time.
As each bucket passes over the top of the screen, fish are rinsed into a collection trough by a
low-pressure spraywash system. Once collected, the fish are transported back to a safe release
location in the source water body. Modified traveling screens have been shown to improve fish
survival and have been installed and evaluated at a number of power plants.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed Rule (FR V76, N76, April
20, 2011) implementing Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. One approach for meeting the
proposed Rule at cooling water intake structures (CWIS) is to install modified traveling screens
and monitor their biological performance. Modified traveling screens require a fish return
system to transport collected organisms back to the source waterbody. In the proposed Rule,
EPA defined some of the characteristics it believes are necessary for a successful fish return,
“[The fish return should have] sufficient water volume and flow to enable impinged organisms to
return to the source water. Return systems should be designed to avoid predation and latent
mortality while organisms are in the flume, positioned at an appropriate water depth for high
survival of the organisms, located at an appropriate elevation to avoid large drops of the
organisms back to the surface water, and sited to avoid repeated impingement of the organisms
by the intake structure.” (FR V76, N76 22201). However, there are limited data available on the
biological performance of fish return systems and these systems are difficult to sample in the
field. Therefore, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) sponsored a multi-year laboratory
study looking at survival through a fish return system at various velocities, drop heights,
configurations, and with and without debris. The results of that study are presented in this
chapter.
Advances in state-of-the-art Ristroph screen design was developed through extensive laboratory
and field experimentation. A series of studies conducted by Fletcher (1990) indicated that
undesirable hydraulic conditions within the fish lifting buckets resulted in substantial injury to
fish due to repeated buffeting. To eliminate these conditions, a number of alternative bucket
configurations were developed to create a sheltered area in which fish could safely reside during
screen rotation. After several attempts, a bucket configuration was developed that achieved the
desired conditions (ENVIREX 1996). In 1995, Public Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G)
performed a biological evaluation of the improved screening system installed at the Salem
Generating Station in the Delaware River (Heimbuch 1999, Ronafalvy et al. 2000). The reported
2-1
survival rates for this installation are among the highest for any traveling screen system
(Heimbuch 1999).
In addition to the fish handling provisions noted above, traveling water screens have been further
modified to incorporate screen mesh with openings as small as 0.5 mm (0.02 in.) to collect fish
eggs and larvae and return them to the source water body. A number of fine-mesh screen
installations have been evaluated for biological effectiveness. Results of these studies indicate
that survival is highly species- and lifestage-specific. Species such as bay anchovy (Anchoa
mitchilli) and Alosa spp. have shown low survival while other species, such as striped bass
(Morone saxatilis), white perch (Morone americana), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), and
invertebrates (crabs and shrimp), show moderate to high survival.
In addition to these field applications, survival data on a variety of species and life stages
following impingement on fine-mesh screens is available from extensive laboratory studies. In
these studies, larval life stages of striped bass, winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus),
alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), walleye (Sander vitreus),
channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) were impinged on a
0.5 mm (0.02 in.) screen mesh at velocities ranging from 0.2 to 0.9 m/sec (0.5 to 3.0 ft/sec) and
for durations of 2, 4, 8 or 16 min. As in the field evaluations, survival was variable between
species, larval stages, impingement duration, and velocity (ESEERCO 1981a).
Unmodified Traveling Screens

Traveling screens of various types (e.g., through-flow, dual-flow, and center-flow) are standard
features at a CWIS. Typically they are fitted with coarse-mesh (9.5 mm [3/8 in.]) wire mesh.
However, without the addition of various fish handling designs (e.g., fish lifting buckets) and
operating features (e.g., continuous screen operation), traveling screens generally result in high
mortality to all but the hardiest species that become impinged on them. They have no capacity
for protecting entrainable-sized organisms. If these screens are placed relatively flush with the
face of the CWIS (Figure 2-1) and appropriate hydraulic conditions can be achieved, traveling
screens have the capability of offering protection to juvenile and adult fish that have the
swimming ability to avoid impingement. Because of these limitations, unmodified traveling
screens are unlikely to meet fish protection requirements at most CWIS.
From a biological viewpoint, there is little difference between traveling and stationary screens
except where heavy debris clogging makes the traveling screen a better option for maintaining
optimal hydraulic conditions.
2-2
Figure 2-1
Flush mounted traveling screen (modified from Mussalli et al. 1978)
Modified Traveling Screens

Traveling screens are in common use at most steam electric stations. Modifications for fish
protection have been incorporated into the design of through-flow, dual-flow, center-flow and
no-well screens. In addition, fine-mesh has been incorporated at some sites (and studied for
others) as a means to protect fish eggs, larvae, and macroinvertebrates. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed Rule (FR V76, N76, April 20, 2011) implementing
Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. One approach for meeting the proposed Rule at cooling
water intake structures (CWIS) is to install modified traveling screens and monitor their
biological performance.
The most common type of traveling screen in use in the U.S. is the through-flow design (Figure
2-2). This screen uses the ascending screen face to collect debris. Debris is removed via a high-
pressure spraywash system from either the front (ascending) or back (descending) side of the
screen. Such screens have been modified to incorporate new design features that improve the
survival potential of impinged organisms. Screens modified in this manner are commonly called
"Ristroph Screens” (Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4).
2-3
Figure 2-2
Schematic of a conventional traveling water screen
2-4
Figure 2-3
Section of a traveling water screen modified for fish protection (Ronafalvy et al. 2000)
Figure 2-4
Section of an old fish basket design (left) and a new fish basket design (right) illustrating the
flow field created by each (Ronafalvy et al. 2000)
Each screen basket is equipped with a water-filled lifting bucket that safely contains collected
fish as they are carried upward with the rotation of the screen. The screens operate continuously
to minimize impingement duration. When each bucket passes over the top of the screen, fish are
2-5
gently rinsed into a collection trough by a low-pressure spraywash system. Once collected, the
fish are transported back to a safe release location.
There are other modified screen types that are being tested for use in protecting aquatic
organisms. One such screen is the Geiger Multi-Disc™ Screening System. These screens have a
through-screen flow pattern with raw water flowing directly through the mesh panels without
change in flow direction. In a traditional modified traveling screen, only the ascending side of
the screen screens the raw water. By contrast, multi-disc screens’ total submerged screening area
(the descending and ascending mesh panels as well as mesh panels in the lower guiding section)
screens raw water. Fish and debris are retained on the mesh panels and carried upwards in a
bucket as the screen band travels through the water column to the discharge position above deck.
Debris and fish are washed off the screen above deck level by spraywash headers into a
collecting/transfer trough. A low-pressure wash is used to clear the ascending panels, and a high-
pressure spraywash is used as the panels descend. As both the ascending and descending sides of
the screen are on the same plane (the upstream side) of the system, carryover is eliminated. Mesh
size and material (e.g. woven mesh or perforated plate) and screen rotation speed can be
designed for site-specific needs. This technology has been successfully applied at one power
plant in the US and is currently being tested with the addition of fish protection buckets at other
U.S. facilities.
A second screen system being tested in the U.S. is the HydroloxTM screen. Hydrolox has
developed a polymer-based traveling screen with fish handling capabilities. This screen operates
similar to conventional traveling screens with a few significant differences. The screen material
and the sprockets are made of a lightweight polymer, which results in lighter weight screen
compared to standard traveling water screens. The top sprocket of the screen is offset from the
bottom sprocket allowing gravity to assist in debris removal, which results in improved debris
removal. Hydrolox screens use a single debris/fish return, which reduces the installation and
operating costs associated with plumbing and operating a second set of spray headers and
running a second return line. Recent laboratory testing of Hydrolox screens has shown that
impingement survival rates for several freshwater species are comparable to those observed in
laboratory tests using more traditional modified traveling screens. The impingement survival
rates of the Hydrolox screen were high enough to meet the IM performance standard for the
species tested. To date, Hydrolox screens have been installed at one power plant on the lower
Mississippi River (without fish handling modifications). A second Hydrolox screen has been
installed at an Atlantic coast facility and its biological efficacy is currently being evaluated (Fall
and Winter 2007/08).
The Beaudrey Water Intake Protection (WIP) screen is the most recent variation of a traveling
water screen (Figure 2-5). As with the other recently introduced collection systems, the WIP
screen has several features that are improvements over more conventional screens. These screens
incorporate large, filter disks that are divided into several pie-shaped wedges that rotate on a
center axle. Each disk rotates perpendicular to the net intake flow, eliminating any potential for
debris carryover. As the disk rotates, each “wedge” passes under a stationary suction scoop
mounted over one section of the filter disk. Fish and debris impinged on the screen are vacuumed
off as the screen rotates under this section. A fish-friendly pump, one which is designed to
handle fragile materials, is used to transport impinged organisms and debris to a return trough.
Organisms removed from the screen are continuously submerged, which may reduce or eliminate
some of the stresses (e.g., air exposure) associated with handling and return to the waterbody.
2-6
The WIP screen has been successfully tested at Omaha Public Power’s North Omaha Station,
Omaha, Nebraska.
Figure 2-5
Schematic of a Beaudrey WIP screen (Source: Beaudrey)
Survival is highly species and lifestage dependent. Therefore, to determine the potential
biological effectiveness at a given site, the available data presented in this report should be
reviewed relative to the representative important species to be protected. With fine-mesh
collection screens, the survival of each species/life stage to be protected must be weighed against
the survival that would result if that organism were allowed to pass through coarse-mesh screens
and the circulating water system. For some species/life stages, impingement on fine-mesh
screens can result in higher mortality than if the organism were allowed to be entrained through
the circulating water system. Therefore, for these species/life stages, impacts may actually
increase if fine-mesh screens are used to replace, or used instead of, coarse-mesh screens.
Information on coarse- and fine-mesh modified traveling screens installations and studies is
presented in Table 2-1.
2-7
Table 2-1
Summary of information on modified coarse and fine-mesh traveling screen installations and studies
Operator
(at Time of Screened Flow; Water
Plant, Location Mesh Size Screen Type Predominant Species Reference
Reference Source and Debris Type
Publication)
6.4 mm by
Public Service 140 m3/sec; brackish Through-flow Ronafalvy et al.
Salem Station, 12.7 mm
Electric & Gas water with heavy debris with lateral fish weakfish 2000; Heimbuch
Delaware River rectangular
Company loading passage 1999
mesh
Central 3.2 mm by blueback herring,

10.3 m3/sec; fresh water Dual-flow with
Roseton Station, Hudson 12.7 mm alewife, American
with seasonal heavy lateral fish LMS 1991
Hudson River Electric & Gas Smooth- shad, white perch, bay
debris loading passage
Company tex anchovy, striped bass
133 m3/sec; brackish

Indian Point Unit 2, Consolidated alewife, striped bass, Con. Ed. 1986;
9.5 mm water with heavy Through-flow
Hudson River Edison white perch Fletcher 1990
seasonal debris loading
alewife, Atlantic
Central tomcod, white perch,
Total 4 units: 20 m /sec;
3
Danskammer Point, Hudson Gas blueback herring, Ecological.

9.5 mm fresh water with heavy Through-flow
Hudson River & Electric spottail shiner, Analysts 1982
seasonal debris loading
Company American shad,
gizzard shad
American shad,
Virginia alewife, croaker,
111 m /sec; brackish
3
Surry Station, James Electric menhaden, silversides, White and

9.5 mm water with moderate Through-flow
River Power bay anchovy, spotted Brehmer 1977
debris loading
Company seatrout, silver perch,
weakfish
2-8
Operator
Publication)
Atlantic silverside,
Atlantic menhaden,
bay anchovy, blueback
Jersey 116 m3/sec; marine with
Oyster Creek, herring, Northern Thomas and
Central Power 9.5 mm heavy seasonal debris Through-flow
Barnegat Bay pipefish, smallmouth Miller 1976
& Light loading
flounder, striped
searobin, silver
seatrout
Niagara rainbow smelt, alewife,

20.5 m3/sec: freshwater
Oswego Station, Lake Mohawk Angled through- white perch, emerald
9.5 mm with heavy seasonal LMS 1984
Ontario Power flow shiner, gizzard shad,
debris loading
Corporation spottail shiner
Orange and Flow not reported;

Bowline Point Station, striped bass, white
Rockland 9.5 mm brackish with seasonal Through-flow King et al. 1978
Hudson River Estuary perch
Utilities heavy debris loading
alewife, gizzard shad,

mottled sculpin,
41.7 m3/sec; freshwater Through-flow darters, logperch,
Belle River Plant, St. Freshwater
Detroit Edison 9.5 mm with seasonal ice and with lateral fish white sucker, rock
Clair River Physicians 1991
heavy debris loading passage bass, rainbow smelt,
emerald shiner,
bluntnose minnow
golden shiner, fathead

minnow, white sucker,
bigmouth buffalo,
channel catfish, hybrid
Laboratory Study EPRI / Alden 9.5 mm Not applicable Through-flow EPRI 2006a
striped bass, bluegill,
largemouth bass,
yellow perch,
freshwater drum
2-9
Operator
Publication)
Atlantic herring,
Consolidated
Arthur Kill Generating Total flow 28.6 m3/sec; Atlantic silverside, bay
Edison
Station, Arthur Kill 3.2 mm brackish with heavy Dual-flow anchovy, blueback ConEd 1996
Company of
Tidal Strait seasonal debris loading herring, Atlantic
New York
Menhaden
alewife, shiners,
Niagara
rainbow smelt, white Beak
Dunkirk Station, Lake Mohawk 25.2 m /sec freshwater,
3
3.2 mm Dual-flow bass, white perch, Consultants, Inc.

Erie Power debris type not reported
yellow perch, gizzard 1988, 2000a
Company
shad, freshwater drum
Niagara 3.2 mm by
Flow not reported, alewife, gizzard shad, Beak
Huntley Steam Mohawk 12.7mm
freshwater, debris type Through-flow rainbow smelt, emerald Consultants, Inc.
Station, Niagara River Power Smooth
not reported shiner, trout-perch 2000b
Company Tex
striped bass, white

133 m3/sec; brackish Ecol. Anal.
Indian Point Unit 1, Consolidated perch, Alosa spp.,
2.5 mm water with heavy Through-flow 1977, 1979; TI
Hudson River Edison rainbow smelt, Atlantic
seasonal debris loading 1978
tomcod, bay anchovy
Washington
Hanford Generating Public Power Chinook salmon,
3.2 mm 35.6 m3/sec; freshwater Through-flow Page et al. 1977
Plant, Columbia River Supply yellow perch
System
100-N Generating Chinook salmon,

U.S. D.O.E. 3.2 mm 26.4 m3/sec; freshwater Through-flow Page et al. 1977
Plant, Columbia River yellow perch
Atlantic menhaden,
spot, hogchocker, bay
Calvert Cliffs, Baltimore Gas 30.5 m /sec; salt water
3
Ringger 2000;
10 mm Dual-flow anchovy, Atlantic
Chesapeake Bay & Electric with light debris loading Horwitz 1987
silverside, Atlantic
croaker, white perch
2-10
Operator
Publication)
Boston marine with seasonally rainbow smelt, Alosa

Mystic Station, Mystic Smooth- SWEC 1981;
Edison heavy debris and jellyfish Through flow spp., winter flounder,
River tex Taft et al. 1986
Company loading Atlantic tomcod
bay anchovy, black

drum, silver perch,
spotted seatrout,
Tampa Taft et al. 1981a,
Big Bend Station, 30.5m3/sec; salt water Dual-flow, No- scaled sardine,
Electric 0.5 mm Bruggemeyer et
Tampa Bay, FL with light debris loading well tidewater silverside,
Company al. 1988
stone crab, pink
shrimp, American
oyster, blue crab
gizzard shad, carp,

Northern 39.7 m3/sec; fresh water
Prairie Island Station, shiners, catostomids, Kuhl and Mueller
States Power 0.5 mm with moderate seasonal Through-flow
Mississippi River, MN channel catfish, white 1988
Company debris loading
bass, freshwater drum
New England 16.4m3/sec; salt water Atlantic silverside, bay

Brayton Point Station, 1.0 mm/ Angled,
Power with moderate, seasonal anchovy, tautog, LMS 1985
Mt. Hope Bay, MA 9.5 mm through-flow
Company debris loading Northern pipefish
Somerset (formerly NY State alewife, rainbow smelt, NYSEG et al.

12.3 m3/sec; fresh water
Kintigh) Station, Lake Electric & Gas 1.0 mm Through-flow shiners, tessellated 1990; McLaren
with light debris loading
Ontario, NY Company darter, mottled sculpin and Tuttle 2000.
croaker, spot, bay

Carolina 17.1 m3/sec; salt water Carolina Power
Brunswick Station, anchovy, menhaden,
Power & Light 1.0 mm with heavy seasonal Through-flow & Light 1985a
Cape Fear Estuary Atlantic silverside,
Company debris loading &1985b
shrimps, crabs
gulf menhaden, bay

Central Power 21.5 m3/sec; salt water anchovy, Atlantic
Barney Davis Station, Passavant, Murray and
& Light 0.5 mm with heavy loading of croaker, Penaeid
Laguna Madre, TX center-flow Jinnette 1978
Company grasses shrimp, rainwater
killifish
2-11
Operator
Publication)
striped bass, winter

flounder, alewife, Taft et al. 1981b,
Laboratory Study ESEERCO 0.5 mm Not applicable Through-flow yellow perch, walleye, ESEERCO
channel catfish and 1981a
bluegill
Atlantic menhaden,
Narragansett
not reported; Providence winter flounder,
Manchester Street Electric and
River; algae, terrestrial Atlantic silverside, Marine Research
Station, Providence, New England 9.5 mm Through-flow
vegetation, invertebrates, white perch, threespine 1997
RI Power
and trash stickleback, Northern
Company
pipefish
Atlantic menhaden,
Atlantic silverside, bay
Northeast
anchovy, bluefish,
Millstone Unit 3, Utilities 56.6 m3/sec ; Niantic Bay;
4.8 mm Through-flow butterfish, grubby, NUSCO 1987
Waterford, CT Service not reported
Northern pipefish,
Company
threespine stickleback,
winter flounder
Los Angeles
Scattergood queenfish, topsmelt,
Department of
Generating Station, 9.5 mm Through-flow white croaker, walleye Miller 2007
Water and
Los Angeles, CA surfperch, jack
Power
Atlantic menhaden,
Baltimore Gas
H. A. Wagner, not reported; Patapsco bay anchovy, Breitburg and
and Electric 9.5 mm Through-flow
Baltimore, MD River; not reported hogchocker, Atlantic Reiher 1988
Company
croaker, silversides
Atlantic silverside,
mummichog, Atlantic
E. F. Barrett, Island 0.64 by 2.5 12.9 m3/sec; Hempstead
National Grid Through-flow menhaden, Northern ASA 2008
Park, NY cm Bay; not reported
pipefish, seaboard
goby
2-12
Operator
Publication)
white perch, bay
Public Service anchovy, spotted hake,
Hudson Generating 0.64 by 39.1 m /sec; Hackensack
3
Electric & Gas Through-flow Atlantic silverside, red ASA 2011

Station 1.27-cm River; not reported
Company hake, threespine
stickleback
common carp, gizzard
Fort Calhoun Station, Omaha Public 22.7 m3/sec; Missouri shad, freshwater drum,
9.5 mm Through-flow EA 2011
Blair, Nebraska Power District River; not reported bluegill, channel
catfish, rainbow smelt
channel catfish, EPRI 2009a;
North Omaha Station, Omaha Public 32 m3/sec; Missouri River;
6.1 mm Through-flow bluegill, fathead Bigbee et al
Omaha, Nebraska Power District not reported
minnow 2010
smallmouth bass,
emerald shiner, golden
shiner, fathead
0.5, 1.0,
minnow, channel EPRI
Laboratory Study EPRI/Alden 1.78, 2.0 Not applicable Through-flow
catfish, common carp, 2009b,2010
mm
blue catfish, white
sucker, bigmouth
buffalo, bluegill
common carp, golden EPRI 2010a,
Laboratory Study EPRI/Alden 2.0 mm Not applicable Through-flow
shiner, bluegill, alewife 2011a
bigmouth buffalo, white
Laboratory Study EPRI/Alden 2.0 mm Not applicable Through-flow sucker, common carp, EPRI 2011b
bluegill
fathead minnow, white
Laboratory Study Aquaria/Alden 2.0 mm Not applicable Through-flow Alden 2012a,b
perch, alewife
2-13
Efforts to optimize the biological effectiveness of modified screens are continuing and should
lead to improved survival for even fragile species. Our understanding of fish/screen interactions,
important hydraulic conditions, and the contributions of the various screen system components to
injury and mortality have improved over the past 15 years and should continue to be
investigated.
Case Studies – CWIS Application
Dunkirk Steam Station

As part of efforts to improve fish survival at the Dunkirk Steam Station on Lake Erie in New
York, dual-flow screens were installed at both units and were evaluated in 1987 (Beak 1988) and
in 1990/1991 (Lindsay 1991). The screens incorporate 3.2-mm (1/8-in.) square mesh. In these
studies, the screen was operated continuously at 9.1 or 27.4 cm/s (0.3 or 0.9 ft/sec). We present
results of the later studies in Table 2-2.
In 1998, a modified dual-flow screen was installed in one bay of Unit 1 for evaluation. The
screen appears on Figure 2-6. The new screen incorporates a nose cone on its upstream, solid
wall to create improve flow distribution across the screen face. It also incorporates an improved
fish bucket design and internal and external low-pressure fish sprays. Preliminary survival data is
available for the winter of 1998/99, as we present in Table 2-3 (Beak 2000a). The results show
high survival for most species and suggest that the improved screen design may further enhance
the fish handling capabilities of this type of collection screen. The results of continued studies in
the spring, summer, and fall testing will determine whether improved survival trends will
continue with other species in other seasons.
2-14
Table 2-2
Dual-flow screen post-impingement survival study results — Dunkirk Steam Station (August 1990–January 1991) (Lindsay 1991)
Initial Classification Final Classification

Number Survival
Species Life Stage Initial Extended
Collected Live Dead Live Dead (%)
Survival (%) Survival (%)
alewife juvenile 25 8 17 32.0 2 6 25.0 8.0
juvenile 3,540 2,877 663 81.3 1,060 228 82.3 66.9
emerald shiner
adult 251 228 23 90.8 150 4 97.4 88.4
juvenile 221 156 65 70.6 29 98 22.8 16.1
gizzard shad
adult 1 1 0 100.0 0 1 0.0 0.0
juvenile 995 547 448 55.0 185 263 41.3 22.7
rainbow smelt
adult 1,835 1,535 300 83.7 204 152 57.3 48.0
juvenile 6 5 1 83.3 5 0 100.0 83.3
white bass
adult 1 1 0 100.0 1 0 100.0 100.0
white perch juvenile 665 516 149 77.6 422 94 81.8 63.5
yellow perch juvenile 16 13 3 81.3 13 0 100.0 81.3
Centrarchidae 1
juvenile 31 28 3 90.3 28 0 100.0 90.3
juvenile 38 25 13 65.8 17 5 77.3 50.8
spottail shiner
adult 2 2 0 100.0 2 0 100.0 100.0
others juvenile 11 10 1 90.9 10 0 100.0 90.9
(5 species)2 adult 4 4 0 100.0 1 3 25.0 25.0
1
Includes: bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) (19), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) (1), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) (1), rock bass
(Ambloplites rupestris) (4), white crappie (Pomoxis annularis) (4), and unidentified (1).
2
Includes: logperch (Percina caprodes) (1), trout-perch (Percopsis omiscomaycus) (4), fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) (1), freshwater
drum (Aplodinotus grunniens) (3), and mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdii) (6).
2-15
Figure 2-6
Modified dual-flow screen at Dunkirk Station (Beak 1988)
2-16
Table 2-3
Dunkirk Station early winter survival testing results (Beak 2000a)
Initial 24 Hr Total Total

Species
Dead Stressed Alive Survival (%) Dead Stressed Alive Survival (%) Tested Survival (%)
emerald shiner 45 0 3,693 98.8 23 1 3,669 99.4 3,738 98.2
gizzard shad “juvenile” 54 0 1,873 97.2 34 14 1,825 97.4 1,927 94.7
rainbow smelt 29 0 585 95.3 66 8 511 87.4 614 83.2
spottail shiner 0 0 297 100.0 1 0 296 99.7 297 99.7
gizzard shad “adult” 3 0 90 96.8 1 3 86 95.6 93 92.5
yellow perch 0 0 66 100.0 0 0 66 100.0 66 100.0
rock bass 2 0 22 91.7 0 0 22 100.0 24 91.7
trout-perch 3 0 5 62.5 0 0 5 100.0 8 62.5
bluegill 0 0 3 100.0 0 0 3 100.0 3 100.0
white bass 0 0 1 100.0 0 0 1 100.0 1 100.0
freshwater drum 0 0 1 100.0 0 0 1 100.0 1 100.0
shorthead redhorse 0 0 1 100.0 0 0 1 100.0 1 100.0
largemouth bass 0 0 1 100.0 0 0 1 100.0 1 100.0
sculpin 0 0 1 100.0 0 0 1 100.0 1 100.0
2-17
A biological evaluation of a prototype dual-flow traveling screen was conducted at Dunkirk
Station in 1998–1999, with sampling commencing in the winter of 1998. The goals of this study
were to estimate the survival of commonly impinged species, to assess the effects of collection
and handling on impinged species, to assess the effectiveness of the low pressure spray wash in
the removal of fish from the screens, and to determine ways to optimize post-impingement
survival.
The shoreline CWIS at the Dunkirk Steam Station includes a skimmer wall and two
screenhouses. Fish collected for this evaluation were taken off a prototype Ristroph dual-flow
traveling screen in Screenhouse #1. The screen is 3.35 m (11 ft) wide and 8.84 m (29 ft) deep
and is comprised of "smooth tex" stainless steel mesh, 3.2 mm by 12.7 mm (1/8 in. by 1/2 in.)
and a fish collection bucket. The screen was run continuously during sampling. Water from the
dual fish/debris return trough was diverted for 2 hrs for each sample. Fish were directed to a
collection table and then were transferred in water to holding tanks where they were held for the
24-hr latent mortality study. Observations of fish condition were made at 2, 4, 8, and 24 hrs after
collection. A total of 32 sampling events were conducted during this year-long study, with eight
samples being collected each during the winter, spring, summer, and fall.
The evaluation of the effects of collection and handling on impinged fish was conducted using
commercially available golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas). Fish used as collection
handling controls were introduced to the fish return trough without being subjected to
impingement, while fish used as handling controls were simply placed in the latent mortality
holding tanks. Results of the handling and holding controls showed survivals of 100 and 98.6%
respectively; indicating that very little to no mortality was attributable to the handling or holding
of the test fish.
The evaluation of the low pressure spray wash system was conducted with smallmouth bass
(Micropterus dolomieu) and yellow perch (Perca flavescens). Test fish were stained with rose
bengal dye, introduced in groups of two to four to the fish buckets on the traveling screen and
were collected in wire mesh baskets placed in the fish/debris return trough. Trials were run with
six combinations of spray pressures on the inside and outside spray headers. Results of the spray
system evaluation indicate that low outside spray pressures of 0–5 psi yielded the best recovery
rates (92–100%). Furthermore, nearly all fish not collected in the fish trough were collected in
the debris trough.
A total of 20,485 fish were collected for the latent mortality studies. A summary by season of
the number of individuals collected, initial and 24-hr extended survival, and total survival of
target species is given in Table 2-4.
2-18
Table 2-4
Dunkirk Station impingement survival testing results for target species 1998–1999 (Beak 2000a)
Species Total Tested Initial Survival (%) 24-Hr Survival (%) Total Survival (%)
Dec 20–23, 1998 and Jan 6–9, 1999
emerald shiner 3,738 98.8 99.4 98.2
gizzard shad juvenile 1,927 97.2 97.4 94.7
rainbow smelt 614 95.3 87.4 83.2
spottail shiner 297 100.0 99.7 99.7
gizzard shad adult 93 96.8 95.6 92.5
yellow perch 66 100.0 100.0 100.0
white bass 1 100.0 100.0 100.0
freshwater drum 1 100.0 100.0 100.0
April 20–28, 1999
emerald shiner 2,564 98.5 96.5 95.0
rainbow smelt 318 89.3 70.8 63.2
alewife 260 83.5 35.9 30.0
trout-perch 51 100.0 94.1 94.1
white perch 2 100.0 100.0 100.0
white bass 1 100.0 100.0 100.0
freshwater drum 1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Aug 16–Sept 4, 1999
rainbow smelt 48 79.2 23.7 18.8
alewife 12 25.0 0.0 0.0
white bass 6 100.0 83.3 83.3
Nov 2–11, 1999
emerald shiner 6,072 98.8 99.1 98.0
gizzard shad juvenile 1,477 99.7 98.9 98.6
rainbow smelt 473 96.8 78.4 75.9
yellow perch 178 98.9 100.0 98.9
white bass 147 98.6 100.0 98.6
white perch 45 100.0 100.0 100.0
gizzard shad adult 12 91.7 100.0 91.7
Comparisons of extended survival rates estimated from this evaluation were compared to
extended survivals from previous evaluations in 1987 and 1990–1991 (Table 2-5). There was an
overall improvement in the extended survivals of all species. Most notably, "fragile" species,
including alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), rainbow smelt
(Osmerus mordax), and white perch (Morone americana), showed marked improvements in
survival off the new prototype screen. Between the earlier and most recent evaluations, alewife
2-19
survival increased from <10% to 30%. Extended survival rates for juvenile gizzard shad
increased from 27% to 95% during the winter, from 9% to 71% during the summer, and from
16–78% to 99% during the fall. Rainbow smelt survival increased significantly during the fall
from a previous rate of 23–59% to a current rate of 76%. Overall, white perch survival increased
from 56–57% in 1987 to 100% in 1998–1999.
Table 2-5
Comparison of 24-hr impingement survival rates of target fish species at Dunkirk Station before
(1987 and 1990–1991) and after (1998–1999) installation of the prototype dual-flow traveling screen
(Beak 2000a)
1987 1990–1991* 1998–1999

Life
Species Season Survival Survival Survival
Stage N N N
(%) (%) (%)
alewife juvenile fall 4.1 73 8 25 – –
spring – – – – 30 260
summer – – – – 0 12
emerald shiner juv/adult winter 72.3–96.2 65–130 – – 98.2 3,738
spring – – 95 2,564
summer 42.4 33 – – 67.3 46
fall 80.0–88.4 60–146 66.9–88.4 251–3,540 98 6,072
gizzard shad juvenile winter 26.7 30 – – 94.7 1,927
spring – – 64.9 211
summer 9.1 44 – – 70.7 288
fall 48.9–77.8 135–235 16.1 221 98.6 1,488
rainbow smelt juv/adult winter 58.7–91.2 34–225 – – 83.2 614
spring 53.6 97 – – 63.2 318
summer – – 18.8 48
fall 37.8–58.7 49–148 22.7–48.0 995–1,835 75.9 473
white bass juv/adult winter 81.2 32 – – 100 1
spring 51.1 45 – – 100 1
summer 54 37 – – 83.3 6
fall 97.9 47 85.7 7 98.6 147
white perch juv/adult winter 56.7 30 – –
spring 56.2 48 – – 100 2
summer 56.7 30 – – 100 22
fall – – 63.5 665 100 45
yellow perch juv/adult winter – – – – 100 66
summer – – – – 92.9 14
fall 93.8 32 81.3 16 98.9 178
*tests conducted August 1990-January 1991
N = sample size
2-20
Suggestions for the optimization of the prototype screen and fish return system included
reducing the outside spray wash header pressure to 5 psi minimizing the gap between the flap
seal and the descending screen, and either discontinuing the use of the lower outside spray wash
nozzles or readjusting their angles.
Huntley Steam Station

A fish survival study was conducted at the Huntley Steam Station (Huntley), on the Niagara
River, in the town of Tonawanda, NY. The study was designed to assess the biological efficacy
of five new flow-through Ristroph modified screens in the screenhouse that services Units 67
and 68 (Beak 2000b). The study assessed: 1) the effectiveness of the low pressure spraywash to
remove fish from the screens; 2) the influence of collection and handling on the survival of
impinged fish; 3) estimated post-impingement survival of impinged fish and 4) to determine
ways to optimize post-impingement survival.
Huntley is a four unit, coal-fired facility with a combined output of 760 MW. The intake,
located on a bulk-headed shoreline, withdraws water from the Niagara River. Water enters a
common forebay under a skimmer wall. The forebay has five sets of bar racks and traveling
screens, which are located 3.66 m (12 ft) downstream of each bar rack. The traveling screen
slots are approximately 3.4 by 6.1 m (11 by 20 ft). The new screens were manufactured by
Bracket-Green and used 3.2- by 12.7-mm (1/8-. by 1/2-in.) “smooth tex” woven stainless steel
mesh. The screens had separate fish and debris troughs. Fish were removed from the
descending screen faces with two inside and two outside low-pressure spray washes. Fish and
debris troughs combined into a single 45.7-cm (18-in.) diameter pipe before discharging into the
Niagara River approximately 106.7 m (350 ft) downstream of the intake.
To determine the efficacy of the spray wash to remove fish from the screens, a mark/recapture
study was undertaken. Two to four marked fish were placed in the fish lifting buckets on the
ascending screen. Fish that were removed by the spray wash system were collected in baskets
designed to fit in the fish and debris trough. The majority of testing was conducted with screens
#5 and #6 because they were the most easily accessible. During testing there was little or no
debris on the screens, and they were rotated continuously at 2.44 m/min (8 ft/min); the normal
operating speed.
Dead Centrarchids (bluegill [Lepomis macrochirus] and pumpkinseed [Lepomis gibbosus]) were
stained and used in tests to optimize spraywash pressure. Twenty-five fish ranging in size from
94 to 161 mm (3.7 to 6.3 in.) were tested with four different spray pressures, 1.5, 5, 8, and 10 psi.
Smaller dead emerald shiners (Notropis atherinoides) (70 to 100 mm [2.8 to 3.9 in.]) were tested
to determine if size and fish shape affected collecting efficiency. In addition, dead rainbow
smelt (in two size classes, 75 to 95 mm [3.0 to 3.7 in.] and 130 to 140 mm [5.1 to 5.5 in.]) were
tested at 5 psi only. Finally, numbers of “naturally impinged” rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax)
and emerald shiners (Notropis atherinoides) caught in the fish and debris trough were compared.
Post-impingement survival tests were conducted at Huntley in January and October 1999. In
early January, 85 golden shiners (Notemigonus crysoleucas) , obtained through commercial
vendors, were handled and/or held for 24 hrs to determine the effect of handling and holding on
survival. Forty-nine of the 85 fish were introduced upstream of the impingement collection
device in the fish return trough (handling controls), while the remaining 36 golden shiners were
placed directly in the holding tanks (holding controls). Extended survival of all 85 fish was
2-21
100% at the 24-hr period. Therefore, no adjustments were made to the impingement mortality
estimates to account for handling or holding mortality.
The primary objective of the impingement survival test was to assess the effectiveness of the
screens with four target species (alewife [Alosa pseudoharengus], emerald shiner, gizzard shad
[Dorosoma cepedianum], and rainbow smelt). During January testing, an attempt was made to
assess 200 fish from each of the four target species, such that results would be statistically
reliable. Additional testing was conducted in October, specifically to supplement the data for
alewife, since the 200 fish target for alewife was not achieved in January. Other species were
collected and tested when additional holding space was available.
Eight-hr samples were collected on five nights from January 21–25, 1999, and October 24–29,
1999. During sampling, the modified traveling screens were rotated continuously at 2.44 m/min
(8 ft/min). All fish from Screens #5 and #6 were diverted into a collection table. Sampling was
conducted continuously for up to 2 hrs but was shortened when large numbers of fish were
impinged. Sampling was interrupted to move fish when necessary. Fish were removed from the
collection table using a brailing device that maintained a minimum of 101.4 mm (4 in.) of water
and minimized handling stress. Fish were held in large fiberglass or galvanized steel tanks
(ranging in size from 75.7 to 908.5 liters [20 to 240 gal]) and supplied with a continuous supply
of water pumped from the forebay. Flow into the tanks was continuous and provided a moderate
circular current. Water in the holding tanks was exchanged three to five times per hr. No more
than 5 g of fish per liter of water were held in any of the tanks. Fish were separated by size and
predator and prey species were separated. The initial condition of all fish was assessed prior to
being placed into the holding tanks. Three categories of condition were used to characterize fish
condition: 1) live – no visible physical damage, fish actively swimming, and oriented in a normal
upright position; 2) stressed – fish with visible physical damage such as missing patches of
scales, torn fins, hemorrhaging or gouging, and/or weak swimming ability or fish having
difficulty maintaining position; or 3) dead – fish with no obvious external signs of life and/or
severely damaged or mutilated individuals with only slight opercular movement. Only live fish
were transferred to the holding tanks and held for 24 hrs to determine latent mortality.
Recovery rates for Centrarchids ranged from 88% to 100% (Table 2-6). The best transfer
efficiencies occurred at pressures of 1.5 and 5 psi. In most cases, fish that were not transferred to
the fish return system were captured in the debris trough. Differences in efficiency between
screens were attributed to differences in orientation of the internal and external spray washes
and/or differences in pressures between internal and external spray washes.
Tests conducted on Screen #6 with dead emerald shiners showed that only 37% of the fish were
collected in the fish return trough (Table 2-7). The remaining shiners were collected in the
debris trough. Recovery of larger fish was greater than for smaller fish. In tests with two sizes
of rainbow smelt, the collection efficiency ranged from 42 to 63% for juvenile fish (75 to 95 mm
[3.0 to 3.7 in.]) and for adult rainbow smelt (130 to 140 mm [5.1 to 5.5 in.]) collection efficiency
ranged from 86 to 98% (Table 2-7). Regardless of size, the combined efficiency of both troughs
ranged from 89 to 100%.
Collections of live impinged fish from the fish return and debris troughs downstream of Screens
#5 and 6 indicated that 83% of the emerald shiners and 91% of the rainbow smelt were collected
from the fish return trough (Table 2-8). Observed recovery of live fish (Table 2-7) was
2-22
substantially higher than similarly sized dead fish. This confirms previous observations of fish
recovery from laboratory studies conducted at Alden Research Laboratory, Inc (Alden 2000).
A total of 6,120 fish were collected during the January impingement survival testing. Rainbow
smelt were the most numerous fish collected (3,418). Overall survival of rainbow smelt was
84.2%. Rainbow smelt ranged in size from 56 to 140 mm (2.2 to 5.5 in.). Distribution in fish
length was bimodal with peaks representing juvenile and adult fish. The division between the
two age classes was at approximately 100 mm (3.9 in.). The extended survival of juvenile and
adult rainbow smelt was 74.4% and 94.3%, respectively, with a total impingement survival of
84.2% (Table 2-9). The extended survival of emerald shiner (48 to 105 mm [1.9 to 4.1 in.]) was
97.5% (Table 2-9). Juvenile gizzard shad ranging in length from 86 to 193 mm (3.4 to 7.6 in.)
had overall survival of 5.1% and initial survival of 14.9%. The three adult shad collected were
severely stressed and did not survive. The authors believe that the low survival of gizzard shad
could be partially attributed to thermal stress incurred as a result of the cold water temperatures
(~0°C [32°F]). A total of 30 alewife were collected during January (four dead and 26 stressed).
As with the gizzard shad, the authors speculate that cold water temperatures may have
contributed to the poor survival observed.
Ten species of non-target species were collected during the study: trout-perch (Percopsis
omiscomaycus), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris), spottail
shiner (Notropis hudsonius), white sucker (Catostomus commersonii), white perch (Morone
Americana), smallmouth bass, bluntnose minnow (Pimephales notatus), darters, and redhorse
sucker (Moxostoma spp.). With the exception of trout-perch, these species were collected in
small numbers. The total survival of the non-target species ranged from 37.5% (white perch) to
100% (trout-perch, yellow perch, white sucker, smallmouth bass, bluntnose minnow, darter, and
redhorse sucker) (Table 2-9).
A total of 3,258 fish were collected during the October impingement survival testing. Extended
survival of rainbow smelt was estimated to be 48.0% (Table 2-10), which is lower than the
reported survival of rainbow smelt in January. Survival of emerald shiner was high in October
(97.5%) and roughly equal to what was observed in January (97.3%).
Based upon length frequencies, the gizzard shad tested in October were almost exclusively
juveniles. The survival rate for gizzard shad in October was substantially higher than what was
observed in January, i.e., 22.4% vs. 0%. Water temperatures were well above (11.5 to 14°C
[52.7 to 57.2 °F]) those that caused thermal stress for gizzard shad during the January sampling
efforts, thus possibly accounting for the higher survival. Alewife tested in October ranged in
length from 79 to 134 mm (3.7 to 5.3 in.) and probably included young-of-the-year fish. The
total survival of alewife during October was 22.4%.
Several of the non-target species collected in large enough numbers during October to be
statistically reliable exhibited high total survival rates (e.g., spottail shiner, 97.8% (n=231); rock
bass, 98.9% (n=180); and white bass (Morone chrysops), 97.6% (n=127).
2-23
Table 2-6
Collection efficiency results for Centrarchids (Beak 2000b)
Fish Return Trough Fish Return and Debris Trough
Screen Spray Pressure (psi) Spray Pressure (psi)
1.5 5.0 8.0 10.0 1.5 5.0 8.0 10.0
#5 100% 100% 94% 92% 100% 100% 98% 98%
#6 98% 100%
#7 88% NA
#8 100% NA
#9 100% NA
NA = Debris trough was inaccessible.
Table 2-7
Collection efficiency results for emerald shiner and rainbow smelt at the Huntley Station (5 psi
only) (Beak 2000b)
Fish Return Trough Fish Return and Debris Trough
Rainbow Smelt Rainbow Smelt
Emerald Shiner Juvenile Adult Emerald Shiner Juvenile Adult
Screen 70–100 mm 75–95 mm 130–140 mm 70–100 mm 75–95 mm 130–140 mm
#5 63% 98% 89% 100%
#6 37% 42% 86% 100% 96% 96%
#9 52% 88% NA NA
Table 2-8
Numbers of naturally impinged fish collected in fish and debris troughs at Huntley Station (Beak
2000b)
Percent of
Number of Fish Number of Fish Recovered Fish
Size Recovered from Recovered from Collected in Fish
Species (mm) Trough Debris Trough Trough
emerald shiner 70–100 104 22 83%
rainbow smelt 75–140 995 95 91%
2-24
Table 2-9
Results of impingement survival testing, Huntley Station, January, 1999 (Beak 2000b)
Initial 24-Hr 24-Hr Total Total

Species Initial Survival
Dead Stressed Alive Dead Stressed Alive Survival Tested Survival
rainbow smelt* 32 29 3,357 98.2% 430 49 2,878 85.7% 3,418 84.2%
emerald shiner* 14 19 2,168 98.5% 19 3 2,146 99.0% 2,201 97.5%
gizzard shad "juvenile"* 32 236 47 14.9% 25 6 16 34.0% 315 5.1%
trout-perch 0 0 67 100.0% 0 0 67 100.0% 67 100.0%
alewife* 4 26 0 0.0% 30 0.0%
yellow perch 0 0 20 100.0% 0 0 20 100.0% 20 100.0%
rock bass 1 1 17 89.5% 0 0 17 100.0% 19 89.5%
spottail shiner 0 1 17 94.4% 0 0 17 100.0% 18 94.4%
white sucker 0 0 11 100.0% 0 0 11 100.0% 11 100.0%
white perch 4 1 3 37.5% 0 0 3 100.0% 8 37.5%
gizzard shad "adult"* 0 3 0 0.0% 3 0.0%
smallmouth bass 0 0 3 100.0% 0 0 3 100.0% 3 100.0%
bluntnose minnow 0 0 3 100.0% 0 0 3 100.0% 3 100.0%
darter 0 0 2 100.0% 0 0 2 100.0% 2 100.0%
redhorse sucker 0 0 2 100.0% 0 0 2 100.0% 2 100.0%
Total 6,120
* Target species
2-25
Table 2-10
Results of impingement survival testing, Huntley Station, October, 1999 (Beak 2000b)
Initial 24-Hr
Species Initial Survival 24-Hr Survival Total Tested Total Survival
Dead Stressed Alive Dead Stressed Alive
rainbow smelt* 282 81 1,461 80.1% 584 2 875 59.9% 1,824 48.0%
emerald shiner* 5 2 621 98.9% 9 1 611 98.4% 628 97.3%
spottail shiner 2 2 227 98.3% 1 0 226 99.6% 231 97.8%
alewife* 0 2 181 98.9% 139 1 41 22.7% 183 22.4%
rock bass 0 2 178 98.9% 0 0 178 100.0% 180 98.9%
white bass 0 2 125 98.4% 1 0 124 99.2% 127 97.6%
gizzard shad* 0 0 65 100.0% 2 0 63 96.9% 65 96.9%
smallmouth bass 0 0 6 100.0% 0 0 6 100.0% 6 100.0%
darter 0 0 5 100.0% 0 0 5 100.0% 5 100.0%
white perch 0 0 4 100.0% 0 0 4 100.0% 4 100.0%
yellow perch 0 0 1 100.0% 0 0 1 100.0% 1 100.0%
brook silverside 0 0 1 100.0% 0 0 1 100.0% 1 100.0%
pumpkinseed 0 0 1 100.0% 0 0 1 100.0% 1 100.0%
goldfish 0 0 1 100.0% 0 0 1 100.0% 1 100.0%
black crappie 0 0 1 100.0% 0 0 1 100.0% 1 100.0%
Total 3,258
* Target species
2-26
Salem Generating Station
An evaluation of the biological effectiveness of the modified traveling screens at the Salem
Generating Station on Delaware Bay in New Jersey was conducted in 1995 (Ronafalvy et al.
2000; Heimbuch 1999). An initial evaluation was performed after six of the 12 existing traveling
water screens at the cooling water intake structure had been replaced with the new, improved
screens, allowing a side-by-side comparison of the effectiveness of the old and new screens (the
other six screens have since been replaced). The new screens incorporated the hydrodynamically
improved fish buckets (as described previously; Fletcher 1990), smooth woven mesh screens (1.6
by 12.7 mm [1/4 by 1/2 in.] rectangular mesh), lighter composite screen baskets that allow for
increased rotational speed, improved low and high pressure spray washes (orientation and
pressures), and an improved screen-to-collection trough flap seal design. Tests were conducted
on 19 separate dates between June 20 and August 24, 1995. Fish collected from the old and new
screens were held separately for observation of 48-hr survival. The only species occurring in
sufficient numbers to provide a statistically valid data analysis was juvenile weakfish (Cynoscion
regalis) (n = 1,082 for the old screens, n = 1,559 for the new screens). Overall, statistical
analyses demonstrated a 48-hr survival rate (uncorrected for control mortality) of 57.8% with the
old screens and 79.3% with the new screens. Temperature had a significant influence on test
results. At the lowest ambient temperature (23ºC [73 ºF]), survival with the old and new screens
was 88.0 and 97.7%, respectively. At the highest temperature (27ºC [80ºF]), survival was 35.1%
for the old screens and 55.6% with the new screens. Fish length also influenced survival. For
fish <50 mm (<2.0 in.) (TL), survival with the old and new screens was 73.7 and 85.5%,
respectively. For fish >50 mm (>2.0 in.), survival with the old and new screens was 57.5 and
82.3%, respectively.
A second series of impingement survival studies was conducted in 1997 and 1998 to provide
estimates of impingement survival rates with all of the modified screens installed on Salem Units
1 and 2 (Heimbuch 1999). Samples were collected about twice a week from October through
December 1997 and from April through September 1998. Samples were taken within a 10-hr
period each day and usually included the entire ebb tide and the beginning of the flood tide.
Screen washwater was diverted into a sampling pool, where fish were separated by species and
size, counted, and classified by condition before being moved into holding tanks for latent
survival observations. Latent survival evaluations were made at 24 and 48 hrs.
White perch (Morone americana) impingement survival rate estimates ranged from 98% in
December to 93% in April. Estimates for weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) ranged from 88% in
September to 18% in July. For bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), survival estimates ranged from
72% in November to 20% in July. Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus) survival
estimates ranged from 98% in November to 58% in April. The estimated survival for spot was
93% in November (November was the only month in which a significant number of spot were
collected). Alosa spp. combined produced survival estimates that ranged from 82% in April to
78% in November (Table 2-11).
2-27
Table 2-11
Results of 1997–1998 impingement survival study — Salem Generating Station (Heimbuch 1999)
Impingement Survival
Number of Fish
Species Month Rate (Initial Plus 18 Hr
Examined
Latent)
June 846 21
July 1,172 18
weakfish
August 1,076 62
September 278 88
April 89 93
white perch November 602 93
December 345 98
April 329 46
May 239 45
June 161 22
bay anchovy
July 54 20
October 311 65
November 142 72
April 184 58
May 751 66
June 724 72
Atlantic croaker July 68 65
October 213 95
November 214 98
December 890 85
spot November 91 93
April 38 82
Alosa sp.*
November 102 78
*alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), and American shad (Alosa
sapidissima) combined
Impingement mortality rates for the modified screens (1997-1998 and 1995 studies) were
compared to mortality rates for the original screens from the 1978 to 1982 and 1995 studies.
Based on the comparisons, intake modifications were effective in improving the rates of fish
survival (Table 2-12). Estimates of impingement mortality rates were lower for the modified
screens than for corresponding estimates from the original screens for white perch, bay anchovy,
Atlantic croaker, spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), and the Alosa spp.
2-28
Table 2-12
Estimated survival rates for original and modified screen at Salem Generating Station (Heimbuch
1999)
Original Screens Modified Screens

1978–1982 1995 1995 1997–1998
Species Month
Survival Rate Survival Rate Survival Rate Survival Rate
Estimates (%) Estimates (%) Estimates (%) Estimates (%)
Jun 61 67 83 21
Jul 49 69 82 18
weakfish Aug 48 49 75 62
Sep 60 - - 88
Oct 47 - - -
Jan 87 - - -
Feb 84 - - -
Mar 88 - - -
white
Apr 85 - - 93
perch
Oct 79 - - -
Nov 84 - - 93
Dec 92 - - 98
Apr - - - 46
May 19 - - 45
Jun 11 - - 22
bay Jul 10 - - 20
anchovy Aug 15 - - -
Sep 28 - - -
Oct 35 - - 65
Nov 68 - - 72
Apr - - - 58
May - - - 66
Jun - - - 72
Atlantic
Jul - - - 65
croaker
Oct - - - 95
Nov - - - 98
Dec-Jan 51 - - 85
Jun 69 - - -
Jul 52 - - -
Aug 53 - - -
spot
Oct 62 - - -
Nov 81 - - 93
Dec 71 - - -
Alosa Mar-Apr 11 - - 82
sp.* Oct-Dec 69 - - 78
*Estimates for original screens are based on blueback herring only. Estimates for modified intake
screens are based on Alosa spp., i.e., blueback herring, alewife, and American shad combined.
Mortality estimates of weakfish in the modified screen study were compared to the weakfish
estimates from the 1995 direct comparison study (as we discuss above). The results appeared to
confirm the expectation that the modified screens improved survival. During the 1995 study,
2-29
estimates of weakfish mortality were lower on the modified screens than on the original screens
in June and July. Similarly, 1997 and 1998 estimates of weakfish mortality rates were lower in
August and September than the corresponding estimates from the 1978 to 1982 studies.
However, weakfish mortality estimates from the 1997 and 1998 studies for June and July
(modified screens) were higher than the June and July estimates from the 1978 to 1982 studies
(original screens).
The author provides several hypotheses for the inconsistencies mentioned above (Heimbuch
1999). The explanations include mechanical shortcomings, modifications to the fish return
system, and changes in experimental protocol. Gaps may have existed between the flap seals
that separate the fish and debris troughs, allowing fish to be subjected to the addition stress of
heavy debris. The J-shaped fish-return slide leading into the collection pool was changed to a
configuration where a vertical stop was placed at the end of the slide, creating a more stressful
entry into the collection pool. An additional factor that may have biased mortality estimates
without affecting mortality was the type of screen installed in the fish collection pools. During
the 1978 to 1982 and 1995 studies, a 9.5-mm (3/8-in.) square mesh was used in the fish
collection pools. The 1997 and 1998 studies used a screen with smaller pore openings in the
collection pool. The larger mesh size may have allowed smaller fish to escape collection, and
since smaller fish generally exhibit higher mortality to stress. The loss of these fish may have
induced a downward bias in mortality estimates in 1995 for both screen types.
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) is located on the western shore of the Chesapeake
Bay in Calvert County, Maryland about 14.5 km (9 miles) north of the Patuxent River and
approximately 64 km (40 miles) from Washington, D. C. Cooling water for the plant is drawn
from the Bay through a 1,463 m (4,800 ft) long intake channel. The intake basin is enclosed
with a 171 m (561 ft) curtain wall, which extends to a depth of 8.5 m (27.9 ft). Six circulating
water pumps provide a flow of 151.5 m3/sec (5,348 cfs). Velocity at the intake structure is
approximately 0.3 m/sec (1 ft/sec). There are six intake bays and 12 traveling screens fitted with
9.5-mm (3/8-in.) square mesh for each of the units. The 12 screens are sequentially operated in
pairs (two traveling screens for each bay) for 10 min each hr during normal plant operations.
Organisms that are collected on the screens are removed with a high-pressure wash system and
returned to the Bay through a drain system.
Impingement and survival studies have been conducted at CCNPP for 21 years, beginning in
1975 (Ringger 2000; Horwitz 1987). A full impact monitoring protocol was established by the
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia before the plant went online in 1975 and was
continued through 1995. In 1981, in response to Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, a formal
report was prepared. The report, along with continued studies and regulatory evaluations,
supported the subsequent renewals of the facility’s discharge permit.
Over the 21-year period of study, many variations and modifications were made; however, a
basic study protocol was followed. A 1.27-cm (1/2-in.) mesh nylon net was placed in the screen
wash discharge trough and left in place for 1 hr. One-hr collections were made over a 6-day
period at various intervals in order to include all hrs and tidal events (this process was scaled
back to 4- and 5-day periods starting in 1994). All organisms collected by were identified by
species and counted. Up to 50 of each species were weighed, measured, and examined for
2-30
external injuries. Monthly estimates of impingement, monthly impingement rates, and estimated
annual impingement for each species was calculated from the number and weights of the sample
collections.
A total of 73 species of finfish were collected over the 21 years of sampling. The number of
species collected ranged from an annual low of 20 (1987 and 1991) to a high of 51 in 1976.
Eight species were collected in all of the 21 years of sampling.
Bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) and hogchoker (Trinectes maculates) were among the species
collected and ranked in the top five most abundant species collected in all 21 years of sampling.
Annual plant impingement numbers range from 79,081 in 1992 to over 9.6 million in 1984. The
1984 impingement number accounted for more than one-third of the total fish impinged over 21
years. The authors correlated times of episodic impingement of fish with environmental events
such as “cold shock” and periods of low dissolved oxygen. In general, spring and summer were
the times when most of the fish were collected. Blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) abundance was
more variable, with high numbers reported in the spring, summer, or fall. The total estimated
impingement of blue crabs was greater than 13 million for the 21-year period. Survival rate of
blue crabs (99.46%) suggested that actual daily mortality could be less than 10 crabs per day
over the 21 years of study.
Survival studies were conducted from 1975 to 1981 to determine initial mortality of organisms
collected by the screens. Fish that were involved in periodic events of high impingement due to
low dissolved oxygen levels were excluded from the survival studies. Over 100,000 individuals
representing 57 species were included in the study. Eleven of the 14 most numerous species
collected during the study had an estimated initial survival rate of 50% or higher.
Overall survival did not differ significantly between Units 1 and 2. In 1981, a separate study was
conducted with smaller mesh-size screens. Although the smaller screens were able to collect
smaller organisms, and therefore caught greater numbers of individuals, the difference between
the screen types was not found to be significant.
Somerset Station
Beginning in December 1982, an aquatic monitoring program, including the evaluation of 1-mm
(0.04-in.) fine-mesh Ristroph traveling screens, was conducted at Somerset Station (formerly
known as Kintigh Station), in part to meet the requirements of the plant’s NPDES Permit
(McLaren and Tuttle 2000; NYSEG et al. 1990). Somerset Station has a generating capacity of
625 MW and is located on the south shore of Lake Ontario in Somerset, New York.
The station draws water through a capped offshore intake structure with 8 intake ports located
approximately 7 m (23 ft) below the water surface and 1.8 m (5.9 ft) from the lake bottom.
Cooling water for the once-through system is transported via a 625 m (2,051 ft) intake tunnel
into the intake forebays. Three circulating pumps rated at 12.3 m3/sec (435 cfs) draw water
through four vertical traveling screens fitted with 1 mm (0.04 in.) smooth nylon mesh.
Velocities approaching the screens range from 0.27 to 0.33 m/sec (0.88 to 1.08 ft/sec).
Fish collected on the screens are removed with a low-pressure backwash system and are washed
into a fiberglass fish trough, which leads into a fiberglass return pipe that discharges fish to the
lake, 305 m (1,000 ft) offshore. Debris is removed from the screens with a high-pressure (60 psi)
2-31
spray located beneath the fish trough. Washings from the high-pressure spray are emptied into a
concrete trough terminating in a debris collection basket.
The efficiency of fish removal from the traveling screens (collection efficiency), as well as
survival testing, was evaluated at Somerset Station beginning in 1984. Various operational
modes and spray wash configurations were tested to determine optimal performance from the
screen removal/return system. Tests to evaluate collection efficiency involved the release and
recapture of marked fish introduced into the collection system.
The effectiveness of the 1.0 mm (0.04 in.) fine-mesh screening system was evaluated using a
special screening device placed into the collection pool. The screening device was designed to
separate larger fish from fish that would normally pass through 9.5-mm mesh (3/8-in.) and
become entrained. The device was a hinged, flat, horizontal screen with 9.5-mm (3/8-in.) mesh
(Figure 2-7).
Figure 2-7
Somerset Station fish collection table (McLaren and Tuttle 2000)
Larger fish that remained in the collection table upstream of the angled screen were referred to as
“impinged,” whereas fish that passed through the course mesh (9.5 mm [3/8 in.]) were referred to
as “entrapped.” Impinged and entrapped fish were collected, separated by condition, and placed
into holding tanks. Fish were held for 96 hrs and were observed at 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24, 48, and 96
hrs. Dead fish were removed at each interval and identified. After 96 hrs, the remaining fish
were identified to species, counted according to condition, and sorted by size (entrapped vs.
impinged) using the screening table.
Impingement survival rates were highly variable for the species most commonly collected
(principally juveniles and some adults of small species). Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus)
2-32
exhibited the lowest 96-hr survival rate. Survival for alewife dropped to almost 0% in spring and
increased to 44.5% in the summer of 1989 after modifications to the screening system were
made. Rainbow smelt seasonal 96-hr survival rates were also variable, ranging from a high of
94.9% in spring of 1985 to lows of 1.5% and 21.8% in summer and fall, respectively. Ninety-
six-hr survival of other species, with the exception of gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum)
(53.7 to 65.3%) exceeded 70 to 80% (Table 2-13).
Table 2-13
Initial and 96-hr seasonal survival rates of impinged fish at Somerset Station for frequently
impinged species (McLaren and Tuttle 2000)
Initial Survival 96-Hr

Species Season Year N
(%) Survival (%)
1985 184 100.0 0.0
spring
1986 202 99.0 1.0
alewife 1985 1,144 98.1 15.4
summer 1986 905 97.7 19.0
1989 1,068 99.5 44.5
summer 1986 695 99.6 65.3
gizzard shad
fall 1986 108 100.0 53.7
spring 1985 1,459 99.4 94.9
rainbow smelt summer 1985 65 63.1 1.5
fall 1985 248 98.4 21.8
rock bass 1985 56 100.0 94.6
winter 1985 107 100.0 100.0
spring 1985 72 100.0 100.0
1985 62 100.0 95.2
spottail shiner summer
1986 56 100.0 83.9
1985 408 100.0 100.0
fall
1986 113 100.0 100.0
white bass fall 1985 461 100.0 95.9
white perch winter 1985 78 100.0 72.0
yellow perch winter 1985 47 100.0 80.9
The estimated 96-hr survival rates for entrapment-sized fish were similar to rates for
impingement-sized fish. The authors suggest that the survival rates reported should be
considered conservative estimates. The impact of handling and holding stress on survival could
not be determined because control groups were not used.
Arthur Kill Station

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., (Con Ed) modified two of the dual-flow
intake screens at the Arthur Kill Station as a requirement of a Consent Order mandated by
Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (Con Ed. 1996). The station is located on Staten Island,
New York, along the eastern bank of the Arthur Kill tidal strait, across from the mouth of the
2-33
Rahway River. Its two generating units (Units 20 and 30) have rated capacities of 360 and 515
MW, respectively. During the study, the station was operated on a seasonal schedule from June
through September, with a reserve shutdown period occurring from October through May. The
capacity of Unit 20 is 16.4 m3/sec (580 cfs), whereas Unit 30 has a capacity of 14.8 m3/sec (525
cfs). Water for each unit is drawn under debris curtains into four 3.4 by 7.9 m (11.2 by 26.0 ft)
deep intake bays. The intake bays are fitted with 5 cm (2 in.) clear spacing trash racks that
extend from the deck level to the bottom of the bay. Each unit is equipped with four dual-flow
(double entry, single exit) intake screens (eight screens in total). The Unit 20 screens are fitted
with 65 mesh panels, each 1.2 by 0.46 m (4 by 1.5 ft) wide. The Unit 30 screens contain 51
mesh panels, each 1.2 by 0.5 m (4 by 1.5 ft) wide. Both units have portal widths of 0.7 m (2.3 ft)
on each side.
The velocity at the face of the screens at Unit 20, with the combined flow of both circulating and
service water was 0.24 m/sec (0.8 ft/sec) at low tide and 0.18 m/sec (0.6 ft/sec) at high tide.
Velocities at the face of the screens for Unit 30 were calculated at 0.40 m/sec (1.3 ft/sec) at low
tide and 0.27 m/sec (0.9 ft/sec) at high tide.
Two of the dual-flow screens at the Arthur Kill Station underwent modifications to comply with
the Consent Order. Screen No. 24 of Unit 20 and screen No. 31 of Unit 30 were equipped with
fish-saving features, which included: smooth surface mesh, screen baskets with fish collection
troughs, low-pressure spray wash systems, fish flap seals, and separate fish collection sluices.
Screen No. 24 was fitted with 0.32 by 1.3 cm (1/8 by 1/2 in.) mesh on its screen baskets, while
screen No. 31 was fitted with 0.64 by 1.3 cm (1/4 by 1/2 in.) mesh. The unmodified dual flow
screens all had 0.32 by 0.32 cm (1/8 by 1/8 in.) mesh.
A total of 49 weekly impingement samples were collected from September 16, 1991, to
September 10, 1992, with the exception of May 18 through June 1, 1992, when both units were
shut down. The samples were collected from the washwater sluice for all eight dual-flow
screens. Samples were separated by unit. The number of fish and blue crabs was recorded for
each sample period. Three of the dual-flow screens, including No. 24 (modified), No. 31
(modified), and No. 23 (unmodified), were used for the post-impingement evaluation.
Collections were made on a biweekly to monthly basis from February 1994 through July 1995.
The majority of sampling occurred during the hrs of 7 p.m. and 5 a.m., with screens operating at
a rotation speed of 6.1 m/min (20 ft/min). Fish and crabs were collected by diverting the
screenwash water of the individual screens into a collection tank. Fish and crabs were separated
into compatible groups and placed into holding tanks for 24-hr mortality evaluation. At the end
of the holding period, fish and crabs were categorized by species and condition and counted.
The most abundant species collected during summer and early fall was bay anchovy (Anchoa
mitchilli). Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) were abundant in spring, and blueback herring
(Alosa aestivalis) were abundant during late fall, winter, and early spring. The three
aforementioned species made up 95.6% of the combined estimated impingement for Units 20
and 30. A total of 372,920 fish representing 72 species were collected from the Unit 20 and 30
sluices during the impingement study period.
Overall, bay anchovy was the most commonly impinged species (72.7%), followed by Atlantic
herring (13.9%), and blueback herring (9.1%). Post-impingement survival studies resulted in the
collection of 16,427 fish representing 59 taxa from one unmodified and two Ristroph-modified
dual-flow screens between February 1994 and July 1995. Survival was calculated as the
2-34
percentage of fish alive at the end of the 24-hr latent mortality observation period relative to the
total number of fish collected. The unmodified screen (No. 23) collected a total of 6,918 fish and
had an average survival 15.2%. Screens 24 and 31 (modified) collected 6,472 and 3,037 fish and
had survival rates of 78.9 and 92.4%, respectively. Survival after 24 hrs was generally higher on
the Ristroph-modified dual-flow screens. Marked differences in survival on the modified and
unmodified screens were observed for alewife, Atlantic herring, Atlantic silverside (Menidia
menidia), bay anchovy, blueback herring, and weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) (Table 2-14).
2-35
Table 2-14
Twenty-four hour post-impingement survival of fish collected from one unmodified and two Ristroph-modified dual-flow screens at the
Arthur Kill Generating Station (Consolidated Edison Company 1996)
Unmodified Screen No. 23 Ristroph-Modified Screen No. 24 Ristroph-Modified Screen No. 31

(1/8-in. sq. Mesh) (1/8 by 1/2-in. Mesh) (1/4 by 1/2-in. Mesh)
Species
Number No. Alive at Percent Number No. Alive at Percent Number No. Alive at Percent
Collected 24 Hrs Alive Collected 24 Hrs Alive Collected 24 Hrs Alive
alewife 20 1 5.0 37 35 94.6 31 30 96.8
American shad 11 1 9.1 31 24 77.4 14 11 78.6
Atlantic herring 1,038 1 0.1 411 90 21.9 25 10 40.0
Atlantic silverside 186 94 50.5 631 617 97.8 332 329 99.1
Atlantic tomcod 3 1 33.3 19 18 94.7 8 8 100.0
bay anchovy 4,121 18 0.4 836 346 41.4 193 100 51.8
black sea bass 6 3 50.0 17 16 94.1 13 12 92.3
blueback herring 236 35 14.8 1,686 1,331 78.9 371 355 95.7
butterfish 51 9 17.6 54 39 72.2 71 54 76.1
cunner 2 2 100.0 8 8 100.0 8 8 100.0
gizzard shad 1 0 0.0 2 2 100.0
menhaden 21 1 4.8 49 37 75.5 34 24 70.6
mummichog 40 38 95.0 91 84 92.3 20 16 80.0
Northern pipefish 132 132 100.0 92 89 96.7 19 19 100.0
Northern searobin 39 32 82.1 133 129 97.0 52 47 90.4
rainbow smelt 57 56 98.2 21 21 100.0
red hake 1 1 100.0 1 1 100.0 5 5 100.0
seaboard goby 13 13 100.0 22 22 100.0 2 2 100.0
seahorse 34 34 100.0 47 47 100.0 27 27 100.0
silver hake 13 2 15.4 22 18 81.8 15 15 100.0
silver perch 4 4 100.0 26 24 92.3 18 18 100.0
spotted hake 10 8 80.0 55 48 87.3 19 18 94.7
2-36
Unmodified Screen No. 23 Ristroph-Modified Screen No. 24 Ristroph-Modified Screen No. 31
(1/8-in. sq. Mesh) (1/8 by 1/2-in. Mesh) (1/4 by 1/2-in. Mesh)
Species
Number No. Alive at Percent Number No. Alive at Percent Number No. Alive at Percent
Collected 24 Hrs Alive Collected 24 Hrs Alive Collected 24 Hrs Alive
striped anchovy 21 0 0.0 15 6 40.0 18 9 50.0
striped bass 8 4 66.7 24 22 91.7 9 7 77.8
striped killifish 44 40 90.9 55 48 87.3 24 23 95.8
summer flounder 4 1 25.0 13 8 61.5 14 7 50.0
threespine stickleback 346 342 98.8 880 878 99.8 639 639 100.0
weakfish 319 134 42.0 759 695 91.6 745 721 96.8
white perch 27 17 63.0 68 61 89.7 41 35 85.4
windowpane flounder 12 10 83.3 22 21 95.5 13 11 84.6
winter flounder 121 50 41.3 203 197 97.0 179 174 97.2
2-37
Post-impingement survival for blue crabs was 99.1% for the unmodified screen and 99.6% for
the combined modified screens. A total of 220 blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) were collected
on the unmodified screen, and 1,029 were collected from the modified screens combined. The
high survival rate of blue crabs on the unmodified screen suggests that the modifications made to
the dual-flow screens may not be necessary for improving the protection of crabs.
Studies were conducted to determine if the handling/holding tank or the collection sluice could
have a significant effect on post-impingement survival. Results suggested that post-impingement
survival was affected by the handling/holding tank for bay anchovy, blueback herring, and
Atlantic herring. Larger volume tanks appeared to improve survival of these species. Fish
collected from the fish sluice generally had higher survival than those collected from the debris
sluice, except for Atlantic herring.
Oswego Steam Station

Oswego Steam Station is located on the southern shore of Lake Ontario in Oswego, New York.
The station has six units, in which units 1 and 2 no longer operate. The remaining units have a
combined generating capacity of 1,980 MW. Water is provided to the once-through cooling
system by three offshore intakes.
Traveling screen sampling programs were conducted periodically over a 19-year period at Units
1–4. Impingement survival studies were conducted at Oswego Steam Station Units 1–4 from
January 1973 through December 1975, from April 1982 through March 1983, and from January
through December 1991 (LMS 1992). Seasonal impingement at the station was shown to be
consistent, having peak impingements during the spring and the lowest impingement numbers in
late summer and early fall. The alewife was the most commonly impinged, accounting for 85%
of the annual total. The second most commonly impinged species was rainbow smelt, averaging
10% of the annual impingement.
Limited impingement monitoring studies were conducted at the Unit 5 intake. Relying on data
from a 12-month study, alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) was again the dominant species
collected, making up 75.8% of the total impingement during 1975–1976 and 71.5% of the total
impingement during 1991. The second most abundant species was threespine stickleback
(Gasterosteus aculeatus) in 1975–1976 making up 14.6% of the total. Rainbow smelt (Osmerus
mordax) was the third most abundant species in 1975–1976 and the second most abundant in
1991, accounting for 4.6% and 18.7% of the total yearly impingement numbers, respectively.
Post-impingement survival studies were conducted at Unit 5 during 1991. Alewife was the most
abundant species collected and had a survival rate of 0.8%. Rainbow smelt, the second most
abundant species, had a survival rate of 7.3%. A total of 4,826 fish representing 30 species was
collected from the conventional traveling screens and observed for 24-hr survival. Other species
collected and survival rates are listed in Table 2-15.
2-38
Table 2-15
Unit 5 conventional vertical traveling screen oost-impingement survival summary Oswego Steam Station 1991 (LMS 1992)
Initial Condition Condition at 24 Hrs
Species Collected Initial No. Examined

Extended Survival
Live Stunned Dead Survival for Extended Live Stunned Dead
Survival (%)
(%) Survival
alewife 3,090 167 1,276 1,647 46.7 679 10 1 668 1.6 0.8
rainbow smelt 1,189 67 109 1,013 14.8 150 50 24 76 49.3 7.3
mottled sculpin 162 141 8 13 92.0 145 133 4 8 94.5 86.9
spottail shiner 144 36 33 75 47.9 64 34 12 18 71.9 34.4
threespine
52 23 8 21 59.6 31 15 2 14 54.8 32.7
stickleback
gizzard shad 51 6 26 19 62.7 32 0 0 32 0.0 0.0
emerald shiner 29 5 3 21 27.6 8 3 3 2 75.0 20.7
others
109 27 41 41 62.4 66 36 12 18 72.7 45.4
(23) species)
2-39
Belle River Power Plant
A 1-year study was conducted at the Belle River Power Plant to determine the number of fish
impinged on its traveling screens (Freshwater Physicians, Inc. 1991). The plant is located on the
St. Clair River approximately 23 km (14.3 miles) south of Lake Huron. The 68.6 m (225 ft)
wide intake structure is angled 20 degrees with respect to river flow and is equipped with 3.8 cm
(1.5 in.) clear-spaced trash racks across its entire face. The trash rack turns the flow
perpendicular to the face of the rack, which aids in the exclusion of debris and floating ice. A set
of 45.7 cm (18 in.) guide vanes is located behind the trash racks to enhance parallel flow through
the fish escapeway. Downstream of the fish escapeway are ten, flush mounted, 4.2 m (14 ft)
wide traveling screens. The screen panels are fitted with 9.5 mm (3/8 in.) mesh screening. The
orientation of the intake structure and trash racks functions much like a louver system in its
ability to deter fish (Figure 2-8). In addition, the lateral water currents within the fish escapeway
result in a flushing action across the face of the screen, possibly freeing impinged fish before the
screen panels are rotated out of the water. There are three circulating pumps per unit, however,
only one pump per unit is operated during winter months and two are operated during the
remainder of the year. Cooling water is drawn into the intake at a flow rate of 8.2 m3/sec (289.7
cfs) with one pump operating and 14.5 m3/sec (512.5 cfs) with two. The approach velocities at
the intake average around 0.15 m/sec (0.5 ft/sec) with a total flow of 41.7 m3/sec (1,470 cfs).
2-40
Figure 2-8
Schematic diagram of the Belle River Power Plant sampling stations (Freshwater Physicians,
Inc. 1991)
Impinged fish were collected by diverting the screen washwater from the fish and debris trough
into a steel collection box. The fish were removed from the box using a 6-mm (0.2 in.) mesh net.
The collected fish were sorted, identified (if possible), and classified by condition. A total of
679 fish representing 33 species were collected during the 12-month impingement sampling
period. Most of the fish impinged were small (<100 mm [3.9 in.]). Impingement rates were
highest in May and October and lowest in summer. Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) were
collected only 17 weeks out of the 12-month sampling period; however, they were the third most
abundant species collected. Alewife were generally impinged in great numbers, or not at all, and
their presence or absence had a marked effect on weekly impingement numbers. The initial
survival rates of impinged fish were generally high. The authors suggest that the survival rates
were underestimated due the fact that fish washed from the traveling screens were often retained
in the collection net for periods of up to 24 hrs before the net was emptied, thus subjecting them
to additional stress from high flows, abrasion, and debris while in the net. None of the Alosa
2-41
spp. (alewife and gizzard shad [Dorosoma cepedianum]) were ever recovered from the net alive,
however, groups of darters, centrarchids, sculpins (Cottidae), and catfish exhibited survival rates
over 60%.
Roseton Generating Station

Two modified dual-flow (double entry/single exit) screens were installed at Central Hudson Gas
and Electric Corporation’s (CHGE) Roseton Generating Station (LMS 1991). The dual-flow
screens were installed as replacements for two of the eight conventional band-type vertical
traveling screens in March 1990, primarily to improve debris-handling capabilities at the station.
The sealed system of the dual-flow screen is designed to eliminate debris carryover. The dual-
flow screens were designed to include characteristics in design and operation that may increase
fish survival, including water retaining lifting buckets, a dual-pressure spray cleaning system,
flattened woven wire mesh, and faster operational speeds. Evaluations were conducted to
monitor the initial and extended survival of aquatic organisms in terms of screen type, biological
population characteristics, physical-chemical environmental conditions, and plant operational
parameters.
Roseton Generating Station is a steam electric power plant with a maximum generating capacity
of 1,200 MW. The station’s once-through cooling water system contains four pumps with a
combined capacity of 40.4 m3/sec (1,426 cfs). Water enters the shoreline intake system from the
Hudson River through an array of 16 intake portals, 12 on the front of the intake structure and
two on each end. The upper perimeter of the intake structure over the portal area is surrounded
by a skimmer wall that extends to a depth of 1.7m (5.4 ft) below extreme low water. The wall
prevents large debris and ice from clogging the trash racks. Ten vertical trash racks with center-
to-center spacing of 76.2 mm (3.0 in.) are located between the portals and the traveling screens.
A fish escape passageway exists between the trash racks and the traveling screens: The intake
design allows fish to enter through the front trash racks and move laterally along the flush-
mounted traveling screens, where they can escape out through the side trash racks (Figure 2-9).
2-42
Figure 2-9
Plan view of Roseton cooling water intake structure (modified from LMS 1991)
The screen array consists of six conventional vertical traveling screens and two dual-flow
traveling screens. A schematic of a dual-flow screen appears on Figure 2-10. Velocities
approaching the conventional traveling screens are 0.23 m/sec (0.75 ft/sec), with two pumps
operating (King et al. 1978). The conventional traveling screens are fitted with 9.5 mm (3/8 in)
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) square mesh. Each of the conventional screens are 12.8 m (42 ft) high
and 3.0 m (9.7 ft) wide and rotate at 3.1 m (10 ft) per min, making one complete revolution every
8.9 min. A front wash spray cleaning system is employed on the conventional screens. The
screen washings drain into a disposal trough and are returned to the Hudson River.
The two dual-flow screens (Figure 2-11) are 14.9 m (49 ft) high and fitted with 3.2 by 12.7-mm
(1/8 by 1/2-in.) stainless steel woven wire mesh. Each screen basket measures 1.2 by 0.46 m
(4.0 by 1.5 ft) and is fitted with a water retaining trough with an inward curved leading edge.
The dual-flow screens are operated at a travel speed of 3.0 m/min (10 ft/min) and employ a
“backwash” spray cleaning system. The system uses both low (organism removal) and high-
pressure (debris removal) sprays for screen cleaning. The low-pressure unit is located on the top
of the unit where the baskets go over the drive sprocket. Spray discharge is 5, 10, and 15 psi for
each of the low-pressure nozzles. The high-pressure cleaning system sprays water through the
screen panels just above deck level. Discharge pressure for each of the high-pressure nozzles is
70, 80, and 90 psi.
2-43
Figure 2-10
Schematic of a dual-flow traveling intake screen (courtesy of U.S. Filter)
2-44
Figure 2-11
Section view of Roseton dual-flow traveling screen (LMS 1991)
2-45
The Roseton intake screen evaluation required the use of two collecting devices to sample fish
from low- and high-pressure wash water of the dual-flow screens and the high-pressure wash
water from conventional screens.
The post-impingement survival program was conducted during two seasonal periods: May 9
through August 30, and September 30 through November 29, 1990. A total of 569 paired
samples were collected during the May–August period, and 246 paired samples were collected
during the October–November period, for a total of 815 paired samples. Collected samples were
transported to CHGE’s Danskammer Point Laboratory for processing. Fish were classified as
live (swimming normally, no orientation problem), stunned (swimming erratically, swimming on
their side, struggling), or dead (no vital life signs, no body or opercular movement, no response
to gentle probing). All live and stunned fish were separated from debris and blue crabs and held
in containers with river water for extended (48-hr) survival observations. Final determination of
fish condition occurred 96 hrs after the initiation of the extended survival observations. All fish
held for extended survival observations were measured for total length and weighed.
A mark-recapture study was conducted during the dual-flow screen evaluation to obtain
information on the efficiency of the low-pressure screen wash system and to determine the
amount of stress associated with the collection and handling of organisms. Additionally, water
quality parameters (water temperature, specific conductance, and dissolved oxygen) were
monitored to determine their impacts on fish survival during testing. Collection and handling
mortality was determined for the conventional screens by accounting for holding facility,
marking, and collection tank mortality. For the dual-flow screens, collection and handling
mortality was determined by the influence of the holding facility, marking, collection tank, and
lip trough introduction. Based on the results of the collection and handling study, post-
impingement survival was not adjusted for either screen type. Water temperature, however, was
found to be the primary variable influencing initial survival following impingement on either of
the screen types. Initial survival was 42% for specimens collected at 8 to 10°C (46 to 50°F) and
increased to 90% at 12°C (54°F). Initial survival steadily decreased to a low of 6% at the highest
temperature range (22 to 26°C [72 to 79°F]).
The initial condition of fish was recorded immediately after impingement on the traveling
screens. The dual-flow screens collected 48,729 fish representing 30 species, and the
conventional traveling screens collected 13,623 fish representing 29 species (Table 2-16). A
total of 12,668 fish representing 29 species were evaluated for extended survival after being
collected from the dual-flow screens. A total 4,024 fish representing 22 species collected from
the conventional traveling screens were evaluated for extended survival.
For the dominant taxonomic groups, screen type was not found to be the most important factor
influencing survival. In eight circumstances, screen type was identified as a significant influence
but only as a second order effect. Post-impingement survival recorded for the two dual-flow
screens was higher than the post-impingement survival recorded for the conventional traveling
screens but was not determined to be significantly higher. Season and screen type appeared to
have almost no impact on survival for fragile fish species (Table 2-16). Blueback herring (Alosa
aestivalis), bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), and American shad
(Alosa sapidissima) made up nearly 80% of the total catch and had a combined post-
impingement survival of less than 1%.
2-46
Table 2-16
Seasonal post-impingement survival Roseton Generating Station (LMS 1991)
Spring-Summer (9 May –30 August) Fall (30 September–27 November)

Number % Initial % Extended % Number % Initial % Extended
% Survival
Species Collected Survival Survival Survival Collected Survival Survival
(S)
(N) (SI) (S96) (S) (N) (SI) (S96)
Dual-Flow Traveling Screen
blueback herring 17,719 3.8 0.0 0.0 10,625 24.0 0.6 0.1
white perch 2,691 74.9 43.7 32.7 2,539 79.9 59.6 47.6
bay anchovy 3,098 1.0 0.0 0.0 2,063 1.5 0.0 0.0
American shad 2,460 8.0 6.0 0.5 70 41.4 0.0 0.0
alewife 2,402 6.5 4.4 0.3 118 57.6 0.0 0.0
striped bass 2,073 81.6 52.6 42.9 77 80.5 38.6 31.1
gizzard shad 470 20.2 60.7 12.1 276 88.8 26.6 23.6
spottail shiner 157 68.2 67.3 45.9 404 96.3 77.0 74.2
brown bullhead 332 98.5 84.1 82.8 28 96.4 92.9 89.6
hogchoker 232 99.6 96.1 95.7 112 100.0 98.2 98.2
Conventional Traveling Screens
blueback herring 2,880 2.3 0.0 0.0 3,426 23.3 0.2 <0.1
white perch 925 49.1 18.0 8.8 1,438 68.7 48.4 33.3
bay anchovy 1,667 0.1 0.0 0.0 409 0.0 0.0 0.0
American shad 546 2.6 7.1 0.2 66 36.4 0.0 0.0
alewife 637 01.6 7.7 0.1 99 36.4 0.0 0.0
striped bass 268 64.2 37.1 23.8 39 59.0 28.6 16.9
gizzard shad 23 13.0 0.0 0.0 216 66.7 8.1 5.4
spottail shiner 27 37.0 41.7 13.5 150 65.3 79.4 51.8
brown bullhead 158 91.1 67.1 61.1 6 100.0 100.0 100.0
hogchoker 266 98.9 92.4 91.4 60 96.7 93.5 90.4
2-47
Brayton Point Station
Biological evaluations were conducted to determine the number, species, and initial and
extended survival of fish impinged on the modified intake screens at Brayton Point Station Unit
4 (Davis et al. 1988; LMS 1987). These fine-mesh, angled screens were installed at a new Unit 4
intake to divert larger, motile life stages and gently collect and recover early life stages. We
discuss the results of collection survival studies below. We discuss additional studies conducted
to determine the diversion efficiency of the angled screens elsewhere in this report.
The station is located on the Lee River north of the confluence with the Taunton River on Mount
Hope Bay, Massachusetts. The facility is comprised of four units with a total generating
capacity rated at 1,590 MW. Unit 4 has total rated capacity of 460 MW.
The new intake structure has eight openings 3.3 by 4.2 m (11 by 14 ft) high that extend to the
bottom of a skimmer wall. Trash racks with bar spacing of 7.5 cm (3 in.) on center cover the
intake openings. Approximately 10 m (33 ft) downstream of the trash racks, the width of the
screenwell constricts to 12.3 m (41 ft). A center wall divides the structure in half, and each half
is equipped with three 3.0-m wide (10 ft) flush-mounted modified vertical traveling screens. The
screens are set at a 25 degree angle to the flow and lead to a fish bypass. Each screen panel is
modified with a fish-lifting bucket and is capable of interchanging standard 9.5-mm (3/8-in.)
screen and 1.0 mm (0.04 in.) fine-mesh screen. The design flow of the intake is 17.28 m3/s (610
cfs), which results in an average screen approach velocity of 0.30 m/sec (1.0 ft/sec). Nearly 97%
of the design flow is drawn through the screens; the remaining 3% is pumped through a fish
bypass (Figure 2-12).
Figure 2-12
Brayton Point angled traveling screen intake configuration (Davis et al. 1988)
The fish bypass is a rectangular opening 15.2 cm by 5.1 m (6 in. by 17 ft) located at the apex of
each screenwell. The bypass leads into a 46 cm (18 in.) diameter bypass pipe. Two shrouded 30
cm (12 in.) diameter screw impeller centrifugal pumps can induce a velocity of 0.3 m/sec (1
ft/sec) at the bypass entrance. The bypass pipes discharge to the Lee River. Fish that do not
2-48
enter the bypass and become impinged on the traveling screens are removed by a low-pressure
backwash system and via a fish sluice back to the Lee River in the same location as the bypass
return (Figure 2-12).
Survival and impingement abundance sampling were conducted simultaneously with bypass
survival and abundance collections. Complete diel periods were covered during weekly
collections. Two, 1.5 m (5 ft) fiberglass collection tanks were used to receive the screen
washings from the six angled screens (one tank per three screens). Bypass subsample collections
were made using nets attached to sampling ports on each of the 46 cm (18 in.) return lines. Fish
collected from the bypass flow and the screenwash were classified by condition and placed in
separate holding tanks for extended (48-hr) survival observations.
A total of 18,831 fish collected from the fine-mesh traveling screens were used to evaluate initial
and 48-hr survival. The lowest survival was calculated for bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) and
the highest was for tautog (Tautoga onitis) (Table 2-17).
Trends in survival appeared to be affected by species. Initial and extended survival varied by
species, however, a certain group of numerically dominant taxa was classified by the authors as
“fragile” (primarily, bay anchovy and Atlantic silverside). The fragile group had a calculated
survival below 25.0% and a “hardy” group, dominated by winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes
americanus) and Northern pipefish (Syngnathus fuscus), had survival values greater than 65.0%.
Table 2-17
Impingement survival information — Brayton Point Station Unit 4 (Oct. 1984–March 1986) (Davis et
al. 1988)
Extended Survival
Initial Survival Total
48 Hr
Taxon Impingement
Number Number Survival (%)
(%) (%)
Analyzed Analyzed
bay anchovy 13,987 1.7 235 1.7 <0.1
Atlantic silverside 745 82.1 491 22.2 18.2
winter flounder 1,025 95.6 787 95.2 91.0
Northern pipefish 1,551 98.1 1,134 95.1 93.3
threespine stickleback 113 93.8 105 96.2 90.2
Atlantic menhaden 126 38.1 48 8.3 3.2
fourspine stickleback 183 86.9 155 96.1 83.5
tautog 329 97.9 317 98.4 96.3
American eel 5 60.0 0 -- --
butterfish 37 56.8 21 57.1 32.4
hogchoker 117 99.1 115 96.5 95.6
seaboard goby 126 87.3 109 85.3 74.5
2-49
Prairie Island Generating Plant
A 5-year study was conducted to assess the effectiveness of fine-mesh (0.5 mm [0.02 in.])
vertical traveling screens in reducing fish losses at Prairie Island Generating Plant (Kuhl and
Mueller 1988). The Prairie Island Plant is located on the West bank of the Mississippi River
approximately 40 miles (64.4 km) southeast of Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota. The plant
consists of two 560 MW units. The plant is capable of operating its circulating water system as a
once-through system, a closed-loop system, or a helper system (a portion of the cooling water is
recycled). Maximum plant flow is approximately 42.5 m3/sec (1,500 cfs).
Samples were collected on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday of each week from April 8 to
August 31, 1988. Twenty-five percent of the screen wash water (two out of the eight screens)
was diverted from the screen wash trough into collection tanks. The collection tank filters screen
wash water through 0.5-mm (0.02-in.) mesh nylon screen material. During sampling, the fine-
mesh screens were operated in the automatic mode with rotational speeds ranging from 0.9 to 3
m/min (3 to 10 ft/min).
Initial survival samples were collected during early morning (before daylight) and underwent
two sorting procedures. The first sort was performed to quickly separate live fish from dead fish,
while the second sort was performed to make certain that all the remaining fish and eggs were
removed from the sample. Initial and latent survival was calculated by species, lifestage, and
year for the representative important species. The numbers of each fish collected and their
survival rates varied by life stage and species. The highest overall survival rate was exhibited by
walleye (Sander vitreus) postlarvae, while postlarval gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) had a
survival rate of less than 0.1% (Table 2-18). In general, juvenile fish tended to exhibit higher
survival rates than prolarvae and postlarvae. Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) and walleye
had high survival for the life stages collected, unlike freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens),
gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), and white bass (Morone chrysops), which showed
relatively poor survival regardless of life stage.
2-50
Table 2-18
Initial, latent, and overall survival by taxa and lifestage for 1984–1987 Prairie Island Generating
Plant (Kuhl and Mueller 1988)
Overall
Initial Survival Latent Survival
Survival
Species Name Lifestage
Percent Percent Percent
Dead Live Dead Live
Live Live Live
gizzard shad postlarvae 2,899 23 0.8 55 1 1.8 <0.1
gizzard shad juvenile 17 8 32.0 13 1 7.1 2.3
mooneye prolarvae 39 12 23.5 25 4 13.8 3.2
carp prolarvae 1,778 881 33.1 182 458 71.6 23.7
carp postlarvae 1,570 296 15.9 331 1,638 83.2 13.2
carp juvenile 4 95 96.0 40 112 73.7 70.7
Cyprinidae prolarvae 2,622 8 0.3 17 10 37.0 0.1
Cyprinidae postlarvae 13,690 391 2.8 276 339 55.1 1.5
Cyprinidae juvenile 454 1,306 74.2 719 1,179 62.1 46.1
Cyprinidae adult 0 8 100.0 13 8 38.1 38.1
Catostomidae prolarvae 935 1,088 53.8 301 1,296 81.2 43.6
Catostomidae postlarvae 146 103 41.4 107 687 86.5 35.8
Catostomidae juvenile 9 25 73.5 7 50 87.7 64.5
channel catfish prolarvae 81 224 73.4 6 24 80.0 58.8
channel catfish juvenile 2,535 5,765 69.5 556 2,653 82.7 57.4
trout perch juvenile 3 34 91.9 35 58 62.4 57.3
white bass prolarvae 76 0 0.0 8 0 0.0 0.0
white bass postlarvae 1,227 155 11.2 513 122 19.2 2.2
white bass juvenile 26 67 72.0 90 67 42.7 30.7
Lepomis spp. postlarvae 215 10 4.4 23 7 23.3 1.0
Lepomis spp. juvenile 13 52 80.0 14 80 85.1 68.1
Pomoxis spp. postlarvae 177 9 4.8 17 18 51.4 2.5
Pomoxis spp. juvenile 2 30 93.8 36 52 59.1 55.4
sauger prolarvae 51 17 25.0 14 40 74.1 18.5
sauger postlarvae 44 17 27.9 10 9 47.4 13.2
walleye prolarvae 15 104 87.4 123 456 78.8 68.8
walleye postlarvae 0 2 100.0 3 15 83.3 83.3
Percidae prolarvae 362 33 8.4 24 34 58.6 4.9
Percidae postlarvae 273 38 12.2 167 42 20.1 2.5
Percidae juvenile 19 40 67.8 26 90 77.6 52.6
freshwater drum prolarvae 20,134 414 2.0 751 159 17.5 0.4
freshwater drum postlarvae 3,340 693 17.2 1,145 447 28.1 4.8
freshwater drum juvenile 190 433 69.5 420 401 48.8 33.9
2-51
Big Bend Station
In 1980, Tampa Electric Company (TECO) performed a pilot scale evaluation of a fine-mesh
Ristroph screen in the intake canal to its Big Bend Station on Tampa Bay, Florida (Taft et al.
1981a; Brueggemeyer et al. 1988). At the time, the station consisted of three generating units
with a combined once-through flow rate of 45.6 m3/s (1,611 cfs). TECO planned to add a fourth
generating unit. Region IV of the USEPA and the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation expressed concern for the losses of organisms due to the operation of the station with
the additional unit. Accordingly, TECO agreed to evaluate the potential effectiveness of fine-
mesh screens to reduce losses of the selected Representative Important Species (RIS): bay
anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), black drum (Pogonias cromis), silver perch (Bairdiella chrysoura),
spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus), scaled sardine (Harengula jaguana), tidewater silverside
(Menidia peninsulae), stone crab (Menippe mercenaria), pink shrimp (Penaeus duorarum),
American oyster (Crassostrea virginica), and blue crab (Callinectes sapidus). In 1980, an
extensive biological evaluation of a full-scale, prototype screen was conducted. The test facility
was located immediately upstream of the existing Unit 1–3 intake screens. The screen was of the
no-well design, similar to the existing screens (Figure 2-13).
Figure 2-13
No-well screen (SWEC 1980)
2-52
The screen was full-depth, comprised of 48 screen baskets which were 0.6 by 0.6m (2 by 2 ft)
high with 0.5-mm (0.02-in.) screen mesh. The screen could be rotated at speeds from 2.1 to 8.5
m/min (6.9 to 27.9 ft/min). A variable speed pump permitted testing at screen approach
velocities ranging from 0.15 to 0.31 m/sec (0.5 to 1.0 ft/sec). Organisms were washed from the
ascending face of the screens and lifting buckets into a collection trough with a low-pressure (10
psi) spraywash. Once in the trough, the organisms flowed by gravity into a primary collection
tank from which they were drained into a secondary chamber, which also served as the container
in which the organisms were transported to the onsite wet laboratory.
The organism survival study consisted of a series of tests conducted at six combinations of
approach velocities (15.2 and 30.5 cm/sec [0.5 and 1.0 ft/sec]) and screen rotational speed (2.1,
4.3, and 8.5 m/min [6.9, 14.1 and 27.9 ft/min]). Control organisms were collected from the
intake canal using a stationary 505 µm plankton net. All organisms were held for 96 hrs
following collection to determine latent effects. Results of testing are presented in Table 2-19
through Table 2-22. An analysis of the data indicated that, while temperature and approach
velocity had significant effects on initial survival, hatchability, and latent survival of Sciaenidae
eggs and larvae, the hatchability and survival differences were not large and explained little of
the observed variability in the dependent variable, survival. Therefore, the data in Table 2-19
through Table 2-22 are considered good indicators of the performance of the fine-mesh screen
(Taft et al. 1981a).
2-53
Table 2-19
Fish eggs — percent survival and hatchability Big Bend Plant (Taft et al. 1981a)
Initial Survival (%) Hatchability (%) 48-Hr Survival (%) 96-Hr Survival (%)
Taxa
Test Control Test Control Test Control Test Control
Sciaenidae 75.3 98.4 94.8 99.0 84.3 91.3 69.7 82.7
silver perch 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.1 99.4 97.9 97.8
Cynoscion spp. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.4 99.3 89.4 96.9
Menticirrhus spp. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 100.0 88.4 91.5
black drum 100.0 -- 100.0 -- 82.2 -- 85.3 --
Alosa spp. 43.2 85.5 81.0 89.3 84.4 90.3 62.4 68.6
scaled sardine 45.8 99.6 92.9 98.5 82.8 92.2 45.9 27.6
bay anchovy 43.3 85.0 80.0 88.6 83.9 90.0 63.7 72.0
Note: Dashes indicate no observations.
2-54
Table 2-20
Fish larvae — percent initial and latent survival at Big Bend (Taft et al. 1981a)
Initial Survival (%) 48-Hr Survival (%) 96-Hr Survival (%)

Taxa
Test Control Test Control Test Control
Sciaenidae 18.6 (108) 44.4 (6) 10.9 (26) 0.0 (1) 10.1 (26) 0.0 (1)
silver perch 19.2 (39) 50.0 (2) -- -- -- --
Cynoscion spp. 15.7 (51) 0.0 (1) 100 (3) -- 100.0 (3) --
Menticirrhus spp. 0.0 (15) 25.0 (4) -- -- -- --
black drum 42.9 (7) 100.0(1) -- -- -- --
Alosa spp. 1.5 (278) 10.4 (11) 36.4 (11) 0.0 (1) 36.4 (11) 0.0 (1)
scaled sardine 0.0 (15) -- -- -- -- --
bay anchovy 1.5 (274) 11.4 (10) 22.2 (9) 0.0 (1) 22.2 (9) 0.0 (1)
Notes: Number of observations is given in parentheses.

Dashes indicate no observations.
Table 2-21
Decapod zoea — percent initial and latent survival at Big Bend (Taft et al. 1981a)

Taxa
Caridea 94.3 76.7 85.0 86.8 50.0 43.8
Upogebia affinis 91.3 75.6 84.1 76.2 42.8 45.4
Brachyura 95.5 65.0 83.9 55.6 45.9 27.8
Grapsizoea 100.0 100.0 95.1 97.9 80.2 92.9
Pinnotheridae 100.0 100.0 92.2 93.4 73.0 72.1
Xanthidae 99.1 -- 95.9 95.6 74.9 73.4
Menippe mercenaria 97.9 97.3 91.5 94.9 58.3 61.0
Paguridae 94.7 100.0 96.6 100.0 79.2 33.3
2-55
Table 2-22
Decapod megalops — percent initial and latent survival at Big Bend (Taft et al. 1981a)

Taxa
Caridea 100.0 -- 100.0 -- 100.0 --
Upogebia affinis 100.0 100.0 97.7 100.0 74.3 100.0
Brachyura 65.1 26.7 71.8 -- 15.0 --
Grapsizoea 100.0 100.0 98.1 100.0 93.1 91.2
Pinnotheridae 100.0 -- 100.0 -- 92.9 --
Xanthidae 100.0 100.0 98.3 100.0 94.2 96.9
Menippe mercenaria 100.0 -- 100.0 -- 100.0 --
Paguridae 100.0 -- 90.0 -- 80.0 --
Based on the positive results of the prototype testing, the regulatory agencies determined that
Unit 4 could be constructed with a once-through condenser cooling system provided that fine-
mesh screens were incorporated into the intake structures of both Units 3 and 4. Accordingly,
six, 0.5 mm (0.02 in.) No-well screens were installed at the station, and studies of their biological
effectiveness were conducted in 1985 (Brueggemeyer et al. 1988).
The fish return system required the incorporation of three WEMCO Hidrostal pumps to provide
the energy needed to transport collected organisms to a remote discharge location. The pumps
are located in a sump that collects the combined screenwash discharge from all six screens. To
account for possible pump effects on organism survival, samples were collected both from the
sump and at the remote organism return discharge (ORD). Control organisms were collected
from the intake canal upstream of the screens. Sampling and holding methods were similar to
those used in the prototype study.
We present results of the full-scale biological evaluation in Table 2-23 and Table 2-24. The
conclusion of the study was that survival rates were comparable to, and in some cases exceeded,
those obtained during the prototype study. There was no significant difference in survival rates
between the two sample locations.
2-56
Table 2-23
Comparison of initial survival (%) during the FMS survivability studies at Big Bend Station
(Brueggemeyer et al. 1988)
Initial Survival (%)

Taxa
Screenwash ORD Control
Fish Eggs:
bay anchovy 48 29 72
Sciaenidae 63 40 72
Fish Larvae:
Sciaenidae 61 56 85
Invertebrates:
Caridea 72 70 65
Xanthidae 93 90 88
Pinnotheridae 99 83 77
Table 2-24
Comparison of fish egg hatchability and latent 48 hr survival (%) during the prototype and FMS
survivability studies (Brueggemeyer et al. 1988)
Screenwash ORD Control

Taxa
Hatchability (%)
Fish Eggs:
Sciaenidae 80 80 90
Latent 48-Hr Survival (%)
Fish Larvae:
Sciaenidae 63 66 61
Invertebrates:
Caridea 67 66 88
Xanthidae 80 71 85
Pinnotheridae 71 65 74
As part of the evaluation of the fine-mesh screens, an auditing program was established to
monitor the conditions of the screens and optimize their screening efficiency. The biggest O&M
problem at this site is biofouling (particularly barnacles and mussels). It was found that
biweekly manual cleaning of the screens by a two-person crew was effective in preventing
damage to the screen mesh and seals.
2-57
Indian Point Generating Station
The Unit 2 intake of Indian Point Generating Station was modified by installing a Ristroph-
modified traveling screen (Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. 1986). The
modification came, in part, as a provision of the 1980 Hudson River Settlement Agreement. The
parties to the settlement agreed that Ristroph traveling screens could be the best alternative to an
angled screen and approved testing of one of the screens at Indian Point during winter and early
spring of 1985. The study’s objective was to obtain initial data on the survival of target species
while testing the mechanical reliability of the new screen. The Indian Point Generating Station is
located on the eastern bank of the Hudson River 69 river km (43 miles) north of the Battery.
Unit 1 has a capacity of 17.6 m3/sec (622 cfs). At full capacity, water velocity at the intake
forebays is 0.27 m/sec (0.9 ft/s). A 9.5-mm (3/8-in.) fixed screen, bar rack, and conventional
traveling screen were used to exclude fish, debris, and other objects from the once-through
cooling water system (Figure 2-14).
Figure 2-14
Section view of Indian Point Generating Station Unit 1 CWIS (EA 1977)
Unit 2 has six intake bays (numbered 21–26) that provide once-through cooling water. Each
intake bay has a fixed screen, bar rack, and a conventional traveling screen, as described for Unit
1. The circulating system was operated at 60% of maximum capacity from November through
December, resulting in an average intake approach velocity of 0.15 m/sec (0.5 ft/sec). From
August through October, the circulating pumps operated at 100% capacity bringing intake
approach velocities to approximately 0.27 m/sec (0.9 ft/sec). A Ristroph modified traveling
2-58
screen was installed in one of the intake bays (number 26) about mid-way between the entrance
to the intake bay and the existing conventional screen. The new screen could be operated at
variable speeds of up to 6.1 m/min (20 ft/min) but was operated at 3.0 m/min (10 ft/min) for the
study period. The screen mesh was constructed of 1.27 by 1.27 cm (0.5 by 0.5-in.) slotted
woven wire. Each screen basket was fitted with a fish lifting trough. They discharged into a
sluice trough as the screen panels were cleaned by two low-pressure wash headers. One header
was located inside the screen, the other was located outside and above the screen (low-pressure
washes were operated at approximately 10 psi for this study). Below the fish sluice a high-
pressure spray (operated at 95 psi) washed any debris and remaining fish off the screen panels.
The fish sluice led fish to various collection tanks where fish were counted and their condition
assessed. Fish were then transported to a holding facility for 96-hr observation.
Fish samples were collected simultaneously from trash and debris sluices. A total of 5,861 fish
were collected representing 20 species. Water quality parameters, including water temperature,
dissolved oxygen, and salinity were monitored in front of the intake and in the holding facilities.
No attempt was made however to identify factors associated with differences in survival due to
these environmental factors.
Between August 15 and December 27 in situ collections were made. Survival estimates were
made each month for nine species. White perch made up the majority (71%) of the fish
collected. Survival ranged from 20% for alewife (n = 15) to 93.4% for weakfish (n = 456)
(Table 2-25). Survival rates of striped bass, weakfish, and white perch were found to be higher
in late summer and early fall than in November and December (Table 2-26). Simultaneous
collections from the fish and debris sluices were made between November 18 and December 24.
A total of 2,394 fish representing 16 species were collected from the fish sluice, and 1,065 fish
representing 14 species were collected from the debris sluice.
2-59
Table 2-25
Survival (%) of fish collected from a Ristroph screen (fish sluice only) at Indian Point Unit 2 and
held for 96 hrs in situ; August 15 through December 27, 1985 (CONED 1986)
Number of Fish % Survival
Species Species/Time1 Alive &

Alive Damaged Dead Alive/Total Damaged /
Total
September 1 0 0 100.0 100.0
October 2 1 9 16.6 25.0
alewife November 0 0 1 0.0 0.0
December 0 0 1 0.0 0.0
Total 3 1 11 20.0 26.7
August 1 0 0 100.0 100.0
September - NS - - -
American shad October 6 0 3 66.7 66.7
November 0 0 4 0.0 0.0
Total 7 0 7 50.0 50.0
August 181 1 77 69.9 70.3
October 2 0 1 66.7 66.7
Atlantic tomcod
November 1 0 0 100.0 100.0
December 29 0 3 90.6 90.6
Total 213 1 81 72.2 72.5
August 25 2 25 48.1 51.9
October 4 0 16 20.0 20.0
bay anchovy
November 0 0 1 0.0 0.0
December - NS - - -
Total 29 2 42 39.7 42.5
August 5 0 3 62.5 62.5
October 131 4 52 70.1 72.2
blueback herring
November 45 1 46 48.9 50.0
December 0 0 1 0.0 0.0
Total 181 5 102 62.8 64.6
August - NS - - -
rainbow smelt
October - NS - - -
November 1 0 2 33.3 33.3
rainbow smelt December 1 0 2 33.3 33.3
2-60
Number of Fish % Survival
Species Species/Time 1 Alive &

Alive Damaged Dead Alive/Total Damaged /
Total
Total 2 0 4 33.3 33.3
August 15 0 3 83.3 83.3
October 14 0 2 87.5 87.5
striped bass
November 6 1 7 42.9 50.0
December 11 0 14 44.0 44.0
Total 46 1 26 63.0 64.4
August 420 2 13 96.6 97.0
September 5 0 0 100.0 100.0
October 0 1 10 0.0 9.1
weakfish
November 1 0 4 20.0 20.0
December NS - - - -
Total 426 3 27 93.4 94.1
August 127 2 14 88.8 90.2
September 5 0 6 45.5 -
October 73 2 20 76.8 78.9
white perch
November 2
384 1 231 62.3 62.5
December 2
1,839 16 848 68.0 68.6
Total2
2,428 21 1,119 68.0 68.6
1
Reflects all individuals in all collections made from August through December.
2
An additional 80 and 497 fish collected in November and December, respectively, suspected of having
been washed from the fixed screens at Intakes 21-25 prior to collection, were excluded.
2-61
Table 2-26
Survival of fish collected from a Ristroph screen (fish sluice only) at Indian Point Unit 2 and held
for 96 hrs in situ; November 8 through December 27, 1985 (ConEd 1986)
Number of Fish % Survival Damaged

Species Alive &
Alive Damaged Dead Alive/Total
Damaged/Total
American eel 27 1 12 67.5 70.0
banded killifish 45 0 2 95.7 95.7
black crappie 5 0 1 83.3 83.3
bluegill 127 0 3 97.7 97.7
gizzard shad 3 0 21 12.5 12.5
grey snapper 1 1 7 11.1 22.2
hogchoker 174 1 10 94.1 94.6
naked goby 6 0 7 46.2 46.2
pumpkinseed 14 0 1 93.3 93.3
spottail shiner 2 0 0 100.0 100.0
white catfish 21 0 4 84.0 84.0
Additional studies were conducted at Indian Point Unit 1 to determine the survival of early life
stages of striped bass impinged on a continuously rotating fine-mesh traveling screen.
Evaluations were performed to test the efficiency of the screen in reducing entrainment of
aquatic organisms (EA 1977). Other studies were performed by Texas Instruments in 1977 (TI
1978) and by Ecological Analysts 1978 (EA 1979) to evaluate the effectiveness of the fine-mesh
screen at Unit 1.
The Unit 1 conventional traveling screen was replaced by an experimental continuously
operating fine-mesh traveling screen. The panels of the conventional traveling screen were
replaced with 2.5-mm (0.1-in.) nylon mesh screening cloth. The screen was also modified to
operate at speeds ranging from 0.76 to 6.1 m/min (2.5 to 20 ft/min). In addition, fish collection
buckets that spanned the length of the screens (3 m [10 ft]) were added to enhance the survival of
impinged organisms. Fish were removed from the screens by a backwash spray system. Two
low-pressure nozzles, operated at 20 and 32 psi, removed impinged organisms from the screen
and washed them into a fiberglass trough. A high-pressure wash, located below the fish trough,
removed debris from the screen. Larvae and juvenile fish impinged on the fine-mesh traveling
screen were collected by diverting water from the bypass sluiceway into a collection apparatus.
The collection device consisted of an inverted conical net suspended in a cylindrical tank filled
with water. A modified funnel was affixed to the bottom of the net and led into a collection
container. At the end of a sample interval, the diverted flow was shut off, and the tank was
drained. The net was then washed with a fine spray to remove all of the collected organisms.
2-62
Collection efficiency of the fine-mesh screen was determined by releasing a known number of
striped bass post-yolk-sac larvae upstream of the fine-mesh traveling screen for collection.
Screen washwater was diverted 10 min subsequent to the larval release, after which the number
of larvae were collected and recorded. Collection efficiency experiments used two groups of
approximately 5,000 and one group of approximately 10,000 post-yolk-sac larvae that were 14
days old (mean length 7 mm [0.28 in.]). An additional efficiency experiment used an estimated
78,750 post-yolk-sac larvae that were 21 days old (mean length 9 mm [0.35 in.]). A control
group of 25 post-yolk-sac larvae (21 days old), and 5 mm (0.2 in.) styrofoam particles,
representing fish eggs, were also introduced directly into the sluiceway.
Wild Hudson River larvae were used in the impingement survival tests. Tests were conducted
during times when river densities of striped bass (Morone saxatilis) larvae were known to be
high. Collections were made between 2020 and 2140 hrs on June 16 and June 21. Samples were
then immediately transported to an onsite laboratory where they were sorted, classified (as live,
stunned, or dead), and held for latent mortality observations. Survival of striped bass impinged
on traveling screens was calculated as the ratio of organisms found alive to the total number
collected.
The results indicated that the continuously operating fine-mesh screen did not effectively prevent
the entrainment of striped bass post-yolk-sac larvae that were 7 to 9 mm (0.28 to 0.35 in.) in
length. Late post-yolk-sac larvae ranging in size from 10 to 18 mm (0.39 to 0.71 in.) appeared to
be the minimum sized larvae collected by the fine-mesh (2.5 mm) screen (EA 1977).
Initial survival of late post-yolk-sac larvae was estimated to be 68% with water intake velocities
of 0.12 m/sec (0.4 ft/sec) and screen travel rate of 3 m/min (10 ft/min). Ninety-six-hr survival of
late post-yolk-sac larvae was 47%. Early juvenile striped bass (17 to 23 mm [0.67 to 0.91 in.])
survival was 100% for initial survival tests and 88% after 96 hrs (Table 2-27). A total of 119
wild striped bass were collected for impingement survival analysis. One hundred and three were
late post-yolk-sac larvae, and 16 were classified as juveniles. High survival of juvenile striped
bass indicated that the fine-mesh traveling screen had potential to reduce the mortality of this life
stage.
2-63
Table 2-27
Initial and 96-hr survival for post-yolk-sac larvae and juveniles at Indian Point Generating Station (EA 1977)
Post-Yolk-Sac Larvae Juveniles
Species Sample % Alive (a) Sample % Alive

Size Initial 96 Hr Size Initial 96 Hr
striped bass 103 68 (58, 77) 47 (37, 57) 16 100 88 (62, 99)
white perch 7 43 (12, 82) 14 (1, 67) 1 100 0
bay anchovy 1 0 0 7 86 (48, 100) 0
bluefish 0 -- -- 3 67 (9, 99) 0
tomcod 0 -- -- 39 100 67 (51, 81)
rainbow smelt 0 -- -- 6 100 17 (0, 64)
herring 2 0 0 3 33 (1, 91) 0
Controls
striped bass 15 100 80 (52, 96) 25 100 96 (80, 100)
white perch 6 100 83 (36, 100) 10 100 100

a
Proportion alive calculated using live plus stunned organisms.
(numbers in parentheses indicate 95% confidence interval; from Ostle and Mensing 1977 as cited in EA 1977).
2-64
From June through December 1977, Texas Instruments (TI 1978) conducted preliminary studies
to test the initial and extended survival of juvenile and older fish recovered from the Unit 1 fine-
mesh traveling screen. The testing procedure was similar to that used in the EA study.
Seventeen tests were performed. Of these, 16 were conducted with circulator capacity at 78% of
maximum and one with circulators at 100% capacity. Screen wash water from the fine-mesh
screen was diverted into a 1,672 L (441 gal) collection tank. Fish were removed from the tank,
and those classified as live were placed in a laboratory holding facility and observed to
determine latent mortality at 0, 12, 36, 60 and 84 hrs. No control tests were conducted. Bay
anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), and white perch (Morone
americana) were the predominant species collected. Species age classes included young-of year,
yearling, and older fish. Initial survival for all species was 41%, and survival after 84 hrs was
24% for all species. Overall effectiveness of the continuously operating fine-mesh screen was
not fully evaluated due to the preliminary nature of the study.
A continuation of the 1977 studies involving the use of a fine-mesh traveling screen at Indian
Point Unit 1 was conducted during the 1978 ichthyoplankton entrainment season (EA 1979).
The study objectives were to further define the collection efficiency of the screen and to examine
the survival of early life stages of striped bass collected by the screen. The tests used identical
sampling apparatus and experimental protocol as the studies conducted in 1977. A total of
38,700 striped bass (Morone saxatilis) yolk-sac-larvae were used in three releases. Only 835
were recovered (2.2%).
Collection efficiency of the fine-mesh screen was found to be substantially higher for the
juvenile life stage of striped bass. Results from the juveniles tested (n=17,000) in six
experiments indicated that 43.6% (n=7,407) were retrieved in the collection apparatus. A total of
35 survival experiments were conducted with wild Hudson River striped bass larvae. All larvae
collected were dead. Initial survival of juvenile striped bass was 77%, and survival at 96 hrs was
60%. Survival estimates for early stages of striped bass impinged on fine-mesh traveling screens
during 1977 and 1978 studies indicated that, as length increased (the fish became a size more
susceptible to screen retention), fish survival also increased. The authors estimated that, for
juveniles averaging 19 mm (0.7 in.) or more in length, screen retention would approach 100%,
and survival would exceed 75%.
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant

A biological monitoring program was conducted at Brunswick Steam Electric Plant to determine
the impact of its operation on commercially and recreationally important species of fish and
shellfish (Carolina Power & Light 1985a; Thompson 2000). Additional evaluations were
conducted to determine the effect of fish protection devices and operational practices, including
the installation of fine-mesh screens, on fish survival. The monitoring program and intake
modifications were implemented as a requirement of the station’s NPDES permit.
The Brunswick Plant is located in the Cape Fear estuary approximately 9.2 km (5.7 miles)
upstream from the mouth of the Cape Fear River. The plant consists of two generating units,
each rated at 790 MW. Cooling water is drawn into the plant through a 4.8 km (3 miles) intake
channel. A diversion structure designed to exclude larger life stages of fish was installed in fall
of 1982 at the mouth of the intake canal.
2-65
Two of the four intake traveling screens 9.5 mm (3/8 in.) on each of the station’s units were
replaced with 1-mm (0.04-in.) fine-mesh polyester screens. The fine-mesh screens were only run
when the intake water temperature was less than or equal to 18°C (65°F). Studies were
conducted to determine the reduction in entrainment of organisms due to installation of the fine-
mesh screens. Three comparative studies were conducted in November 1984, December 1984,
and January 1985. Samples were collected from the two screen types in two consecutive 24-hr
periods. Gobies (Gobiosoma spp.) comprised 24% of the mean density of all organisms
entrained in 1984. Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus) made up 16%, while spot
(Leiostomus xanthurus) and anchovies (Anchoa spp.) each made up 15% of the entrained
organisms. The total rate of fish entrained during the study ranged from 6.6 million per day in
mid January to 22,000 in mid November. The comparative study involving the fine-mesh
screens versus the 9.4-mm (0.4-in.) screens resulted in an 84% reduction in the total number of
fish entrained during the three study periods due to the fine-mesh screens.
Impingement studies at Brunswick Station were conducted for larval, juvenile, and adult life
stages of fish. Impinged larval life stages were collected by filtering the entire water column in
the return flume by using a 505-μm mesh plankton net. Five-min samples were collected on mid
and slack tides per 24-hr period, per week. Samples were processed in the same manner as the
entrainment samples. A total of 570 million larval organisms representing 99 taxa were
collected during 1984. Atlantic croaker was the most abundant species collected, representing
22.9% of the total catch. Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) was collected in similar volume,
comprising 20.9%. Survival studies were not conducted on the larval collections.
Impingement tests performed with juvenile and adult fish and invertebrate were conducted with
the permanent diversion structure in place. Samples were conducted for one 24-hr period each
week. A steel-framed collection basket, fitted with 9.4-mm (0.4-in.) netting, was placed into
each sluice. Organisms that were collected by the basket were sorted, identified, measured, and
weighed. Any organism less than 25 mm (1.0 in.) in length was considered an incidental catch
and not recorded. A total of 5,128,817 organisms representing 116 taxa were collected during
the juvenile/adult impingement study. Bay anchovy were collected in the greatest number,
comprising 59.0% of the total catch. Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) were the second
most abundant species and made up 12.8% of the catch. Blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) (5.6%),
Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia) (4.0%), blackcheek tonguefish (Symphurus plagiusa)
(2.6%), and Atlantic croaker were third, fourth, fifth, and sixth, respectively. Night sampling
was responsible for collecting 78% of the juveniles/adults during the test period.
Survival studies were conducted to determine what percentage of fish and invertebrates impinged
on the traveling intake screens could be returned to the estuary alive. Screen washwater was
collected at the end of each sluiceway for 3-min intervals using a 1 mm (0.04 in.) mesh bucket.
Organisms were collected at two different screen rotation speeds: slow and fast. The collected
organisms were transported to a laboratory holding facility and monitored for 96-hr mortality. A
control study was also conducted to determine if significant mortality was associated with the
collection and holding processes. No adjustments were made for collection or holding. Over
21,000 organisms were collected; 10,700 of these were held for 96 hrs for determining the
survival percentages (Table 2-28 and Table 2-29). Survival was generally higher for smaller
organisms tested on fast-moving screens. No significant difference in survival was exhibited
between screen speeds for larger organisms.
2-66
Table 2-28
Brunswick Station impingement survival study results: screen mortality — 1984 and 1985 (Carolina Power and Light 1985a)
Initial Latent Total

Screen Number Number Number
Taxon Collected Mortalitya Mortalityb Survivalc
Speed of Trials Collected Stocked
(%) (%) (%)
croaker — group 1 F 15 2,903 1,285 39.6 52.2 28.9
croaker — group 2 F 5 584 338 36.0 43.8 36.0
spot — group 1 F 8 1,349 620 19.0 61.8 31.0
pink and white shrimp F 6 264 219 1.4 5.5 92.7
brown shrimp F 2 87 81 7.9 25.9 69.0
penaeid postlarvae F 2 188 120 4.3 5.8 90.2
blue crab F 4 170 79 2.4 5.1 92.7
blue crab megalops F 2 159 71 1.9 11.3 88.9
weakfish F 4 282 191 19.4 82.2 12.6
searobin F 4 132 124 2.3 8.1 89.8
blackcheek tonguefish F 3 110 95 5.5 15.8 79.6
bay anchovy F 2 249 114 54.2 100.0 0.0
striped mullet —- group 1 F 1 62 52 16.1 19.2 67.7
striped mullet — group 2 F 1 37 37 0.0 8.1 91.9
flounder F 1 91 78 8.9 1.3 90.0
menhaden F 1 32 30 6.3 83.3 15.6
croaker — group 1 S 12 2,105 772 60.1 77.3 9.6

croaker — group 2 S 6 597 420 15.4 57.9 35.6
spot — group 1 S 9 1,806 767 39.1 87.6 7.6
spot — group 2 S 3 333 219 27.9 61.2 28.0
pink and white shrimp S 1 48 44 8.3 11.4 81.2
brown shrimp S 3 249 241 3.2 7.9 89.2
2-67
Initial Latent Total
Taxon Collected Mortalitya Mortalityb Survivalc
(%) (%) (%)
penaeid postlarvae S 2 131 119 9.2 15.1 77.1
blue crab S 1 26 20 7.7 0.0 92.3
blue crab megalops S 2 203 135 3.0 11.1 86.3
bay anchovy S 1 596 59 90.1 100.0 0.0
hardback shrimp S 1 123 41 66.7 34.1 22.0
F = Fast-screen operation.
S = Slow-screen operation.
a
Number of organisms that were found dead in collection gear ÷ number collected.
b
Number of organisms that died after being stocked in tanks ÷ number stocked.
c
100 - [(a) (Number collected) + (b) (Number stocked) + (b) (Other live organisms collected but not stocked)] ÷ number collected.
2-68
Table 2-29
Brunswick Station impingement survival study results: control mortality — 1984 and 1985 (Carolina Power and Light 1985a)
Initial Latent
Taxon Collected Mortalitya Mortalityb
(%) (%)
croaker — group 1 16 1,392 1,095 14.1 9.9 77.4
croaker — group 2 9 2,550 611 0.9 1.8 97.4
spot — group 1 10 1,361 895 7.1 12.9 80.9
spot — group 2 3 973 213 0.6 0.9 98.5
pink and white shrimp 7 561 347 2.7 4.9 92.4
brown shrimp 5 323 304 3.4 23.4 72.7
Penaeid postlarvae 2 115 112 2.6 8.0 89.6
blue crab 5 238 100 0.0 6.0 94.1
blue crab megalops 4 362 231 7.2 7.4 86.9
weakfish 3 155 116 3.2 40.5 51.0
searobin 4 104 97 1.9 1.0 96.8
blackcheek tonguefish 3 444 116 0.2 2.6 97.6
bay anchovy 2 60 48 20.0 56.3 29.3
striped mullet — group 1 1 23 23 0.0 4.3 95.7
striped mullet — group 2 1 35 35 0.0 0.0 100.0
flounder 1 21 20 4.8 0.0 95.2
hardback shrimp 1 51 50 2.0 8.0 90.3
a
Number of organisms that were found dead in collection gear ÷ number collected.
b
Number of organisms that died after being stock in takes ÷ number stocked.
c
100 - [(a) (number collected) + (b) (number stocked) + (b) (other live organisms collected but not stocked)] ÷ number collected.
2-69
Danskammer Point Generating Station
Central Hudson Gas & Electric installed a front-wash modified screen system in 1979 at the
Danskammer Point Generating Station (EA 1982). Subsequent to the system installation in 1979,
studies were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the modified screens at improving the
survival rates of impinged fish compared to conventional screens. The plant is located
approximately 107 km (66.5 miles) upstream from the mouth of the Hudson River at the north
end of Newburgh Bay. The station has four units with a total gross generating capacity of 482
MW. Units 1, 2, and 3 each have two pumps to supply water for the once-through cooling
system; Unit 4 has three pumps. Water is drawn from a common intake canal through 12 vertical
traveling screens. Approximate velocities approaching the screens are less than 0.45 m/sec (1.5
ft/sec).
The conventional traveling screens each had 25, 0.46- by 2.44-m (1.5- by 8-ft) screen panels
fitted with 9.5-mm (3/8-in.) mesh. A single high-pressure (60 to 90 psi) debris spray nozzle
washed both fish and debris from the screens into a sluiceway located in front of the screens.
The screens were operated at a rotational speed of 1.6 m/min (5.2 ft/min). One of the three
traveling screens in Unit 4 was selected for modifications, including stainless steel troughs
installed at the base of each screen panel, external low-pressure fish-removal spray, a neoprene-
faced splash plate, and two high-pressure crossfire spray jets.
A series of preoperational screenwash tests were performed to determine the efficiency of the
low-pressure wash system when used alone and in conjunction with the high-pressure debris
spray. A known number of living and dead fish of several size categories were placed in the
screen trays prior to washing. The screen was then rotated and washed and fish were collected at
the fish sluice discharge. The number of fish collected in the discharge was recorded.
Observations were also made at the backside of the screens to determine if any fish were being
carried over.
A comparison of survival was conducted between fish removed from the modified screen verses
fish removed from the two conventional traveling screens located on either side of the modified
screen. Each week, two modes of screen wash operation were tested. In one operational mode,
30-min collections were made during continuous screenwash and continuous screen rotation.
The other operational mode employed was intermittent screen rotation with a two-hr hold
followed by screen rotation and wash for 15 min. Sampling was conducted three times per week
for each screen type and wash/operational mode.
The collection of fish from each of the two screen types occurred at the point where the
screenwash sluiceway emptied into the Hudson River. The washwater was directed into a
collection basket (120 by 240 by 120 cm [47.2 by 94.5 by 47.2 in.]) equipped with 6-mm (0.2-
in.) mesh. Fifteen-min samples were collected during the intermittent mode, and 30-min samples
were collected during the continuous wash mode. Fish captured in the collection basket were
counted and classified by condition. Live specimens of selected target species were transferred
to holding tanks for latent mortality observations. Latent mortality monitoring occurred at 12,
18, 36, and 84 hrs after collection.
Control fish were collected from the river near Danskammer to determine if the collection and
handling processes had a significant effect on the survival of fishes.
2-70
After a 2- to 4-day recovery period, control fish were placed in the collection basket and
subjected to the washwater discharge for the same exposure period as the test fish. The control
fish were then sorted and maintained in the same manner as the test fish.
The preoperational screenwash tests indicated that fish removal efficiency was related to the size
and condition of the fish. Live fish under 130 mm (5.1 in.) were effectively removed from the
screens with a low-pressure wash (10 psi). The removal of fish larger than 130 mm (5.1 in.)
improved when the low-pressure wash was increased to 15 psi. Dead fish were more effectively
removed when both the low and high-pressure washes were used together.
White perch (Morone americana), Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod), Alosa spp (alewife
[Alosa pseudoharengus], blueback herring [Alosa aestivalis], American shad [Alosa
sapidissima], and gizzard shad [Dorosoma cepedianum]), and spottail shiner (Notropis
hudsonius) were the most commonly collected species on both types of screens and composed
over 80% of the total catch. A total of 5,503 fish were collected by the conventional screens,
while the modified screen collected 3,217.
White perch were most abundant in the fall and spring followed closely by Atlantic tomcod
during winter months. Alosa species were most frequently collected in the fall and spottail
shiner were collected in low numbers throughout the year. There was little variation in the size
class of fish collected at both screen types.
Initial survival data were recorded for all the fish collected on the screens. Latent survival
observations were conducted on only the most abundant species collected. Initial survival rate
was comparable between life stages, sampling seasons, and screenwash modes. The initial
survival of impinged white perch was high (greater than 90% for the majority of the samples) for
all of the sampling seasons (Table 2-30). Survival rates were significantly higher on modified
screens for fall 1980 samples involving young-of-the-year fish. Extended survival rates for tests
with screens operating in the continuous wash mode during non-winter months were higher at
the conventional screens than at the modified screens. The modified screens only showed
increased extended survival during the winter test period. Most species collected at the modified
screen had lower survival rates than those collected on the conventional screens. Atlantic
tomcod was the only species that showed a significantly higher survival rate at the modified
screen when sampled during the continuous wash mode (Table 2-31). Results of the control tests
indicated that collection and handling had little or no effect on initial survival but did have an
influence on extended survival rates for all species tested.
2-71
Table 2-30
Initial and 84-hr survival by species, lifestage, and screenwash mode at the Danskammer Point Plant (EA 1982)
Time of Observation
Sampling Life Screenwash Screen Initial 84 Hr (b)
Species
Period Stage (a) Mode Type % %
Number Number
Survival Survival
Continuous Standard 190 82.6 157 1.9
Modified 61 68.9 42 0.0
Fall 1979
Standard 211 38.4 81 0.0
2 hr hold
Modified 127 40.2 51 0.0
herrings YOY
Standard 191 85.3 163 21.5
Continuous
Modified 185 77.3* 143 8.4
Fall 1980
Standard 962 37.4 360 0.6
2 hr hold
Modified 475 27.4* 130 0.0
Standard 52 82.7 43 60.5
Continuous
Winter Atlantic Modified 30 96.7* 29 86.2
ADL
1980 tomcod Standard 50 84.0 42 71.4
2 hr hold
Modified 5 100.0 5 80.0
Standard 27 96.3 26 100.0
Continuous
Spring Modified 53 100.0 53 98.1
spottail shiner ADL
1980 Standard 71 95.8 68 60.3
2 hr hold
Modified 22 100.0 22 54.5
(a) YOY = young of the year; ADL = adult.

(b) Normalized data.
* Indicates that a significant (α = 0.05) difference between survival proportions for the two screen types was detected.
2-72
Table 2-31
Initial and 84-hr survival of control species, lifestage, and screenwash mode at the Danskammer Point Plant (EA 1982)
Time of Observation
Sampling Life Screenwash Initial Survival 84 Hr Survival(b)
Species
Period Stage (a) Mode
Number Percent Number Percent
Continuous 145 100.0 145 100.0

white perch YOY
2 hr hold 137 100.0 137 95.6
Fall 1979
Continuous 118 98.3 116 19.8
herrings YOY
2 hr hold 131 99.2 130 21.5
Continuous 89 100.0 89 98.9
Atlantic tomcod ADL
2 hr hold 71 100.0 71 100.0
Winter 1980
Continuous 44 100.0 44 93.2
white perch YRL
2 hr hold 43 100.0 43 86.0
Continuous 28 100.0 28 96.4
YRL
2 hr hold 38 100.0 38 84.2
white perch
Continuous 105 100.0 105 100
Spring 1980 ADL
2 hr hold 103 100.0 103 95.1
Continuous 123 100.0 123 100.0
spottail shiner ADL
2 hr hold 113 100.0 113 100.0
Continuous 90 100.0 90 95.6
white perch YOY
2 hr hold 141 100.0 141 94.3
Fall 1980
Continuous 115 100.0 115 73.9
herrings YOY
2 hr hold 187 100.0 187 66.3
(a) YOY = young of the year; YRL = yearling; and ADL = adult.
(b) Normalized data.
2-73
The performance of both the conventional and modified screen types was found to be similar.
Atlantic tomcod and white perch exhibited higher survival rates during the winter season of the
modified screen. However, survival rates for all other species tested on the modified screen were
comparable or less than those exhibited on the conventional screens. The authors suggest that
there would be “no particular advantage in using the modified screen system” at the
Danskammer plant under the observed conditions.
Mystic Station
The effectiveness of a modified traveling screen was evaluated at Mystic Station — Unit No. 7
in an attempt to improve the survival of winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus),
rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), and blueback herring (Alosa
aestivalis) (SWEC 1979, 1981; Taft et al. 1986). Mystic Station is located on the north bank of
the Mystic River in Everett, MA. Unit 7 has a total generating capacity of 600 MW. The Unit 7
intake consists of two screenbays, each 2.7 m (9 ft) wide. A 2.4 m (8 ft) wide bottom sill was
constructed at the base of each screenbay to exclude flounder and other benthic organisms.
Angled trash racks are located inside the screenbays. Curtain walls, located behind the trash
racks, extend downward approximately 1.4 m (4.5 ft) below the extreme low tide elevation (EL
2.2 m [7.25ft]). Two traveling screens are located 7.8 m (25.5 ft) behind the screenbay
entrances. The screen panels are fitted with 1 cm (0.4 in.) wire mesh and are equipped with a
front wash, low- (30 psi) and high-pressure (90 psi) screen wash system. Fish and debris are
washed into a common sluice. Normal operation of the screens includes one rotation during each
8-hr shift. Screen approach velocities are 1 m/sec (3.2 ft/sec).
During the fall of 1980, one of the two Unit 7 traveling screens was replaced with an
experimental screen system. Modifications that were made to the Unit 7 screenwell included
installation of fish lifting buckets, a low-pressure spray header, a fish trough, a fish
collection/holding facility, a new debris trough, and the relocation of the high-pressure debris
spray to the descending run of the screen. The traveling screen was also equipped with a two-
speed motor and four-speed transmission, which allowed the screen to operate at speeds ranging
from 0.76 to 9.1 m/min (2.5 to 30 ft/min).
Total impingement sampling and impingement survival testing were conducted at the Unit 7
intake. Total impingement sampling involved counting and identifying all fish collected on the
both the Unit 7 traveling water screens throughout the study period. The organisms collected
from the screen washings for both of the screens were sorted several times per week.
Impingement survival sampling was conducted to determine the survival rates of fish collected
by the traveling screens. The tests were conducted after several screen washings and screen
rotations. Organisms were washed from the fish buckets into the fish troughs and entered a
collection area where they were categorized by condition and transported to holding pools. The
screen was tested at different operational speeds to determine the relationship between screen
speed and mortality. The studies were intended to determine a screen speed that would provide
low mortality without jeopardizing screen reliability. Fish were collected at screen speeds of 1
and 4.6 m/min (3.3 and 15 ft/min), the longest and shortest impingement durations tested.
Intermediate speeds of 2.3 and 3.0 m/min (7.5 and 10 ft/min) were also tested during the fall and
winter, respectively. As in the total impingement sampling studies, fish collected from the
screens were categorized and placed in holding tanks for 96-hr latent survival assessments.
2-74
The most abundant species collected was rainbow smelt, followed by Alosa spp. (alewives and
blueback herring), and winter flounder. Impingement survival appeared to increase with screen
speed. A total of 103,384 fish were collected from the Unit 7 traveling water screens from
October 7, 1980, to April 27, 1981. The authors note that 75% of the rainbow smelt collected
over the entire study period were collected in 5 weeks. Similarly, almost 50% of the Alosa spp.
were collected during the week of November 11 to 17, and nearly 60% of the winter flounder
were collected in the month of January. Alosa spp. were partitioned into two length categories
for fall testing because of a distinct pattern of bimodal separation at 10.5 cm (4.1 in.). Alosa spp.
in the first year of life were listed as “small.” Results of tests at screen speeds of 4.6 m/min (15
ft/min) revealed a survival rate of nearly 50%. The larger Alosa spp. had high initial survival but
showed low latent survival at all screen speeds. Few (n=16) Alosa spp. were collected in the
winter. Data indicated that survivorship was similar to large Alosa spp. collected during the fall.
Winter flounder were also separated into two different size classes for the fall testing period.
Greater than 50% of winter flounder survived impingement even at the slowest screen speeds. A
low mortality rate was exhibited by flounder during winter tests (Table 2-32).
Table 2-32
Mortality of winter flounder (SWEC 1981)
Percent Mortality1
Screenwash Interval
Initial2 96 Hr3 Total4
Continuous 2.6 (05–16.2) 10.3 (0.4–30.7) 14.6 (1.0–39.8)
2 Hr 22.3 (5.6–45.9) 29.3 (9.3–54.8) 44.2 (17.9–72.3)
4 Hr 41.4 (18.6–66.3) 58.2 (32.4–81.7) 66.2 (37.6–89.4)
8 Hr 35.6 (14.2–60.6) 38.6 (15.7–64.4) 54.4 (26.3–81.0)

1
Calculated from arcsine transformation.
2
Percentage of flounder found dead on screens.
3
Percentage of flounder which died during the 96-hr test period.
4
Number dead on screen plus number died during 96-hr test period
divided by total number of flounder collected.
5
Confidence interval less than zero.
Rainbow smelt were separated into two groups: small, i.e., 9 to 14 cm (3.5 to 5.5 in.); and large,
i.e., greater than 14 cm (5.5 in.). Initial survival for large and small rainbow smelt was high for
all screen speeds tested. Latent survival was significantly lower, at a screen speed of 1 m/min
(3.3 ft/min) than at speeds of 3.0 or 4.5 m/min (10 or 15 ft/min) for both large and small rainbow
smelt. The greatest survival for both small and large rainbow smelt was achieved when the
screen was operated at 4.5 m/min (15 ft/min).
Barney M. Davis Power Station

A study was conducted to determine the initial survival of impinged marine organisms on
Passavant fine-mesh center-flow traveling screens at the Barney M. Davis Power Station
(Murray and Jinnette 1978). The study also examined the influence of debris loading on survival
of dominant species.
2-75
The Barney M. Davis Power Station is located on the shoreline of the upper Laguna Madre near
Corpus Christi, Texas. The two units have a total generating capacity of 650 MW. Water for the
once-through cooling system is drawn from the Laguna Madre by a 1,174 by 23.5 by 2.4 m
(3,850 by 77 by 8 ft) deep intake channel. The intake structure has four 4 m (13 ft) wide intake
bays. Each bay incorporates a trash rack with 7.62 cm (3 in.) clear spacings. The Passavant
fine-mesh (0.5 mm [0.02 in.]) traveling screens are located 7 m (23 ft) downstream of the trash
racks, and the circulating water pumps are 14.6 m (48 ft) behind the screens. Velocities through
the fine-mesh screens range from 0.5 to 0.9 m/sec (1.7 to 3.1 ft/sec).
The Passavant fine-mesh, center-flow screen system employs a single entry, double exit design.
Each screen is fitted with 53 semicircular screen baskets with a shovel type lip to help retain
screened material. Water flows from the inside to the outside of the screen structure. Impinged
organisms are removed from the screens by an overhead spray unit operating at 40-60 psi (Figure
2-15).
2-76
Figure 2-15
Center-flow (Passavant) screen (Murray and Jinette 1978)
Samples were collected on a monthly basis from January to December 1977. Sampling
frequency was once every 6 hrs for the 24-hr sampling period. Four individual, 30-second
replicates were conducted at each of the four screens for a total sample time of 8 min.
Organisms were separated from debris, observed for 10 to 15 min, and then sorted into live and
dead (any organism showing no life signs, visible damage or erratic behavior) categories. Latent
survival studies were not conducted. Organisms were then placed in marked jars for individual
identification and further laboratory quantification. A total of 12,060 individual organisms,
representing 15 species of invertebrates and 37 species of vertebrates, were collected by the
Passavant screens.
2-77
The overall initial survival for all individuals was 86%. Latent survival was not studied. The
lowest overall percent mortality for dominant species occured during February. Gulf menhaden
(Brevoortia patronus) were the most abundant fish collected in February. They made up for
33% of the total catch and exhibited the lowest mortality (5%). The highest percent mortality
was exhibited by bay anchovy during the month of June. Bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli)
represented 74% of the total catch for June and exhibited a 98% mortality rate. The authors
suggested that much of the mortality experienced by bay anchovy could have been attributed to
the large numbers of cabbagehead jellyfish (Stomolophus meleagris) collected in the screen
samples. The jellyfish are known to have a paralytic or lethal effect on most fish species they
encounter.
The effect of debris loading on the survival of impinged organisms was also investigated. When
debris weights fluctuated throughout January, February, and March, the percent mortality tended
to follow the same pattern of fluctuation. Low mortality experienced in April, when debris
loading was at its peak, was explained by the presumption that the debris composition was a
factor. Observations of the debris during spring indicated that algal forms were the dominant
composition of the debris loads. It was believed that the algal forms did not entangle organisms
on the screens and therefore did not exert the same stresses on impinged organisms that the
marine grass-type debris may have at other times.
Bowline Point Generating Station

Studies were conducted at Bowline Point Generating Station to determine the effects of traveling
screens used at various screen operational modes and screenwash pressures on survival of
young-of-the-year white perch (Morone americana), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), and adult
Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod) (King et al. 1978). The Station is located approximately
60 km (37.3 miles) north of Manhattan on the west bank of Haverstraw Bay in the Hudson River
estuary. The station has a total rated generating output of 600 MW for each of its two units
(Figure 2-16). Six circulating pumps draw cooling water from a small embayment (Bowline
Pond) through six vertical traveling screens. The screen panels are equipped with 0.953 cm (3/8
in.) mesh. Velocities approaching the screen are 15 cm/sec (0.5 ft/sec), with two of the three
pumps per unit operating. Bowline Point has two spray wash systems for removing debris and
organisms from the screens. A low-pressure wash removes fish from the screens with a pressure
of 10 to 20 psi, and a high-pressure system removes debris from the screens with a spray
pressure of 30 to 50 psi.
2-78
Figure 2-16
Bowline Point Station intake structure (King et al. 1978)
Three operational modes were tested at Bowline Point: continuous screen rotation with
continuous screen wash, 2-hr hold operation with screen rotation and screen wash for a duration
of 20 min once every 2 hrs, and 4-hr hold operation with similar screen and wash operation for
2-hr hold. Pressure wash operational modes tested included the high-pressure system operation
alone at 30 to 50 psi, and the high pressure system operating concurrently with the low-pressure
system operated between 10 and 20 psi.
Impingement and survival collections were conducted once per week in November and
December of 1976 and once per month from January through March of 1977. Collections were
taken for 15 to 30 min during screenwash operation. Fish impinged on the screens were
collected in the impingement collection pit using a 1.3-cm (1/2-in.) knotless nylon mesh net.
Fish were sorted by condition and species immediately after removal from the collection net.
Live and stunned fish were transported to a holding facility and observed at 12, 24, 48, and 96–
108 hrs for delayed mortality. Water quality was monitored throughout the latent mortality
study. Control fish were collected to determine mortality associated with the collection and
holding procedures as described in previous reviews.
Results of the initial survival tests indicated that survival was high (69% to 98%) for young-of-
the-year white perch during all three screen operational modes and both pressure wash modes
(Table 2-33).
2-79
Table 2-33
Initial and 96-hr survival of white perch by screen operation mode at Bowline Point Plant (King et al. 1978)
Time of Observation
Screen Washwater Initial 96 Hr 108 Hr

Months Operational Pressure
Mode (psi) % % %
Number Number (d) Number
Survival Survival Survival
10–20 3,699 98 (a) 1,474 56 --- (e) ---

Continuous
30–50 2,192 96 (a) 779 55 --- ---
November– 10–20 1,169 90 341 26 --- ---
December 2-hr hold
1976 30–50 1,214 90 364 32 --- ---
10–20 111 75 83 19 --- ---

4-hr hold
30–50 143 69 98 19 --- ---
January– 10–20 952 87 (b) --- --- 824 23 (c)

Continuous
March 1997 30–50 903 81 (b) --- --- 730 34 (c)
(a) Z = 4.76; critical value = 1.96; α = 0.05 for two-tailed test; (b) Z = 3.33; (c) Z = 4.43; (d) Includes subsample of live and stunned fish; (e)
Dashes indicate no data.
2-80
Initial and latent survival was consistently higher for the continuous mode of operation compared
to the 2- or 4-hr hold modes. The operation of the low-pressure screenwash system did not result
in significantly greater initial or latent survival than the operation of high-pressure system. The
authors postulate that the lack of difference in impingement survival due to screen wash systems
may be a result of a number of factors. The low-pressure screenwash may not have effectively
removed fish from the traveling screens prior to their contact with the high-pressure system, or
both the pressures tested may have been sufficiently low to permit similar survival results. The
initial and latent impingement survival for striped bass and white perch were similar for the same
screen operational modes during the same months (Table 2-34).
2-81
Table 2-34
Initial and 96-hr survival of white perch and striped bass by screen operation mode at Bowline Point Plant (King et al. 1978)
Time of Observation
Screen
Months Species Operational Initial 96 Hr 108 Hr
Mode
Number % Survival Number (g) % Survival Number % Survival
Continuous 5,891 97 (b) 2,253 56 (c) --- (h) ---
November–December 1976 white perch 2-hr hold 2,383 90 (b), (d) 705 29 (c), (e) --- ---
4-hr hold 254 71 (d) 181 19 (e) --- ---
January–March 1977 white perch Continuous 1,855 84 --- --- 1,554 28
January–February 1977 white perch Continuous 1,057 80 --- --- 849 21
Continuous 412 95 393 62 (f) --- ---

December 1976 striped bass
2-hr hold 256 92 237 26 (f) --- ---
January–March 1977 striped bass Continuous 617 90 --- --- 555 32
(a) Data were pooled for screenwash pressures from Tables 1 and 2; (b) Z = 13.41; critical value = 1.96; α = 0.05 for two-tailed test; (c) Z =
12.50; (d) Z = 8.69; (e) Z = 2.53; (f) Z = 8.72; (g) Includes subsample of live and stunned fish; (h) Dashes indicate no data.
2-82
Control survival data for young-of-the-year white perch (there was an insufficient sample size of
control striped bass) were used to estimate the probability for surviving impingement. Control
tests conducted in November and December on continuously operating screens resulted in 100%
initial survival. Initial survival was lower in January and February. There was no observed
latent effect for the continuous operational mode.
Traveling screen operational mode was found to affect the probability of young-of-the-year
white perch surviving impingement. The authors suggest that striped bass would show a similar
response because of the correlation experienced in impingement survival data between the two
species. The operation of traveling screens in the continuous operation mode resulted in
maximum initial and latent survival.
Oyster Creek Generating Station

Initial and latent mortality studies were conducted at Jersey Central Power and Light Company’s
Oyster Creek Generating Station (OCGS) (Tatham et al. 1978). The station is located 3.2 km (2
miles) inland from Barnegat Bay in Ocean County, New Jersey.
The intake draws water from Barnegat Bay through an intake canal. The station’s cooling water
intake has a set of six trash racks with 6.5-cm (2.5-in.) clear spacing. Downstream of the trash
racks are six vertical traveling screens fitted with 1-cm (0.4-in.) mesh. The intake has a cooling
water system consisting of four circulating water pumps that can provide flows up to 28.9 m3/sec
(1,020 cfs). The mean velocity in front of the trash racks with four circulating pumps and six
traveling screens in operation varies from 0.17 to 0.22 m/sec (0.57 to 0.73 ft/sec).
Samples were collected from the sluiceway each week. Collections were conducted on three
separate days (mostly during nighttime hrs) each week for a total of 48 hrs per week. The
screens were washed at the beginning of each sampling period and every two hrs thereafter
(sooner if there was a certain pressure differential across the screens). The sampler consisted of
a 45.7 by 50.8 by 61.0 cm (18 by 20 by 24 in.) basket with 10.7-mm (0.42-in.) wire mesh. The
sampler was placed in the sluiceway for approximately 1 min, after which the sampler was
removed and organisms were placed on a sorting table. This process was repeated up to six
times for each screenwash. Collected organisms were sorted by species and by condition. Live
and damaged fishes were placed in a holding tank for 48-hr delayed mortality observation.
Sampling was conducted during the 20 months that OCGS operated, from September 1975
through August 1977. Collections of the greatest numbers of fish occurred in the spring and fall.
The most commonly collected fish species included: bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) (72% of
total collected), Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) (4%), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus)
(4%), Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia) (3.5%), smallmouth flounder (Etropus microstomus)
(2.5%), and striped searobin (Prionotus evolans) (2%). Fishes with a greater than 70% initial
survival rate included: Northern pipefish (Syngnathus fuscus) (90%), oyster toadfish (Opsanus
tau) (85%) and fourspine stickleback (Apeltes quadracus) (85%; Table 3-9). Initial survival
rates ranged from a high of 90% for Northern pipefish to a low of 7% for bay anchovy. A total
of 39,042 fishes, 21,669 blue crabs, and 17,234 sand shrimp were collected during normal
intermittent washes of the traveling screens. Few latent survival values were reported due to low
numbers of test fish. Survival ranged from a high of 98% for striped searobin to a low of 5% for
Atlantic menhaden (Table 2-35).
2-83
Table 2-35
Immediate and 48-hr survival of impinged fish and macroinvertebrates at Oyster Creek Generating Station (Tatham et al. 1978)
Immediate Survival After 48 Hrs

Species
Number % Live % Damaged % Dead Number % Live
blueback herring 2,445 17 41 42
alewife 329 12 50 38
Atlantic menhaden 3,165 8 64 28 38 5
bay anchovy 13,854 7 15 78 128 9
oyster toadfish 186 85 9 6
striped cusk-eel 633 47 41 12
Atlantic silverside 5,133 34 28 38 141 35
fourspine stickleback 92 85 10 5
Northern pipefish 2,417 90 5 5 33 79
black seabass 310 37 33 30
bluefish 433 20 21 59
weakfish 1,351 15 26 59
spot 2,367 19 33 48
striped searobin 1,335 55 27 18 45 98
smallmouth flounder 2,213 36 38 26
summer flounder 259 53 38 9
winter flounder 686 46 39 15 12 67
grass shrimp 2,259 87 5 8
sand shrimp 17,234 77 9 14 15 87
blue crab 21,669 64 29 7 149 79
2-84
It appeared that the continuous operation of the traveling screens increased the immediate
survival of Atlantic menhaden, Atlantic silverside, and winter flounder. The authors note that
this conclusion is based on a limited number of specimens. The differences in survival were
most dramatic for fishes that had low survival during the intermittent operation of the traveling
screens. Overall, survival on the traveling screens was variable and was effected by the species,
season, and size of individual impinged organisms.
Hanford Reservation
A comparative fish impingement study was conducted between two adjacent water intakes on the
U.S. Department of Energy’s (U.S. DOE) Hanford Reservation (Page et al. 1977). The site is on
the Columbia River between Priest’s Rapids and McNary dams. The 100-N reactor and the
Hanford Generating Project (HGP) were the two power generating stations where fish
impingement studies were conducted. Impingement studies were carried out at HGP from March
1973 through April 1976 and at 100-N during 1977. Fish impingement was compared at the two
intakes in 1977 (Figure 2-17 and Figure 2-18).
Figure 2-17
Section view of 100-N intake structure (Page et al. 1977)
2-85
Figure 2-18
Section view of HGP intake structure (Page et al. 1977)
Cooling water from the river is supplied to 100-N by four pumps with a total rated capacity of
26.4 m3/sec (936 cfs). The six pump bays are each fitted with a traveling screen. The intake at
HGP also has four pumps but with a total capacity of 35.6 m3/sec (1,257 cfs). When river
temperatures are less than 7.2° C (45° F), only three of the four pumps are operated. The intake
has two pump bays with three traveling screens installed in each.
The traveling screens are made up of 3.1 by 0.6 m (10 by 2 ft) screen panels. The panels are
fitted with screening material with 0.32-cm (1/8-in.) square openings. A curtain wall extends
down in front of the screens to 116 m (380 ft) above sea level. The curtain wall is located behind
a trash rack at HGP. At 100-N, the trash rack extends down from the curtain wall. Both intakes
are equipped with a fish escapeway portal in the exterior downstream wall. Impinged organisms
and debris are removed by a spraywash system. The washwater from the screens is carried to a
sump pit where it is discharged back into the river through a 40.6-cm (16-in.) diameter pipe.
A sample pipe was installed at HGP to collect impinged organisms for the impingement studies.
The system diverted approximately 25% of the washwater into a swimming pool for daily
collections. At 100-N, a basket fitted with 0.32-cm (1/8-in.) mesh was installed in the sump pit.
The basket sampled 100% of the screenwash water.
Previous impingement studies at HGP revealed that 90% of the fish impinged on the traveling
screens were zero-age Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) under 50 mm (1.97 in.) in
length. Highest months of impingement were April and May. The numbers of other fish
impinged at the station were insignificant compared to those of Chinook salmon.
During the comparative study, the most frequently collected species were yellow perch (Perca
flavescens) fry and Chinook salmon, with yellow perch fry 14 times more abundant than
2-86
Chinook salmon. A total of seven species was collected from the traveling screens at 100-N. All
the fish collected from the basket at 100-N were dead. At HGP, a total of 10 species of fish was
collected. The most commonly impinged fish at HGP was Chinook salmon fry. Almost equal
numbers of Chinook and yellow perch were impinged at HGP. Survival rates for Chinook
salmon and yellow perch fry were high, i.e., 97% and 92%, respectively. Other impinged
species had similar survival rates. Compared to 100-N, twice as many yellow perch fry and 30
times as many Chinook salmon were collected from the screens at HGP.
The authors propose several explanations for the difference in impingement between the two
adjacent plants, including plant location (upstream/downstream), intake location (forebay
orientation), and intake configuration. Another explanation, involving a difference in the trash
rack/curtain wall configuration, appeared to be the most plausible. Experimental releases
conducted in the forebay of both plants indicated that HGP impinged three times more fish than
100-N. Additional releases of live and dead fish in front of the traveling screens revealed that
HGP collected almost six times as many live fish as 100-N. Dead fish, however, were collected
more frequently by 100-N. It was suggested that, based on these results, velocities at the screens
appear to be higher at 100-N, but some behavioral stimuli may have induced live fish to avoid
the screens.
Surry Power Station

Ristroph vertical traveling screens were installed at Surry Power Station and evaluated for their
ability to provide safe removal of fish without compromising the cooling water operation of the
plant (White and Brehmer 1977). Only initial survival studies were conducted during
impingement evaluations. The station is located on Gravel Neck peninsula on the James River in
Virginia about 46.3 km (28.8 miles) from the Chesapeake Bay. The station’s two units each
generate up to 788 MW each. The intake structure is 60.4 m (198 ft) long with trash racks in
each of the eight forebays. The station flow rate is 111 m3/sec (3,920 cfs).
Each of the Ristroph screens at Surry Station contains 47 panels each 4.3 by 0.61 m (14 by 2 ft).
The screen panels are fitted with 0.45-cm (0.2-in.) mesh and were operated continuously at 3
m/min (10 ft/min) during the test period. Debris and impinged organisms are removed from the
screens by a backwash spray system, which operates at 15 to 20 psi. Materials are washed from
the screens into a sluice and returned to the river. Minor modifications were made to the
Ristroph screen system during the first few months of testing. An auxiliary spray wash system
was installed to aid in removal of fish from the screens. Water volume was added to the river
return trough to assist fish in their movement through the trough. Additionally, a neoprene flap
was installed to prevent fish from falling between the screen and the trough when the screens
were washed. A final step in the modifications was the installation of a system to slow the water
velocity from the sluice into the sampling pool.
Daily sampling was conducted from May 1, 1974, through October 31, 1975. Two samples were
collected consecutively from Monday through Friday of each week. Screen wash water was
diverted into a fiberglass pool 8.5 by 6.1 by 1.2 m (28 by 20 by 4 ft). Sample duration was 5
min, after which water in the pool was allowed to settle for 10–15 min. Specimens in the tank
were categorized by species and condition, and separated into 20 mm (0.79 in.) length ranges.
For the first 18 months of operation, average fish survival for all species was 93.3%. A total of
58 species of fish were collected from the Ristroph screens. Fifty-two of the 58 species had an
2-87
initial survival rate of greater than 80%, with the majority exhibiting survival rates greater than
90%. Species from the family Clupeidae made up 58.1% of the total fish collected from the
screens during the study. The family Sciaenidae accounted for another 18.1% of the total fish
sampled.
Manchester Street Station

The Manchester Street Station, located on the Providence River in Providence, R.I. was
refurbished and repowered between 1992 and 1995(Marine Research 1997). From October 1994
through July 1995, new continuously operating duel speed, 9.5-mm (3/8 in.) mesh Ristroph
screens with high and low pressure washes were installed. This study assessed the survival for
the Ristroph screens and the pressure wash systems.
Sampling efforts were conducted from January 1996 through March 1997. Samples were
collected to collect the maximum sample size of fish and was reduced during periods of low
impingement and increased during periods of high impingement. Samples were collected from
three locations, the low-pressure return line at the screen house (LPN), the low pressure return
line near the hurricane barrier (LPF), and the high pressure return line (HP) (Figure 2-19). The
LPF and the HP collections were made in 1.2 by 1.2 m (4 by 4 ft) net pens with 6.4-mm (1/4-in.)
mesh bags. Collections in 6.4-mm (1/4-in.) mesh nets affixed to the outlet of the LPN were used
to make collections in that location. The LPF location was only assessable during low water
periods 2 hrs per day because the outlet pipe was submerged and net pens could not be removed.
Pens were checked every 10 – 15 min for samples. When collected, fish were gently removed
using dip nets and scoops then immediately transferred to buckets containing ambient-
temperature river water. Fish were then classified as live, dead, or injured. Live fish were
transferred from buckets to 64.4-L (17-gal) fiberglass tanks supplied continuously with running
river water for 48-hr holding periods. After the 48-hr holding period, fish were assessed for
latent mortality.
2-88
Figure 2-19
Schimetic of the Providence River showing Manchester Street Station and approximate location of
high- and low-pressure fish return lines (Marine Research 1997)
At total of 34 species were represented in this study, six species representing 86% of the sample.
These species are presented in Table 2-36. The other 14% of the species were categorized as
“others”. Threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) and winter flounder
(Pseudopleuronectes americanus) exhibited high survival at the three sampling locations, having
a combined 92% latent survival. Species sensitive to impingement, such as Atlantic menhaden
(Brevoortia tyrannus), showed a low latent survival of less than 10%. Passage down the
relatively long low pressure wash return line looked to increase mortality. Survival rates of this
2-89
study compared to studies conducted before the renovations have shown a meaningful
improvement.
Table 2-36
Initial and 48-h survival rates by species. Results are from Marine Research (1997).
Initial Survival Latent (48-h) Survival
Species LPN LPF HP LPN LPF HP
Atlantic menhaden 81.8% 78.1% 46.4% 6.3% 1.3% 2.4%

winter flounder 98.2% 96.6% 93.5% 95% 95.1% 92.2%
Atlantic silverside 78.8% 76.9% 50.4% 38% 28.2% 17.3%
white perch 88.1% 55% 55.6% 55.9% 25% 33.3%

threespine stickleback 100% 100% 100% 97.4% 93.3% 93.3%
Northern pipefish 100% 100% 100% 92% 71.4% 75%
All others 82.9% 74.7% 77.1% 55.1% 54.3% 64.7%
Millstone Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3

A monitoring study was conducted from May 1986 to October 1986 to evaluate the effectiveness
of the fish return system, where weekly samples were collected simultaneously from the
sluiceway and the debris troughs (NUSCO 1987). Fish collected alive in the sluiceway were held
for 72 hrs to evaluate survival. Results are presented below.
The Unit 3 intake is divided into six bays and contains six circulating pumps, four service water
pumps, and two screen wash pumps. The full flow capacity for the entire structure is about 56.6
m3/sec (1,998.8 cfs). Each bay in Unit 3 is equipped with a trash rack and a travelling screen.
The trash racks are 4.9 m (16.1 ft) wide and consist of 1.3 by 8.9 cm (1/2 by 3.5 in.) vertical steel
bars installed 6.4 cm (2.5 in.) apart at a slope of 5 to 1. Travelling screens consist of a band of
screening panels 4.3 m by 0.61 m (14.1 by 2 ft) constructed of 4.8-mm (0.2-in.) mesh copper
cloth. Rotation of the screen is dependent of water depth, automatically rotating when the
difference in water depth is greater than 100 mm (3.9 in.). The screen is equipped with low
pressure spray wash headers to flush organisms into a sluiceway and high pressure spray wash
headers to flush debris and leftover organisms off into debris troughs, both directed back to the
source water body.
A total of 3,355 specimens were collected, encompassing 55 species of fish and 15 species of
macroinvertebrates, in 32 samples during the monitoring study. The total calculated return rate
for organisms was 41%, 49% for the most abundant fish (10 species comprising 85%). Survival
of the 10 most abundant fish species varied depending on demersal or pelagic body type (Table
2-37). High mortality in butterfish was most likely caused by the fragile nature of butterfish and
impingement coinciding with large masses of jellyfish.
2-90
Table 2-37
Millstone Unit 3 sluiceway survival of the 10 most abundant species following various holding
periods (NUSCO 1987).
Body Number (%) (%) (%) (%)

Species Type Examined Initial Surival Surival Surival
Group Survival at 6-hr at 24-hr at 72-hr
(%)
Northern Demersal 210 95.2 92.4 91.4 91.0
pipefish
threespine Demersal 74 73.0 71.6 71.6 71.6

stickleback
grubby Demersal 34 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.1
winter Demersal 6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

flounder
butterfish Pelagic 87 16.1 3.4 3.4 2.3
bay anchovy Pelagic 62 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Atlantic Pelagic 68 22.1 2.9 1.5 0.0

silverside
Atlantic Pelagic 54 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

menhaden
bluefish Pelagic 14 42.9 7.1 0.0 0.0

(juvenile)
Scattergood Generating Station

Post-impingement survival of a pilot-scale post impingement fish return program was evaluated
at Scattergood Generating Station (SGS) in Los Angeles, California (Miller 2007). Assessment
of the fish return system required collection of live fish from the traveling screens during heat
treatments. Samples were collected during heat treatments to maximize the number of organisms
collected. Critical Thermal Maxima during heat treatments was inferred based on analysis from
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS).
During six routine monitoring of heat treatment at SGS from February 2005 to August 2006, live
fish were collected by hand off the steel 9.5-mm (3/8-in.) square mesh screens which
continuously rotated during heat treatments. Collections started at the beginning of the heat
treatment and ended when the water temperature reached 35°C. Fish were then collected by
hand from the traveling screen, stored in buckets filled with seawater and transported to SEA lab
in Redondo Beach, CA, where they were held in holding tanks supplied with a continuous
seawater flow. Health of the fish were observed every 24-hrs for 144-hrs, recording mortality
per 24-hrs. Survival was calculated for species which had at least 100 individuals and
cumulatively across all species.
Fifteen species made up 99% of the total sample (Table 2-38). Of the 101,122 fish collected,
464 (0.5%) were collected alive. Queenfish (Seriphus politus) were the most frequently
collected species, followed by topsmelt (Atherinops affinis), white croaker (Genyonemus
2-91
lineatus), and walleye surfperch (Hyperprosopon argenteum). Three families (Embiotocidae,
Atherinopsidae, and Sciaenidae) represented the majority of all impinged fish and all exhibited
little to no survival.
Walleye surfperch were the most abundant species collected alive, followed by topsmelt, kelp
bass (Paralabrax clathratus), bat ray (Myliobatis californica), and black perch (Embiotoca
jacksoni). Of the 464 fish collected alive, 383 (82.5%) survived the holding period. Total
survival for all fish held after impingement was 0.4%. The highest species-specific survival rates
were for kelp bass, bat ray, spotted turbot (Pleuronichthys ritteri), and black perch. However,
these species were impinged in relatively low numbers.
Fish impinged at SGS demonstrated extended survival of only 0.4% and was highly species
specific. Of species with ten or more individuals held for extended mortality after impingement,
only queenfish and eagle ray exhibited survival lower than 70%. All though a 144 hr holding
period is particularly long, most mortality occurred within the first 24-hrs, decreasing
dramatically after 72-hrs. There was no mention of held fish being fed which could have been a
factor in latent survival. Critical thermal maxima were not determined at SGS, but temperatures
over 29°C (84.2°F) seemed to incapacitate most species, doubling abundance of impinged fish
after exceeding that temperature. Heat treatments were a major stressor in increasing overall
mortality and may not reflect survival that could be achieved with travelling screens at west-
coast power plants. These data might be more useful (in the absence of other data) in
determining the relative heartiness of the individual species then and absolute survival estimate.
Table 2-38
Count and survival of fish impinged on the traveling screen at SGS (Miller 2007)
%
Total Live % Total
Species Survival
Impingement Collected Survival
of Held
queenfish 31,957 11 0.00% 9.10%
topsmelt 5,525 48 0.80% 97.70%
white croaker 4,380 26 0.50% 84.60%
walleye surfperch 3,721 58 1.30% 86.20%
jack 930 26 2.40% 84.60%
shiner perch 428 5 0.70% 60.00%
neotropical silversides 266 5 0.00% 0.00%
black perch 175 30 15.40% 90.00%
eagle ray 164 44 16.50% 61.40%
white seaperch 158 1 0.00% 100%
barred sand bass 156 14 8.30% 92.90%
kelp bass 149 45 30.20% 100%
blacksmith 131 7 5.30% 100%
spotted turbot 100 21 16.00% 76.20%
black croaker 91 7 6.60% 85.70%
Other species 541 115 21.3% 83.6%
2-92
H. A. Wagner Generating Station
A study evaluating the survival of impinged blue crab and finfish impinged at the H. A. Wagner
Generating Station was conducted from January 1987 through January 1988 (Breitburg and
Reiher 1988). The H. A. Wagner Generating Station is located on the Patapsco River in
Baltimore, MD. Cooling water is withdrawn from the Patapsco River through two intake bays.
The identical bays are equipped with 9.5-mm (3/8-in.) mesh travelling screens and trash racks
with 9.5-mm by 10.2-cm (3/8 by 4-in.) flat bar spaced approximately 10.2-cm (4 in.) on-center.
A high-pressure (85 psi) front spraywash is used to remove fish and debris from the screens
(McMahon et al 2008). The objectives of this study were to estimate total impingement and
impingement survival of blue crab and finfish.
Sampling was conducted at Units 1, 3, and 4 from 25 January 1987 through 24 January 1988. It
was not possible to sample Units 1 and 3 for every month because of outages. Finfish and crabs
were netted directly from fish return pipes, one located on each operating unit. A 1.27 cm stretch
mesh net collecting net, 3-4 m long and supported by a 0.9 m diameter metal ring, were hung
from the end of each pipe. Rotating screens were washed for 10 min/hr. During the 50 min
between screen washes, nets were washed down and samples taken. Once collected, finfish and
blue crab were identified, enumerated, and measured to size category. Live fish and blue crabs
were held in separate holding cages and a 96-h survival study was conducted, observing survival
every 24 hrs.
Table 2-39
Total number of the 15 most abundant species collected during impingement studies at H. A.
Wagner Generating Station
Total
Scientific Name Common Name
Collected
Brevoortia tyrannus Atlantic menhaden 34,709
Anchoa mitchilli bay anchovy 13,782
Trinectes maculatus hogchoker 12,219
Micropogonias undulatus Atlantic croaker 10,926
Menidia spp. silversides 3,731
Alosa aestivalis blueback herring 1,314
Gobiesox strumosus skilletfish 840
Morone americana white perch 541
Dorosoma cepedianum gizzard shad 498
Fundulus majalis striped killifish 471
Pseudopleuronectes americanus white flounder 451
Cynoscion nebulosus spotted seatrout 432
Gasterosteus aculeatus threespine stickleback 421
Fundulus heteroclitus mummichog 382
Syngnathus fuscus Northern pipefish 345
All Other Fish 1377
Total Collected 82,439
2-93
Finfish impingement totaled 65,563 individuals. Fifteen species made up 98.3% of the sample.
Atlantic menhaden dominated the total catch making up 45.5%. Finfish species were divided
into two groups to represent survival; mid-water schooling species and other species (i.e. bottom
feeders, bottom dwellers, solitary species and some schooling species). Mid-water species were
found to have a 24-hr survival ≤ 25%, while other species were found to have a 24-hr survival of
≥ 25%. Difference between 24-hr survival and 96-hr survival differed from 0 to 0.21%.
E. F. Barrett Generating Station

A full-scale performance evaluation of the Hydrolox screen was conducted at E. F. Barrett
Generating station from October 2007 through June 2008 (ASA 2008).
E. F. Barrett is a two unit steam-electric generating power plant with a capacity of 350 MW.
Cooling water is supplied by Barnum’s Channel in Hempstead Bay through a non-contact once
through cooling water system with an intake flow of 12.9 m3/sec (446 cfs). Unit 2 is screened by
trash racks, a curtain wall, and coarse screens and consisted of two 4.3 m (14 ft). wide intake
bays. Each intake bay is equipped with conventional vertical traveling screens with 0.64 by 2.5
cm (0.25 by 1.0 in.) vertical openings, and smooth-top mesh screen panels.
The study was conducted at the Unit 2 intake bays, one bay equipped with a Hydrolox screen and
the other equipped with a conventional vertical travelling screen. The collection system was
comprised of three devices, transitioning through the fish return system. Organisms and debris
impinged on the screens were first collected in an aluminum collection bucket with 0.79-cm
(0.31-in.) mesh drains, inserted in the fish sluice. A custom-fitted 0.64-cm (0.25-in.) soft net was
installed behind the fish sluice, in the Hydrolox debris sluice, and locked into place at the
transition between the stainless sluice and the concrete below deck sluice. A standard collection
basket for the convention travelling screen modified with an aluminum insert to hold 10.2 cm (4
in.) of water was the final collection device in the system.
2-94
Figure 2-20
Hydrolox™ screen installed at the Barrett Generating Station, 2007
Sampling was conducted weekly unless plant operations or lack of fish did not permit
collections. Both screens were operated continuously on each sampling date and collections were
made during 8-hr periods from 2000 to 0400, the times in which highest impingement occurred
based on previous monitoring studies. Prior to sampling, all sluices were checked for and cleaned
of debris. Collection devices were installed and monitored at intervals no greater than an hr. Fish
were collected, removed, and classified as live, stunned, or dead. All live and stunned fish were
placed into 18.9-L (5-gal) holding containers then transferred into 1,324.9-L (350-gal) holding
tanks supplied with continuous flow from the Unit 2 intake header. Fish were retained and
evaluated for 48-hr mortality. Species with less than 20 individuals collected were considered
unreliable for developing survival estimates.
During the course of this study, a total of 3,697 fish comprising 33 species were collected; 2,956
from the Hydrolox screen fish sluice and 741 from the conventional vertical travelling screen.
No fish were collected in the Hydrolox debris sluice, demonstrating the effectiveness of the
system at removing fish in the fish trough. Most fish collected were relatively small and likely to
be less than a year old. As illustrated in Table 2-40, ten species were collected in sufficient
numbers from the Hydrolox screen. Seven of these species demonstrated survival rates greater
than 98%. However, Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) exhibited low survival. Only three
species were collected in sufficient numbers from the conventional vertical travelling screens.
Mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus) exhibited high survival that was comparable to the
Hydrolox screen. Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia) showed a substantial decrease in survival
2-95
compared to the Hydrolox screen. Atlantic menhaden exhibited no survival on the conventional
travelling screen which was comparable to the low survival exhibited on the Hydrolox screen.
Table 2-40
48-hr mortality by species, number of species collected, and size range by species. Blanks
indicate species collected in insufficient numbers for reliable for latent survival estimates.
Results are from ASA (2008).
Hydrolox Screen Conventional Vertical Travelling Screen
Number Length Estimated Length Estimated
Species Number
Collected Range Impingement Range Impingement
Collected
(TL mm) Survival (TL mm) Survival
Atlantic silverside 1,605 49-123 60.3% 531 47-119 7.5%
mummichog 546 34-97 99.4% 101 42-84 96.4%
Atlantic menhaden 195 40-112 6.8% 45 52-349 0%
Northern pipefish 122 73-213 98.3% -- -- --
seaboard goby 115 38-61 100% -- -- --
striped killifish 90 41-100 100% -- -- --
grubby 59 54-109 100% -- -- --
american sand 41 102-165 70.7% -- -- --
lance
tautog 39 46-205 100% -- -- --
winter flounder 39 48-287 100% -- -- --
Hudson Generating Station

A full-scale performance evaluation of modified coarse-mesh Ristroph-type travelling screens
was conducted at PSEG’s Hudson Generating Station from January 2009 to December 2010
(ASA 2011). Two Ristroph-type screens were installed on Unit 2 in 2008. The screens measure
approximately 3.4 by 13.4 m (11 by 44 ft) and were fitted to existing screenbays. Coarse-mesh
screen panels are comprised of 0.2-cm (0.080-in) stainless steel wire mesh with 0.64 by 1.27-cm
(¼ by ½-in.) openings. Fish baskets equipped with Fletcher-design flow spoilers are located at
the bottom of each screen panel. The screen is equipped with two low pressure (7 psi and 15 psi)
water jets to remove fish and a high pressure (80 psi) to remove debris.
The Hudson Generating Station is located on the Hackensack River in Jersey City, New Jersey.
The station consists of two fossil-fired steam electric generating units with a combined net rating
of 983 MW during summer months. Units 1 and 2 withdraw water from the Hackensack River
through once-through cooling water systems. Each unit is comprised of two intake bays and
equipped with two water pumps and two service water pumps. Each intake bay consists of
stainless steel trash racks with 7.6-cm (3-in.) openings and concrete skimmer walls. Unit 1 is
equipped with two conventional travelling water screens with screen panels comprised of 2.0-
mm (0.08-in.) stainless steel mesh with 0.64 by 1.27-cm (1/4 by 1/2-in.) openings. The rated
water intake at full capacity is 39.1 m3/sec (1,381.4 cfs).
A two-year study was conducted to estimate impingement losses at Unit 2. The study spanned
from January 26, 2009 through January 17, 2011. Sampling was conducted one day per week at
four 6-hr intervals, totaling 104 sampling events. Two 1-hr samples were taken during the first
2-96
two daily intervals while only one sample was taken during the last two intervals. Samples were
collected from a fish collection pool attached to the fish return sluice of Unit 2.
Sample collections were initiated by opening the collection pool gate and closing off the fish
return sluice. During the collection, the collection pool was monitored for over flow. After the
1-hr collection, the collection pool gate was closed and the fish return sluice was opened. Fishes
and crabs were concentrated in the collection pool using a screen and removed. Once collected,
organisms were indentified to the lowest possible taxon and their condition was recorded as live,
dead, or stunned. No more than 50 individuals per species were weighed and measured. If
collected at sufficient numbers (≥20), fish were held for 48-hr latent mortality evaluations in
18.9-L (5-gal) holding containers, separated by collection interval. No more than 100 fish per
species were held for a collection date. Latent mortality was observed every 24-hrs.
During the course of the study, a total of 5,079 fish encompassing 56 species and one genus
(Morone) were held for latent mortality evaluations. Average initial survival for all combined
species was 92%. After 48 hrs, average survival of all fish collected was 57% and average
extended survival of all fish held was 62%.
2-97
Percent Survival
Total
Common Name Number Total 48 hr
Total 48
Collected Initial Extended Confidence
hr
Interval
white perch 1,288 95.6% 85.0% 81.2% 79.0% - 83.3%
bay anchovy 1,226 86.7% 13.4% 11.6% 9.8% - 13.5%
spotted hake 658 84.3% 74.8% 63.1% 53.3% - 66.8%
Atlantic silverside 406 99.3% 80.4% 79.8% 75.6% - 83.6%
red hake 188 98.9% 90.3% 89.4% 84.1% - 93.4%
threespine stickleback 149 99.3% 99.3% 98.7% 95.2% - 99.8%
oyster toadfish 128 98.4% 88.9% 87.5% 80.5% - 92.7%
winter flounder 125 94.4% 76.3% 72.0% 63.3% - 79.7%
alewife 117 90.6% 47.2% 42.7% 33.6% - 52.2%
silver hake 107 95.3% 35.3% 33.6% 24.8% - 43.4%
blueback herring 100 98.0% 29.6% 29.0% 20.4% - 38.9%
lookdown 70 92.9% 33.8% 31.4% 20.9% - 43.6%
gizzard shad 64 95.3% 37.7% 35.9% 24.3% - 48.9%
bluefish 56 73.2% 29.3% 21.4% 11.6% - 34.4%
Atlantic tomcod 53 100.0% 77.4% 77.4% 63.8% - 87.7%
American eel 52 98.1% 76.5% 75.0% 61.1% - 86.0%
hogchoker 37 91.9% 88.2% 81.1% 64.9 % - 92.0%
Atlantic menhaden 32 87.5% 32.1% 28.1% 13.8% - 46.8%
striped bass 24 100.0% 83.3% 83.3% 62.6% - 95.3%
Weakfish 23 95.7% 59.1% 56.5% 34.5% - 76.8%
bluegill 20 90.0% 94.4% 85.0% 62.1% - 96.8%
butterfish 20 95.0% 5.3% 5.0% 0.1% - 24.5%
All other species 136 94.1% 72.7% 68.4% 59.9% - 76.1%
All fish combined 5,079 92.1% 61.5% 56.7% 55.3% - 58.1%
2-98
Potomac Generating Station
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) sponsored a field study to evaluate the injury and
survival of fish exposed to a Geiger Multi-Disc™ (Geiger) modified traveling water screen. A
complete description of Geiger screens is provided in the introduction to this chapter. The study
was conducted at the Potomac River Generating Station in Virginia. The objectives of this
evaluation were to identify species-specific variations in fish survival; to document the type and
frequency of injury to fish that may occur following removal from a modified Geiger screen; and
to investigate the debris handling capabilities of the Geiger screen (Figure 2-21; Figure 2-22).
Figure 2-21
Passavant-Geiger Multi-Disc™ Screen
2-99
Figure 2-22
Passavant-Geiger fish collection details
Two conventional traveling water screens at the CWIS were replaced with two Geiger screens
for this evaluation. Approach velocities at the screen faces were between 0.15 and 0.18 m/sec
(0.5 and 0.6 ft/sec). The Geiger screens were composed of 9.5-mm (3/8-in) drilled plastic. One
of the screens had fish buckets designed to collect impinged fish and transfer them to a fish
return system. This screen was also outfitted with a low pressure (5 psi) spraywash system to aid
in the transfer of fish to the return trough. This screen, which was designed to collect and return
impinged fish, was the one evaluated during this study.
An angled diversion was placed in the return system discharge trough to divert wash water and
impinged organisms to a collection basket. Fish were collected from the basket and were either
immediately processed or held for the 48-hr latent impingement mortality (LIM) assessment.
There were four sampling periods during 2005-2006; a spring, summer, and two fall seasonal
periods. Each seasonal period was made up of several sampling events (each with a duration of
approximately 8 hrs) which together comprised a total of 73 collection days. A sampling event
consisted of consecutive collection days followed by 24- and 48-hr LIM observation periods.
2-100
The modified Geiger screen was rotated continuously at 16 ft/min during each sampling event
(EPRI 2007).
Fish and debris were collected at 15 min, 30 min, or 1-hr intervals depending on fish density.
Live fish were separated from debris and placed in LIM holding tanks. A maximum of 80 to 100
fish were held per tank. Dead fish were measured, weighed, assessed for injury, and identified to
the lowest possible taxon. Injury assessment included both visible injuries and scale loss.
All collected fish were classified into one of five categories: 1) released live (not held due to size
or other constraints); 2) immediate (initial) mortality/dead at collection, 3) dead at 24-hr
observation, 4) dead at 48-hr observation, 5) live at 48-hr observation (EPRI 2007).
A total of 2,124 fish (2,097 assessed for LIM ) were collected during the 2005 sampling efforts
(Table 2-41). The most abundant species collected included white perch (Morone americanus)
(50%), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) (27%), and spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius) (12%).
Four channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) and one gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) too
large for the holding tanks were released alive after being measured, weighed, and assessed for
injury. Over 95% of the fish collected during the study were collected during the December
sampling event. December sampling coincided with a storm event (EPRI 2007).
A total of 988 fish (933 assessed for LIM) were collected during the 2006 sampling efforts. As
in 2005, peak collections coincided with a major storm event in late June. The most abundant
species collected were white perch (80%), American shad (Alosa sapidissima) (8%), and spottail
shiner (4%). Two channel catfish and one brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus) too large for
the holding tanks were released alive after being measured, weighed, and assessed for injury.
White perch dominated the catch throughout the study. The white perch collected in fall 2005
had a mean length of 68.8 mm (2.7 in.) and mean weight of 5.7 g. Five percent of the fish
assessed were injured with the major injury being bruising. Scale loss was minimal. In contrast,
white perch caught in spring 2006 were smaller with a mean length of 44.1 mm (1.7 in.) and a
mean weight of 3.3 g. Less than five percent of these fish were found to have any visible injury.
Scale loss among white perch was <3% for 88% of the total catch.
For spottail shiner, only a small percentage of the total collected was injured. However, scale
loss was relatively high; 60% of the catch had >3% scale loss. The only other species that
showed any injury was channel catfish with 11% injured (primarily bruising) (EPRI 2007).
Individual species’ survival varied from 0 to 100%; survival of species collected in significant
numbers in 2005 and 2006, respectively, included bluegill (95 and 100%), channel catfish (94
and 50%), spottail shiner (95 and 54%), and white perch (56 and 30%) (Table 2-41). The
authors concluded that although relatively few fish were collected during this evaluation, the
Geiger screen performed well. Survival of the most abundantly impinged fish at the Potomac
River Generating Station compared favorably to survival recorded at other facilities with
modified traveling screens (Table 2-42). In addition, the debris handling capability of the screen
was deemed acceptable (EPRI 2007).
2-101
Table 2-41
Total collected and percent survival by species sampled during 2005-2006 at the Potomac River
Generating Station (EPRI 2007).
Total Collected Percent Survival

Species
2005 2006 2005 2006
American eel (Anguilla rostrata) 3 4 100 100
American shad (Alosa sapidissima) 15 82 0 0
Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia) 1 0 0 n/a
banded killifish (Fundulus diaphanus) 17 0 94 n/a
bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) 1 0 0 n/a
black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) 1 0 100 n/a
bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) 577 14 95 100
brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus) 5 3 100 100
common carp (Cyprinus carpio) 5 0 100 n/a
channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) 114 8 94 50
gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) 6 1 50 0
golden redhorse (Moxostoma erythrurum) 1 4 100 100
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) 3 2 100 100
pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) 5 21 100 90.5
spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius) 263 35 95 54.3
tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi) 3 9 100 100
white crappie (Pomoxis annularis) 1 0 100 n/a
white perch (Morone americanus) 1,039 748 56 30
winter flounder 0 1 n/a 100

(Pseudopleuronectes americana)
yellow perch (Perca flavescens) 37 1 100 100
2-102
Table 2-42
LIM survival percentages for the fall and spring season’s most common species sampled at the Potomac River Generating Station and
five other plants with modified traveling water screens (EPRI 2007).
FALL SPRING
banded killifish
American shad
American shad
spottail shiner
spottail shiner
pumpkinseed
pumpkinseed
American eel
American eel
yellow perch
yellow perch
gizzard shad
gizzard shad
white perch
white perch
bluegill
bluegill
Plant
Potomac River 100 0 94 95 50 100 95 56 100 100 0 100 0 91 54 30 100
Indian Point 1
80 65 97 93 74 50 60
Huntley 2
97 5 98 100
Somerset3 64 100 86 65 95 72 81
Salem4 96 86
Arthur Kill5 78 88
1. Fletcher, R. I. 1990. Flow Dynamics and Fish Recovery Experiments: Water Intake Systems. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 119:393-415.
2. Beak 2000b. Post-Impingement Fish Survival at Huntley Steam Station, Winter and Fall 1999, Final Report. Prepared for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
3. Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG). 2004. Special Study Report, Salem Generating Station, Estimated Latent Impingement Mortality Rates: Updated
Pooled Estimates Using Data From 1995, 1997, 1998, 2000, and 2003. Prepared for PSEG by Allee, King, Rosen, and Fleming, 7250 Parkway Drive, Suite 210,
Hanover, MD 21076. June 18, 2004.
4. McLaren, J.B. and L.R. Tuttle. 2000. Fish Survival on Fine Mesh Traveling Screens. Environmental Science and Policy, Vol. 3, Supplement 1, 2000.
5. Consolidated Edison. 1996. Arthur Kill Generating Station Diagnostic Study and Post-Impingement Viability Substudy Report. Pursuant to December 23, 1993
Order of Consent. DEC File Number R2-2985-9004.
2-103
Fort Calhoun Station
A full-scale performance evaluation of the Passavant-Geiger Multi-disc (Geiger) screen was
conducted at Fort Calhoun Station from July to December 2010. Fort Calhoun is a 492 MW
nuclear powered generation station located on the Missouri River in Blair, Nebraska. The station
uses a once-through cooling water system which draws water from the river. The CWIS is
comprised of six intake bays and three circulating water pumps with a total capacity of 22.7
m3/sec (802.1 cfs). Each pump draws water through two intake bays. Each intake bay is
equipped with a vertical trash rack with 7.62 cm (3-in.) openings, a sluice gate, and a traveling
screen.
Omaha Public Power District installed the Geiger screen on all six intake bays at Fort Calhoun
Station. The Geiger screen, unlike conventional traveling screens, moves up and down on one
plane, eliminating debris carryover from overtopping (Figure 2-23). The main components of
the Geiger screen are the sickle-shaped mesh panels, one central chain guide-way integrated in
the supporting structure, one revolving chain, one lower guide, low-pressure and high-pressure
spraywashes, debris/fish buckets, a debris/fish collection/return trough, a drive unit, and a splash
guard. The round screen opens are 9.5 mm (3/8 in.) in diameter and are arranged in a hex
pattern.
Figure 2-23
Image of Geiger screen installed at Fort Calhoun Station
Six, 24-hr sampling events occurred monthly for the duration of the study. Fish collected off the
screens were diverted to a 189.3-L (50-gal) collection tank via a 6-in. diameter pipe. The
2-104
collection tank was continuously monitored and larger fish were immediately removed upon
observation.
Approximately every 15 min, all organisms in the collection tank were removed. Organism were
separated by species and held in a flow through system with water from the Missouri River. If
20 or less organisms were collected during a sampling event, all would be measured to total
length and weighted. If there were more than 20 fish, they were divided into three separate size
classes; young of the year, medium (juveniles and small adults), and large (large adults). Twenty
individuals were selected randomly from each size group then weighed and measured. The
remainder of the sample was counted and batch weighed. Fish were identified as live, dead, long
dead, or moribund and physical conditions were classified as healthy, slightly damaged, or
severely damaged. Fish identified as long dead and moribund were not used in the study. All
live fish were released into the Missouri River after workup. Only initial survival was measured
due to high water conditions. Most latent mortality studies hold fish for 24 to 48 hrs.
A total of 2,192 fish were collected during the six month study. Common carp was collected in
the highest abundance, comprising of 44.9% of total collected fish. Initial survival estimates
included 2,152 fish, 40 fish classified as either moribund or long dead. Overall, initial survival
was high averaging 96.5% for all species (Table 2-43). Fish exhibited survival greater than
93.0% for all months except for September, which could be contributed to low sample size.
Table 2-43
Initial survival and number of individuals included in survival estimates by species for monitoring
at Fort Calhoun Station (EA 2011)
No. Included
Total
Scientific Name Species in Survival
Survival
Estimates
Cyprinus carpio common carp 977 97.90%
Dorosoma cepedianum gizzard shad 382 99.20%
Aplodinotus grunniens freshwater drum 208 95.20%
Lepomis macrochirus bluegill 185 86.50%
Ictalurus punctatus channel catfish 60 96.70%
Osmerus mordax rainbow smelt 56 87.50%
Ameiurus melas black bullhead 46 97.80%
Pimephales promelas fathead minnow 40 95.00%
Macrhybopsis storeriana silver chub 33 100.00%
Lepomis cyanellus green sunfish 29 96.60%
2-105
No. Included
Total
Scientific Name Species in Survival
Survival
Estimates
Morone chrysops white bass 25 100.00%
Lepisosteus platostomus shortnose gar 19 100.00%
Ictiobus sp. buffalo 13 100.00%
Pylodictis olivaris flathead catfish 10 80.00%
Notropis stramineus sand shiner 10 100.00%
All Other Species 66 97.00%
Total 2,159 96.50%
North Omaha Station

Impingement survival studies were conducted at North Omaha Station to investigate the
effectiveness of the Beaudrey Water Intake Protection (WIP) screen (EPRI 2009a; Bigbee et al
2010).
The North Omaha Station is a five unit coal-fired generating station located on the Missouri
River in Omaha, Nebraska. The station has a total combined capacity of 663 MW. Thirteen
circulating pumps draw cooling water from Missouri River through 16 travelling screens. The
combined intake flow is 32 m3/sec (1,130 cfs).
In August 2006, the Beaudrey WIP screen with 6.1-mm (0.24-in.) square mesh replaced one of
the six travelling at Intake No. 3. The screens are designed to rotate continuously at
approximately two rotations per min, limiting the maximum impingement time to 30 seconds.
Fish impinged on the WIP are transport organisms and debris to a return trough via a fish
friendly pump, thus eliminating the potential injury and mortality associated with the air and
spray wash exposure of traditionally screens.
Impingement collections were conducted during spring (April 28-May 2) and a summer (August
11th-15th) events. Hatchery fish, which included bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), channel
catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), and fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), were delivered to the
site and were allowed 48-hrs to acclimate to ambient Missouri River water. During the summer
event, native fish collected were allowed to acclimate for 24-hrs. After acclimation, fish were
released into the intake bay and collected within two hrs. Curtain walls located between the
trash rack and the screen isolated the WIP screen inlet bay from the other travelling screens.
Collections off of the screen were diverted to a collection tank where they were collected using a
large net and a dip cup. Once all fish were removed, fish were held in recovery tanks. Control
groups were exposed to all handling procedures except for introductions and collections off of
the screen. Mortality was observed at 8-hr intervals for 48 hrs.
2-106
Species impinged, removed, and recovered from the Beaudrey WIP screen exhibited high
survival rates (see the following table). Channel catfish and bluegill consistently demonstrated
survival higher than 90% while fathead minnow and the native fish group comprised mostly of
emerald shiner exhibited survivals between 79 and 85%. There was no significant difference
between control and treatment mortality for any species tested, demonstrating that the screen did
not impart any mortality.
Species 28 April - 2 May 2008 11 - 15 August 2008
Control Test Control Test
channel catfish 90.0% 96.1% 100.0% 99.5%
bluegill 100.0% 99.0% 89.0% 91.5%
fathead minnow 81.0% 79.3% -- --
native fish -- -- 82.1% 84.6%
Case Studies – Laboratory Studies
Laboratory Study, Redondo Beach, CA

A biological evaluation of a modified traveling screen with fine mesh was conducted at a
laboratory at Redondo Beach, CA. The testing consisted of two phases. The first phase
evaluated the effects of approach velocity, impingement duration, and mesh type on survival.
The second phase evaluated the extended survival of fish subjected to impingement, air
exposure, and spray wash.
The testing was conducted in one arm of a four-arm test tank. For the phase I testing, panels of
the test meshes were inserted in the test chamber, and the flow velocity was regulated through
the use of the valves on the inlet/outlet chamber and discharge ports. Plexiglass boxes measuring
40 by 15 cm (15.7 by 6 in.) were constructed to contain the test organisms along with the test
meshes. After the stabilization of the velocity in the test chamber, the box was placed in the
water, and the stop gates were opened to begin the trial. Observations of fish behavior were
made during the test, at its conclusion, and then at 24-hr intervals for 96 hrs.
Fish that avoided impingement for the duration of the test were held separately from those that
did impinge. Entrained larvae were collected downstream with a smaller mesh. All test fish
were measured for length and a subsample was measured for body width. Control trials were run
in which no flow was passed through the test box.
The variables in the Phase 1 testing included six meshes (500, 1,000, 1,800, and 3,300 µm Nytex
and 500 and 1,000 µm metal), three approach velocities (0.15, 0.30, and 0.45 m/sec [0.5, 1.0, and
1.5 ft/sec]), and two durations (1 and 4 min).
Phase II testing evaluated the survival of one hardy species (grunion) and one fragile species
(Northern anchovy[Engraulis mordax]) after impingement, air exposure, and spray wash. These
trials were conducted in a 1.2 by 1.2-m (4- by 4-ft) deep flume. Water was supplied by the
circulating water pumps at the Redondo Beach Generating Station. Approach velocities were
maintained at 0.30 m/sec (1.0 ft/sec) for all tests through the use of a gate valve in the supply
line. All tests were conducted on the 1,000 µm mesh screen. The spray wash header had eight
nozzles spaced 13 cm (5 in.) apart and positioned 15 cm (6 in.) behind the screen. Spray was
2-107
directed at the screen at an angle of 23 degrees and at a pressure of less than 10 psi. Fish were
released into the flow at mid-depth, 1 m (3.3 ft) from the screen after they were acclimated. The
screen was raised 1 min after release, and the fish were rinsed into the collection tray. The larvae
were collected with beakers and held for 96 hr to assess latent mortality. Controls for handling
and for the spray wash procedure were conduced as well.
Results of the screen retention evaluation (Table 2-44) indicate that the retention of larvae was
dependant on species, body length and depth, mesh, and behavior upon impingement.
Table 2-44
Larval mean length passed versus mean length retained (LMS 1981)
Group Mean Mean Estimated

Test mesh Length Length Range of
Species Length Depth Width N N
(µm) Passed Retained Retention
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
7.2 1.2 1.1 5.8 40 7.2 43

topsmelt 1,000 Nytex 7-9
8.9 1.8 1.5 7.4 8 9.7 104
8.9 1.8 1.5 7.3 25 11.5 3

topsmelt 11 - 13
13.3 1.7 1.4 13.4 10 14.5 16
grunion 500 Metal 10.9 1.7 1.5 9.3 11 11.5 22 11 - 13
14.1 1.6 1.3 12.0 2 14.0 30

kelpfish 16 - 18
18.9 2.6 2.0 17.3 3 18.8 26
kelpfish 18.9 2.6 2.0 15.5 6 20.5 27 18 - 20

1,800 Nytex
anchovy 18.0 1.8 1.7 17.7 30 19.4 25 18 - 20
topsmelt 18.3 2.8 2.4 16.2 32 18.9 47 17 - 19
croaker 17.8 4.7 2.6 10.7 3 19.0 45 17 - 19
kelpfish 1,000 Metal 18.9 2.6 2.0 16.8 24 21.1 8 19 - 21
31.8 3.8 2.8 26.0 2 32.7 61

anchovy 28 - 32
34.4 4.7 3.4 22.0 2 32.7 89
croaker 17.8 4.7 2.6 14.1 40 20.0 42 18 - 20
3,300 Nytex 31.8 3.8 2.8 30.8 27 32.7 10

anchovy 32 - 34
34.3 4.7 3.4 29.2 49 36.4 66
A total of 117 trials were run with topsmelt (Atherinops affinis) ranging in length from
approximately 7.2 to 18.3 mm (0.28 to 0.72 in.). Species-specific results are given in Table
2-45. In general, a positive correlation between length and survival is noted with large topsmelt
(18.3 mm [0.7 in.]) experiencing 100% survival through nearly all testing conditions. Duration
was inversely related to survival in most cases. Velocity did not have any overall significant
effect on survival for topsmelt, though observations during testing revealed that at the lower
2-108
velocities, fish tended to be repeatedly impinged and freed from the screen (increased physical
damage from abrasion), whereas at the higher velocity, the larvae would impinge only once.
Though mesh size and type did not appear to effect survival significantly, the 500 µm Nytex may
increase survival of the more fragile life stages.
Grunion used in this evaluation ranged in size from 9.0 to 18.3 mm (0.35 to 0.72 in.). In general,
there was a positive correlation between survival and length similar to topsmelt. Adjusted mean
survivals of small, medium, and large grunion were 42, 59, and 80% respectively. Duration had
the greatest effect on the small grunion, with higher survivals at the 1 min duration. There were
no statistical differences between the mesh types during grunion testing.
Northern anchovy used in this evaluation ranged in length from 18.0 to 37.0 mm (0.71 to 1.46
in.). Survival of the very fragile anchovies used as controls averaged 80% after handling
techniques were modified. In general, there was a positive correlation between survival and
length. Neither duration nor velocity appeared to significantly affect survival of the anchovies.
Giant kelpfish used in this evaluation fell into one of two length groups, measuring an average of
14.1 mm (0.56 in.) (small) or 18.9 mm (0.74 in.) (large). Average control survival was 71%. As
with the other species, survival was significantly related to length with larger fish exhibiting
higher survival rates. Giant kelpfish (Heterostichus rostratus) were only tested in the 1 min
duration as survival at this duration was extremely low. Of the mesh types, the 1,000 µm Nytex
yielded the highest survivals and the 500 µm metal the lowest.
White croaker used in this evaluation fell into one of two length groups, measuring an average of
17.8 mm (0.70 in.) (small) or 23.1 (0.91 in.) and 24.8 mm (0.98 in.) (large). Control survival
was 100%. Survival of test fish was high also, averaging over 95% for all test conditions.
Efforts to conduct impingement tests on croaker measuring less than 17.8 mm (0.70 in.) were
unsuccessful due to very low survival of both test and control fish. The authors state that there
apparently exists a threshold length above which survival increases dramatically.
Shadow goby used in this evaluation averaged 13 mm (0.51 in.) in length. Control survival was
100%. Survivals were high across all test conditions (97 to 100%), and therefore no statistically
significant correlations could be made regarding the test variables.
2-109
Table 2-45
Adjusted mean impingement survival for each test species (LMS 1981)
Small Medium Large

Velocity 1 Min 4 Min 1 Min 4 Min 1 Min 4 Min
Species Mesh Size/Type
(cm/sec) % % % % % %
n n N n n n
Survival Survival Survival Survival Survival Survival
15 92 35 7 29 98 36 73 37 c – c –
500 µm Nytex 30 87 43 25 40 76 34 73 37 d – d –
45 b – b – b – b – b – b –
15 96 39 42 66 76 37 65 29 c – c –
1,000 µm Nytex 30 84 34 31 68 31 32 6 37 d – d –
45 92 35 62 83 34 27 27 24 d – d –
15 a – a – a – a – 100 33 100 32
topsmelt 1,800 µm Nytex 30 a – a – a – a – 100 32 100 32
45 a – a – a – a – 100 33 100 33
15 a – a – a – a – c – c –
500 µm Metal 30 a – a – 100 16 a – 100 31 97 34
45 b – b – b – b – b – b –
15 a – a – a – a – c – c –
1,000 µm Metal 30 a – a – a – a – 94 17 100 11
45 a – a – a – a – 96 19 a –
15 31 61 12 60 60 30 39 30 c – c –
500 µm Nytex 30 52 63 18 62 53 60 94 30 66 29 83 30
45 b – b – b – b – b – b –
15 17 47 21 44 48 28 31 30 c – c –
1,000 µm Nytex 30 38 62 20 63 85 31 f – 95 30 60 60
45 57 39 21 32 f – f – f – f –
grunion
15 a – a – – – – – 100 32 69 109
1,800 µm Nytex 30 a – a – – – – – 83 140 74 110
45 a – a – – – – – 62 90 44 87
15 76 49 67 10 – – – – c – c –
500 µm Metal 30 74 18 81 6 – – – – 100 30 96 66
45 b – b – – – – – b – b –
2-110
Small Medium Large
Mesh Velocity 1 Min 4 Min 1 Min 4 Min 1 Min 4 Min
Species
Size/Type (cm/sec) % % % % % %
n n N n n n
15 a – a – – – – – c – c –
1,000 µm
grunion 30 a – a – – – – – 60 42 94 35
Metal
45 a – a – – – – – 100 36 97 26
15 39 46 e – – – – – c – c –
500 µm Nytex 30 e – e – – – – – f – f –
45 b – b – – – – – b – b –
15 42 38 e – – – – – c – c –
1,000 µm
30 e – e – – – – – 51 38 59 37
Nytex
45 e – e – – – – – f – f –
15 40 25 a – – – – – c – c –
1,800 µm
30 a – a – – – – – 64 38 54 40
Nytex
Northern 45 a – a – – – – – 18 46 30 37
anchovy 15 a – a – – – – – c – c –
3,300 µm
30 a – a – – – – – 60 35 a –
Nytex
45 b – b – – – – – 23 17 a –
15 a – a – – – – – c – c –
500 µm Metal 30 a – a – – – – – f – f –
45 b – b – – – – – b – b –
15 a – a – – – – – c – c –
1,000 µm
30 a – a – – – – – 47 81 86 34
Metal
45 a – a – – – – – 51 74 73 32
15 3 36 e – – – – – 42 33 e –
500 µm Nytex 30 0 37 e – – – – – e – e –
45 b – b – – – – – b – b –
15 11 41 e – – – – – 76 35 0 34
1,000 µm
kelpfish 30 0 46 e – – – – – 9 35 0 33
Nytex
45 e – e – – – – – 24 33 e –
15 a – a – – – – – 53 28 e –
1,800 µm
30 a – a – – – – – e – e –
Nytex
45 a – a – – – – – e – e –
2-111
Small Medium Large
Velocity 1 Min 4 Min 1 Min 4 Min 1 Min 4 Min
Species Mesh Size/Type
(cm/sec) % % % % % %
n n N n n n
15 8 36 e – – – – – 23 28 e –
500 µm Metal 30 e – e – – – – – e – e –
45 b – b – – – – – b – b –
kelpfish
15 a – a – – – – – a – a –
1,000 µm
30 a – a – – – – – a – a –
Metal
45 a – a – – – – – a – a –
15 d – d – – – – – d – d –
500 µm Nytex 30 d – d – – – – – 97 31 d –
45 b – b – – – – – b – b –
15 100 29 d – – – – – d – 100 38
1,000 µm
30 95 34 d – – – – – 100 29 100 31
Nytex
45 97 32 d – – – – – d – d –
15 97 31 97 30 – – – – d – d –
1,800 µm
30 94 33 97 31 – – – – 97 33 100 29
Nytex
white 45 97 30 100 30 – – – – d – d –
croaker 15 94 17 d – – – – – d – d –
3,300 µm
30 100 13 d – – – – – 100 33 100 28
Nytex
45 100 16 d – – – – – d – d –
15 91 21 d – – – – – d – d –
500 µm Metal 30 100 30 d – – – – – d – d –
45 b – b – – – – – b – b –
15 100 23 d – – – – – d – d –
1,000 µm
30 100 29 d – – – – – 97 33 d –
Metal
45 100 23 d – – – – – d – d –
15 d – d – – – – – – – – –
500 µm Nytex 30 d – 97 30 – – – – – – – –
shadow 45 b – b – – – – – – – – –
goby 15 100 26 100 28 – – – – – – – –
1,000 µm
30 d – 97 30 – – – – – – – –
Nytex
45 d – d d – – – – – – – –
2-112
Small Medium Large
Mesh Velocity 1 Min 4 Min 1 Min 4 Min 1 Min 4 Min

Species
Size/Type (cm/sec)
% % % % % %
n n n n n n
15 d – 100 21 – – – – – – – –
1,800 µm Nytex 30 d – 100 10 – – – – – – – –
45 d – d – – – – – – – – –
15 d – d – – – – – – – – –
shadow
goby
500 µm Metal 30 d – d – – – – – – – – –
45 b – d – – – – – – – – –
15 a – a – – – – – – – – –
1,000 µm Metal 30 a – a – – – – – – – – –
45 a – a – – – – – – – – –
a = <50 % Retention; b = Head loss of screen; c = Not impinged (swimming ability); d = Assumed high survival; e = Assumed low survival; f =
Larval shortage; n = Number impinged at duration.
Topsmelt: (Small = 7.2, 8.9, 9.7 mm; Medium = 13.3 mm; Large = 18.3 mm); grunion: (Small = 9.0 to 12.6 mm; Medium = 14.5 to 15.0 mm;
Large = 18.2 to 22.3 mm); Northern anchovy: (Small = 18.0 mm; Large = 31.8, 34.3, and 37.0 mm); giant kelpfish: (Small = 14.1 mm; Large =
18.9 mm); white croaker: (Small = 17.8 mm; Large = 23.1 and 24.8 mm); shadow goby: (13mm).
2-113
A total of 13 and 29 Phase II tests (impingement, air exposure, and spray wash survival) were
conducted for grunion and Northern anchovy respectively (Table 2-46). Results of preliminary
tests conducted with two sizes of grunion (29.2 and 15.5 mm mean length [1.14 and 0.61 in.])
yielded survivals of 63% and 49% respectively. Further tests with grunion averaging 20.1 mm
(0.79 in.) yielded recovery rates of 88%, 92%, and 100% for test fish, spray and handling
controls, and handling controls respectively. Survival of grunion when impingement, air
exposure, and spray wash effects are combined was 37.5% to 63.6%. These results compared
favorably to Phase I survivals of similarly sized larvae tested for 1 min at 0.30 m/sec (1.0 ft/sec)
indicating a decrease from the Phase I survivals of 60% to 100% to 37.5 % to 63.6% due to the
additional stress of spray wash and air exposure.
Phase II anchovy tests were conducted with larvae measuring 24.6 mm (0.97 in.) and 32.2 mm
(1.27 in.) (means). Initial survival was high (>90%), but few Northern anchovy survived to 24
hrs, and none survived to 96 hrs. When compared to survivals of similarly sized fish impinged
for 1 min at 30 cm/sec (1.0 ft/sec) during Phase I, survival decreases from 47 to 64% (Phase I) to
0% (Phase II). The authors indicate that Northern anchovy cannot tolerate the additional stress
imparted by the spray wash and air exposure of the collection system.
2-114
Table 2-46
Phase II impingement survival results (LMS 1981)
Impingement, Air Exposure, and

Mean Wash and Handling Handling
Handling
Species Length
(mm) No. No. % No. No. % No. No. %
Released Recovered Surviving Released Recovered Surviving Released Recovered Surviving
29.2 33 20 63.4a – – – – – –
grunion 15.5 29 27 49.2a – – – – – –
20.1 33 29 47.0 26 24 96.7 29 29 96.7
Northern 24.6 38 10 0.0 37 28 0.0 97 87 0.0

anchovy 32.2 31 3 0.0 29 29 0.0 27 27 11.1
a
Preliminary tests
2-115
Laboratory Study, ESEERCO/Alden Research Laboratory
Survival of a variety of species and life stages following impingement on a fine-mesh screen was
investigated in studies sponsored by the Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation
(ESEERCO 1981a; Taft et al. 1981b) and Northern States Power (SWEC 1980; Taft et al.
1981b). The studies were conducted at Alden Research Laboratory (Alden). Striped bass
(Morone saxatilis), winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus), alewife (Alosa
pseudoharengus), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), walleye (Sander vitreus), channel catfish
(Ictalurus punctatus) and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) were impinged on a 0.5 mm (0.02 in.)
synthetic mesh at velocities ranging from 0.15 to 0.91 m/sec (0.5 to 3.0 ft/sec) and for durations
of 2, 4, 8, or 16 min. Initial, latent (96-hr) and total mortality were then determined. Total
mortality values are presented in the following summary of results by species.
Striped bass prolarvae (5.4–6.4 mm [0.21–0.25 in.]) showed relatively high mortality under all
test conditions. However, control mortality was also high (mean = 56.5%). Striped bass
postlarvae (6.5–17.1 mm [0.26–0.67 in.]) mortality averaged less than 10% at velocities up to 2.0
ft/s and impingement durations up to 4 min (control = 8.1%).
Winter flounder prolarvae (4.1 mm [0.16 in.]) experienced mean mortality rates of 7.3, 10.7, 16.5
and 35.6% over all durations at velocities of 0.15, 0.30, 0.46, and 0.61 m/sec (0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and
2.0 ft/sec), respectively (control = 4.1%). Early postlarvae (4.4 mm) experienced very high
mortality under all test conditions (control = 42.5%). Later postlarvae (6.1 mm) survived
somewhat better, with mortality rates ranging from 16.4 to 36% in six of the nine
velocity/duration combinations.
Alewife prolarvae (5.2 to 5.5 mm [0.20 to 0.22 in.]) showed a clear trend of increasing mortality
with increasing velocity and impingement duration. At a duration of 8 min, mean mortality was
4.1, 18.9, 44.1 and 69.7% at velocities of 0.15, 0.30, 0.46, and 0.61 m/sec (0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0
ft/sec), respectively (control = 0%). Postlarvae (6.6 to 14.7 mm [0.3 to 0.6 in.]) showed high
mortality (>76%) under all test conditions (control = 43.3%).
Yellow perch prolarvae (5.8 to 6.0 mm [0.23 to 0.24 in.]) showed the same trend as alewife
prolarvae with a mean mortality of 6.8, 5.2, 32.3 and 31.5% at velocities of 0.15, 0.30, 0.46, and
0.61 m/sec (0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 ft/sec), respectively at a duration of 8 min (control = 4.1%).
Postlarvae (6.3 to 6.5 mm [0.25 to 0.26 in.]) also suffered high mortalities (>88%) under all test
conditions (control = 85.2%). Later postlarvae (7.3 to 14.3 mm [0.29 to 0.56 in.]) showed
improved survival with a mean mortality of 40% at the 0.15 m/sec (0.5 ft/sec) by 8 min
impingement duration combination (control = 32.8%).
Walleye larvae (8.4 to 12.0 mm [0.33 to 0.47 in.]) also showed the same trend as alewife
prolarvae. At the 0.15 m/sec (0.5 ft/sec) velocity, mortality ranged from 31.4 to 39.5 as the
duration increased to 16 min (control = 26.8%).
Channel catfish larvae (11.2 to 25.7 mm [0.44 to 1.01 in.]) showed low mortality under most test
conditions. At the 8 min impingement duration, mortality ranged from 3.0 to 5.4 as the velocity
increased from 0.15 to 0.61 m/sec (0.5 to 2.0 ft/sec) at an impingement duration of 8 min
(control = 3.9%).
2-116
Bluegill larvae (15.3 to 21.0 mm [0.6 to 0.82 in.]) experienced low mortality under many test
conditions. At 0.3 m/sec (1.0 ft/sec), mortality ranged from 1.5 to 4.0% as impingement duration
increased up to 16 min (control = 2.7%).
Laboratory Study, Tennessee Valley Authority

Laboratory studies were performed by the Tennessee Valley Authority to determine the effect of
variables such as water velocity, intake screen opening, impingement duration, and larval fish
species and size in minimizing mortality of larval fish on a fine-mesh screen intake system
(Tomljanovich et al. 1977).
The laboratory tests were conducted in a chamber mounted inside an 18 by 2.4 by 1.2 m (59 by
7.9 by 3.9 ft) test flume. The chamber was constructed of Plexiglas and measured 45.7 by 45.7
by 50 cm (18 by 18 by 19.7 in.). Both ends of the chamber could be completely sealed with
Plexiglas stop gates. The downstream end of the chamber was fitted with a cone shaped
collection net with 0.5-mm (0.02-in.) mesh. At the end of the net was a removable cup with 0.38
mm (0.015 in.) openings. The eleven species of fish used in the laboratory tests were: jewelfish
cichlid (Hemichromis spp.), threadfin shad (Dorosoma petenense), golden shiner (Notemigonus
crysoleucas), fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), white sucker (Catostomus commersonii),
channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides), and walleye (Sander vitreus). Five square-mesh screens with openings of 0.5, 1.0,
1.3, 1.8, and 2.5 mm (0.02, 0.04, 0.05, 0.07, and 0.1 in.) were tested. Three velocities were
tested: 0.15, 0.31, and 0.46 m/sec (0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 ft/sec). Test durations of 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, and
16 min were used to determine the survival of impinged larvae.
Fish were allowed to acclimate to the flume for approximately one hr before testing began. Test
fish of each species were subjected to at least six impingement durations on at least one screen.
The tests were performed with screens of decreasing size until the number of fish retained was
approximately equal to the number of fish entrained. Entrained fish were recovered from the
collection net. Dead fish were removed from the sample and the remaining fish were held
separately for delayed mortality evaluations. Post impingement survival was not corrected for
control mortality.
Approximately 40,000 individual fish representing 11 species were used in the 719 laboratory
tests. Test duration was found to show the strongest relationship to both immediate and long-
term survival of the impinged test fish. In all instances, results revealed that as duration
increased, survival decreased (Table 2-47). Other independent variables showed greater
variation with respect to survival.
2-117
Table 2-47
48-hr mean percent survival of fish impinged on fine-mesh screens and control groups at the TVA
Laboratory (Tomljanovich et al. 1977)
Test Duration (Min) Mean

Hrs Fish Held
Species %Survival
After Test 0.5 1 2 4 8 16 of Controls
Initial 65 81 91 85 90 43 NA
jewelfish cichlid
48 53 59 83 76 69 30 100
Initial 100 100 100* 98 75 55 NA

threadfin shad
48 95 93 74 69 43 20 98
golden shiner/ Initial 99 95 91 89 90 89 NA

fathead minnow 48 94 90 90 84 86 79 99
Initial 99 96 99 90 95 74 NA
white sucker
48 97 92 98 80 77 36 100
Initial 100* 99 100 100* 100* 97 NA

channel catfish
48 100* 98 100 99 99 88 99.5
Initial 79 85 80 72 51 7 NA
striped bass
48 22 25 27 18 10 <1 44
Initial 100 100 100* 99 97 96 NA

bluegill
48 100 100* 100* 99 97 96 99
Initial 100* 99 99 98 100* 100* NA

smallmouth bass
48 98 88 98 97 98 96 100
Initial 93 96 94 93 93 70 NA
largemouth bass
48 74 81 83 61 71 52 93
Initial 90 79 75 74 35 9 NA
walleye
48 63 48 49 38 9 2 71
*Average survival greater than 99.49 but less than 100.00.
Laboratory Study – EPRI/Alden

A laboratory evaluation of traveling water screens was undertaken by the Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI 2006a). The study was conducted at Alden Research Laboratory in a
test flume with a small modified traveling water screen (Figure 2-24). The objectives were to
characterize fish behavior in the vicinity of a traveling water screen, to determine the effect of
swimming time prior to impingement on survival, to determine the effect of approach velocity on
2-118
post-impingement survival, to determine the types of injuries sustained during impingement, and
to determine the effect of fish length on post-impingement survival.
Figure 2-24
Test flume including isolation screen, traveling water screen, collection trough, and collection
net
The traveling water screen measured 2.4 by 1.2 m (8 by 4 ft) and had 1.3 cm by 0.64 cm (1/2 by
1/4-in) “smooth-tex” wire mesh. Approach velocities of 0.30, 0.61, and 0.91m/sec (1.0, 2.0, and
3.0 ft/sec) were evaluated during the investigation of the effects of approach velocity on post-
impingement survival. Impingement durations of 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 min were evaluated during
the investigation of the effects of impingement duration on post-impingement survival. The
species used in this study included golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas), white sucker (Catostomus commersonii), bigmouth buffalo (Ictiobus
cyprinellus), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), hybrid striped bass, bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), and
freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens). Mean lengths of each species are presented in Table
2-48. Treatment and control fish were marked on the fins with an inert photonic dye prior to
testing.
During velocity trials, the screen was rotated continuously at a speed of 2.4 m/min (8 ft/min),
which created a maximum duration of impingement of about 40 seconds. For each trial, 100 fish
were introduced to the test enclosure upstream of the screen and allowed to acclimate to an
approach velocity of 0.15 m/sec (0.5 ft/sec) for approximately 30 sec. The velocity was then
rapidly increased to the target treatment velocity. Behavioral data were recorded during the first
15 min of each trial with submersible cameras. Fish were collected from the collection trough on
the downstream side of the screen at 15, 60, and 120 min. Control fish were introduced directly
into the collection trough on the downstream side of the screen. Any fish remaining upstream of
the screen after 120 min were crowded into the fish collection buckets on the screen face. All
collected fish were immediately assessed for condition and classified as “live”, “dead”, or
“stunned”. All “live and “stunned” fish were transferred to a holding facility where they were
2-119
held for 48 hrs to assess latent survival. At the end of the 48-hr holding period, each fish was
euthanized and closely examined for injuries including scale loss, bruising/hemorrhaging,
lacerations, severed body, and eye damage.
During duration of impingement trials, the approach velocity was held constant at 0.9 m/sec (3.0
ft/sec). One hundred fish were introduced to the test enclosure upstream of the screen while the
screen was held stationary. Fish were allowed to interact with the screen for 2, 4, 6, 8, or 10 min
before the screen was rotated. Fish were collected out of the fish collection buckets on the
screen face. Control fish were introduced directly to the fish collection bucket on the screen
face. All collected fish were immediately assessed for condition and classified as “live”, “dead”,
or “stunned”. The condition of all post-test fish was also assessed at 24 and 48 hrs using the
same protocol as described above for the velocity trials. The species tested in the duration of
impingement trials included channel catfish, golden shiner, and fathead minnow.
A total of 163 (over 19,000 fish) treatment and control replicates were conducted during both
parts of this study. However, only 13,000 fish were included in the statistical analysis since
some were entrained through the screen, some lacked identifiable marks (only 0.4% of the total
collected by impingement on the screen), and others were unaccounted for at the end of the trial.
The results of the velocity trials indicate that there was a threshold between approach velocities
of 0.30 and 0.60 m/sec (1.0 and 2.0 ft/sec) at which fish were unable to maintain position
upstream of the screen. At 0.30 m/sec (1.0 ft/sec), most fish remained upstream and were
collected during the crowding period at the end of the 2-hr trial. At 0.61 m/sec (2.0 ft/sec), a
number of fish were able to remain upstream of the screen for the entire 2-hr trial. At 0.91 m/sec
(3.0 ft/sec), most fish were collected 15 min after being introduced to the test enclosure. In
addition, video revealed that fish were collected by the fish collection buckets on the screen faces
in three manners: impinging briefly on screen and then moving into bucket, tail tapping along
screen until ending up in bucket, and directly entering bucket and remaining in the quiescent
hydraulic zone.
Survival was high for all treatment fish at each approach velocity, ranging between 95.3 and
100%. Survival of control fish was also high, ranging between 97 and 100%. Table 2-48
presents the survival results by species. The only significant effect of velocity on survival was
observed with bluegill. The median survival rates observed in this laboratory study were
generally greater than the median survival rates observed in previous field studies. However,
since median survival rates were comparable, it was concluded that the survival rates of the
laboratory study are not substantially higher than what could be expected in the field.
Significantly higher injury rates were observed at higher velocities for some species. The
number of fish injured per trial was low for most species, ranging between 0 and 10% for eight
of the ten species. The two wild-caught species, white sucker and fathead minnow, sustained the
highest injury rates (true for both treatment and control fish). Predation between individuals
during post-impingement holding was substantial for bluegill and fathead minnow. While
eliminating predation-related injuries did not affect the statistical model for fathead minnow, the
statistical model for bluegill did become significant, indicating that velocity exerted a significant
effect on survival. The percent of fish injured at each approach velocity is presented in Table
2-49.
2-120
Scale loss rates were low for most species but did appear to be significantly correlated to velocity
and fish length. Scale loss tended to increase with increasing approach velocity and decrease
with increasing fish length. Golden shiner and bigmouth buffalo exhibited the greatest amount
of scale loss. Velocity was a significant predictor of scale loss for six of the nine species that had
scales (i.e. channel catfish excluded). Fish length was shown to be significant in predicting scale
loss for five of the six species that had reliable regressions. In each case, scale loss decreased
with increasing fish length.
2-121
Table 2-48
Mean fork length (mm) ± standard error (SE), total number of fish tested (n), survival at 48 hrs after testing, and the 95% confidence
intervals (CI) by species and velocity. Confidence intervals were calculated using the normal approximation of a binomial distribution.
Freshwater drum, lacking forked tails, were measured to total length.
Mean Fork 0.3 m·s-1 0.6 m·s-1 0.9 m·s-1 Control

Length (mm) Survival at Survival at Survival at Survival at
Species ± (SE) n 48 H (%) 95% CI n 48 H (%) 95% CI n 48 H (%) 95% CI n 48 H (%) 95% CI
bigmouth buffalo
72.1 ± 0.26 245 100.0 0.0 - 0.2 94 100.0 0.0 - 0.5 142 100.0 0.0 - 0.4 295 99.7 0.0 - 1.1
bluegill
47.6 ± 0.19 340 99.1 0.0 - 2.1 328 95.4 2.2 – 7.0 317 97.8 0.4 – 4.0 397 98.5 0.2 - 2.8
channel catfish
64.2 ± 0.17 206 99.0 0.0 - 2.6 148 100.0 0.0 - 0.3 246 99.6 0.0 - 1.4 490 100.0 0.0 - 0.1
freshwater drum
84.7 ± 0.22 243 100.0 0.0 - 0.2 230 100.0 0.0 - 0.2 204 99.5 0.0 - 1.7 512 99.8 0.0 - 0.7
fathead minnow
54.5 ± 0.16 393 97.7 0.7 - 3.9 343 96.8 1.2 - 5.2 296 98.3 0.1 - 3.3 493 98.8 0.1 - 2.3
golden shiner
74.3 ± 0.31 365 98.4 0.2 – 3.0 374 98.7 0.0 - 2.6 389 98.5 0.2 - 2.8 485 98.8 0.1 - 2.3
hybrid striped bass

60.6 ± 0.14 243 99.6 0.0 - 1.4 241 100.0 0.0 - 0.2 356 99.7 0.0 – 1.0 498 100.0 0.0 - 0.1
largemouth bass
98.5 ± 0.30 394 99.0 0.0 - 2.1 359 97.8 0.5 - 3.9 361 97.2 1.0 - 4.6 501 99.2 0.0 - 1.7
white sucker
79.8 ± 0.35 373 95.7 2.1 - 6.5 339 95.3 2.3 - 7.1 374 95.5 2.3 - 6.7 458 96.9 1.4 - 4.8
yellow perch
49.7 ± 0.27 120 99.2 0.0 - 2.8 156 97.4 0.0 - 5.4 162 98.8 0.0 - 3.2 498 99.0 0.0 – 2.0
2-122
Table 2-49
Percent injury by species and velocity
Percent Percent
Species Velocity (m·s-1) Species Velocity (m·s-1)
Injured Injured
bigmouth buffalo 0.3 1.60% golden shiner 0.3 2.70%
0.6 1.10% 0.6 4.80%
0.9 3.50% 0.9 3.10%
Control 1.40% Control 4.30%
bluegill 0.3 6.80% hybrid bass 0.3 0.00%
0.6 9.50% 0.6 0.00%
0.9 5.40% 0.9 0.30%
channel catfish 0.3 4.90% largemouth bass 0.3 1.30%
0.6 0.00% 0.6 10.0%
0.9 0.40% 0.9 6.40%
freshwater drum 0.3 0.00% white sucker 0.3 34.0%
0.6 0.90% 0.6 29.80%
0.9 0.00% 0.9 26.70%
fathead minnow 0.3 23.90% yellow perch 0.3 1.70%
0.6 22.70% 0.6 1.90%
0.9 14.50% 0.9 0.00%
The results of the duration of impingement trials indicate that increases in duration resulted in
increased mortality, injury, and scale loss. Since no injury or mortality was observed during
trials conducted at 2 and 4 min durations, these conditions were eliminated from further
replication. In general, survival was high for all species tested, ranging from 100 to 84.9% (not
adjusted for control survival) (Table 2-50). Survival rates were also positively correlated to fish
length. Scale loss and injury rates varied considerably among species. Channel catfish
experienced no injury during these trials. Fathead minnow experienced low levels of scale loss,
with at least 80% of fish having scale loss ≥3%. Golden shiner experienced high levels of scale
loss, with greater than 50% of the fish having scale loss >40%. Additionally, scale loss for both
fathead minnow and golden shiner increased with duration of impingement.
2-123
Table 2-50
Survival and injury rates (%) by species and duration of impingement
Duration of Impingement (min)

Species
2 4 6 8 10 Control
channel catfish Survival -- -- 100 100 100 98.2
Injury -- -- 0 0 0 0
fathead minnow Survival -- -- 93.6 93.3 97.1 99.3
Injury -- -- 8.5 3.3 2.9 1.3
golden shiner Survival 0 0 96.2 84.9 87.3 90.7
Injury 0 0 5 6.9 9.9 9.3
Laboratory Study – Hydrolo/Alden

Hydrolox has developed a polymer-based traveling screen with fish handling capabilities (Alden
2006). This screen operates similar to other modified traveling screens with a few substantial
differences. The screen material is made of a lightweight polymer, which results in lighter
weight screens compared to standard traveling water screens. The sprockets are made of
stainless steel. The top sprocket of the screen is offset from the bottom allowing gravity to assist
in debris and organism removal. The Hydrolox screen™ uses a stationary shoe, through which
the screen mesh guides rather than a bottom sprocket. The Hydrolox screen tested in the
laboratory used a single debris/fish return. However, in a full field application, a second set of
spray headers and a dedicated fish return line would be used (Hydrolox unpublished data).
In 2006, a Hydrolox screen was tested at Alden Research Laboratory using five species of
freshwater fish: golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), common carp (Cyprinus carpio),
bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), and channel catfish (Ictalurus
punctatus). Tests were conducted in Alden’s Fish Testing Flume using a 1.22 m (4 ft) wide by
3.66 m (12 ft) high, fully operational Hydrolox screen installed perpendicular to the flow (Figure
2-25). Screening material was made of molded plastic with slot openings of 0.64 cm by 0.76 cm
(0.25 in. by 0.30 in.). Testing procedures were similar to those used previously to evaluate
modified traveling screens (EPRI 2006a). Fish were impinged at 0.31 or 0.61 m/sec (1.0 or 2.0
ft/sec) approach velocity. During testing, the screen was rotated at either 1.5 or 3.1 m/min (5.0
ft/min or 10.0 ft/min).
2-124
Figure 2-25
Hydrolox Screen™ installed in fish testing flume
For each species, 12 test replicates (2 velocities × 2 screen speeds × 3 replicates of each
condition) were collected. A randomized treatment design was used. On each day of testing,
three, 2-hr treatments and one control replicate were conducted. Control replicates were used to
separate mortality associated with handling (removal from holding facility, marking, counting
into test groups, and introduction to and removal from the test flume) and natural mortality from
mortality imparted by fish interactions with the screening system.
At the beginning of each replicate, the screen rotation speed and approach velocity were set. The
isolation screen that confined fish to the traveling screen area was lowered into place. When
conducting a treatment replicate, 100 fish of each species were introduced just upstream of the
screen in the test enclosure. Impinged fish were washed from the screen into the fish collection
trough. At set intervals of 15, 60, and 120 min after introduction to the flume, the fish were
sluiced into a collection bucket located at the discharge of the return trough. When conducting a
control replicate, 100 marked fish of each species were released into the fish return trough. Once
the fish were oriented to the flow, they were sluiced into the collection bucket.
Following the 120 min collection, a mechanical crowder was raised to move fish that were still
swimming upstream of the screen into the screen buckets. Velocity in the flume was raised to
0.61 m/sec (2 ft/sec) to facilitate the removal of larger fish. Fish that were entrained through the
screen or bypassed the fish return during transfer were collected in a downstream collection net
once per day at the end of testing, enumerated, and fork lengths (FL) measured to the nearest
millimeter.
At the end of each collection event, any fish recovered from the fish return trough (treatment or
control replicate) were transferred back to the holding facility, placed in individually marked net
pens, and held for LIM assessment. LIM was monitored at 24- and 48-hrs following
impingement. At the end of 48-hrs, all fish were killed and examined for external injuries and
percent scale loss. External injuries were recorded by type: bruising/hemorrhaging, lacerations,
severed body, eye damage, etc. Using methods similar to those reported by Neitzel et al. (1985)
and Basham et al. (1982), percent scale loss (< 3%, 3–20%, 20–40%, and > 40%) was recorded
2-125
along the length of the body. All fish were measured for fork length to the nearest millimeter.
Any fish unable to maintain equilibrium at 48-hrs after testing was considered dead.
Mortality rates were generally low. For four of five species (golden shiner [Notemigonus
crysoleucas], common carp [Cyprinus carpio], bluegill [Lepomis macrochirus], and channel
catfish [Ictalurus punctatus]), mortality rates were less than 9.1% and for most treatment
conditions were under 5% (Table 2-51). Striped bass (Morone saxatilis) mortality was higher;
however, control mortality was also higher, indicating that this population was sensitive to
handling stress and that much of the observed treatment mortality was likely not from exposure
to the Hydrolox screen. Three of the five species had successful logistic regressions (golden
shiner, bluegill, and striped bass). Length was a significant predictor of mortality for bluegill
(P<0.0001) with larger fish exhibited less mortality. All three species with successful logistic
regressions exhibited velocity and duration effects. For golden shiner, there was significantly
more mortality at the 0.61 m/sec (2 ft/sec) velocity than the control (P=0.0042 and P=0.0046 at
1.5 and 3.1 m/min [5 ft/min and 10 ft/min], respectively). For striped bass there was more
mortality associated with the lower rotation speeds (P=0.0032 and 0.0433 at 0.31 and 0.61 m/sec
[1 and 2 ft/sec], respectively). Only the 0.31 m/sec (1 ft/sec) velocity and 1.5 m/min (5 ft/min)
rotation treatment showed significantly more mortality than the control among bluegill
(P=0.0042).
Table 2-51
Summary of mortality rates by treatment condition
Percent Mortality
0.31 0.61
Mean Length 0.31 m/sec 0.61 m/sec
Species m/sec m/sec
(mm) velocity velocity
Control velocity velocity Total
3.1 m/min 3.1 m/min
1.5 m/min 1.5 m/min
rotation rotation
rotation rotation
golden shiner 58.3 0.2 1.4 1.4 4.4 4.1 2.3
common carp 35.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.1
bluegill 59.5 1.0 9.1 2.8 2.3 2.6 3.1
striped bass 77.5 9.0 17.2 5.9 14.4 13.0 11.4
channel catfish 50.7 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Injury rates were also low and ranged from 0.0% to 21.8% for all species (Table 2-52). The
majority of bluegill injuries were minor scrapes (82.1%) that did not appear to impact fish
behavior. Two species had successful logistic regressions (bluegill and striped bass). Both these
species exhibited fewer injuries as fish increased in length (P=0.0063 and P=0.0453 for bluegill
and striped bass, respectively). Both species exhibited velocity and duration of impingement
effects (P=0.0003 and P=0.0048 for bluegill and striped bass, respectively). There were
significantly more injuries in all treatments than controls for bluegill (P<0.0001 for all
conditions). For striped bass only the 0.61 m/sec (2.0 ft/sec) velocity; 3.1 m/min (10 ft/min)
rotation treatment had significantly more injury than control (P=0.0011).
2-126
Table 2-52
Summary of injury rates by treatment condition
Percent Injury
0.31 m/sec 0.31 m/sec 0.61 m/sec 0.61 m/sec

Species velocity velocity velocity velocity
Control Total
1.5 m/min 3.1 m/min 1.5 m/min 3.1 m/min
rotation rotation rotation rotation
golden shiner 0.2 1.4 1.4 2.7 4.1 1.9
common carp 0.2 4.1 2.9 0.5 1.5 1.0
bluegill 2.3 9.1 16.1 21.8 20.7 13.2
striped bass 3.9 3.2 6.3 6.9 10.6 5.8
channel catfish 0.3 1.5 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.4
Scale loss for three species was very low (common carp, bluegill, and striped bass). Golden
shiner, which are more susceptible to scale loss, exhibited higher levels of scale loss (Table
2-53). This susceptibility to scale loss is demonstrated by the fact that greater than 46% of the
control golden shiner exhibited greater than 3% scale loss (Table 2-53). Three of the four
species evaluated for scale loss had successful logistic regression (P<0.05; golden shiner,
common carp, and bluegill). Channel catfish do not have scales and were not evaluated. Golden
shiner and bluegill, but not common carp, exhibited a length effect. In both cases, larger fish
exhibited less scale loss (P<0.05). All three species with successful logistic regressions showed
treatment effects. For golden shiner all treatments had significantly more scale loss than controls
(P<0.05). For both common carp and bluegill the higher velocity treatments (0.61 m/sec [2
ft/sec]) had exhibited more scale loss than control (P<0.05).
2-127
Table 2-53
Summary of scale loss rates by treatment condition
Percent Scale Loss
Scale Loss 0.31 m/sec 0.31 m/sec 0.61 m/sec 0.61 m/sec
Species velocity velocity velocity velocity
Level Control
1.5 m/min 3.1 m/min 1.5 m/min 3.1 m/min
rotation rotation rotation rotation
golden shiner <3% 53.9 30.6 37.6 51.0 27.1
3–20% 41.2 43.1 44.0 19.8 39.3
20–40% 4.7 14.6 10.6 20.4 21.4
>40% 0.2 11.8 7.8 8.9 12.2
common carp <3% 92.8 94.5 87.1 86.6 82.3
3–20% 5.3 2.7 10.0 8.8 16.2
20–40% 1.5 2.7 2.9 3.2 1.5
>40% 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0
bluegill <3% 98.7 97.1 96.8 94.3 91.9
3–20% 1.3 2.4 3.2 4.6 7.8
20–40% 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.4
>40% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0
striped bass <3% 99.0 99.6 98.3 97.7 98.6
3–20% 1.0 0.0 1.7 1.9 1.5
20–40% 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0
>40% -- -- -- -- --

A four year evaluation of travelling water screens was undertaken by the Electric Power
Research Institute at Alden Research Laboratory (EPRI 2009b; 2010a). Prior to this study, the
biological effectiveness of fine-mesh screens was uncertain because the performance data from
the few existing facilities that use fine-mesh screens have been highly variable. This project
produced additional data necessary to determine the biological efficacy of fine-mesh screens.
The first phase of testing used a small-scale tabletop flume facility conducted in 2006. The
experiments focused on the retention and post-collection survival of larval fish exposed to
several combinations of impingement duration, velocity, and mesh size. The 2006 results were
used to select variables that had the greatest impact on retention and survival for further testing
in 2007-08 in a larger flume more typical of an actual cooling water intake structure intake bay.
2-128
The tabletop flume was a closed system consisting of a 94,700 L (25,017.1 gal) reservoir, a 15
hp pump, and three acrylic flumes. Water from the reservoir was pumped into the three flumes
and the flow in each flume could be independently regulated. Each flume consisted of fine mesh
screens mounted perpendicular to the flow. Water depths were maintained by a discharge weir.
Water was then released back into the reservoir to end the cycle.
Survival tests consisted of four replicates with each combination of species, velocity, and screen.
Tests were conducted at 0.15,0.30, and 0.61 m/sec (0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 ft/sec) approach velocities
with 0.5-, 1.0-, and 2.0-mm (0.02-, 0.04- and 0.08-in.) mesh. Species tested included
smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), emerald shiner (Notropis atherinoides), fathead
minnow (Pimephales promelas), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), and blue catfish
(Ictalurus furcatus). On each day of testing, a group of 20 organisms was removed from the
holding facility and their notochord length (NL) and head capsule depth (HCD) were measured
to the closest 0.1 mm. The average length and HCD were used to represent the length variable in
the data analysis. The flume was then set to a specific flow condition and fish were released.
Tests were conducted for 4, 8, or 16 min durations, after which flow was maintained and the
collection box was slowly raised. Impinged larvae were gently rinsed off into the bucket portion
of the collection box. Flow was then turned off and the entrainment net was pulled and rinsed.
Mortality was observed immediately and after 24 and 48 hrs. Handling controls were also
conducted per impingement duration test.
Results for retention tests showed blue catfish and channel catfish exhibited high survival
regardless of duration and velocity with the exception of a substantial drop in survival at 0.61
m/sec (2.0 ft/sec) and 16 min duration (Table 2-54). Emerald shiner was only test at 0.61 m/sec
(2.0 ft/sec) with high survival at a 4 min retention time and a clear pattern of increasing mortality
with increased duration of impingement. Fathead Minnow showed moderate survival with no
clear pattern of increased mortality relative to either velocity or retention time. Small mouth
bass demonstrated moderate survival overall with no clear pattern of increased mortality relative
to retention time at 0.30 m/sec (1.0 ft/sec) and a clear increase in mortality with increasing
retention time at 0.61 m/sec (2 ft/sec). In most cases, there was only a fraction of a millimeter
difference between head capsule depth between entrained and impinged larvae. In some cases,
the head capsule depth was larger than the mesh that was being used (e.g. blue catfish with 2.0
mm screen).
2-129
Table 2-54
Survival rate by species, velocity, and duration in table-top studies with 0.5 mm screen mesh
(EPRI 2010a).
Velocity Duration Total

Species N Retained
(ft/s) (min) Survival
8 100.0 128
1.0
16 100.0 111
blue catfish 8 100.0 90
2.0
16 78.2 144
Control 100.0 60
0.5 16 97.3 111
1.0 16 99.2 121
4 99.1 115
channel catfish
2.0 8 99.2 119
16 18.9 122
Control 100.0 119
4 96.1 104
2.0 8 79.6 109
emerald shiner
16 24.0 185
Control 100.0 91
8 54.2 61
1.0
16 75.0 67
fathead minnow 8 78.3 62
2.0
16 48.7 133
Control 93.5 62
4 56.6 239
1.0 8 59.7 235
16 46.2 255
smallmouth bass 4 55.1 259
2.0 8 25.6 299
16 8.2 217
Control 71.3 300
The second phase testing consisted of testing three through-flow screen designs in a large flume
facility from 2007 to 2009. The objective of these tests was to determine the post impingement
survival of larval fish of the various screening designs at multiple approach velocities based off
of the phase one results. The screening devices used were the EIMCO traditional through-flow
screen, the Passavant-Geiger Multi-Disk screen, and the Hydrolox modified through-flow
travelling screen.
2-130
The prototype-test screen facility remained largely the same in all years of testing (2007-2009).
Prototype-scale testing was conducted in a large flume specifically designed for biological and
engineering evaluations of fish passage and protection technologies. A plan and section of the
flume are presented in Figure 2-26. Located beneath the concrete floor of the test section at the
downstream end of the flume were two, 1.7-m (5.6-ft) diameter bow thrusters capable of
pumping up to 14.2 m3/sec (501.5 cfs) through the test section with the assistance of turning
vanes at both ends (i.e., flume water is circulated vertically). The test section was approximately
24.4 by 6.1 m (80 by 20 ft), and water depths were maintained at about 2.4 m (8 ft). At this
depth, the bow thrusters are capable of providing a 0.9-m/sec (3.0-ft/sec) velocity over the entire
flume width. At the downstream end of the test section, the flume was divided into three screen
bays in order to accommodate the three test screens. Each screen bay measured 1.6 m (5.2 ft)
wide.
Figure 2-26
Plan and section of prototype-scale test flume (EPRI 2010a)
2-131
Figure 2-27
Test flume for prototype-scale screen testing showing the three test screens (EPRI 2009b).
Screen mesh size, approach velocities, impingement duration, and species were variable amongst
years (Table 2-55). The flume was first set to a specific flow condition and fish were released.
In 2007-08, the screen was rotated into position to ensure that the injection system would deliver
larvae to the vertical center of a predetermined screen panel. In 2009, the screen was rotated
continuously during injection and testing. Tests were conducted for specific durations, after
which flow was maintained. Fish impinged would be collected by the travelling screen, sprayed
off with high and low pressure sprey washes, and sluiced to a collection box equipped with a 0.5-
mm (0.02-in.) mesh angled barrier net in order to drain the box without losing the sample. After
the collection period, the screen and spraywash systems were shut down and troughs were rinsed
of any residual debris and organisms. Once the troughs were rinsed, the collection box was
drained using the sluice valve downstream of the barrier net and exposed portions of the
collection box were gently rinsed with a hose to collect any adhered larvae. A collection pan
with screened (0.5 mm [0.02 in.]) overflow windows was used to collected larvae. The collected
larvae were transported to the fish holding/sample analysis room in the holding facility for LIM
analysis.
2-132
Table 2-55
Screen, mesh size, approach velocity and species tested during corresponding years.
Approach
Year Screen (mesh size) Velocity Species Tested
(ft/s)
2007 Hydrolox (1.0 mm)
OVIVO (0.5 mm) channel catfish, common
0.5, 1.0
carp, white sucker
Passavant-Geiger (0.5mm)
2008 OVIVO (0.5 mm)
Passavant-Geiger (0.5mm) bigmouth buffalo, channel
0.5, 1.0, 2.0
catfish, common carp
2009 Acrylic Flume (2.0 mm)

Hydrolox (1.78 mm) bigmouth buffalo, bluegill,
0.5, 1.0, 1.5 common carp, golden shiner,
OVIVO (2.0 mm)
white sucker
Passavant-Geiger (2.0mm)
There was considerable variability in survival depending upon species, especially with the
earliest life stages. This highly species-specific survival is consistent with what has been
observed in field applications of fine-mesh screens (e.g., Taft et al. 1981a; Brueggemeyer et al.
1988; Carolina Power and Light 1985 a, b; Thompson 2000, Kuhl and Mueller 1988).
Survival of larvae over the lengths of fish collected off 0.5- and 1.0-mm (0.02- and 0.-04 in.)
screen meshes was extremely poor (generally less than 30% regardless of screen type); control
survival for larvae was high by comparison (73%). In general, there was a trend toward
decreasing survival as duration of impingement or velocity was increased, but these relationships
were not always significant. In 2007-08, in every case where velocity exhibited a significant
effect on survival, the 0.5-ft/sec treatments had significantly greater survival than the 0.15-m/sec
(1.0-ft/sec) treatments. Duration of impingement was rarely a significant predictor of survival.
In all cases where a significant difference was observed, the 4-min duration had greater survival
than the 8-min duration. Poor survival likely results from the fact that at this stage in
development, larvae were extremely sensitive to impingement. It may be possible that with
future improved handling and/or sampling procedures, precision and accuracy of survival may
improve; however, with procedures available at this time, survival of larvae collected off these
meshes was poor
Survival of larvae collected off 2.0-mm (0.08-in.) screens was high (roughly 90%). This was
likely because larger larvae collected off this mesh size have developed musculature and formed
some scales decreasing their sensitivity to impingement and handling stress. The trend of larger
larvae (and early juvenile) fish surviving the impingement and collection process has been
observed previously in the laboratory (EPRI 2006) and in the field (e.g., McLaren and Tuttle
2000, Beak 2000a, b). Because testing in 2009 focused on larger fish than those tested in 2007-
08, the results are difficult to compare. Among the species tested in the large flume, fish 12 mm
(1/2 in.) or greater consistently showed high post-collection survival regardless of species, screen
type, or approach velocity. This increase in survival appeared to be correlated to scale
development and general increase in body musculature. These results are consistent with and
expand on results previously reported for larger juvenile fish during EPRI-sponsored
impingement survival monitoring of coarse-mesh Ristroph screens in a laboratory flume (EPRI
2-133
2006). In those tests, using juvenile and adult fish ≥50 mm (2.0 in.), post-collection survival
exceeded 90% regardless of species or approach velocities (over the range tested 0.3 to 0.9 m/sec
[1-3 ft/sec]).
When size exceeded approximately 12.0 mm (1/2 in.), 48-hr post-collection survival for all four
species tested exceeded 80%. In several replicates, post-collection survival exceeded 90% and
some equaled 100%. All the reported 48-hr survival values are unadjusted for control survival,
so actual survival is greater. In some cases, there were no statistical differences between the
treatment and control survival indicating no detrimental effect associated with collection and
removal from the screens. Survival of 48-hr post-collection for all four species tested ranged
from 0 to approximately 60% when fish length was less than approximately 12.0 mm (1/2 in.).
Screen approach velocity up to 0.45 m/sec (1.5 ft/sec) had no or minor effect on post-collection
survival of the larger larvae tested in 2009.

The performance of fine-mesh screens was tested at Alden Research Laboratory, Inc. Holden,
MA (EPRI 2011a). This was a continuation of EPRI-sponsored research on fine-mesh traveling
screens and the Beaudrey Water Intake Protection (WIP) screen (EPRI 2011a). In addition to
supplying supplemental data, new test parameters were evaluated including quantifying time
prior to impingement and determining effects of exposure to high-pressure spraywash.
Two biological investigations of the OVIVO modified traveling screen with 2-mm mesh
(OVIVO) and a WIP screen with 2-mm mesh were conducted from June through September
2011. The test flume was configured into two bays using temporary walls to accommodate both
screens. The WIP screen fish return system matched testing of the previous year (EPRI 2011a).
Fish impinged on the disk screen were suctioned off by a fish-friendly pump and collected in the
collection box via a 50 ft pipe. Fish impinged on the OVIVO screen were returned to a
collection box through two return lines separating fish exposed to low (fish return line) and high
(debris return line) pressure spraywashes (Figure 2-28).
2-134
Figure 2-28
Ovivo screen collection system and PIT tag antenna locations.
The first of two investigations assessed extended survival of larval golden shiner (Notemigonus
crysoleucas) and common carp (Cyprinus carpio). Tests were conducted on both screens at
separate times. Testing commenced with the release of organisms in front of the respected
screen face. Once impinged, fish were routed to the screen-specific collection box. Treatments
lasted 2 min, after which fish were collected and held for 48-hr mortality observations. Controls
replicates were released directly into the collection boxes separate from treatment groups and
were held for 2 min prior to collection. Control groups were collected and held identical to
treatment fish to separate mortality associated with handling, introduction, collection, and
holding from mortality associated with impingement and removal from the screens.
Common carp were tested at velocities of 0.15, 0.30, 0.45, and 0.60 m/sec (0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0
ft/sec) on the OVIVO screen (Figure 2-29). Survival for all treatment groups was greater than
96.6% and was 100% for control groups. Common carp were tested at velocities of 0.15, 0.30,
0.45, 0.60, and 0.75 m/sec (0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 ft/sec) on the WIP screen (Figure 2-29).
Survival was 100% for all treatment and control groups except for fish tested at 0.60 m/sec (2.0
ft/sec). Golden shiner were tested at velocities of 0.08, 0.15, 0.30, 0.45, and 0.60 m/sec (0.25,
0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 ft/sec) on the OVIVO screen (Figure 2-30). Total survival ranged from 55.0
to 73.1% and was 100% for all control groups. Golden shiner were tested at 0.08, 0.15, 0.30,
0.45, 0.60, and 0.75 m/sec (0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 ft/sec) on the WIP screen. Survival
ranged from 4.7 to 79.2%.
2-135
100.0%
100.0%
80.0%
Total Survival (%)
Total Survival (%)

80.0%
60.0% 60.0%
Treatment Treatment
40.0% 40.0%
Control Control
320
96
20.0% 20.0%
40
25
51
25
48
25
49
25
47
25
26
24
40
24
35
25
40
25
0.0% 0.0%
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.25 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Velocity (ft/s) Velocity (ft/s)
100.0% 100.0%
80.0% 80.0%
Total Survival (%)

Total Survival (%)
60.0% 60.0%
Treatment Treatment
40.0% 40.0%
Control Control
20.0% 20.0%
38
25
52
25
50
25
51
25
48
25
30
25
35
25
31
25
29
25
0.0% 0.0%
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Figure 2-29
Common carp total survival on the OVIVO screen (left) and WIP screen (right). The total number of
fish held for LM evaluation is presented at the base of each bar. 95% confidence intervals (shown
as error bars) were calculated using the normal approximation of the binomial distribution.
100.0%
100.0%
80.0%
Total Survival (%)
Total Survival (%)
80.0%
60.0% 60.0%
Treatment Treatment
40.0% 40.0%
Control Control
320
96
20.0% 20.0%
40
25
51
25
48
25
49
25
47
25
26
24
40
24
35
25
40
25
0.0% 0.0%
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.25 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Figure 2-30
Golden shiner total survival on the OVIVO screen (left) and WIP screen (right). The total number of
fish held for LM evaluation is presented at the base of each bar. 95% confidence intervals (shown
as error bars) were calculated using the normal approximation of the binomial distribution.
The second of the two investigations observed avoidance of representative species from being
impinged on the OVIVO screen, observing time-to-impingement at approach velocities higher
than the 0.5 ft/s trough-screen velocity criterion used by EPA for 316(b) compliance, and the
effects of exposure to high (30 PSI) and low (10 PSI) spraywash pressures. Testing was
conducted between September 12 and September 15, 2011 (Week 1) and between September 19
and September 22, 2011 (Week 2). Species tested included bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus),
common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus). A PIT tag multi-reader
system was installed to determine time-to-impingement and spray exposure of tagged fish
(Figure 2-28). Antennas were mounted on the injection point to identify initial release time and
mounted on both collection troughs to identify time of impingement and identify spraywash
exposure. A manual antenna identified the final collection time from the collection tank.
2-136
Each test week started on Monday and lasted 72 hrs, ending with a final 5-hr purge (at 2.0 ft/sec
or greater). During Week 1, the test velocity was set at 0.15 m/sec (0.5 ft/sec) and run
continuously during the test period. During Week 2, the initial velocity was set at 0.15 m/sec (0.5
ft/sec) and increased by 0.15 m/sec (0.5 ft/sec) every 24-hrs. A total of 200 PIT tagged common
carp and bluegill were released at the start of testing. During Week 2, a group of 200 untagged
alewife was also released at this time. Alewife were not tagged as they were deemed too
sensitive to injury and mortality associated with the PIT tagging procedure. Initial collections
from the collection box were made 15 min after fish introduction and at 2-hr intervals for the
remainder of the test period. If the number of any species remaining in the flume dropped below
150 fish after a collection, 100 fish of that species were added. Fish collected were individually
scanned on the manual PIT tag reader, transferred to net pens in the Latent Mortality (LM)
holding facility, and held for 48-hr mortality observations. Fish were observed at 24- and 48-hrs
after collection. Dead fish were assessed at the time of their observation and all other fish were
assessed at the end of the 48-hrs holding period for mortality, injury, and scale loss. Control
tests consisted of releasing 100 fish per species into the collection box and held there for 2 hrs
prior to collection and subsequently held in the LM facility for 48 hrs. Control fish were
assessed identical to treatment fish. At the end of the test week, the velocity in the flume was
raised to >2.0 ft/s to collect fish remaining in the flume for the entire one-week duration (purge).
Time-to-impingement was calculated as the difference between the trough antenna time and the
injection time. The collection time was used in the absence of a trough read. After data
reduction, fish were categorized for data analysis, dependent on quality and presence of PIT tag
data (Table 2-56). Fish collected during purges were not used in the analysis.
Table 2-56
Percent of collected fish by species and week used for analyses (TTI=Time-to-impingment;
SISL=Survival, injury and scale loss)
Species Analysis % Used
TTI 74.7%
bluegill
SISL 94.7%
Week 1
TTI 59.8%
common carp
SISL 74.5%
alewife SISL 75.2%
Week 2 bluegill SISL 82.0%
common carp SISL 67.2%
A total of 566 bluegill and 341 common carp were collected during Week 1 tests (Table 2-57).
Survival for all species analyzed was 92.9% or higher and injury rates were lower than 7.4%.
Scale loss was relatively high for common carp, but this had little noticeable effect on survival.
2-137
Table 2-57
Number of fish assessed, conditions and percent survival, injury, and scale loss of <3% by
species and week
% % % Scale
Species n Condition
Survival Injured Loss <3%
408 0.15 m/sec 99.0% 1.2% 98.0%
bluegill
102 Control 98.0% 2.0% 100.0%
Week 1
74 0.15 m/sec 97.3% 2.7% 82.4%
common carp
98 Control 99.0% 1.0% 71.4%
181 0.15 m/sec 96.7% 2.8% 95.6%
64 0.30 m/sec 98.4% 0.0% 96.9%
bluegill
54 0.45 ft/sec 98.1% 7.4% 96.3%
48 Control 100.0% 1.0% 99.0%
38 0.15 m/sec 97.4% 0.0% 97.4%
55 0.30 m/sec 100.0% 0.0% 69.1%
Week 2 common carp
52 0.45 ft/sec 100.0% 0.0% 63.5%
100 Control 100.0% 1.0% 75.0%
39 0.15 m/sec 100.0% 2.6% 100.0%
28 0.30 m/sec 92.9% 0.0% 100.0%
alewife
51 0.45 ft/sec 96.1% 3.9% 94.1%
32 Control 100.0% 0.0% 96.9%
The time to impingement was only presented for the Week 1 analysis. A majority of bluegill
were collected within the first 24 hrs (78.7%) (Figure 2-31) while the majority of common carp
were collected in the last 24 hrs (54.9%) (Figure 2-32). Time-to-impingement frequency (left)
and length relationship (right) for bluegill during Week 1 testing. Time-to-impingement was
shown to be dependent of length for bluegill (P<0.001) decreasing with increasing length.
However, this only represents 7% of the variability observed (R2 = 0.07) and is likely not
biologically significant. Common carp demonstrated that time-to-impingement was independent
of length (P=0.317).
100.0% 84:00:00
80.0% 72:00:00
y = -0.023x + 2.2401
R² = 0.0701
Frequency (%)
Duration (hh:mm:ss)
60:00:00
60.0% P<0.001
48:00:00
40.0%
36:00:00
20.0%
24:00:00
0.0%
12:00:00
00:00:00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Duration (hh:mm:ss) Length (mm)
Figure 2-31
Time-to-impingement frequency (left) and length relationship (right) for bluegill during Week 1
testing.
2-138
100.0% 84:00:00
80.0% 72:00:00
y = 0.01x + 1.5049
Frequency (%)
R² = 0.005
Duration (hh:mm:ss)
60.0% 60:00:00
P=0.32
40.0% 48:00:00
20.0% 36:00:00
0.0% 24:00:00
12:00:00
00:00:00
Duration (hh:mm:ss) 0 20 40 60 80 100
Length (mm)
Figure 2-32
Time-to-impingement frequency (left) and length relationship (right) for common carp during
Week 1 testing.
Survival, injury and scale loss was not affected by spraywash pressures, during Week 1, having
no significant difference in survival between the two spraywash pressures and controls (Table
2-58). The low pressure spraywash, had a significant negative effect on bluegill survival, injury
and scale loss. However only slight differences were demonstrated and could be related to low
numbers collected from the high pressure spraywash. Common carp demonstrated no negative
effects from either spraywash pressures.
Table 2-58
Percent survival, injury and scale loss by species, number assessed, and spraywash pressure
%
Pressure % % Scale
Species n
Wash Survival Injured Loss
<3%
330 Low 99.1% 2.7% 95.2%
bluegill 26 High 100.0% 0.0% 96.2%
102 Control 98.0% 2.0% 100.0%
Week 1
110 Low 99.1% 2.7% 55.5%
common
4 High 100.0% 0.0% 75.0%
carp
98 Control 99.0% 1.0% 71.4%
212 Low 97.2% 3.8% 96.2%
bluegill 19 High 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
96 Control 100.0% 1.0% 99.0%
Week 2
126 Low 98.4% 0.8% 75.4%
common
9 High 100.0% 0.0% 55.6%
carp
89 Control 100.0% 1.1% 73.0%
Extended survival of common carp was relatively high (>86%) for both screens while survival
was variable, ranging from 4.7 to 79.2%. This was the first time golden shiner has been tested
on the WIP screen, expanding the larval survival database. The second evaluation demonstrated
2-139
that length does not necessarily play a large role in time-to-impingement. The authors suggest
that this could have been due to limited size ranges tested. Survival for common carp and
alewife were equivalent to what was observed for other species tested on (>95% regardless of
velocity). Spraywash pressures were found not to be a factor in survival.

A laboratory evaluation conducted to investigate the Beaudrey Water Intake Protection (WIP)
prototype screen within a flume to determine the post-collection survival of larvae and early
juvenile fish (EPRI 2009b).
All testing was conducted in a large flume specifically designed for biological and engineering
evaluations of fish passage technologies. The test section was approximately 24.4 m long, 6.1 m
wide, and water depths were maintained at about 2.8 m (9.2 ft). The WIP screen was provided
by Beaudrey at their expense and installed with a 2.0-mm (0.08-in.) square mesh screen. The
WIP screen incorporates a large filter disk that is divided into several pie-shaped wedges that
rotate on a center axle. Those organisms impinged on the screen were removed and transported
by the pump to a collection box located adjacent to the test flume. Four fish species and two size
classes (larval and juvenile) were tested during this evaluation (Table 2-59). Velocities tested
during the evaluation of larval fish (<30mm (1.2 in.)) were 0.30, 0.45, and 0.61 m/sec (1.0, 1.5,
and 2.0 ft/sec) to reflect conditions tested during past fine-mesh screen evaluations with
traditional traveling water screens (EPRI 2010a). However, as fish size increased (>30mm (1.2
in.)) and swimming ability increased so was tested velocities (0.9, 1.1 and 1.2 m/sec [3.0, 3.5 and
4.0 ft/sec]). A target of four treatment replicates per velocity and one control replicate were
completed per species for a total of 13 tests targeted per block at each species and size (3
velocities by [4 replicates per condition + 1 control]). The control treatment was used to separate
mortality associated with handling (removal from holding facility, counting into groups, removal
from the collection box, and post-processing of samples) from mortality associated with
collection and removal from the screen.
Table 2-59
Mean, minimum, and maximum total length (mm), and total number of fish tested at low (1.0, 1.5,
and 2.0 ft/s) and high (3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 ft/s) approach velocities.
Low Velocities High Velocities

Family Common Name Scientific Name
n Mean n Mean
bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus 1,983 19.3 -- --

Catostomidae
white sucker Catostomus commersonii 1,688 19.7 -- --
Cyprinidae common carp Cyprinus carpio 1,866 25.0 1,866 25.0
Centrarchidae bluegill Lepomis macrochirus -- -- 4,273 31.0
Post-collection survival of all larval and juvenile fish was greater than 60% (the one exception
being bigmouth buffalo tested at 0.6 m/sec (2.0 ft/sec), which had post-collection survival of
58%). Post-collection survival was species-specific, with both bluegill and common carp having
survival rates between 89% and 100%. The survival for bigmouth buffalo and white sucker
2-140
ranged from 66% to 75% depending upon approach velocity (with the exception of the buffalo at
2.0 ft/s, as described above). In general, larger fish and lower approach velocities resulted in
greater survival. For almost all species, these fish length and approach velocity effects on
survival were significant (P<0.05). The one exception was observed with the smaller common
carp tested at 0.3, 0.45, 0.6 m/sec (1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 ft/sec), among which fish length was not a
significant predictor of survival (P=0.8813).
Results are subject to several qualifying points as follows:
• Testing was limited to a few species that are readily available as larvae or can be easily
cultured in the laboratory. The tested organisms, by their nature, are hardier than pelagic
species, such as clupeids and bay anchovy which can dominate actual CWIS entrainment.
For example, an ongoing EPRI survey of entrainment at power plants indicates that four of
the five1 top entrained species at coastal/estuarine locations are clupeids (American Shad,
blueback herring, Atlantic menhaden, and Gulf menhaden) and, similarly, unidentified
clupeids and gizzard shad dominate at plants using freshwater systems for cooling2.
• Testing was limited to freshwater species. The results are believed to be indicative of screen
performance with estuarine and marine species of comparable hardiness as there is no
information that indicates or suggests that either group is more or less sensitive than the
other.
Laboratory Study – Aquaria/Alden

A two phase assessment of the Beaudrey Water Intake Protection (WIP) screen evaluating post-
impingement survival of early life stage (larvae and eggs) was conducted for potential
application at the Taunton River Desalination Plant (TRDP) (Alden 2012a,b).
Testing was conducted at The Taft Research and Test Facility at Alden Research Laboratory,
Holden, MA in 2011(Phase I) and 2012 (Phase II). The facility configuration was similar to that
of the EPRI-sponsored WIP evaluation (EPRI 2009b) (Figure 2-33). Fish impinged on the
screen were removed by a stationary suction scoop and transported to a collection tank via a
15.2-m (50-ft) discharge line. The WIP screen used 2-mm mesh and rotated twice per min.
1
The fifth dominant species is bay anchovy, which is also considered fragile.
2
Preliminary results from EPRI’s ongoing national survey of impingement and entrainment data collected by power
plants between 2004-2008 in response to the 2004 EPA §316(b) Phase II Rule which has since been remanded.
2-141
Figure 2-33
Discharge line from the pump to the collection box (A) and inside view of the collection box (B)
Phase I testing used fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) (larvae and eggs) as a surrogate
species to provide preliminary entrainment estimates and post impingement survival data that
can be achieved with the WIP screen. Tests were conducted at velocities of (4.6, 9.1, 15.24 and
24.4 cm/sec [0.15, 0.3, 0.5, and 0.8 ft/sec]). Tests included five replicates of each combination
of life stage and velocity. Additional control groups were tested to separate mortality associated
with counting into replicate groups, introduction and collection from the test facility, and post
test holding from mortality associated with impingement and collection for the WIP screen.
During a treatment replicate, 100 live organisms were released just upstream of the center of the
screen face via an injection tube. Tests ran for a total of 5 min to increase the potential for
organism collection. Impinged organisms were removed by a stationary suction scoop attached
to a fish-friendly pump and transferred to a collection box located adjacent to the test flume.
Entrainment was estimated by subtracting the number of fish collected from the number of
released. This estimate assumes that any fish not collected was entrained through the mesh and
provided a conservative estimate of entrainment. Once a replicate was completed, organisms
were collected and processed as described below. Control tests were released directly into the
collection box on separate releases and collected using the same procedure as treatments.
2-142
Figure 2-34
Prototype Beaudry WIP screen and pump
Immediately after each collection all dead organisms were enumerated and live organisms were
held for latent mortality (LIM) observations. Delayed mortality for larvae was observed after 24
and 48-hrs. Dead larvae were enumerated and then photographed for morphometric
measurement. After the 48-hr holding period, all live larvae were euthanized, enumerated, and
photographed. Egg survival was determined by hatchability. Eggs were held up to 144 hrs post
test, the time in which all hatching occurred. Live larvae found were identified as hatched eggs.
Dead larvae found were analyzed two different ways 1) as being hatched and subsequently dying
and 2) being dead prior to hatching. All eggs not hatched within 144 hrs were considered dead.
Separate handling controls were conducted by counting organisms into replicate groups,
immediately placing them in the holding facility, and held alongside the treatment and control
fish during the latent mortality observation period. The handling controls were included to
separate mortality associated with counting and holding from mortality associated with
introduction and retrieval from the collection system.
A total of 2,684 larvae were released during Phase I testing. Potential entrainment ranged from
0.2% (4.6 cm/sec [0.15 ft/sec]) to 14.8% (24.4 cm/sec [0.8 ft/sec]) for larvae. Survival for larvae
(Table 2-60) demonstrated a threshold between 4.6, 9.1 cm/sec (0.15 and 0.3 ft/sec) where
mortality increased significantly (P<0.05).
Table 2-60
Fathead minnow larval numbers collected and total survival for each velocity tested and the
controls.
No.
Velocity No. Live (48hr) Survival
Collected
0.15 489 267 54.6%
0.3 454 165 36.3%
0.5 424 175 41.3%
0.8 419 161 38.4%
Control 496 254 51.2%
2-143
Control survival was relatively similar to treatment groups while handling control survival was
high (98%). This indicates that some of the mortality observed in the treatment groups was
associated with exposure to the collection box and subsequent collection. The authors speculate
that this mortality was likely a result of turbulent conditions in the collection box or the methods
used to remove the organisms. To account for this mortality, treatment survival was adjusted
using a Ricker model:
𝑟𝑡 ⁄𝑅𝑡
𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙 =
𝑟𝑐 ⁄𝑅𝑐
where: rt = treatment fish live at 48 hrs
rc = treatment fish collected
Rt = control fish live at 48 hrs
When adjusted, survival rates were 71% or greater for all treatment conditions (Figure 2-35).
Figure 2-35
Adjusted survival for fathead minnow larvae using the Ricker model. Asterisks denote significant
difference to controls.
A total of 2,620 eggs were released during Phase 1 testing. Egg entrainment ranged from 1.6%
(0.3 ft/s) to 4.0% (0.15 and 0.8 ft/s). Total survival of eggs exceeded 86% for all treatments
(Table 2-61). Inclusion of dead larvae as hatched eggs did not significantly change outcomes
(P>0.05).
2-144
Table 2-61
Fathead minnow egg numbers collected, total survival including and excluding dead larvae for
each velocity tested and the controls.
No. Live No. Live Survival Survival

No. Including Excluding Including Excluding
Velocity
Collected Dead Dead Dead Dead
Larvae Larvae Larvae Larvae
0.15 470 462 442 98.3% 94.0%
0.3 480 471 465 98.1% 96.9%
0.5 484 430 419 88.8% 86.6%
0.8 480 468 460 97.5% 95.8%
Control 483 462 455 95.7% 94.2%
Phase II testing used essentially the same flume configuration as Phase I with minor adjustments.
The collection box was redesigned to reduce turbulence and a net was installed on the
downstream side of the screen to better quantify entrainment (Figure 2-36). Survival tests
included five replicates of all combinations of species, life stage, and velocity. White perch
(Morone americana; eggs and larvae) and alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus; larvae) were used
during testing. Tests were conducted at velocities of 0.8, 0.11, and 0.14 m/sec (0.25, 0.35, and
0.45 ft/sec). The testing procedure for impingement collections, controls, and handling controls
mimicked Phase I testing. Entrainment samples collected in the downstream net were
enumerated, but not held for LIM observation.
2-145
Figure 2-36
Taft Fisheries Research and Test Facility configured for the Phase II biological evaluation of the
Beaudrey WIP screen.
Approximately 1,600 white perch larvae, 2,350 white perch eggs, and 5,000 alewife larvae were
released during Phase II testing. Entrainment for treatment groups ranged from 21.3% (0.8
m/sec [0.25 ft/sec]) to 26.3% (0.14 m/sec [0.45 ft/sec]) for white perch larvae and from 15.7%
(0.14 m/sec [0.45 ft/sec]) to 19.4% (0.8 m/sec [0.25 ft/sec]) for alewife larvae. There was no
entrainment of white perch eggs as the average egg diameter (0.9 mm) was much larger than the
0.5-mm mesh. Total survival was less than 5% for white perch larvae and less than 1% for
alewife larvae among all treatment and control groups (table 2-62). Survival for white perch
eggs ranged from 31.8% (0.14 m/sec [0.45 ft/sec]) to 61.2% (0.11 m/sec [0.35 ft/sec]). Similar
to Phase I testing, handling controls exhibited higher survival than control survival. Adjusted
survival for handling control using a Ricker model resulted in substantially higher rates of
survival for treatment and control tests.
2-146
Table 2-62
White perch larval numbers collected, total survival and adjusted survival for each velocity tested
and the controls.
Adjusted
No.
No. Unadjusted to
Species Velocity Live
Collected Survival Handling
(48hr)
Control
alewife 0.25 758 0 0.0% 0.0%
0.35 738 1 0.2% 0.3%
0.45 0.45 787 0.2% 0.3%
Control 906 8 0.9% 1.5%
white 0.25 256 6 3.5% 12.1%

perch
larvae 0.35 187 2 1.8% 6.0%
0.45 182 1 1.0% 3.3%
Control 205 9 4.4% 15.1%
white 0.25 468 240 51.3% 84.7%

perch
eggs 0.35 448 274 61.2% 100.0%
0.45 444 141 31.8% 52.4%
Control 457 253 55.4% 91.4%

A three year evaluation of fish return systems was undertaken by the Electric Power Research
Institute at Alden Research Laboratory (EPRI 2010b, 2011c). Prior to this study, the biological
effectiveness of fish return systems was uncertain because the performance and survival data was
limited. Additionally, site-specific impingement data for traveling screens typically include
collecting organisms within the return system, not at the outfall of the return line, therefore any
injury or mortality associated with the return system was not evaluated.
The first phase of testing was designed to evaluate the effects of velocity and discharge height on
larval fish survival through a fish return system. A primary consideration in the design of the
phase one test apparatus was to keep, to the extent practicable, the system components similar
while varying both velocity and release height. A parallel return pipe system was designed
which resulted in the larvae traveling the same distance and allowed use of the same collection
system (Figure 2-37). Each return pipe was 15.2-cm (6-in.) diameter and approximately 21.6 m
(71 ft), but had a different slope to achieve transport velocities of 0.6 m/sec (2 ft/sec) in one and
1.8 m/sec (6 ft/sec) in the other. Each pipe contained an injection point on the upstream end and
a 23 degree elbow with a 0.91 m (3 ft) section of clear pipe at the discharge end.
2-147
An adjustable collection box was used to obtain three different conditions at the return pipe
discharges; underwater, 0.61-m (2-ft), and 1.22-m (4-ft) discharge heights (Figure 2-38). The
box was 0.91 m (3 ft) wide by 2.13 m (7 ft) long by 1.22 m (4 ft) deep. A 25.4-cm (10-in.)
diameter stand pipe with a valve and a 5.08 cm (2 in.) drain pipe controlled by a gate valve were
located on the upstream side of the collection tank behind an angled barrier screen (with 350-μm
mesh) to maintain water level. This design allowed the box to be drained when making a
collection without removing organisms.
Survival testing included three replicates with each combination of species, life stage, velocity,
and drop height. Four species were evaluated during phase one testing (Table 2-63). For each
species at a given size, 21 replicates were targeted (2 velocities) by (3 discharge heights) by (3
replicates per condition) plus (3 controls [one per height]). To ensure that results for each fish
length were comparable all 21 replicates for a given species were completed within one test
week. In addition, sets of replicates were repeated as the larvae grew to determine the effect of
larval length on survival. The control was used to separate mortality associated with handling
(removal from holding facility, counting into groups, collection from fish return, and post-
processing of samples) from mortality associated with passage through the return line system.
Each replicate was assessed for initial survival and then held for 48 hrs to assess latent effects.
Initial survival was calculated by enumerating the number alive at the end of the test and
dividing by the total number of live and dead organisms collected. Extended survival was
calculated using the total number of live organisms at the end of 48 hrs and dividing it by the
total number held for latent mortality observation. Total survival was calculated using the total
number alive after the 48 hrs observation and dividing it by the total number collected during
that replicate.
2-148
Figure 2-37
Section view of fish return system testing loop with collection box at the 4 ft discharge height.
Figure 2-38
Configuration of collection box at each discharge height; underwater, 2 ft, and 4 ft.
2-149
Table 2-63
Species, lengths, and number measured of those fish used in Phase I testing
Total Length
Species Mean Standard Minimum Maximum Number
(mm) Deviation (mm) (mm) Measured
bigmouth buffalo 8.2 2.1 6.2 11.7 260
channel catfish 14.3 3.3 10.4 17.2 200
golden shiner 6.4 2.2 4.2 11.3 180
common carp 9.4 2.8 5.6 12.8 500
Survival for all species decreased during the transition from yolk-sac to post-yolk-sac larvae with
the exact length varying by species. Survival increased rapidly with increasing fish length with a
peak when larvae attained a size of approximately 12 mm (0.47 in.). Velocity had no effect on
survival within length groups and with the exception of common carp (Cyprinus carpio), drop
height (≤1.8 m or 6 ft) had no effect on survival within length groups.
Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) initial survival observed for all conditions was high (>
94%) and results showed no trend between total survival and length, given that total survival was
high for all length classes. This trend is supported by the statistical analysis which showed no
significant length effect on total survival (P=0.0616).
Common carp showed increased mortality when exposed to greater discharge heights
independent of the velocity. The total survival among each variable was statistically compared,
the results indicate that there is no significant difference between the velocities (P =0.1590);
however, both the 0.61-m (2-ft) and 1.22-m (4-ft) discharge heights have significantly lower
survival than the underwater discharge (P=0.0458 and 0.0471, respectively).
Bigmouth buffalo (Ictiobus cyprinellus) total survival showed no statistically significant
differences in total survival between the control and treatment replicates (P=0.4441). The
comparison of survival with respect to larval length, showed a more defined decrease in survival
for all conditions at the 7 mm length.
Golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas) data were limited due to poor survival in the holding
facility and during early lifestage testing. Total survival numbers (including controls) were
considerably lower than other species at the yolk-sac lifestage. The statistical analysis of total
survival indicated that there was a significant difference between treatments and controls
(P=0.0123), specifically at the 4 ft discharge height (P=0.0285). A significantly higher survival
was observed for the 1.8 m/sec (6 ft/sec) velocity when compared to 0.6 m/sec (2 ft/sec)
(P=0.0425) and the 4 ft discharge when compared to the underwater (P=0.0100). The author
stated that these findings are most likely the result of the limited numbers tested and the poor
survival observed with this species over the course of the testing.
The phase two testing included the modification of the phase one facility to assess additional
length, drops, bends, and turns within a return line. A phase one return line was retained for the
testing and an additional line with more complexity (length, drops, turns, etc.) was constructed
that allowed the use of the same phase one collection box described above (Figure 2-39). Both
2-150
lines were constructed to maintain a velocity of 1.8 m/sec (6 ft/sec) and an underwater discharge.
The phase two return line was constructed to allow testing from two release locations. The
“head of long line” release point was selected to expose the organisms to the full length of the
phase two return line. The “upstream “S” line” release point was selected to allow assessment of
the affect of the tight radius turns section without the effect of a longer distance of transport.
Additionally, organisms were released through the phase one line (“head of short line”) and
directly into the collection tank for the control fish. As in the phase ones testing both return pipes
were each 15.2-cm (6-in.) diameter; however, each had a different transport distance
(approximately 21.6 m [71 ft] for the phase one and approximately 131 m [430 ft] for the phase
two line). In addition to the added length the phase two line included a 0.61m (2 ft) drop, a large
radius turn, and several tight turns which included four 180 degree and two 45 degree turns.
The phase two study was designed to determine the survival of fish exposed to increased return
line length, drops, and wide and tight bends. Additionally, larger length classes were evaluated
to supplement the initial database. For each species at a given size, 12 replicates were targeted
(3 release locations) by (3 replicates per condition) plus (3 controls [1 per day/location]). The
control was used to separate mortality associated with handling (removal from holding facility,
counting into groups, collection from fish return, and post-processing of samples) from mortality
associated with passage through the return line system. Initial and latent survival assessment
methods were the same as those described above for phase one testing.
As with the phase one, survival for all species decreased during the transition from yolk-sac to
post-yolk-sac larvae with the exact length varying among species. Survival increased rapidly
with increasing fish length with a peak when larvae attained a size of approximately 12 mm
(0.47 in.). Increasing the length (from 21.6 m [71 ft] to 131 m [430 ft]) of the fish return line and
adding drops and bends did not affect survival within length groups.
A mortality event within the holding system reduced the number of bigmouth buffalo larval
available in the lower length range (< 10 mm [<0.39 in.]), therefore a majority of the data for
bigmouth buffalo was collected with juvenile fish (>14 mm [>0.55 in.]). This juvenile group
showed consecutive weeks of high survival at approximately 100% for all release locations and
controls which showed a strong relationship (P<0.0001) between fish length and total survival,
with larger buffalo exhibiting higher survival.
Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) total survival was found to be similar for all release locations
(64 to 75%) throughout the study period and the statistical analysis revealed no significant
differences in total survival by release location (P=0.2634). In a comparison of fish length and
control total survival there is a noticeable significant shift in increased survival from 12.5 to 17.5
mm (0.49 to 0.69 in.) in length.
Golden shiner total survival for treatment fish was moderate (67 to 81%) for all release locations.
Plotting control survival against the daily length data confirms that survival was lower during the
earlier weeks of testing when shiners were smaller and potentially more fragile. When total
survival is plotted along with control survival at each fish length tested, results observed for the
other species were also observed for golden shiner. The statistical analysis confirms that
difference in total survival by length was significant and that as the larvae increase in length so
does survival.
2-151
Figure 2-39
Plan and section view of the Phase II fish return line testing facility
2-152
Common carp total survival was moderately high for all conditions; however the survival for the
head of the long line location while lower (72%) it was not significant throughout the testing
period. In a comparison of fish lengths and both daily test and control total survivals it is
apparent that survival is highly variable below 9 mm (0.4 in.); however, once the carp reached a
length range of 9.0 to 12.0 mm (0.4 to 0.5 in.) survival improved dramatically and remained
nearly 100% through 20 mm (0.8 in.) in length. Length was a significant predictor of survival
with larger fish experiencing greater total survival.
White suckers (Catostomus commersonii) were only available for a limited period of time and
only used for shakedown testing of the phase two fish return system. Twenty-seven replicates
were conducted with white sucker during the shakedown testing. There was very little
variability in the average total survival regardless of release location (74 to 79%) and no
statistical difference in survival between treatments and controls. With a limited length range
tested over the study period (13.0 to 14.5 mm [0.51 to 0.57 in.]) it was not possible to determine
a correlation between fish length and survival.
Phase three testing primary objective was to evaluate various trough substrates including a
smooth, stone, rough carpet and a filamentous material (Figure 2-40). A parallel dual-trough
system was constructed to allow control replicates (smooth trough) and treatment replicates
(substrate trough) to use the same collection system, while maintaining similar velocities over
the same distance, regardless of substrate. The smooth control trough remained unchanged
throughout testing; however, the treatment trough could be configured with one of the three
testing substrates. Each trough was 30.5 cm (12 in.) wide, 15.3 cm (6 in.) deep, and
approximately 6.7 m (22 ft) long (Figure 2-41).
Figure 2-40
Stone (A), rough carpet (B), fiber (C) and smooth (not shown) trough substrate materials
2-153
The collection box was approximately 1.0 m (3 ft 3 in.) wide, 1.0 m (3 ft 3 in.) deep, and 3.3 m
(10 ft 10 in) long. A 25.4-cm (10-in.) diameter stand pipe with a valve was located on the
upstream side of the collection tank behind an angled barrier screen (with 350-μm mesh) to
maintain water level. As with the previous fish return collection boxes this design allowed water
to flow into and out of the collection box, retain collected organisms, and maintain water level.
Substrate survival testing was conducted with four species (Table 2-64) and broken into blocks
by substrate. For each species at a given size, 15 replicates were targeted [(3 substrate
treatments) by (3 replicates per treatment)] plus [(1 smooth trough control) by (3 replicates)] plus
(3 collection box control [1 per test day/ 3 days per week]). To ensure that minimal fish growth
occurred within a test block, all 15 replicates for a given species were completed within one test
week.
Additional testing to evaluate the survival of fish being transported along with various types of
debris was conducted with channel catfish and bluegill (Table 2-65). Debris testing was
completed using only the smooth trough and with two debris groups. The first debris group
(surrogate debris) included; Mylar, tinsel, and wood chips (Figure 2-42), which were selected as
a surrogate for grass/filamentous algae, leaf, and woody organic materials traditionally found at a
CWIS or within a fish return system. The materials selected for the second debris group (non-
traditional debris) were chosen as an extreme case and were intended to create more injury and
stress using non-traditional debris materials (Figure 2-43). This debris group included plastic
media, plastic beads, and plywood pieces. For each species, 7 replicates were targeted (2 debris
types) by (3 replicates) plus (1 control with debris).
During each testing type a control was used to separate mortality associated with handling
(removal from holding facility, counting into groups, collection from fish return, and post-
processing of samples) from mortality associated with passage through the trough system (with
or without debris). Initial and latent survival assessment methods were the same as those
described above for phase one testing.
Table 2-64
Mean (with standard deviation), minimum, and maximum fish fork length (mm), and total number
of treatment and control fish measured.
Standard
Common Name N Mean Length Deviation Min Max
bluegill 2,092 26.8 5.0 10.0 40.0
common carp 991 19.5 3.7 9.7 35.8
channel catfish 4,077 21.0 4.1 11.0 39.0
golden shiner 1,144 15.9 7.3 6.6 44.0
Table 2-65
Mean (with standard deviation), minimum, and maximum fish fork length (mm), and total number
of treatment and control fish measured.
Mean Standard
Common Name N Length Deviation Min Max
bluegill 350 28.3 5.0 18.0 42.0
channel catfish 343 21.0 2.1 15.0 28.0
2-154
Figure 2-41
Plan and elevation views of the Phase III fish return testing facility
2-155
Figure 2-42
The surrogate debris group included mylar (A), wood chips (B), and tinsel (C) debris
Figure 2-43
The non-traditional debris group included plastic media (A), plywood pieces (B), and beads (C)
debris
2-156
Golden shiner was also tested over a broader range of body lengths than other species (6.6 to
44.0 mm [0.26 to 1.73 in.]), with the majority of the tested organisms measuring less than 20 mm
(0.79 in.). Shiner experienced the highest mortality of all four species across all substrates
tested; however the control groups experienced no mortality. While all treatments showed
higher mortality than the control, during statistical analysis the median lengths of treatment fish
in two cases were smaller than the control fish (rough carpet and smooth), in one case the median
length was larger than the control fish (stone), and in one case was statistically no different in
length than control fish (fiber).
Common carp had the highest survival rates of all the species tested exceeding 99% for all
substrates. Lengths ranged from 9.7 to 35.8 mm (0.38 to 1.4 in.) with the majority of fish falling
in the 16 to 20 mm (0.63 to 0.79 in.) range. None of the treatments were statistically different
than the handling controls indicating that passage through the fish return substrates resulted in no
additional mortality.
Mortality during bluegill substrate testing was relatively low in comparison to golden shiner,
with no immediate mortality and total mortality of 1.4% or less for all treatments and controls.
Bluegill were also tested over a broad range of lengths (10 to 40 mm [0.39 to 1.57 in.]); however,
the majority were greater than 20 mm (0.79 in.). In comparisons of smooth and fiber trough with
the control there was found to be no statistical differences in the median lengths of fish in these
two treatments and the control group (P >0.05) indicating that survival was not influenced by
fish length. Bluegill survival during debris testing was 100% for the control and the surrogate
group and 98.6% for the non-traditional debris group, however this was no statistical different
than the control. Fish lengths during the debris testing range from 18 to 42 mm (0.71 to1.65 in.),
with a majority of the fish (60%) tested measuring 20 to 30 mm (0.79 to 1.18 in.).
Channel catfish survival in the fiber trough was lower than the control, however the other three
treatments (rough carpet, smooth, and stone substrate), there were no statistical differences
between the treatments and the control The fish lengths ranged 11 to 39 mm (0.43 to 1.53 in.);
however, the majority of those tested (52%) were between 15 to 20 mm (0.59 to 0.79 in.).
During debris testing catfish experience higher mortality than bluegill and were tested over a
smaller length range (15 to 28 mm [0.59 to 1.1 in.]). An analysis of the data shows no statistical
difference between survival between the control and treatment replicates which indicates that the
addition of debris did not increase mortality.
2-157
3
STATIONARY SCREENS
Introduction
Stationary screens have had little application at power plant cooling water intake structures
(CWISs). Though installations do exist, we found relatively little information regarding their
biological effectiveness. For example, Units 1 and 2 at the Indian Point Generating Station on
the Hudson River included fixed-screens of 9.5-mm (3/8-in) mesh at the entrance to the intake
bays. Impingement monitoring was conducted from 1973 to 1975, but focused more on the
characterization of fish impinged on the traveling screens than those impinged on the fixed-
screens (Con Ed 1975). Other facilities, including Duke’s Oconee, Marshall, and Belews Creek,
have used stationary screens to protect pumping equipment and prevent the passage of
impingeable sized fish; however, no biological performance data are currently available.
Except on small volume intakes, it is expected that challenges in maintaining fixed-screens in a
clean condition, and thereby minimizing head loss, will preclude use of these screens. This is
particularly true given the availability of other screening alternatives that require less
maintenance, such as traveling screens, cylindrical wedgewire screens, and angled, flat-panel
diversion screens (presented elsewhere in this report). However, for facilities seeking to take
advantage of low through-screen velocity to meet 316(b) requirements, stationary screens may
play an important role. In cases where the existing screen house is recessed from the source
waterbody in a cove or fanned intake channel inlet, it may be possible to install stationary
screens upstream of the existing traveling screens. Because these screens would be installed
across a wider channel inlet, the screening area would be greater, resulting in lower through-
screen velocities. O&M costs associated with debris removal from stationary screens may make
such an installation prohibitively expensive at intakes with high debris or icing issues.
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant

The Brunswick Plant is located in the Cape Fear estuary, approximately 9.2 km (5.7 mi)
upstream from the mouth of the Cape Fear River (Figure 3-1). The plant consists of two
generating units, each rated at 790 MW. Cooling water is drawn into the plant through a 4.8 km
(3 mi) long intake canal. A V-shaped screen structure (referred to as a “diversion structure”) was
installed in the fall of 1982 at the mouth of the intake canal and continues to effectively exclude
larger juvenile and adult fish. An impingement study conducted in 1984 indicated that the
barrier blocked juvenile and adult menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus),
and croaker (Micropogonias undulates), while it did not exclude smaller bay anchovy (Anchoa
mitchilli) (Carolina Power and Light 1985b).
3-1
Figure 3-1
Brunswick Plant layout and fish diversion barrier screen (Carolina Power and Light 1985b)
As shown in Table 3-1, the diversion structure reduced the total number of organisms impinged
on the traveling water screen by 43% when compared to the number impinged before the
diversion structure was installed. The diversion structure reduced the total biomass impinged by
72%.
3-2
Table 3-1
Mean density and mean biomass of selected species impinged at Brunswick, 1977-1985 (from
Thompson 2000). The period between 1977 and 1981 was before the installation of the diversion
screen and the period between 1982 and 1985 was after.
Density (#/million m3) Biomass (kg/million m3)

Taxa 1977- Percent Percent
1982-1985 1977-1981 1982-1985
1981 reduction reduction
Atlantic menhaden 5,481 395 93% 38.8 3.4 91%
bay anchovy 1,788 4,261 + 138% 2.5 3.7 + 48%
spot 362 103 72% 3.7 1 73%
croaker 199 127 36% 1 0.7 30%
blue crab 351 251 28% 4.5 3.6 20%
Total organisms
10,538 5,971 43% 60.6 17.3 72%
collected
Case Studies – Field Studies
Oxbow Fish Hatchery Cascade Locks, Oregon

An evaluation of a horizontal flat-plate screen (Farmers screen) was conducted to determine its
effectiveness at screening fish. The screen was designed by the Farmers Irrigation District in
Hood, Oregon (Figure 3-2). The screening system directs intake water over the horizontal
screen. A high ratio of sweeping velocity to approach velocity creates a sweeping effect,
providing good self-cleaning, reduced effects on fish, and potentially lower installation and
maintenance costs compared to screens with moving parts. A weir wall keeps a constant depth
in the bypass channel. Fish and debris are swept into a bypass tank and are returned back to the
source water body.
3-3
Figure 3-2
Plan and side conceptual views of Farmer screen (Mesa 2012)
Evaluations were conducted at the Oxbow Fish Hatchery in Cascade Locks, Oregon. The screen
at this location was designed to divert 0.28 m3/sec (9.9 cfs) of water from Herman Creek, a
tributary of the Columbia River. Hydraulic assessments determined velocities during biological
evaluations.
Biological performance of the screen was assessed using juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus
kisutch) and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). The first of two investigations quantified short
term mortality and injury to hatchery raised coho salmon exposed to the screen. Two size
groups, large (85 to 145 mm [3.3 to 5.7 in.]) and small (54 to 78 mm [2.1 to 3.1 in.]), were
tested. Approach velocity was set 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5 m/sec (0.7, 1.0, 1.3, and 1.6 ft/sec).
Groups of 8-10 fish were released 1 to 2 m (3.3 to 6.6 ft) upstream of the upper edge of the
screen. All fish were collected in a sanctuary net located at the outfall of the bypass tank. Fish
evaluated for injury were immediately euthanized while fish held for delayed mortality
assessments were transferred to a holding tank. A fluorescein dye method was used to determine
percent of body surface area injured. Mortality was observed for treatment and control fish after
24 and 48 hrs.
The second biological evaluation observed the behavior of yearling hatchery raised coho salmon
and steelhead encountering the leading edge of the screen at approach velocities of 0.1, 0.2, and
0.3 m/sec (0.3, 0.7, and 1.0 ft/sec). A 34-m (111.5-ft) wooden flume was constructed in front of
the screen to provide fish with distance between the release point and upstream edge of the
screen. Groups of 7-10 fish were released in the upstream end of the flume at a set approach
velocity. At 5-min periods, the number of fish who encountered the screen and either passed
over or refused to pass over were recorded. Fish were allowed 20 min to migrate downstream
and any fish remaining upstream were gently prodded downstream and collected after this time.
3-4
A total of 849 fish were tested for delayed mortality. There were no observed mortalities during
any treatment condition after 24 and 48 hrs and one control mortality was observed. The percent
of body area injured ranged from 0.5% to 2.5% for large fish and 0.4 to 3.0% for small fish.
There were no severe injuries observed.
During behavioral tests, a total of 173 coho salmon and 102 steelhead were released. For all
approach velocities, 75 to 95% of all coho salmon released approached and passed the screen
within 5 min and 82 to 98% within 20 min. After 20 min, 3 to 18% of the fish remained in the
flume. Steelhead passing the screen within 5 min ranged from 47 to 90% for all velocities and
increased to 79 to 95% within 20 min. After 20 min, 5 to 21% of steelhead remained upstream
of the screen.
3-5
4
DRUM SCREENS
Introduction
This chapter discusses drum screens that are used as physical barriers and those angled to the
approach flow to guide fish to a bypass (i.e., a diversion system). While drum screens are a
common screening technology world-wide, in the United States there are no installations for fish
protection at cooling water intake structures (CWIS). A recent report prepared for EPRI (2012)
by Electricité de France (EDF) reviews drum screen use in France at CWIS including some
performance information for minimizing impingement mortality. However, in the U.S., drum
screens have been used extensively to block fish passage at hydroelectric and irrigation facilities.
Some of these installations have not been biologically effective due to poor orientation and/or
lack of escape routes. As a result, most of the later drum screen installations have been set at an
angle to the flow to divert fish to bypasses. Replacement of many of the existing angled drum
screen installations with angled flat-panel screens is being considered.
Rotary Drum Screens

Rotary drum screens, such as those shown in Figure 4-1, are used at many small water
diversions. The screens often have bypasses at their ends. The drum is operated approximately
70 to 80% submerged, and debris is carried over or enters the fish bypass. If the submergence
drops much below 70%, debris accumulation and plugging become problems. Therefore,
relatively constant water surface elevation is required with drum screens. In the past 20 years,
many of these screens have been replaced with angled drum or flat-panel screens that actively
divert fish to a bypass.
Angled Rotary Drum Screens

Angled drum screens have provided effective downstream protection for juvenile salmonids at a
variety of hydroelectric and irrigation facilities in the Pacific Northwest (Neitzel et al. 1990).
The angled design of drum screens was developed to reduce fish impingement and to improve
guidance to a bypass. Like angled flat-panel screens, suitable hydraulic conditions at the screen
face and a safe bypass system are required for the screens to effectively protect fish from
entrainment and impingement and to divert them to a bypass for return to the main stem river
channel. Suitable hydraulic conditions include uniform approach velocities, a velocity of about
0.15 m/sec (0.5 ft/sec) or less for the normal velocity component (the component perpendicular
to the screen face), a velocity component along the screen that is at least twice the magnitude of
the normal component, and a relatively constant submergence (Haider and Nelson 1987; Johnson
1988; Pearce and Lee 1991). If the screens are not properly installed and maintained,
unfavorable flow conditions can occur, and effective fish protection and guidance by the screens
can be reduced. Otherwise, the angled drum screen can be considered for use as a fish protection
device. However, in the Pacific Northwest, the current trend in fish screening is the use of flat-
panel angled screens instead of drum screens. Angled drum screens continue to offer protection
for fish in the Pacific Northwest, primarily at irrigation and hydroelectric diversions. These
4-1
screens appear to be operating mostly as designed. Routine maintenance is required to ensure
that velocity, screen submergence, and screen-sealing criteria continue to be met over time. As
stated previously, angled flat-panel screens are being favored over angled drum screens for new
facilities at this time. However, the biological data resulting from studies of these screens is
applicable to angled screens in general and can be used in evaluating the potential for application
of angled fixed or traveling screens (discussed previously) at CWISs.
Figure 4-1
Typical drum screen (EPRI 1986a)
4-2
Case Studies – Rotary Drum Screens - Water Diversion Field Tests
Eagle Point Irrigation District

The Eagle Point Irrigation District diverts 2.6 m3/sec (90 cfs) from South Fork Big Butte Creek,
Oregon, through a drum screen oriented perpendicular to the flow. The facility was installed in
1957 to protect steelhead smolts and resident rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). It is
operated continuously from spring through fall. Screen mesh size is 0.6 cm (1.4 in.), and
approach velocities are 0.6 to 0.9 m/sec (2 to 3 ft/sec). This screen operates effectively under all
flow conditions, seasons, and times of day (EPRI 1986a).
Irrigation Canal No. 1, City of Yakima, WA

The City of Yakima also operates drum screens to screen the flow into city irrigation canal No.
1. Fish species of concern include coho [Oncorhynchus kisutch], Chinook [Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha], and steelhead [Oncorhynchus mykiss]). Screen mesh size is 0.6 cm (0.25 in.), and
screen approach velocity is about 0.3 m/sec (1 ft/sec). These screens are effective under all
conditions (EPRI 1986a).
Patterson Irrigation District

The Patterson Irrigation District withdraws 1.4 m3/sec (50 cfs) from the San Joaquin River
(California) through a drum screen oriented perpendicular to the flow. This screen was installed
in 1978 and is operated continuously from March through October. Fish species of concern
include all life stages of salmonids. Screen mesh size is 0.3 cm (0.1 in.), and screen approach
velocity is 0.1 m/sec (0.33 ft/sec). Although no data are available, the district believes the screen
is highly effective in preventing salmonid entrainment (EPRI 1986a).
Pacific Power and Light

Pacific Power & Light (PP&L) installed drum screens at its Lemolo Units 1 and 2 on the North
Umpqua River (Oregon) to protect downstream migrant salmonids. Due to severe plugging with
"moss" and other debris, the screens do not operate. PP&L has also operated drum screens at
two diversions from the Naches River (Oregon) since 1936. These screens are oriented
perpendicular to the flow and are designed to protect coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), Chinook
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) smolts. While not
functional under severe icing conditions, they are generally reliable and have approach velocities
less than 0.3 m/sec (1 ft/sec). The screens meet all passage criteria except for fry. PP&L is
developing a study plan for further screen evaluation. A third location at which PP&L operates
drum screens (perpendicular to flow) is at its Prospect No. 3 hydroelectric plant on the South
Fork Rogue River (Oregon). These screens have been operated since 1932 and are designed to
protect resident brook (Salvelinus fontinalis), brown (Salmo trutta trutta), and rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss). The facility is effective under all conditions except icing, and there
have been some problems with its paddle drive mechanism. The latter two sites are operated
continuously from spring through fall (EPRI 1986a).
4-3
Various Sites – Idaho
The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (City Water, Light, and Power Company 1981 as cited
in EPRI 1986a) oversees approximately 30 sites with rotary drum screens on irrigation
diversions where anadromous fish are present. The State is very pleased with these systems’
effectiveness (observations indicate essentially 100% passage/survival), and nearly all new
passage systems are the rotary drum type. Drums are set perpendicular in low-flow diversions
and angled in higher-flow diversions.
Woodbridge Fish Facility

The Woodbridge fish facility on the Mokelumne River, California, is a horizontal rotary drum
screen installation. The facility consists of seven 3-m (10-ft) diameter by 1.98 m (6.5 ft) wide
drums with 0.63-cm (0.25-in.) mesh screen. The approach velocity at a flow of 12.7 m3/sec (450
cfs) is 0.18 m/sec (0.6 ft/sec). Study results under these conditions showed that salmon as long
as 40 mm (1.6 in.) could pass through the mesh screen. To avoid such losses, it was
recommended that screen slot width not exceed 0.24 cm (0.09 in.) to prevent passage of Chinook
salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) longer than 30 mm (1.2 in.), as well as American shad
(Alosa sapidissima) longer than 26 mm (1.0 in.) and white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus)
longer than 24 mm (0.9 in.) (Odenweller and Brown 1982).
Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District

The California Department of Fish and Game installed rotary drum screens at the Glenn-Colusa
Irrigation District irrigation diversion on an oxbow of the Sacramento River, California, in the
early 1970s. Forty horizontal drum screens are oriented parallel to the shoreline at the mouth of
the irrigation canal. Each drum is 5.2-m (17-ft) in diameter and 2.4 m (8 ft) wide and is covered
with #4 woven stainless steel wire cloth. Mesh openings measure 4.3 mm (0.17 in.). There is a
fish bypass located at the downstream end of every fourth drum (10 bypasses total), and each
bypass is 15.2 cm (6 in.) wide. The bypasses join and lead to a bypass outlet, which is
downstream of a diversion dam located on an oxbow below the irrigation canal. A trash rack is
located in front of the screens. The screens are operated (using hydraulic pumps) continuously
during the irrigation season (approximately April 15 to November 1). Design approach
velocities are 0.2 m/sec (0.8 ft/sec). Studies by Decoto (1978) using marked fingerling Chinook
salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) indicated an unknown number of salmon are lost through
the screens at Glenn-Colusa, due possibly to mesh passage or seal leakage. However, test and
wild Chinook fingerlings used drum bypasses as indicated by their capture in nets at the bypass
outlet. Decoto (1978) suggested that bypass system efficiency may have been limited by the
narrow bypass width (15 cm [6 in.]), the gravity-flow operation, and sediment accumulation in
the drum bypasses. The primary problem has been a degrading stream bed that prevents fish
access to the bypasses at low flows. The rotary drum screens were eventually replaced with a
flat-panel diversion screen.
Savage Rapids Diversion System

Grants Pass Irrigation District operates revolving drum screens in a gravity canal that is part of
the Savage Rapids Diversion system (Rogue River, Oregon). Gravity flow diverts water to the
canal head works. The system is designed to prevent all fish that may be present from entering
4-4
the canal. Species of concern include spring and fall Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha),
summer and winter steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), and trout.
The screens are operated continuously during the summer (Bureau of Reclamation 1976, 1979).
Mesh size of the screens is 0.6 cm (0.25 in.), and approach velocities are about 0.6 to 0.9 m/sec
(2 to 3 ft/sec). The rotary screens provide good fish protection, with minimal mortalities. The
screens are reliable from an engineering viewpoint and are effective under all conditions
(although some algal clogging does occur).
Case Studies – Rotary Drum Screens – Hydroelectric Field Tests
White River Hydroelectric Plant

Puget Sound Power and Light Company (PSP&L) has diverted 57 m3/s (2,000 cfs) of the White
River through a drum screen oriented perpendicular to flow at its White River Hydroelectric
Plant since 1938. The operation schedule is continuous from March through November. The
screen is designed to protect Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho (Oncorhynchus
kisutch), and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) smolts from entrainment. Survival of 0-age
smolts has been variable but has dropped as low as 10%. Survival of yearlings is about 90%.
Screen mesh size is 0.6 cm (0.23 in.), and screen approach velocity is 0.5 m/sec (1.5 ft/sec). This
facility has been replaced by an angled, fixed-screen diversion and bypass system (EPRI 1986b).
Sizewell Power Station

The Sizewell Nuclear Generating Station (Units A and B) is located on the east coast of England
and withdraws once-through cooling water from the North Sea. Both units have offshore intakes
and onshore drum screens. The Sizewell B intake tunnel was extended further offshore and
capped to reduce aquatic impact. The Sizewell B screens (10 mm [0.4 in.] square mesh) were
designed with fish protection features that included; continuous rotation, higher rotating speeds,
fish buckets and a semi-circular smooth fish return line. The fish return line discharges into the
cooling water discharge system (Turnpenny and Taylor 2000).
To assess the biological efficacy of the screen improvements at Sizewell B, collections off the
screen were made every 15 to 20 min by diverting the fish return water to the trash baskets. Test
animals were separated from the screen wash-water flow at the point of entry using a fine-mesh
Netlon© chute. This chute leads to a tank of sea water where samples were collected. After
being exposed to the return system, fish were held in a fish transport trailer equipped with four
80 L circular tanks. Fish were exposed to chlorinated water at 40°C (104°F) (10°C [50°F] above
ambient seawater temperatures) for 10 min to simulate maximum passage time in the heated
discharge which provided a worst case scenario. Subjects were held for 24 hrs and then assessed
for mortality.
Survival of commercially important species was; flounder (100%), plaice (100%), sole (96.1%),
cod (93.6%), bass (89.2%), dab (80.0%), whiting (47.8%), sprat (0.0%), herring (0.0%), and
shrimp (94.3%). Overall, the fish and trash return system was an improvement over the Sizewell
A intake. Species-specific mortality could have been due to variable physiological tolerances. In
the case of the whiting, high mortality was probably attributed to burst swim bladders that
occurred in 35% of the cases. Flat-fish species had a higher survival because of less surface
abrasion compared to more fragile pelagic fish.
4-5
Case Studies – Angled Rotary Drum Screens – Water Diversion Field Tests
Yakima River Basin

Blanton et al. (1998) provide a review of angled screen evaluations conducted at 19 sites in the
Yakima River basin to assess whether they are being maintained in a way that promotes safe fish
passage. Twelve of the sites have rotary drum screens, six have vertical plate screens, and one
site has vertical traveling screens. The evaluations included measurements of approach and
bypass velocities, checking screen seals, checking screen submergence, and identifying
conditions in the screen and bypass outfall areas that might increase predation. Evaluations were
conducted three times at each site between early May and mid-August of 1997. Water velocities
were measured in front of the screens and in the bypasses. Underwater video techniques were
used to assess screen seal condition, debris accumulation, and fish presence. Auxiliary data were
collected to assess facility equipment and operational conditions as related to effective
downstream fish passage. Fish presence downstream of screens at nine of the sites was
evaluated using fyke nets with 0.3-cm (1/8-in.) knotless netting. Nets typically were placed
immediately downstream of diversion canal head gates.
In general, water velocities at each screening facility were determined to meet Pacific Northwest
standards set by the NMFS (Rainey 1985; Pearce and Lee 1991). At least 10% of approach
water velocity measurements at seven of the screening facilities exceeded the NMFS requirement
of 0.15 m/sec (0.4 ft/sec). Gaps in seals or other components that may allow fish to pass through
screen facilities were identified at 10 of the sites. The submergence level of screens at many of
the facilities exceeded 85%, and one screen was submerged less than 65%. There is a risk of fish
passing over screens if submergence levels exceed 85%; self-cleaning can be hindered if levels
go below 65%. Water depth at bypass outfalls were inadequate (i.e., too shallow) at four of the
facilities. Shallow water at bypass exits typically was observed during August when river flows
were low and fish movement was minimal. Using underwater video, observations of large fish
and habitat characteristics (i.e., types and amount of cover) that may be conducive to predator
presence were used to determine potential predation risks. Five sites were determined to have
relatively high potential for salmonid predation losses based on observations of large fish and
considerable amounts of woody debris at the screens. Removal of woody debris from the base of
drum screens was recommended to reduce predation risks. Maintenance and operation of
screening facilities was considered adequate for most sites. Removal of accumulated sediment
and woody debris was cited as a maintenance procedure that should be improved to minimize
adverse hydraulic conditions and predation potential.
4-6
5
CYLINDRICAL WEDGEWIRE SCREENS
Introduction
Wedgewire screens have the potential to reduce both entrainment and impingement at water
intakes. Wedgewire screens use V or wedge-shaped cross-section wire welded to a framing
system to form a slotted screening element (Figure 5-1). In order to maximize the ability of
wedgewire screens to reduce impingement and entrainment, the following conditions a
preferable:
• Sufficiently small screen slot size to physically block passage of the smallest life stage to
be protected (typically 0.5 to 1.0 mm);
• Low through-slot velocity;
• Ambient currents that are sufficient for sweeping aquatic organisms and debris past a
screen
Wedgewire screens (Figure 5-2) have been effective in preventing entrainment and impingement
of ichthyoplankton and juvenile fish at different types of water intakes (mainly irrigation,
municipal water supply, and cooling water intakes) without any major maintenance problems.
However, as with any screening technology, the potential for clogging and biofouling is a
concern and needs to be addressed in the design and operation this technology. When all
conditions for effective operation are met, wedgewire screens can reduce entrainment and
impingement to levels that usually meet existing regulations and resource agency criteria.
Wedgewire screens would meet the Proposed 316(b) Rule for impingement mortality reduction,
because the design through-slot velocity is less than 0.15 m/sec [0.5 ft/sec].
5-1
Figure 5-1
Cylindrical wedgewire screen panel detail (modified from EPRI)
Figure 5-2
Cylindrical wedgewire screen intake (courtesy of Johnson Screens)
5-2
Logan Generating Plant

A study was conducted to evaluate the performance of 1-mm (0.039 in.) slot wedgewire screens
at the Logan Generating Plant (LGP; Ehrler and Raifsnider 2000) (Figure 5-3). The plant is
located on the Delaware River in Gloucester County, New Jersey. Water is drawn from the river
to replace evaporative water losses from the plant’s closed-cycle cooling system.
Figure 5-3
Wedgewire screen intake at the Logan Generating Plant (Ehrler and Raifsnider 2000)
Samples were collected from the Delaware River adjacent to the plant and from water that had
passed through the wedgewire screens for comparison of larval densities. River water was
sampled by towing a plankton net at water depths of 10.4, 8.5, and 6.7 m (34, 28, and 22 ft).
Samples from the river were collected by towing a 30-cm (1-ft) diameter, 335-μm mesh plankton
net at constant speed. Three sampling transects were established: one was located upriver of the
station, another was aligned with the plant’s fuel dock, and one was located downstream of the
plant. Water that had passed through the screened intake was sampled by pumping water from
the plant’s intake wet well. A total of 30 towed net and entrainment samples were collected.
The most abundant species collected during tow samples in the deep stations (9.1 m [30 ft]) were
striped bass (Morone saxatilis) (39%), white perch (Morone americana) (28%), carps/minnows
(Cyprinidae) and suckers (Catostomidae) (19%), and herrings (Clupeidae) (13%). The most
abundantly collected species at the shallow stations (0.9 m [3 ft]) were river herring (Alosa
pseudoharengus and Alosa aestivalis 80%), white perch (17%), striped bass (2%), and
carps/minnows and suckers (1%).
A comparison between the densities of striped bass in the Delaware River and in the plant’s
makeup water was used to determine the effectiveness of the wedgewire screen intake system. It
5-3
was estimated that an unscreened intake would entrain approximately 0.03% of the local striped
bass larval population. The intake screens were expected to exclude 90% of the striped bass
larvae (Ehrler and Raifsnider 2000). The results of the comparison study resulted in an average
proportional withdrawal of striped bass larvae of 0.003%.
Cope Station
A cylindrical wedgewire screen intake system is in operation at the 385 MW, coal-fired Cope
Station located on the South Fork Edisto River in Orangeburg County, South Carolina (Cumbie
and Banks 1997). The station withdraws 0.3 m3/s (10 cfs) for closed-cycle cooling purposes.
Engineering and model studies were conducted to demonstrate the system’s potential to
minimize impingement and entrainment of fish (including eggs, and larvae). Species of primary
interest included redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), and
shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum).
The intake structure consists of two, 2-mm (0.079 in.) slot cylindrical wedgewire screens. The
screens are affixed to two 0.6 m (24-in.) diameter pipes that project out from a caisson intake
structure. They are arranged in line, with their long axis parallel to the river flow. Through-slot
velocities were found to be a maximum of 0.15 m/sec (0.5 ft/sec). It was concluded that
potential negative impacts of the screens on eggs and larvae was low because the cross-sectional
area of the river was large relative to area influenced by the intake (i.e., probability of organisms
encountering the intake screens was low). The lateral distance over which the screens exert an
entraining influence on the river was determined to be approximately 8% of the stream width at
the intake location. No data were presented with respect to the biological effectiveness of the
screen (i.e., impingement or entrainment rates).
Eddystone Generating Station

Cylindrical wedgewire screens were installed for fish protection purposes at the Eddystone
Generating Station located on the Delaware River (within the tidal influence) near Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania (Veneziale 1991). The four-unit Eddystone station has a generating capacity of
1,400 MW. The screens were installed in front of the cooling-water intakes of Units 1 and 2,
which have a combined flow of about 27.8 m3/sec (980 cfs). The Eddystone Station originally
had trash racks and traveling water screens for collecting fish and debris. Impingement and
entrainment studies revealed that over 3,000,000 fish were impinged on the traveling screens
during a single 20-month period. It was concluded that Delaware River resident and migratory
fish populations were being adversely affected by the Eddystone Plant. Consequently, resource
agencies requested that steps be taken to reduce fish impingement at Eddystone as part of the
facility’s 316(b) requirements. After an extensive review of available fish protection
technologies, the facility chose cylindrical wedgewire screens to replace the existing screens on
the basis of past experience and low maintenance costs.
To support the wedgewire screens, a sheetpile bulkhead was installed at the intake. Sixteen
cylindrical screens were placed in front of the Unit 1–2 intake structure and perpendicular to the
bulkhead (Figure 5-4). The screens are arranged in two rows: eight inboard screens extend 2.1 m
(7 ft) out from the bulkhead and eight outboard screens extend 5.8 m (19 ft) out. The screens can
be removed for manual cleaning, and an air-burst cleaning system was installed to facilitate
debris flushing without removing the screens. Since the screens have been installed, minimal
5-4
debris accumulation has occurred and there has been no visible damage. The air-burst cleaning
system is used infrequently and the screens have experienced no problems with ice buildup. It
has been concluded that fish impingement and screen fouling have been eliminated at Eddystone
(Veneziale 1991).
Figure 5-4
Wedgewire intake system at Eddystone Station (Veneziale 1991)
Jeffrey Energy Center

A cylindrical wedgewire screen cooling water intake system has been operating since 1982 at the
Jeffrey Energy Center (JEC) located on the Kansas River in Kansas (Johnson and Ettema 1988).
The JEC has three 670 MW units that employ a closed-cycle cooling system. Replacement water
for the cooling system is withdrawn from the Kansas River. The river intake system was
designed to withdraw up to 3.1 m3/sec (111 cfs), remain free of floating debris, have a sediment-
free area around the screens, withdraw water during low flow periods, and have low maintenance
requirements (Figure 5-5).
Two screen types were considered for installation at the JEC intake: traveling screens (active
screening) and cylindrical wedgewire screens (passive screening). Through-flow traveling
screens have been installed at other Kansas River water intakes. These screens have operated
efficiently; however, wearing of key parts has contributed to extensive maintenance
requirements. Passive screen systems possess no moving parts that can wear or require extensive
5-5
maintenance. Also, low water velocity between screen wires of cylindrical screens reduces the
potential for fish impingement and entrainment. For these reasons, the cylindrical wedgewire
screens were chosen for installation with the new intake system at JEC.
The screen system that was installed at JEC comprises three cylindrical wedgewire screens
placed along the face of the intake structure (Figure 5-5). The screens are 1.2 m (4 ft) in
diameter, about in 3.4 m (11 ft) in length, have slot openings of 10 mm (0.375 in.), and have a
flow capacity of 1.0 m3/sec (37 cfs), which maintains a 0.15 m/sec (0.5 ft/sec) through-slot
velocity. The screens are capable of being removed for inspection and maintenance. An air
backwash system was installed for screen cleaning. The intake system has been operating for
several years with minimal problems. The screens have been free of sedimentation and debris
accumulation. Maintenance has consisted of daily sediment sluicing and air backwashing and
annual sediment basin dredging. No information was provided with respect to the biological
effectiveness of the screens.
5-6
Figure 5-5
Wedgewire screen intake system — Jeffrey Energy Center (Johnson and Ettema 1988)
Chalk Point Station

A field evaluation of cylindrical wedgewire screens was conducted at the Chalk Point Station in
Aquasco, Maryland from 1982 to 1983 (Weisberg et al. 1987). A modular barge testing facility
5-7
was placed in the intake canal of the station. The barge had two separate but identical intake
ports on which 76-cm (30-in.) diameter cylindrical wedgewire test screens and an open port were
attached (Figure 5-6). During testing in 1982, the pumps withdrew approximately 7.7 m3/min
(4.5 cfs), while in 1983, after refurbishing, the pumps withdrew 12 m3/min (7.1 cfs). The intakes
were positioned 1 m (3.3 ft) below the surface. Screens with slot sizes measuring 1, 2, and 3 mm
(0.039, 0.079, and 0.12 in.) were evaluated. Average through slot velocities for all of the screens
together in 1982 and 1983 were 13 cm/sec (0.43 ft/sec) and 20 cm/sec (0.66 ft/sec), respectively.
Figure 5-6
Drawing of a bulkhead-mounted screen with cut away of wedgewire configuration (Weisberg
et al. 1987)
Samples were collected at night using a 505-µm mesh plankton net located at the discharge from
each pump. A total of 24 samples was collected during testing in 1982 and 88 samples were
collected in 1983. Ambient ichthyoplankton samples were collected just upstream from the
testing barge by towing a bongo net measuring 0.5 m (1.64 ft) in diameter with a 505-µm mesh
at the surface and at depths of 1 and 2 m (3.3 and 6.6 ft).
The most abundant fish species collected were bay anchovy and naked goby. Bay anchovies
(Anchoa mitchilli) were grouped by length classes of ≤ 4 mm, 5 to 7 mm, 8 to 10 mm, 11 to 14
mm, and ≥ 15 mm (≤0.16 in., 0.20 to 0.28 in., 0.31 to 0.39 in., 0.43 to 0.55 in., and ≥ 0.60 in.).
Naked gobies (Gobiosoma bosc) were grouped by length classes of ≤ 4mm, 5 to 6 mm, 7 to 8
mm, and ≥ 9 mm (≤0.16 in., 0.20 to 0.24 in., 0.28 to 0.31 in., and ≥ 0.35 in.) Numbers of fish
entrained are presented in Table 5-1.
5-8
Table 5-1
Mean densities (numbers/1,000 m3 of water) of bay anchovies and naked gobies collected in the
bongo net from the canal, through each wedgewire exclusion screen, and through an open port in
1982 and 1983 (Weisberg et al. 1987).
Fish August 1982 July 1983

Class Screen Screen
Size Bongo Open Bongo Open
(mm) Net Port 2 mm 1 mm Net Port 3 mm 2 mm 1 mm
Bay Anchovy
Eggs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19,610 2,341 1,707 18,435 10,966
≤4 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.0 9.6 13.6 21.0 9.2
5–7 4.5 4.1 0.0 0.0 37.6 20.1 11.3 9.2 10.8
8 - 10 6.2 1.6 1.5 0.0 11.2 7.7 2.6 1.6 1.0
11 - 14 152.9 31.1 10.5 0.0 3.5 1.3 0.3 0.0 0.0
≥ 15 2,469.4 57.3 15.0 1.5 9.3 3.3 0.5 0.4 0.0
Naked Goby
≤4 95.3 17.2 13.5 1.5 223.5 535.7 557.1 513.4 562.5
5–6 117.6 22.9 19.5 6.0 514.8 148.7 87.6 81.6 66.5
7–8 95.5 38.5 16.5 5.8 370.5 49.7 11.2 9.6 3.9
≥9 342.3 201.5 64.6 35.8 243.7 49.1 7.8 4.4 1.9
For bay anchovy, the screens had no significant effect (i.e., exclusion) on eggs and larvae
measuring ≤ 4mm (≤ 0.16 in.). Exclusion became apparent at the 5 to 7-mm (0.2 to 0.28 in.)
length class in 1983, as nearly twice as many anchovy were entrained into the unprotected open
intake than into any of the screens. Exclusion increased in with increasing fish length. Although
more fish were entrained through the larger slot sizes, the differences were not significant, which
may have been due to the small sample sizes.
Although there was over a tenfold decrease in entrainment of naked goby measuring ≤ 4mm
(≤ 0.16 in.) between the unprotected and 1-mm (0.04-in.) screen in 1982, the difference was not
statistically significant. Exclusion by the 1-mm (0.04-in.) screen became apparent at the 5 to 6
mm (0.2 to 0.24 in.) length in 1983. Further, both years of sampling yielded a significant
decrease in the entrainment of fish measuring 7 to 8 mm (0.28 to 0.31 in.) and larger.
The authors cite physical exclusion and hydrodynamic exclusion as the two principal modes by
which wedgewire screens protect ichthyoplankton from entrainment. Evidence for the physical
exclusion caused by the screens is that the smallest slot size (1 mm [0.04 in.]) excluded more fish
than either the 2 or 3-mm (0.08 or 0.12-in.) screens. Further evidence of physical exclusion is
that a head capsule depth of 1 mm (0.04 in.) was not reached until a length of 9 mm (0.35 in.),
and there were essentially no fish over 10 mm (0.39 in.) entrained in the samples. Evidence for
the hydrodynamic exclusion is that fish of both species measuring 5 mm (0.2 in.) in length were
not entrained by the 3-mm (0.12-in.) screen, indicating their ability to swim away from the low-
velocity flow near the screen.
5-9
Charles Point Recovery Facility
Environmental monitoring studies were conducted at the Charles Point Resource Recovery
Facility to evaluate the number, species, and life stage of organisms impinged and entrained by
the facility’s cooling water system (EA Science and Technology 1986). This wedgewire screen
facility has been operating since the early 1980s with little maintenance required (Radle pers.
comm. 1999). The biological studies were performed as a requirement of Westchester RESCO’s
SPDES permit. The facility is located on the east bank of the Hudson River near Peekskill, New
York.
The Charles Point Resource Recovery Facility has a design capacity of 60 MW generated by the
combustion of municipal solid waste. The once-through cooling system has a flow rate of 2.4
m3/sec (85 cfs). The cooling water system consists of an offshore (243.8 m [800 ft]) intake fitted
with four pairs of cylindrical wedgewire screens mounted on T-stands approximately 1.5 m (5 ft)
above the river bottom. The cylindrical wedgewire screen are 1.4 m (4.6 ft) long, 1.4 m (4.6 ft)
in diameter, and constructed of a copper-nickel alloy. The slot width of the screens is 2.0 mm
(0.08 in.), resulting in a design through-slot velocity of 0.15 m/sec (0.5 ft/sec).
The monitoring study was designed to sample ichthyoplankton entrainment and impingement.
Entrainment monitoring was conducted using an Automated Abundance Sampler (AUTOSAM).
Six samples were collected on each date for a 4-hour duration at approximately 1% of the total
flow. A combined total of 15,287 ichthyoplankton was collected by the AUTOSAM from May
through October in 1985 and March through April in 1986. The most abundant species collected
during entrainment sampling from mid-June through September 1985 was bay anchovy (Anchoa
mitchilli) (93.5%). Other ichthyoplankton collected were striped bass (Morone saxatilis) (4.2%),
white perch (Morone americana) (0.9%), and Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod) (0.7%).
The most abundant lifestages collected in entrainment samples were eggs (67.3%) and post-yolk-
sac larvae (31.2%).
Impingement sampling was conducted from May 1985 through April 1986. Organisms were
removed from the intake screens by a specially designed apparatus. A series of guide bars were
welded lengthwise across each of the screen intake structures to allow a vacuum head to move
over the screens and remove impinged organisms. The vacuum head was operated by a diver
and attached to a pump that transported impinged organisms into a collection facility.
Vacuumed materials were screened though a 500-μm mesh net in order to separate impinged
organisms from those that had already passed through the wedgewire screens (Radle pers. comm.
1999).
A total of 175 organisms were collected during 37 samples. Bay anchovy was the most abundant
species (70.3%) collected. Atlantic tomcod, striped bass, and white perch comprised 25.7, 1.1,
and 0.6% of the total impingements collected, respectively. Similar to entrainment samples,
eggs were the most abundant life stage (61.1%) collected during impingement sampling,
followed by larvae (37.1%).
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station

A field study was conducted in 1978 to assess the engineering and biological performance of
cylindrical wedgewire screens (Browne 1979) at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generation Station.
The test screens were mounted on a floating test facility that was moored in the intake canal of
5-10
the station. The test facility had two 7.6 m3/min (2,000-gpm) vertical pumps. Screens with slot
widths of 1, 2, and 3 mm (0.04, 0.08, and 0.12 in.) were tested. The screens measured 76.2 cm
(30 in.) in diameter, were set at a depth of 1 m (3.3 ft), and were designed to generate an average
through slot velocity of 15.2 cm/sec (0.5 ft/sec) during their evaluation. The screens were also
outfitted with air backflushing mechanisms that would activate when a set pressure differential
occurred across the screen face. If backwashing did not maintain a differential of less than 40.6
cm (16 in.), the screens were raised to the test facility’s deck for high-pressure spray washing.
Results of the engineering evaluation revealed that, despite high debris loads during the spring
and early summer, all the screens functioned well with respect to the removal of debris by air
backflushing. Overall down time associated with cleaning the screens was 0.02 to 1.30% and
0.29 to 1.40% for the 1- and 2-mm (0.04- and 0.8-in.) screens, respectively. The author
suggested that these estimates would be decreased substantially by the addition of an automatic
cleaning system.
The biological evaluation of the test screens included entrainment and impingement sampling.
Entrainment samples were collected from the pump discharge pipes using 0.5-m (1.6-ft) diameter
plankton nets with 500-µm mesh. Impingement of larger organisms and fish behavior near the
screens was monitored concurrently to entrainment sampling.
Organisms were not entrained in large enough numbers to draw any significant conclusions.
However, the data that was collected did indicate that fewer target species were entrained
through the 1-mm (0.04-in.) slot screen than through the 2-mm (0.08-in.) screen and an
unscreened intake. Also, target species entrained through the 1-mm (0.04-in.) screen were
generally smaller and narrower than those entrained through the 2-mm (0.08-in.) screen and the
unscreened intake, and densities of target species entrained through the 2-mm (0.08-in.) screen
were sometimes equal to and occasionally greater than densities entrained through the
unscreened intake. Entrainment data for opossum shrimp are presented in Table 5-2.
Monitoring of the screens in situ (Browne et al. 1981) revealed that impingement was negligible
for organisms near the screens. However, American eel (Anguilla rostrata) elvers were observed
impinged on the screens or entrapped in the slots during observations made from January to
April. Various invertebrates were also found impinged on the screen face, though many crabs,
amphipods, and isopods were also seen moving freely along the screen face, possibly feeding on
the other impinged organisms. Larval fish (20 to 25 cm [7.9 to 9.8 in.] TL), such as silversides
(Atherinidae), were also seen swimming near the screen in ambient currents of 15 to 20 cm/sec
(0.5 to 0.7 ft/sec) without any signs of difficulty. Further, impingement of adult fish did not
appear to be an issue.
Besides blue crab, there were no significant differences in entrainment densities of fish and
invertebrates in the 1- and 2-mm (0.04- and 0.08-in.) screens during in situ monitoring.
Organisms entrained in the 1-mm (0.04-in.) screen were typically smaller than organisms
entrained by the 2-mm (0.08-in.) screen and unscreened intake. In some cases, entrainment
densities were not significantly different between the 1- and 2-mm (0.04- and 0.08-in.) screen
and the open intake. The authors suggest that this may be caused by a negative rheotrophic
response to the nearfield velocity regime adjacent to the intake orifice. Entrainment data are
presented in in Table 5-3.
5-11
The amount of biofouling on different screen material revealed that, of the four samples tested,
the steel containing the highest amount of copper possessed the best antifouling characteristics.
Table 5-2
Density (no./m3) length (mm), and width (mm) of Mysidacea (opossum shrimp) in entrainment
sample sets collected January 3, 1979 (Browne 1979).
1-mm Screen 2-mm Screen No screen (control)
Sample Set 1
Density (No./m3 ) 8.9 22.4 19.3
Density relative to no screen

46.0 116.0 100.0
density (%)
Length range (mm) 3.2–7.8 3.3–9.7 3.8–10.1
Mean length (mm) 5.0 6.0 5.7
Width range (mm) 0.4–0.8 0.4–1.1 0.4–1.2
Mean width (mm) 0.6 0.7 0.7
Sample Set 2
Density (No./m )
3
16.2 26.6 20.0
Density relative to no screen

81.0 133.0 100.0
density (%)
Length range (mm) 3.0–9.3 3.3–10.6 3.5–8.7
Mean length (mm) 5.2 5.6 5.2
Width range (mm) 0.3–1.1 0.4–1.2 0.4–1.0
Mean width (mm) 0.6 0.6 0.6
5-12
Table 5-3
Density (no./m3) length (mm), and width (mm) of Mysidacea (opossum shrimp) in entrainment
sample sets collected January 3, 1979 (Browne 1981).
Mean Density
Taxon Lifestage Gear Type
(n/ 100 m3)
1 mm Screen 128
2 mm Screen 135
bay anchovy Egg
Intake Orifice 182
Bongo Net 724
1 mm Screen 12
2 mm Screen 17
bay anchovy Larvae
Intake Orifice 31
Bongo Net 34
1 mm Screen 20
2 mm Screen 26
family atherinidae Larvae
Intake Orifice 10
Bongo Net 54
1 mm Screen 7
2 mm Screen 11
sygnathus fucus Larvae
Intake Orifice 25
Bongo Net 44
1 mm Screen 8
2 mm Screen 6
family blennidae Larvae
Intake Orifice 9
Bongo Net 17
1 mm Screen 15
2 mm Screen 31
family gobiidae Larvae
Intake Orifice 13
Bongo Net 96
5-13
Table 5-3 (Continued)
Mean Density
Taxon Lifestage Gear Type
(n/ 100 m3)
1 mm Screen 33
2 mm Screen 36
order polychaeta Larvae
Intake Orifice 22
Bongo Net 100

1 mm Screen 221
2 mm Screen 116
order cumacea Adults
Intake Orifice 125
Bongo Net 1,059
1 mm Screen 42
2 mm Screen 57
family mysidae Adults
Intake Orifice 56
Bongo Net 42,277
1 mm Screen 125
2 mm Screen 116
cragon setemspinosa Zoeae
Intake Orifice 90
Bongo Net --
1 mm Screen 3
2 mm Screen 12
callinectes sapidus Megalopae
Intake Orifice 9
Bongo Net --
1 mm Screen 229
2 mm Screen 210
order amphipoda Adults
Intake Orifice 213
Bongo Net 353
St. John’s River, FL

A study similar to those conducted by Browne (1979) was conducted by Lifton (1979) on the St.
John’s River in northeastern Florida. The investigations were conducted as a requirement of
Section 316(b) during the construction of a coal-fired electric generating station in Putnam
County, Florida. In this study, entrainment through 1- and 2-mm (0.04- and 0.08-in.) slot
wedgewire screens were compared to entrainment through an open pipe and concurrent plankton
5-14
tows. Entrainment collections were made from March through September for a total of 134
samples. The study was conducted in three phases. Phase I involved in-river sampling to
identify species and life stages vulnerable to entrainment. Phase II involved the collection of
data on the exclusion differences between 1- and 2-mm (0.04- and 0.08-in.) screens, and Phase
III examined operational feasibility, biofouling, and entrainment mitigation.
Individual egg and larvae fish collections for Phase I were conducted by net tow sampling using
a 363-µm mesh plankton net. The wedgewire screen test facility used in Phase II and Phase III
was located on an existing dock at the power plant site. Sampling was conducted over an 8-day
period, and included visual observations of the wedgewire screens, in-river larval tows, and open
pipe entrainment tests to provide control data.
The majority of fish entrained through the 1 and 2-mm (0.04- and 0.08-in.) screens were
unidentified Atherinidae (silverside) species, tidewater silversides (Menidia peninsulae), naked
goby (Gobiosoma bosci) and clown goby (Gobiodon okinawae). The predominant species
entrained through the open pipe were bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), tidewater silverside,
sunfish (Lepomis marcrochirus), naked goby, and clown goby. Fish eggs and larvae were
collected in the 1-mm (0.04-in.) screen samples. The 2-mm (0.08-in.) screen also entrained two
juveniles and some adult fish were entrained through the open pipe. Results of statistical
analyses showed no significant difference in entrainment between the 1- and 2-mm (0.04- and
0.08-in.) screen with respect to organism densities for all species and life stages. Comparisons of
total numbers entrained showed that the screened intakes entrained at least 30% fewer fish than
the open pipe in 16 of 20 comparisons. In 13 of 20 comparisons, the number of fish entrained
was at least 50% less than the open pipe.
J. H. Campbell, Unit 3
Consumers Energy’s J. H. Campbell Unit 3 screen system has functioned effectively since 1979.
Unit 3 withdraws 24 m3/s (849 cfs) from an offshore location (1,067 m [3,500 ft] from shore in
10.7 m [35 ft] of water) through 28 fixed wedgewire screening units with 9.5-mm (3/8-in.) wide
screen slots with a through slot velocity of 0.15 m/sec (0.5 ft/sec). Units 1 and 2 withdraw
cooling water from Pigeon Lake, which empties into Lake Michigan adjacent to the station. It
was believed that locating the Unit 3 intake in the relatively unproductive lake environment
would decrease the potential for entrainment and impingement. When compared to Units 1 and
2, the Unit 3 screens have reduced impingement of gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum),
rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), alewife (Alosa
pseudoharengus), and shiner (Cyprinidae) species and have required minimal maintenance
(Gulvas and Zeitoun 1979). The screens are cleaned manually by water jets to reduce biofouling
(algae). The plant was forced to shut down once (spring 1984) due to anchor ice. Because the
screen mesh is 9.5 mm (3/8 in.), this installation achieves no reduction in entrainment other than
by virtue of its deep offshore location in an area of low abundance of entrainable-sized fish.
Concurrent studies (Roarabaugh et al. 1979 & Zeitoun et al. 1981) concluded that there were no
significant differences in entrainment densities between 2.0- and 9.5-mm (0.08- and 0.37-in.)
screens and the open pipe because of low abundance of entrainable size fish. Operating
experience to date has been satisfactory, due to the large screen slot size and the relatively low
debris loading in Lake Michigan.
5-15
Case Studies – Hydroelectric Application
Arbuckle Mountain Hydroelectric Project

A cylindrical wedgewire screen system was installed in 1986 at the Arbuckle Mountain
Hydroelectric Project located on the Middle Fork of Cottonwood Creek near Redding, California
(Ott et al. 1988). The project operates in a run-of-the-river mode, diverts a maximum of 3.3
m3/sec (115 cfs), has a design head of 16.8 m (55 ft), and a generating capacity of about 400 kW.
Cylindrical wedgewire screens were selected for Arbuckle Mountain to prevent entrainment of
resident and migratory fish and to provide for continuous cleaning to eliminate sediment and
debris buildup. Also, a vertical-axis configuration was selected because material and
construction costs were less than for a horizontal deployment.
The final design of the screen system installed at Arbuckle Mountain consisted of eight screens,
with an intake flow of 0.4 m3/sec (15.7 cfs) per screen. At maximum capacity, the approach
velocity component (normal to the screen face) is 0.1 m/sec (0.33 ft/sec). The screen V-wire was
1.8 mm (0.071 in.) wide with slot openings 2.4 mm (0.094 in.), yielding an open area of 57%.
The screens are mounted on a concrete manifold/plenum chamber and placed in the project
forebay. An internal flow modulator was designed to create uniform flow distribution across the
face of the screen cylinders. For debris management, a pneumatically operated programmable
controller was developed to automatically initiate cleaning of the eight cylindrical screens with
an air burst backwash system. An annular air distributor is mounted outside the flow modulator
that introduces air within a cylinder to backflush water for removal of any debris collected on the
exterior of the cylinder. Also, a conical deflector mounted internally at the top of each cylinder
provides even distribution of the air burst during the backflush cycle. After backflushing,
ambient currents remove accumulated debris. Biological evaluations of the screen system have
not been performed.
Case Studies – Laboratory and Field Evaluations
Laboratory Test EPRI/EPA, Alden Research Laboratory

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) with Water Quality Cooperative Grant
(#X829108010) support from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sponsored the
biological evaluation of cylindrical wedgewire screens (EPRI 2003). The testing was conducted
in a laboratory flume with striped bass larvae (Morone saxatilis) and a surrogate egg type in
2001 and with eight species in 2002. The tests conducted in 2001 were primarily designed to
determine if the test facility and procedures functioned as needed for accurately evaluating the
relative effectiveness of the wedgewire screens. These tests also provided the initial set of data
on relative impingement and entrainment rates of the organisms that were evaluated.
The section of the test facility flume where testing is performed has a maximum depth and width
of 2.1 and 3.0 m (7 and 10 ft), respectively. For 2001 testing, the width of the flume channel was
about 1.5 m (5 ft) and water depth was 1.3 m (4.25 ft). Flume width and water depth for 2002
tests were both 1.8 m (6 ft) (a temporary wall was removed and the plexiglass window was
repositioned to widen the flume prior to 2002 testing). Channel velocities up to 0.9 m/sec (3
ft/sec) can be maintained at full depth. Flow is re-circulated through the flume by a bow thruster
that is driven by an electric motor.
5-16
The location of the screens was about 11.4 m (37.5 ft) downstream of where water is returned to
the flume from the bow thruster (Figure 5-7). At this location, one side of the flume consists of a
plexiglass window that allows for real-time visual and video observations to be recorded during
testing. The wedgewire screen test facility consists of a fish larvae and egg release system, the
wedgewire screens, an entrainment collection system, and a downstream collection system. The
design of the test facilities used in 2001 and 2002 are presented in Figure 5-8 and Figure 5-9,
respectively.
Figure 5-7
Fish testing facility and approximate location of cylindrical wedgewire screens (EPRI 2003)
Figure 5-8
2001 wedgewire screen test facility (EPRI 2003)
5-17
Figure 5-9
2002 wedgewire screen test facility (EPRI 2003)
The screens that were used for the laboratory evaluation were T-12 (30.5-cm diameter [12-in.])
cylindrical wedgewire screens supplied by Johnson Screen (Figure 5-10). The T-12 screens have
two 31 cm (1 ft) long sections through which water is withdrawn. Three screens constructed
with different slot sizes (0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 mm [0.02, 0.04, and 0.08 in.) were evaluated to
determine fish egg and larval entrainment and impingement rates under different channel and
screen flow conditions. All three screens had 1.5 mm (0.06 in.) wide wedgewire bars. The
porosities of the screens were 24.7% for the 0.5-mm (0.02-in.) slot screen, 39.6% for the 1.0-mm
(0.04-in.) screen, and 56.8% for the 2.0-mm (0.04-in.) screen. Design information and flow rates
at each through-slot velocity that was evaluated are presented in Table 5-4.
5-18
Figure 5-10
Johnson T-12 cylindrical wedgewire screen (white lines delineate sections of the screen for which
impingement locations were recorded) (EPRI 2003)
5-19
Table 5-4
Wedgewire screen design and operation parameters evaluated during the laboratory study (EPRI
2003)
Screen Channel Flow Rate

Screen Withdrawal
Slot Open Screen Slot Rate Channel 2001 2002
size Area Porosity Velocity Velocity
(mm) (m )
2
(%) (m/sec) m3/sec gpm (m/sec) m3/sec gpm m3/sec gpm
0.5 0.15 24.7 0.15 0.023 363 0.08 0.15 2,376 0.26 4,039
0.15 0.30 4,753 0.51 8,078
0.30 0.60 9,506 1.02 16,157
0.30 0.046 726 0.08 0.15 2,376 0.26 4,039
0.15 0.30 4,753 0.51 8,078
0.30 0.60 9,506 1.02 16,157
1.0 0.24 39.6 0.15 0.037 582 0.08 0.15 2,376 0.26 4,039
0.15 0.30 4,753 0.51 8,078
0.30 0.60 9,506 1.02 16,157
0.30 0.073 1,164 0.08 0.15 2,376 0.26 4,039
0.15 0.30 4,753 0.51 8,078
0.30 0.60 9,506 1.02 16,157
2.0 0.35 56.8 0.15 0.053 834 0.08 0.15 2,376 0.26 4,039
0.15 0.30 4,753 0.51 8,078
0.30 0.60 9,506 1.02 16,157
0.30 0.105 1,667 0.08 0.15 2,376 0.26 4,039
0.15 0.30 4,753 0.51 8,078
0.30 0.60 9,506 1.02 16,157
The biological evaluation of cylindrical wedgewire screens successfully identified several

important relationships associated with the various factors that affect impingement and
entrainment of aquatic organisms. However, these relationships were not always straightforward
or easily detectable due to interactions among the test variables and the inability to collect data
for all species and life stages with all combinations of test conditions. The following are general
conclusions from the analysis of the entrainment and impingement data that were collected:
1. Impingement decreased with increases in slot size
2. Entrainment increased with increases in slot size
3. Entrainment and impingement increased with increases in through-slot velocities
4. Entrainment and impingement decrease with increases in channel velocity
5-20
This study identified several biological factors that can influence wedgewire screen impingement
and entrainment rates, including life stage, size, and swimming ability. These factors appeared
to be strongly related; although for larvae, life stage is probably inconsequential compared to
size and swimming ability. Specifically, as fish mature during early life stages, they grow larger
and swimming ability improves, allowing for greater physical and behavioral exclusion to occur.
The most pronounced effect of life stage is associated with differences between passive eggs and
actively swimming larvae. The entrainment and impingement of eggs during this study were
related to the size of eggs and hydraulic conditions that influenced downstream movement of
eggs along the screen surface. Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) eggs, which averaged 0.7 mm
(0.028 in.) in diameter, did not impinge on the 0.5-mm (0.02-in.) slot screen but were entrained
at rates of 10 to 20% for the two channel velocities evaluated. The entrainment rate at the lower
channel velocity was nearly 50% greater than at the higher velocity. In contrast to alewife, white
sucker (Catostomus commersonii) and surrogate striped bass eggs were not entrained but were
susceptible to impingement depending on the hydraulic conditions being evaluated. For both
these species, egg impingement rates increased with slot velocity and decreased with channel
velocity.
Based on the estimates of entrainment and impingement for larvae and eggs, protection of
aquatic organisms using cylindrical wedgewire screens will be optimized by minimizing slot size
and slot velocity and maximizing ambient currents approaching a screen or screen array. Design
and operation criteria that result in optimization of these parameters will be dependent on the
target species and life stages. Older and larger organisms will not require as stringent criteria as
younger and smaller organisms that do not possess the size or swimming ability to avoid
impingement and entrainment. Using less than optimum slot size and velocity criteria may be
appropriate if wedgewire screens are located where species and life stages that are potentially
susceptible to entrainment and impingement are not abundant.
The data that was gathered during the biological components of this study clearly demonstrate
that this technology can effectively protect early life stages of fish from entrainment and
impingement when designed according to appropriate biological and hydraulic criteria. It was
concluded that future studies, whether conducted in the laboratory or field, should focus on
interrelationships among a smaller set of design criteria or for specific species and life stages.
Such studies are expected to provide more specific descriptions and a better understanding of the
relationships between biological and engineering design parameters that maximize fish
protection effectiveness.
Laboratory Evaluation – Delmarva Power and Light

Laboratory studies were conducted by Delmarva Power and Light to assist in the development of
a surface water intake using wedgewire screens that would be effective in protecting the early
life stages of fishes (Hanson et al. 1977). These studies were initially conducted to determine the
entrainment and impingement of striped bass (Morone saxatilis) eggs, larvae, and juveniles but
were later expanded to include other fish species. Additional studies were also performed to
investigate potential egg mortality associated with screen contact and impingement.
The majority of the experiments were carried out in a 9.1 by 4.6 m (30 by 15 ft) oval flume
(Figure 5-11). The flume was constructed of aluminum and plywood and was 0.84 m (2.75 ft)
wide and 1.22 m (4 ft) deep. The test screens were placed in the flume and were evaluated under
5-21
both static (no flume flow) and dynamic (flume flow past the screens) conditions. A 5 hp
horizontal pump was used to withdraw flow through the screens with a maximum pump rate of
0.03 m3/sec (1.13 cfs).
Figure 5-11
Schematic diagram of wedgewire test flume (Hanson et al. 1977)
Egg mortality studies were conducted with a flat 30.5-cm (12-in.) square screen panel with a 0.5-
mm (0.02-in.) slot width. The panel screen was placed on the flume wall orientated
perpendicular to the flow. The test screens used to evaluate the exclusion of striped bass eggs,
larvae, and juveniles had slot widths of 1 mm (0.04 in.) or less. Tests with larval striped bass
employed cylindrical wedgewire screens with a diameter of 30.5 cm (12 in.) and a length of 61
cm (24 in.). The cylindrical screens were placed horizontally across the flume channel at about
mid-depth (Figure 5-11).
Striped bass eggs used in the mortality studies were obtained from an onsite hatchery. The
experiments consisted of 30-, 60-, and 120-second impingement trials using live eggs. Trials had
one replicate and one control for each duration. The number of dead eggs was counted and
recorded every 30 min. Egg impingement trials were conducted by releasing a known number of
live eggs into a 0.15 m/sec (0.5 ft/sec) current approximately 1.2 m (4 ft) upstream of the test
screen panel. After the eggs had been impinged for the specified duration, they were siphoned
off the screen into a jar and observed for mortality at 5, 20, 45, and 60 min for the first two tests
and at 5, 30, and 60 min for the remaining tests. A total of 6,945 striped bass eggs were used in
26 tests. The eggs ranged in developmental stage from gastrula to fully developed embryo.
5-22
Statistical tests revealed significant differences between control and test mortality at the 30-min
impingement observations. The gastrula and early embryo developmental stages suffered higher
mortality than other stages in both test and control specimens. Mortality resulting from
impingement ranged from none to 11.9%. Overall, mean mortality from impingement was 1.4%.
Most mortality occurred within the first 30 min of impingement.
Experiments were performed to determine swimming ability and avoidance behavior of striped
bass larvae exposed to a wedgewire screen in static mode (i.e., all flow withdrawn through test
screen with no channel cross-flow). Groups of 50 or less larvae were introduced into the flume
and allowed to acclimate for up to 3 hrs. The specimens were then released into the test area,
which was formed by the screen and a cage that kept them in close proximity to the screen. For
each test, a velocity of 0.04 to 0.15 m/sec (0.13 to 0.50 ft/sec) was established through the test
screen and subsequent behavior of test organisms was noted. The tests were run until all of the
larvae were entrained, which generally occurred in less than 5 min. The larvae were recovered
from the screen discharge pipe in a 500 µm mesh net. Condition and length of the recovered
specimens was then recorded and the surviving larvae were held separately for later experiments.
More than 1,000 larval striped bass were used in 42 tests. Swimming performance and ability to
avoid entrainment was rated on an individual and group basis. Avoidance behavior was
displayed in all the experimental trials. Many specimens exhibited resistance even when contact
was made with the screen. Specimens that did not contact the screen were entrained more
passively.
Larger fish were acquired in seine collections from nearby sources. Some striped bass were also
supplied by the onsite hatchery. The larger test specimens were given 4 to 16 hrs to acclimate to
the test flume water and another 5 to 20 min to acclimate to the test cage. Two different testing
procedures were used for the tests with larger fish. In the first procedure, the screen velocity was
started at a set rate and then increased 0.06 m/sec (0.2 ft/sec) at 10-min intervals until the
maximum rate was reached. The second procedure used a similar incremental increase in
velocity, however, the velocities were held constant for 30-min intervals. The specimens were
monitored continuously throughout the testing period for impingement, entrainment, and
behavior.
The major factors that influenced impingement included intake velocity, fish size, and behavior.
The impingement study of larger fish used a total of 1,387 fish representing 20 species (Table
5-5). Intake velocities up to 0.5 m/sec (1.53 ft/sec) were tested with the 1-mm (0.04 in) slot
width screen. The majority of the experiments were conducted in the static mode (i.e., no
channel flow) with fish contained in close proximity to the screen. The authors assumed that
these were worst-case conditions due to constant exposure and lack of bypass currents to lessen
entrainment and impingement. Fish interactions with the screens were rare in tests conducted in
the dynamic mode (i.e., with channel flow). Impingement and interaction of fish with the
screens varied by species. Of the 1,318 fish tested in the static mode, only 20% of the 261 fish
that became impinged failed to escape the screen after impingement. The authors suggest that
handling stress may have contributed to fish that experienced prolonged impingement. Thirty-
four specimens died as a result of testing. The authors note that most of these fish were in poor
condition prior to the impingement trials (Hanson et al. 1977).
5-23
Table 5-5
Impingement occurrence (Hanson et al. 1977)
Mean
Intake Susceptibility
Species n FL (mm) I.O.a Escapes Fish-min.b Impingement
Velocity (ft/s) Indexc
Duration (min.)
alewife 37 37-65 0.50-1.50 0 -- -- -- 0.0000
Atlantic menhaden 77 38-145 0.50-1.50 15 12 34.25 2.28 0.0164
bay anchovy 68 25-71 0.50-1.50 85 73 214.95 2.53 0.1202
carp 39 17-30 0.00-0.79 7 7 26.00 3.71 0.0118
silvery minnow 4 30-31 0.50-1.50 0 -- -- -- 0.0000
golden shiner 14 35-56 0.21-1.42 0 -- -- -- 0.0000
spottail shiner 34 23-77 0.50-1.50 5 1 186.01 37.20 0.2989
banded killifish 10 34-89 0.96-1.42 0 -- -- -- 0.0000
mummichog 7 37-75 0.98-1.42 0 -- -- -- 0.0000
tidewater silverside 44 27-81 0.41-1.50 5 5 0.29 0.06 0.0001
Atlantic silverside 136 34-95 0.50-1.50 7 7 0.09 0.01 Td
threespine stickleback 1 23 1.00 2 2 0.04 0.02 0.0013
white perch 96 21-41 0.50-1.50 24 24 4.79 0.20 0.0017
striped bass 648 8-151 0.31-1.50 77 49 996.96 12.95 0.0335
pumpkinseed 3 70-91 1.50 0 -- -- -- 0.0000
bluegill 30 25-98 0.20-1.50 0 -- -- -- 0.0000
yellow perch 18 34-40 0.50-1.50 0 -- -- -- 0.0000
bluefish 4 64-135 0.41-1.25 0 -- -- -- 0.0000
weakfish 53 31-93 0.50-1.50 13 13 0.70 0.05 0.0004
spot 64 36-98 0.50-1.50 23 19 71.65 3.12 0.0427
I.O. = Impingement Occurrence.
(a)
Fish-min = the sum of the products of the number of fish and the time exposed to any event.
(b)
Susceptibility Index = [I.O.-E.S./I.O. + 1] [F.M./T.F.M.]

(c)
where:
I.O. is the number of impingement occurrences
E.S. is the number of escapes
F.M. is fish-min impinged
T.F.M is total fish-min exposed
T<0.00005.
(d)
5-24
These laboratory studies were followed by in situ tests on the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal.
A test facility was installed with a single 1-mm (0.04-in.) slot wedgewire screen capable of
withdrawing up to 4.4 m3/sec (155 cfs) with a corresponding slot velocity of 0.24 m/sec (0.8
ft/sec). A series of 24-hour studies was conducted once each month from June through
September. Samples were taken every 3 hrs in conjunction with concurrent ichthyoplankton
tows at a nearby station. The majority of eggs collected were bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli).
White perch (Morone americana) and bay anchovy accounted for the majority of larvae
collected. Statistical analysis showed that the density of prolarvae, post-larvae, juvenile, and all
life stages combined was significantly lower in entrainment samples than in towed
ichthyoplankton samples (Hanson et al. 1978).
Laboratory Evaluation – Entergy/Alden

Entergy Nuclear Indian Pont 2, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC (IPEC) sponsored
the biological evaluation of cylindrical wedgewire (CWW) screens in 2010 (NAU and ASA
2011a). The purpose of the study was to determine the effectiveness of CWW screens at
reducing entrainment of fish eggs and larvae at various slot widths and flow regimes indicative
of those found at IPEC. This work expands on previous work sponsored by EPRI (EPRI 2003)
and was designed to understand and estimate three mechanisms influencing entrainment:
hydraulic bypass, avoidance, and mechanical exclusion.
Testing was conducted at Alden Research Laboratory, Inc (Alden). The flume configuration was
designed to emulate EPRI-sponsored evaluations (EPRI 2003), with some modifications made to
the fish collection system. Johnson model T-12 screens with slot widths of 2, 3, 6, and 9 mm
were tested. Flume velocities were 0.08, 0.15, and 0.30 m/sec (0.25, 0.5, and 1.0 ft/sec) and
through-slot velocities were 0.08 and 0.15 m/sec (0.25 and 0.5 ft/sec). A total of 24 test
combinations were produced between slot width, flume velocity, and through-slot velocity.
Tests were conducted under both ambient light and nighttime conditions. Tests were conducted
by releasing neutrally-buoyant beads, fish eggs of approximately 1 and 3 mm diameter, and fish
larvae with robust (Atlantic tomcod [Microgadus tomcod], striped bass [Morone saxatilis]) and
slender (white sucker [Catostomus commersonii]) body forms at a location of known high
probability of entrainment immediately upstream of the test screen. The length, body depth, and
number of the test subjects carried past, entrained through, or excluded and retained on the
cylindrical wedgewire screen was recorded. Various species of fish larvae (live and dead) and
eggs were used. Total length and body depth were recorded in order to relate performance to
fish size.
Avoidance was typically higher during the day, for the smaller slot sizes, for the lower through-
slot velocity, and at higher ratios of flume/slot velocity. Exclusion of live larvae was reduced as
slot velocity increased on the 2 mm screen. Exclusion of white sucker eggs (3.3-mm diameter)
by the 2-mm screen was nearly 100% at either through-slot velocity, but was somewhat lower
(70%-95%) with the 3-mm screen. The probability of being swept off, if excluded, was higher
for the white sucker eggs than for fish larvae, was higher for the low through-slot velocity (0.08
m/sec [0.25 ft/sec]), and increased with increasing flume velocity. The 2010 laboratory study
confirmed that avoidance of the cylindrical wedgewire screens tested occurs for fish larvae, and
that the ability to avoid the screen increases exponentially with length (NAI and ASA 2011a).
5-25
The laboratory studies were repeated in 2011 (NAI and ASA 2011b). The first objective was to
supplement the testing conducted in 2010 by repeating the 2010 test procedure for flume
velocities of 0.15, 0.30, 0.46, 0.61 m/sec (0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 ft/sec). The second objective of
the 2011 laboratory study was to further refine the means of estimating the efficacy of the full-
scale T-72 (1.8-m [72-in.] diameter screens in “T” configuration) cylindrical wedgewire screens
that are proposed for implementation at the IPEC. This objective was to be accomplished by (1)
conducting additional laboratory flume studies in 2011, (2) conducting CFD modeling in support
of the flume studies, and (3) integrating the new information from 2011 with the studies done in
2010. Efficacy of the screens appears to be related to the ambient velocity flowing past the
screens through two complementary effects. Efficacy is the probability that an organism
encountering the screen will not be entrained and is the combination of hydraulic bypass,
avoidance, and, potentially, exclusion for larger organisms. Combination of these three
mechanisms generally resulted in an increase in efficacy as ambient velocity increased. The
2011 studies, using data obtained from the T-12 and T-18 screens tested in the lab, found no
effect of the length of screen on efficacy. Larval length was an important factor in determining
avoidance capability, and therefore also overall efficacy of the screens (NAI 2011b).
Field Evaluation - Narragansett Bay, RI; Portage River, OH; and Chesapeake Bay,
VA
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) conducted field evaluations of narrow-slot
wedgewire screens to examine entrainment rates of naturally-occurring fish species and life
stages at three sites with unique hydraulic and environmental conditions (EPRI 2005, EPRI
2006b). The previous EPRI laboratory study (EPRI 2003) identified key aspects of design and
operation that affect the biological performance of narrow-slot wedgewire screens. The
subsequent EPRI field studies were conducted as follow-up testing to quantify the effects of
environmental variables, such as non-uniform flows, debris, and biofouling, on entrainment of
ichthyoplankton. Specifically, the initial objective was to estimate entrainment rates of
naturally-occurring fish species from one estuarine site and one freshwater site through 0.5- and
1.0-mm (0.02- and 0.04-in.) wedgewire screens. A second estuarine site was selected for testing
after the first year of study was completed at the first two sites.
A floating barge test facility was constructed specifically for the field evaluations of wedgewire
screens (Figure 5-12). The barge had intakes for two wedgewire screens and an open port on the
bow. The port-side intake was capped with a 0.5-mm (0.02-in.) slot cylindrical screen and the
starboard-side intake was capped with a 1.0-mm (0.04-in.) slot cylindrical screen. The open port
was capped with a 9.5-mm (3/8-in.) coarse debris screen and was located between the two
wedgewire screen intakes. Two hydraulically driven fish pumps were used to withdraw water
through the open port (control) intake and either one of the two wedgewire screen (treatment)
intakes. Water was discharged into 335-µm mesh plankton nets to collect entrained
ichthyoplankton. Ambient ichthyoplankton density was determined by sampling from the side of
the barge with a 335-µm mesh plankton net.
5-26
Figure 5-12
Test facility in plan and elevation view (EPRI 2005). Note that flexible hoses connecting pumps to
sampling pipes have been omitted from both views and the diesel hydraulic pump drive has been
omitted from the elevation view for clarity.
The two test screens were constructed of single-screen, stainless steel, wedgewire (Johnson
Screens). The control intake simulated the conical intakes found at the majority of conventional
traveling water screens. The 0.5-mm (0.02-in.) screen was 41 cm (16.1 in.) in diameter and 46
cm (18.1 in.) in length with a discharge diameter of 20 cm (7.9 in.). The 1.0-mm (0.04 in.)
screen was 30 cm (11.8 in.) in diameter and 36 cm (14.2 in.) in length with a discharge diameter
of 15 cm (5.9 in.). Porosities of the 0.5-mm (0.02-in.) screen, 1.0-mm (0.04-in.) screen, and the
9.5-mm (0.37-in.) mesh-covered control port were 23.8, 38.5, and 70.6% respectively. Sizing of
5-27
the wedgewire screens and control intake were such that respective through-slot velocities were
equal for each intake at a given flow rate.
The first estuarine site selected for testing was on the Sakonnet River within Narragansett Bay
and was selected for its abundance of target species and absence of dredging activity. Testing
was conducted five to seven days per week in April and May of 2004. The barge was moored
approximately 100 m (328 ft) from the eastern shore of the river in 15.7 m (51.5 ft) deep water.
The intakes were positioned at a depth 1.5 m ([5 ft] on center) below the water surface. Six trials
averaging 55 min in duration were completed daily. Sampling was conducted from one hour
after high tide until one hour after low tide.
The independent variables evaluated in this study included slot width (0.5 and 1.0 mm [0.02 and
0.04 in.]), screen slot velocity (0.15 and 0.30 m/sec [0.5 and 1.0 ft/sec]), and ambient velocity (0
to 1.1 m/sec [0 to 3.6 ft/sec]). Each combination of treatment conditions was replicated 10 times.
All collected larvae were enumerated, identified to species when possible, and preserved for
subsequent analysis. A subset of individuals was measured for length and head capsule depth
(HCD). An ambient sample averaging 60 m3 (2,119 ft3) was collected with a plankton net towed
20 m (65.5 ft) downstream of the test facility at a depth of 1.5 m (5 ft). This ambient sample
served to characterize species composition and densities. Comparative densities of entrained
eggs and larvae between paired test and control intakes provided relative effectiveness
measurements of entrainment reduction.
The freshwater site was located on the Portage River approximately 600 m (1,968.5 ft) upstream
of Lake Erie. This site was selected for its high concentrations of target Great Lakes species.
Testing was conducted seven days a week in May and June of 2004 and is procedurally similar
to the Sakonnet River site unless otherwise noted. The barge was moored in 2.4 m (8 ft) deep
water. The intakes were positioned 1.2 m (4 ft) below the water surface. Unlike the tidal
estuarine sites, the effects of ambient water velocity could not be ascertained due to the absence
of any predictable variation in water velocities. Therefore, two trials, averaging 4 hrs in
duration, were conducted daily to maximize sample sizes. Each pair of trials evaluated the same
slot size, but different slot velocities. Each test condition was replicated 10 times. To minimize
mechanical damage to larvae, entrainment nets were rinsed hourly during each 4-hour trial. All
collected larvae were enumerated, identified to species when possible, and preserved for
subsequent analysis. An ambient ichthyoplankton sample averaging 60 m3 (2,119 ft3) was
collected for each trial by towing a plankton net 20 m (65.6 ft) behind a john boat. Comparisons
between treatment and control entrainment densities were analyzed as described above for the
Sakkonet River site.
A total of 11 species of larval fish were collected during the Sakonnet River sampling. Sand
lance (Ammodytes americanus), winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus), and grubby
(Myoxocephalus aenaeus) comprised 51, 34, and 13%, respectively, of all larval fish collected.
These were the only species collected in sufficient quantity for statistical analysis. A total of 15
species of larval fishes were collected during the Portage River sampling. While 93% of all
larvae collected at this freshwater site were shad species (Clupeidae), sufficient numbers of carp
(Cyprinidae), freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens), and temperate basses (Morone spp.)
were collected to allow statistical analysis.
The mean densities of all larvae and eggs collected in treatment, control, and ambient samples
during Sakonnet River testing are presented in Table 5-6 through Table 5-10. For grubby, the
5-28
0.5-mm (0.02-in.) screen significantly reduced entrainment by more than 92% for all length
classes combined. For larvae greater than 7 mm (0.28 in.) in length, the reduction increased to
100%. The 1.0-mm (0.04-in.) screen significantly reduced entrainment of grubby over 7 mm
(0.28 in.) by 84%. The 0.5-mm (0.02-in.) screen significantly reduced the entrainment of sand
lance by 80 and 93% for all length classes combined. The 1.0-mm (0.04-in.) screen offered no
significant reduction in entrainment for sand lance. For winter flounder, which were
considerably smaller than other species, the 0.5-mm (0.02-in.) screen significantly reduced
entrainment of all combined length classes by 44 -56%. The 1.0-mm (0.04-in.) screen did not
offer any significant reduction in entrainment to winter flounder. Overall, the 0.5-mm (0.02-in.)
screen reduced the entrainment of all larvae at the Sakonnet River site by 82 and 72% at the 0.15
and 0.30 m/sec (0.5 and 1.0 ft/sec) slot velocities, respectively. For all larvae combined, the 1.0-
mm (0.04-in.) screen offered no significant reduction in entrainment at either slot velocity. The
0.5-mm (0.02-in.) screen significantly reduced the entrainment of eggs by 93 and 100% at slot
velocities of 0.15 and 0.30 m/sec (0.5 and 1.0 ft/sec), respectively (Table 5-10). Although mean
densities were lower in treatment samples, no significant reduction in the entrainment of eggs
was observed with the 1.0-mm (0.04-in.) screen.
The mean densities of all larvae and eggs collected in treatment, control, and ambient samples
during Portage River testing are presented in Table 5-11 through Table 5-15. For shad, the 0.5-
mm (0.02-in.) screen only produced a significant reduction in entrainment (98% reduction) at a
slot velocity of 0.15 m/sec (0.5 ft/sec) for fish between 7 and 9 mm (0.28 and 0.35 in.).
Similarly, the 1.0-mm (0.04-in.) screen only produced a significant reduction in entrainment
under one test condition, a 47% reduction at a slot velocity of 0.30 m/sec (1.0 ft/sec) for fish
between 4 and 6 mm (0.16 and 3.8 in.). For carp, the 0.5-mm (0.02-in.) screen produced no
significant reduction in entrainment, while the 1.0-mm (0.04-in.) screen did at 0.30 m/sec (1.0
ft/sec). For freshwater drum, there were no significant reductions in entrainment at any test
conditions despite large differences between treatment and control densities. For temperate
basses, despite reductions over controls of over 65% for each test condition, the statistical
analysis revealed no significant differences in densities. The paucity of carp, freshwater drum,
and temperate bass collected during this study (less than 5% of the total) limited the statistical
power of the analysis. The 0.5-mm (0.02-in.) screen significantly reduced the entrainment of
eggs by 98 and 93% at slot velocities of 0.15 and 0.30 m/sec (0.5 and 1.0 ft/sec), respectively
(Table 5-15). Although the mean density of eggs at 0.15 m/sec (0.5 ft/sec) with the 1.0-mm
(0.04-in.) screen was considerably lower, no significant reduction was detected in the analysis.
5-29
Table 5-6
Mean density and standard deviation (SD) of grubby larvae collected at the Sakkonet River site in
ambient, control, and test samples during trials with 0.5 and 1.0 mm screens at slot velocities of
0.15 and 0.30 m/sec (EPRI 2005). C-T is the percent difference between test and control densities.a
Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between test and control densities (p<0.05).
Slot Slot Larval Mean Number Entrained per 100 m (SD)

3
C-T Percent
Width Velocity Length Difference
(mm) (m/sec) (mm) Ambient Control Test (Valid Trials)
0.5 0.15 ≤3 0.7 (2.4) 0.9 (2.4) 0.1 (0.4) 92.5 (7)
4-6 12.2 (15.5) 8.9 (14.0) 0.4 (0.9) 95.8 (19)*
7-9 5.9 (7.9) 3.2 (7.2) 0.0 (0.0) 100.0 (10)*
≥10 0.8 (1.3) 0.7 (1.7) 0.0 (0.0) 100.0 (5)*
All 19.5 (23.2) 13.7 (23.2) 0.4 (1.2) 96.7 (19)*
0.30 ≤3 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.5) 0.0 (0.2) 77.8 (4)
4-6 8.9 (9.2) 7.6 (13.8) 0.7 (1.1) 90.2 (23)*
7-9 1.6 (3.3) 2.3 (4.9) 0.0 (0.0) 100.0 (12)*
≥10 0.5 (0.7) 0.4 (0.8) 0.0 (0.0) 100.0 (7)*
All 12.5 (11.4) 10.4 (18.0) 0.8 (1.1) 92.5 (23)*
1.0 0.15 ≤3 0.6 (2.0) 1.5 (3.9) 0.8 (2.5) 44.6 (13)
4-6 6.5 (5.8) 7.3 (16.6) 4.8 (9.3) 33.7 (26)
7-9 1.8 (4.8) 1.8 (4.4) 0.3 (1.6) 83.8 (9)*
≥10 0.8 (2.1) 0.2 (0.9) 0.0 (0.0) N/Ab
All 9.9 (10.3) 10.8 (22.8) 6.0 (11.8) 44.5 (26)*
0.30 ≤3 0.3 (0.9) 0.5 (0.9) 0.2 (0.4) 63.2 (7)
4-6 3.7 (6.4) 5.2 (12.0) 3.3 (6.2) 35.9 (18)
7-9 2.6 (5.6) 1.7 (3.5) 0.2 (0.9) 89.1 (10)*
≥10 2.0 (4.9) 0.0 (0.2) 0.0 (0.0) N/Ab
All 8.6 (16.5) 7.3 (15.3) 3.7 (7.0) 50.1 (21)*
a
“C-T Percent Difference” is calculated as [(control density minus test density) divided by control density].
Thus, positive values indicate lower densities in test samples.
b
Insufficient data for meaningful comparison.
5-30
Table 5-7
Mean density and standard deviation (SD) of sand lance larvae collected at the Sakkonet River
velocities of 0.15 and 0.30 m/sec (EPRI 2005). C-T is the percent difference between test and
control densities.a Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between test and
control densities (p<0.05).

3
C-T Percent
0.5 0.15 ≤5 0.0 (0.0) 0.8 (1.7) 0.2 (0.6) 78.6 (6)*
6-10 57.6 (80.2) 43.6 (102.9) 2.9 (7.5) 93.4 (16)*
11-15 34.9 (45.0) 4.7 (13.6) 0.1 (0.3) 98.8 (8)*
≥16 0.7 (1.4) 0.1 (0.5) 0.0 (0.0) 100.0 (2)
All 91.6 (114.6) 47.5 (112.6) 3.2 (7.5) 93.3 (17)*
0.30 ≤5 0.0 (0.0) 1.1 (3.0) 0.9 (1.9) 15.0 (11)
6-10 38.5 (56.0) 20.0 (35.9) 4.0 (9.1) 80.0 (20)*
11-15 28.8 (97.4) 1.3 (2.4) 0.1 (0.2) 95.9 (12)*
≥16 5.8 (17.4) 0.3 (1.0) 0.0 (0.0) 100.0 (4)
All 87.5 (134.4) 24.9 (38.9) 4.9 (9.8) 80.2 (23)*
1.0 0.15 ≤5 0.0 (0.0) 0.9 (2.1) 1.0 (3.1) -15.3 (8)
6-10 41.5 (49.3) 10.3 (16.1) 13.4 (20.0) -29.8 (23)
11-15 32.6 (49.8) 1.4 (2.9) 1.1 (3.6) 23.9 (11)
≥16 7.6 (25.3) 0.2 (1.1) 0.0 (0.0) N/Ab
All 81.8 (89.8) 12.8 (18.8) 15.5 (23.0) -20.8 (24)
0.30 ≤5 0.0 (0.0) 0.8 (1.7) 0.9 (2.3) -13.2 (9)
6-10 61.0 (88.4) 20.0 (40.1) 19.5 (33.3) 2.5 (14)
11-15 50.1 (51.9) 1.0 (1.6) 1.4 (2.5) -43.7 (9)
≥16 29.8 (39.5) 0.2 (0.3) 0.0 (0.0) 100.0 (4)
All 111.8 (122.1) 19.0 (35.4) 18.6 (33.1) 2.2 (21)
a
b
5-31
Table 5-8
Mean density and standard deviation (SD) of winter flounder larvae collected at the Sakkonet
River site in ambient, control, and test samples during trials with 0.5 and 1.0 mm screens at
slot velocities of 0.15 and 0.30 m/sec (EPRI 2005). C-T is the percent difference between test
and control densities.a Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between test
and control densities (p<0.05).

3
C-T Percent
0.5 0.15 ≤3 13.5 (12.9) 12.3 (12.0) 8.2 (11.8) 33.6 (24)*
4-6 16.0 (14.0) 13.4 (18.3) 3.1 (5.4) 76.9 (20)*
7-9 1.9 (2.3) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0.0) N/Ab
≥10 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0.0) N/Ab
All 31.4 (19.5) 25.7 (26.0) 11.3 (14.7) 56.2 (24)*
0.30 ≤3 17.5 (16.9) 6.0 (5.3) 5.3 (5.9) 10.9 (26)
4-6 45.6 (82.5) 11.4 (12.4) 4.4 (6.6) 61.2 (24)*
7-9 5.0 (13.5) 0.0 (0.2) 0.0 (0.2) -30.6 (2)
≥10 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) N/Ab
All 77.0 (89.9) 17.4 (15) 9.8 (11.0) 43.8 (26)*
1.0 0.15 ≤3 30.0 (22.0) 10.1 (8.8) 12.0 (9.0) -18.6 (30)
4-6 34.5 (19.8) 10.0 (10.2) 9.4 (12.0) 5.8 (31)
7-9 3.1 (8.0) 0.3 (1.1) 0.3 (1.5) -16.4 (4)
≥10 0.1 (0.4) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) N/Ab
All 67.7 (29.8) 20.4 (16.2) 21.7 (17.0) -6.7 (31)
0.30 ≤3 18.2 (16.5) 5.9 (6.1) 4.3 (4.9) 26.6 (24)
4-6 14.7 (12.6) 9.0 (8.8) 8.0 (11.0) 11.0 (22)
7-9 0.7 (1.4) 0.2 (0.6) 0.1 (0.3) 44.2 (4)
≥10 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) N/Ab
All 33.3 (20.6) 14.5 (14.7) 12.1 (13.1) 16.9 (25)
a
b
5-32
Table 5-9
Mean density and standard deviation (SD) of larvae (all species) collected at the Sakkonet
River site in ambient, control, and test samples during trials with 0.5 and 1.0 mm screens at
slot velocities of 0.15 and 0.30 m/sec (EPRI 2005). C-T is the percent difference between test
and control densities.a Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between test and

3
C-T Percent
0.5 0.15 ≤3 13.5 (11.7) 12.7 (12.2) 7.7 (11.1) 39.2 (28)*
4-6 32.7 (28.6) 24.6 (30.6) 4.6 (7.2) 81.2 (25)*
7-9 39.8 (56.4) 28.1 (69.5) 1.7 (5.3) 93.8 (18)*
≥10 49.5 (70.4) 15.8 (46.0) 0.2 (0.8) 98.8 (13)*
All 135.5 (133.5) 81.1 (144.8) 14.5 (19.6) 82.2 (29)*
0.30 ≤3 18.1 (16.4) 6.1 (5.5) 5.0 (5.7) 17.2 (29)
4-6 52.1 (82.0) 23.8 (29.5) 6.4 (9.1) 73.2 (27)*
7-9 30.0 (45.0) 17.3 (28.3) 2.6 (6.6) 85.2 (23)*
≥10 88.6 (177.5) 5.3 (8.1) 0.1 (0.6) 97.2 (19)*
All 210.5 (194.7) 52.6 (65.2) 14.5 (17.7) 72.4 (29)*
1.0 0.15 ≤3 30.2 (21.9) 11.7 (9.8) 12.7 (9.5) -8.4 (31)
4-6 41.6 (18.6) 18.2 (21.2) 16.2 (20.0) 10.7 (32)
7-9 32.9 (43.2) 10.0 (15.8) 10.1 (16.3) -0.3 (23)
≥10 61.7 (79.1) 3.6 (7.7) 3.1 (8.9) 14.5 (16)
All 166.4 (96.8) 43.5 (44.7) 42.2 (42.1) 2.9 (32)
0.30 ≤3 18.8 (15.6) 5.8 (6.2) 4.7 (5.0) 18.9 (29)
4-6 18.0 (15.7) 18.5 (24.4) 15.1 (22.1) 18.5 (28)
7-9 41.2 (79.1) 14.3 (27.8) 12.4 (23.8) 13.0 (24)
≥10 75.1 (89.1) 3.7 (4.1) 2.8 (5.3) 23.1 (25)
All 153.2 (147.0) 43.3 (56.5) 35.7 (49.3) 17.6 (30)
a
hus, positive values indicate lower densities in test samples.
5-33
Table 5-10
Mean density and standard deviation (SD) of eggs collected at the Sakonnet River site in ambient,
control, and test samples during trials with 0.5 and 1.0 mm screens at slot velocities of 0.15 and
0.30 m/sec (EPRI 2005). C-T is the percent difference between test and control densities.a
Slot Slot Mean Number Entrained per 100 m3 (SD) C-T Percent
Width Velocity Difference
(mm) (m/sec) Ambient Control Test (Valid Trials)
0.5 0.15 14.2 (12.1) 14.5 (10.8) 1.1 (5.9) 92.5 (26)*
0.30 44.0 (55.6) 22.8 (25.0) 0.0 (0.1) 99.9 (30)*
1.0 0.15 60.6 (42.2) 42.0 (39.0) 30.6 (23.2) 27.0 (32)
0.30 38.2 (42.9) 42.9 (42.8) 39.6 (37.1) 7.7 (29)
a
“C-T Percent Difference” is calculated as [(control density minus test density) divided by control density]. Thus,
positive values indicate lower densities in test samples.
Table 5-11
Mean density and standard deviation (SD) of carp spp. larvae collected at the Portage River site in
0.5 0.15 0.3 (0.9) 2.2 (5.6) 2.7 (7.2) -22.1 (7)
0.30 0.0 (0.0) 1.5 (2.9) 1.1 (1.5) 22.3 (6)
1.0 0.15 3.6 (7.4) 1.3 (2.5) 2.1 (3.7) -65.5 (6)
0.30 12.4 (25.2) 6.0 (9.3) 2.7 (5.1) 54.3 (7)*
a
5-34
Table 5-12
Mean density and standard deviation (SD) of freshwater drum larvae collected at the Portage River
control densities.a Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between test and
Slot Slot Mean Number Entrained per 100 m (SD)

3
C-T Percent
0.5 0.15 1.6 (4.2) 2.5 (5.5) 0.1 (0.2) 96.4 (4)
0.30 43.1 (131.5) 14.2 (36.4) 0.6 (1.6) 95.9 (4)
1.0 0.15 19.7 (52.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.3) N/Ab
0.30 199.3 (549.6) 9.9 (19.9) 2.8 (5.5) 71.7 (2)
a
5-35
Table 5-13
Mean density and standard deviation (SD) of shad larvae collected at the Portage River site in

3
C-T Percent
0.5 0.15 ≤3 46.4 (83.5) 51.6 (91.6) 59.6 (127.2) -15.5 (9)
4-6 662.5 (884.2) 88.2 (62.4) 57.1 (94.4) 35.2 (8)
7-9 535.1 (1,017.7) 8.4 (9.5) 0.1 (0.4) 98.2 (5)*
≥10 28.4 (69.5) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) N/Ab
All 1,272.6 (1,931.4) 148.2 (148.6) 116.9 (220.3) 21.1 (9)
0.30 ≤3 182.3 (357.5) 72.7 (98.8) 63.9 (90.6) 12.1 (10)
4-6 822.3 (1,591.5) 138.4 (122.2) 53.1 (50.4) 61.6 (10)*
7-9 373.0 (790.9) 28.8 (51.6) 6.3 (9.9) 78.1 (6)
≥10 10.6 (24.9) 4.5 (11.2) 0.0 (0.0) 100.0 (2)
All 1,388.3 (2,365.2) 244.4 (182.4) 123.3 (125.3) 49.5 (10)*
1.0 0.15 ≤3 83.4 (139.2) 97.2 (92.4) 54.4 (75.9) 44.0 (7)
4-6 1,902.5 (3,036.2) 497.0 (1,061.2) 455.9 (1,119.4) 8.3 (7)
7-9 237.1 (323.2) 20.7 (39.2) 0.8 (1.5) 96.1 (5)
≥10 3.9 (9.3) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) N/Ab
All 2,226.9 (3,304.0) 614.9 (1,109.7) 511.1 (1,097.7) 16.9 (7)
0.30 ≤3 158.7 (158.6) 283.9 (371.9) 382.4 (574.5) -34.7 (9)
4-6 937.9 (1,367.7) 269.8 (230.9) 142.9 (168.9) 47.0 (9)*
7-9 56.3 (56.4) 17.6 (26.1) 5.6 (11.2) 68.0 (4)
≥10 4.2 (8.4) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) N/Ab
All 1,157.2 (1,320.3) 571.3 (533.5) 530.9 (628.3) 7.1 (9)
a
b
5-36
Table 5-14
Mean density and standard deviation (SD) of temperate bass larvae collected at the Portage River
control densities.a Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between test and control
densities (p<0.05).
0.5 0.15 15.3 (25.6) 1.6 (2.3) 0.5 (1.1) 67.7 (6)
0.30 15.2 (40.3) 0.7 (1.5) 0.2 (0.5) 65.7 (4)
1.0 0.15 38.2 (83.9) 0.4 (1.2) 0.0 (0.0) N/Ab
0.30 21.6 (35.9) 0.4 (0.8) 0.0 (0.0) 100.0 (2)
a
Table 5-15
Mean density and standard deviation (SD) of eggs collected at the Portage River site in ambient,
control, and test samples during trials with 0.5 and 1.0 mm screens at slot velocities of 0.15 and
0.30 m/sec (EPRI 2005). C-T is the percent difference between test and control densities.a
0.5 0.15 72.3 (130.2) 45.1 (81.5) 1.1 (3.1) 97.5 (7)*
0.30 91.5 (199.8) 42.0 (81.0) 2.8 (4.3) 93.2 (10)*
1.0 0.15 74.0 (118.5) 102.9 (200.0) 4.5 (5.8) 95.7 (10)b
0.30 737.7 (1,806.4) 117.2 (224.1) 97.1 (195.5) 17.1 (9)
a
b
p=0.06
The field evaluation of cylindrical wedgewire screens was successful in collecting a sufficient
number of ichthyoplankton to provide meaningful entrainment reduction effectiveness estimates.
These estimates were based on a variety of biological factors and design and operational
parameters. In some cases, comparisons were hindered by low densities and the inherent
variability in ichthyoplankton abundance, which reduced sample sizes and potentially obscured
significant results. However, a number of general conclusions can be drawn based on observed
differences between ichthyoplankton densities entrained through an open control port and the
two test screens. Utilizing a smaller slot width reduced larval and egg entrainment densities.
Entrainment density was not significantly affected by slot velocity (0.15 and 0.30 m/sec [0.5 and
5-37
1.0 ft/sec]). An increase in ambient velocity resulted in an increase in both control and test larval
entrainment densities, while egg entrainment densities were unaffected. Entrainment densities
decreased with increasing larval length for both slot widths. In addition, the difference between
control and test entrainment densities was greater for species with larger head widths.
EPRI continued the field study in 2005 by conducting testing at a third site located on the
Chesapeake Bay in Virginia (EPRI 2006b). The objective was to expand upon the previous
research and further develop the existing database by evaluating wedgewire screens in a third
waterbody type with a different assemblage of species. The same floating test facility
constructed in 2004 for the previous field evaluations was used. The specific test site was at the
edge of a dredged channel near Gwynns Island. Water depths ranged between 2.3 and 3.0 m (7.5
and 9.8 ft). Tidal currents ranged between 0 and 0.5 m/sec (0 and 1.64 ft/sec). The screens were
operated a depth of 1.2 m (4 ft) for all trials. Due to the paucity of organisms during daytime
testing, all trials were conducted at night. Four trials were completed daily and a total of ten
replicates were conducted for each condition. The variables evaluated in this study were screen
slot width (0.5 and 1.0 mm [0.02 and 0.04 in.]), slot velocity (0.15 and 0.30 m/sec [0.5 and 1.0
ft/sec]), and ambient velocity (0 to 0.5 m/sec [0 to 1.6 ft/sec]). Entrained ichthyoplankton in the
discharge nets was collected and preserved for subsequent analysis.
A total of 13 species were collected during testing in the Chesapeake Bay. The most abundant
species collected were naked goby (Gobiosoma bosc) and bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), which
combined comprised 70% of the total. Twenty four percent of the collected larvae were not
identifiable due to damage during collection, though anecdotal evidence indicated that these
larvae were most likely bay anchovy. Separate statistical analyses for bay anchovy and naked
goby were conducted with and without damaged larvae included. Mean densities for each of the
species collected are presented in Table 5-16 through Table 5-20.
For all species of larvae combined, the 0.5-mm (0.02-in.) screen reduced entrainment by 72 and
58%, respectively, at slot velocities of 0.15 and 0.30 m/sec (0.5 and 1.0 ft/sec). The reduction
provided by the 1.0-mm (0.04-in.) screen was 36% (0.15 m/sec [0.5 ft/sec]) and 53% (0.30 m/sec
[1.0 ft/sec]). Entrainment of naked goby larvae was significantly reduced by ≥65% by the 0.5-
mm (0.02-in.) screen and by ≥52% by the 1.0-mm (0.04-in.) screen. Bay anchovy entrainment
was significantly reduced by both the 0.5-mm (0.02-in.) (≥84%) and 1.0-mm (0.04-in.) (≥21%)
screens. The 0.5- and 1.0-mm (0.02- and 0.04-in.) screens significantly reduced entrainment of
skilletfish (Gobiesox strumosus) larvae by ≥51 and ≥39%, respectively. Entrainment of striped
blenny (Chasmodes bosquianus) larvae was significantly reduced by both the 0.5-mm (0.02-in.)
(≥62%) and 1.0-mm (0.04-in.) (≥44%) test screens. Northern pipefish (Syngnathus fuscus)
entrainment was significantly reduced by ≥79% (0.5-mm [0.02-in.] screen) and ≥53% (1.0-mm
[0.04-in.] screen). Both test screens significantly reduced the entrainment of bay anchovy eggs.
At the lower slot velocity, this reduction was substantial for the 0.5-mm (0.02-in.) screen (87%).
However, at the higher slot velocity, both screens provided minimal entrainment reduction
(≤19%). At the lower slot velocity, the 1.0-mm (0.04-in.) screen also provided a minimal
reduction (12%).
Relative to the control, both the 0.5- and 1.0-mm (0.02- and 0.04-in.) test screens significantly
reduced entrainment of fish larvae and eggs, but the reduction was greater with the smaller slot
width (0.5- mm [0.02-in.]). Although the effect of slot velocity was variable among different
species, the screens were generally more effective in reducing entrainment of eggs and larvae
5-38
when the slot velocity was 0.15 m/sec (0.5 ft/sec) (by up to 30%) than when the slot velocity was
0.30 m/sec (1.0 ft/sec). Entrainment reduction increased as ambient velocity (approaching the
screen) increased. For all species, entrainment reduction tended to increase with larval length.
The results of this multiple-year study indicate that 0.5- and 1.0-mm (0.02- and 0.04-in.)
wedgewire screens have the capability to physically exclude eggs and larvae of the species
evaluated (and species with similar critical dimensions). In most cases, the level of exclusion
seen with the 0.5-mm (0.02-in.) screen is high enough to meet EPA’s 316(b) entrainment
reduction performance standard (60-90% reduction in entrainment) under many of the conditions
studied.
5-39
Table 5-16
Mean density and standard deviation (SD) of naked goby larvae collected at the Chesapeake
Bay site in ambient, control, and test samples during trials with 0.5 and 1.0 mm screens at slot
velocities of 0.15 and 0.30 m/sec (EPRI 2006b). C-T is the percent difference between test and
control densities.

3
C-T Percent
Width Velocity Length Difference a
Naked Goby Larvae Only
0.5 0.15 ≤3 30.3 (34.1) 37.2 (42.5) 11.3 (13.8) 69.6 (17)*
4 42.6 (53.4) 48 (98.1) 6.9 (9.7) 85.6 (16)*
≥5 48.2 (47) 13 (17.5) 1.7 (2.3) 86.8 (13)*
All 121 (116.2) 98.2 (135.6) 20 (24.3) 79.7 (17)*
0.30 ≤3 15 (13.5) 18.9 (30) 11.6 (18.8) 38.5 (18)*
4 19.3 (32) 20.1 (24.4) 5.1 (8.9) 74.5 (16)*
≥5 14.5 (26.9) 15.6 (27.6) 2.6 (5.6) 83.4 (14)*
All 48.8 (68.1) 54.6 (75.8) 19.3 (29.3) 64.6 (18)*
1.0 0.15 ≤3 14.6 (21) 13.7 (21.6) 9.2 (14.6) 32.9 (16)
4 10.8 (18.2) 13.5 (24.5) 4.3 (11.1) 67.9 (10)*
≥5 12.7 (18) 8.1 (18.4) 3.4 (8) 58.5 (8)*
All 38.1 (54.4) 35.3 (54.6) 16.9 (31.1) 52.2 (16)*
0.30 ≤3 15.8 (25.2) 27.5 (35.7) 17.3 (34.9) 36.9 (16)*
4 27.1 (69.4) 28.1 (81.9) 7.8 (12.2) 72.1 (16)
≥5 36.7 (91.4) 18.7 (53.8) 7.9 (15.8) 57.9 (13)
All 79.6 (182.6) 74.3 (157.6) 33 (53.9) 55.5 (18)*
Naked Goby + Damaged Larvae
0.5 0.15 All 128.8 (116.9) 124.4 (145.1) 38.1 (40.7) 69.4 (17)*
0.30 All 74.8 (89.1) 72.5 (87.4) 33.4 (42.6) 53.9 (19)*
1.0 0.15 All 56.8 (75.7) 59.9 (84.6) 38.7 (62.8) 35.3 (17)
0.30 All 96.6 (199.2) 96.9 (188.7) 45.3 (67.8) 53.2 (19)
a
positive values indicate lower densities in test samples. *Statistically significant difference between test and
control samples (p<0.05) as determined by the Wilcoxon matched pairs test of log-transformed densities.
5-40
Table 5-17
Mean density and standard deviation (SD) of bay anchovy larvae collected at the Chesapeake
Bay site in ambient, control, and test samples during trials with 0.5 and 1.0 mm screens at slot
control densities.

3
C-T Percent
Bay Anchovy Larvae Only
0.5 0.15 ≤8 4.1 (4.4) 11 (15.8) 2.2 (3.3) 80.3 (12)*
9-11 24.3 (54.8) 3.1 (5.1) 0.2 (0.6) 94.1 (8)*
≥12 27.5 (71.1) 0.9 (2.3) 0 (0) 100.0 (4)b
All 56 (124.7) 15 (21.8) 2.3 (3.6) 84.3 (12)*
0.30 ≤8 5.1 (6.8) 6 (11.1) 0.9 (1.3) 85.5 (13)*
9-11 3.9 (6.3) 1.7 (3.3) 0.2 (0.5) 88.6 (8)*
≥12 2.3 (5.7) 0.4 (1.3) 0 (0.2) 89.0 (4)b
All 11.4 (15.8) 8.1 (14.4) 1.1 (1.7) 86.4 (13)*
1.0 0.15 ≤8 18.4 (31.4) 4.2 (5.9) 3.9 (7.4) 7.9 (10)
9-11 16 (24.6) 1.4 (2.9) 0.9 (1.7) 38.9 (8)
≥12 12.6 (20.7) 0.4 (1.1) 0 (0) 100.0 (2)b
All 47 (70.2) 6 (8.3) 4.7 (8.8) 20.8 (10)
0.30 ≤8 6.1 (9.5) 2.7 (4.8) 1.3 (2.6) 52.2 (11)
9-11 20.2 (52) 0.6 (1.5) 0.2 (0.5) 65.3 (5)b
≥12 8.6 (19.7) 0.2 (0.5) 0.1 (0.2) 73.8 (5)b
All 34.9 (80.2) 3.5 (6.1) 1.6 (2.7) 55.7 (11)
Bay Anchovy + Damaged Larvae
0.5 0.15 All 63.7 (123.4) 41.2 (56.2) 20.5 (32.9) 50.3 (15)
0.30 All 37.4 (53.6) 26 (27.8) 15.2 (20) 41.5 (16)*
1.0 0.15 All 65.7 (95.9) 30.5 (49.9) 26.6 (53.8) 12.9 (15)
0.30 All 51.9 (96) 26.1 (40) 13.8 (23) 47.1 (17)
a
b
*Statistically significant difference between test and control samples (p<0.05) as determined by the Wilcoxon
matched pairs test of log-transformed densities.
5-41
Table 5-18
Mean density and standard deviation (SD) of skilletfish larvae collected at the Chesapeake Bay
control densities.
3
C-T Percent
0.5 0.15 ≤3 1.8 (2.1) 2 (1.9) 0.4 (0.6) 77.9 (17)*
≥4 0.9 (1.2) 0.6 (0.9) 0 (0.2) 91.9 (9)*
All 2.7 (2.4) 2.5 (2) 0.5 (0.6) 81.2 (18)*
0.30 ≤3 3.3 (5.6) 1.3 (1.3) 0.8 (1.2) 41.2 (17)*
≥4 0.6 (1.1) 0.3 (0.6) 0 (0.1) 91.8 (7)*
All 3.9 (5.5) 1.6 (1.6) 0.8 (1.2) 50.6 (17)*
1.0 0.15 ≤3 2.3 (1.7) 1.8 (1.6) 0.7 (1.2) 63.2 (15)*
≥4 0.1 (0.3) 0.1 (0.3) 0.1 (0.2) 50.4 (3)b
All 2.4 (1.7) 1.9 (1.7) 0.7 (1.2) 62.5 (16)*
0.30 ≤3 1.5 (1.8) 1.9 (1.8) 1.3 (1.5) 31.3 (19)
≥4 0.5 (0.9) 0.5 (0.7) 0.2 (0.4) 68.9 (12)
All 2.1 (2.2) 2.4 (2.2) 1.4 (1.7) 39.4 (19)*

a
b
5-42
Table 5-19
Mean density and standard deviation (SD) of striped blenny larvae collected at the
Chesapeake Bay site in ambient, control, and test samples during trials with 0.5 and 1.0 mm
screens at slot velocities of 0.15 and 0.30 m/sec (EPRI 2006b). C-T is the percent difference
between test and control densities.

3
C-T Percent
0.5 0.15 ≤3 0.8 (2.1) 0.9 (1.5) 0.1 (0.3) 90.0 (9)*
≥4 1 (1.4) 1 (1.8) 0.2 (0.7) 78.8 (9)
All 1.8 (2.5) 1.9 (2.5) 0.3 (0.8) 84.2 (12)*
0.30 ≤3 0.3 (0.5) 0.8 (1.1) 0.5 (0.6) 39.2 (15)
≥4 3.1 (3.5) 1.5 (1.5) 0.4 (0.7) 72.8 (15)*
All 3.4 (3.4) 2.3 (1.9) 0.9 (1) 61.7 (17)*
1.0 0.15 ≤3 1.1 (2.2) 1 (1.5) 0.6 (1) 35.4 (12)
≥4 1.4 (2.2) 0.6 (1) 0.2 (0.6) 58.3 (8)
All 2.5 (2.8) 1.6 (1.9) 0.9 (1.2) 44.1 (13)
0.30 ≤3 1.1 (1.9) 1.1 (1.7) 0.6 (1) 48.0 (12)
≥4 1.3 (1.7) 0.8 (2) 0.4 (0.8) 48.5 (11)
All 2.4 (3.2) 1.9 (2.9) 1 (1.6) 48.2 (14)*

a
5-43
Table 5-20
Mean density and standard deviation (SD) of Northern pipefish larvae collected at the
Chesapeake Bay site in ambient, control, and test samples during trials with 0.5 and 1.0 mm
screens at slot velocities of 0.15 and 0.30 m/sec (EPRI 2006b). C-T is the percent difference
between test and control densities.

3
C-T Percent
0.5 0.15 ≤11 0.7 (0.8) 1.1 (1.8) 0.3 (0.5) 75.5 (12)*
12-13 1 (2.7) 0.6 (0.9) 0.2 (0.7) 75.2 (8)*
≥14 0.9 (1.3) 0.6 (1.7) 0 (0) 100.0 (5)b
All 2.6 (2.7) 2.3 (2.5) 0.4 (0.8) 81.5 (17)*

0.30 ≤11 0.4 (0.7) 1.2 (1.2) 0.5 (0.8) 62.0 (16)*
12-13 1.4 (1.5) 0.7 (0.9) 0 (0.2) 92.9 (14)*
≥14 2.1 (2) 0.6 (1.1) 0 (0) 100.0 (8)*
All 3.9 (3.3) 2.5 (2.3) 0.5 (0.8) 79.4 (20)*

1.0 0.15 ≤11 0.4 (0.7) 0.7 (1) 0.2 (0.4) 71.0 (9)
12-13 0.4 (0.5) 0.4 (0.6) 0.2 (0.4) 56.5 (8)
≥14 0.7 (0.8) 0.1 (0.4) 0 (0.2) 67.9 (4)b
All 1.5 (1.1) 1.2 (1.1) 0.4 (0.6) 66.4 (15)*

0.30 ≤11 0.9 (1.3) 0.4 (0.5) 0.2 (0.4) 51.1 (12)
12-13 0.8 (0.9) 0.2 (0.6) 0.2 (0.4) -5.7 (7)
≥14 0.2 (0.4) 0.5 (1.1) 0.1 (0.3) 79.0 (8)
All 2 (1.6) 1.1 (1.7) 0.5 (0.8) 52.8 (17)
a “C-T Percent Difference” is calculated as [(control density minus test density) divided by control density]. Thus,
b Insufficient data for meaningful comparison *Statistically significant difference between test and control samples
(p<0.05) as determined by the Wilcoxon matched pairs test of log-transformed densities.
Field Evaluation - Haverstraw Bay, Hudson River, New York

A multi-season efficacy study of a small scale 2.0-mm (0.08-in.) slot cylindrical wedgewire
screen unit for reducing entrainment of fish larvae was conducted in Haverstraw Bay on the
Hudson River (AKRF, Inc. 2010, Alden 2010). The goal of this study was to determine the
average efficacy (exclusion potential) of the small scale unit for entrainment compared to an
open pipe. The study was conducted during August 2009 and during March, June, and July
2010, lasting 2 to 5 days per month. Target species were larval stage of bay anchovy (Anchoa
5-44
michilli) in August 2009, Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod) in March 2010, striped bass
(Morone saxatilis) in June 2010, and striped bass and bay anchovy in July 2010.
Paired samples were collected from a floating test barge, which consisted of two separate
aluminum sections (2.3 by 6.1 m [7.5 by 20 ft]) pinned together to make a 4.6 by 6.1 m (15 by 20
ft) test platform (Figure 5-13). The starboard side intake was capped with a stainless steel T-12
(30.5 cm [12 in.] diameter) 2.0-mm (0.08-in.) slot width wedgewire screen supplied by Johnson
Screen (Figure 5-15). A flow distributor was located nearer the center of the screen was used to
achieve an average through-slot velocity of 0.15 m/sec (0.5 ft/sec) across the screen face. The
control intake was conical-shaped (flairing outward), constructed of aluminum, and capped with
a 9.5-mm (.37-in.) mesh screen to prohibit entrainment of large debris (Figure 5-15). Its cone
shape was designed such that through-screen velocity would approximate the test screen. Two
fish pumps located within the hull of the barge withdrew approximately 100 m3 (3531.5 ft3)
samples, over a duration of approximately 90 min per sample (Figure 5-14).
Figure 5-13
Floating test facility (barge) – plan view (Alden 2010)
Figure 5-14
Floating test facility (barge) – elevation view (Alden 2010)
5-45
Figure 5-15
Photographs showing the aluminum sleeve used to decrease the open area of the 2.0-mm
wedgewire screen (left) and the geometry of the control intake cone (Alden 2010).
Sampling was designed to sample through several tidal cycles and to encompass several diel
periods. Sample pairs consisted of control (open pipe) and treatment (wedgewire unit) and were
sampled concurrently. Samples were concentrated, preserved, and shipped to an outside
laboratory for processing.
Figure 5-16
Floating test facility (barge) with alternative sampling equipment. Left image show intake side of
barge and right image shows discharge side of barge (Alden 2010).
5-46
Figure 5-17
Floating test facility (barge with standard sampling equipment) (Alden 2010)
The average reduction percentages were calculated in terms of angles (arc tangent) prior to
averaging in order to reduce unintended biases (AKRF 2010). Reduction of entrainment of the
wedgewire unit compared to the open pipe ranged from 8.5% for naked goby (Gobiosoma bosc)
Post yolk-sac larvae (PYSL) in June 2010 to 65.6% for naked goby PYSL in August 2009 (Table
5-21). Of the 13 combinations of species, life-stage, and sampling period, seven were
significantly different than an estimated 0% reduction.
5-47
Table 5-21
Summary of numbers of larvae collected through open pipe and wedgewire screen unit and estimates of average reduction in
entrainment densities due to wedgewire screen unit, in comparison to open pipe. Shaded areas indicate estimates that are statistically
significant, based on confidence limits not overlapping a reduction of 0% (AKRF 2010).
Number of Numbers of
Average Length of Average Reduction in Entrainment
Paired Organisms
Larvae (mm) Densities (%)
Life Sampling Samples Collected
Species
Stage Period Containing
Confidence Intervals
Species and
Life Stage Open Wedge- Open Wedge- Lower 95 Upper 95
Pipe wire Pipe wire Estimate % %
Alosa spp. PYSL Jun-10 20 6.2 5.3 79 45 28.3 -26.6 64.4
Atlantic tomcod PYSL Mar-10 10 7.9 8 128 96 26.6 -22.2 60.0
bay anchovy Eggs Jun-10 24 -- -- 698 717 18.9 -21.6 47.9
Eggs Jul-10 18 -- -- 4,488 4,481 9.6 -18.5 31.5
PYSL Aug-09 33 7.5 8.2 635 274 62.3 43.5 79.1
PYSL Jun-10 24 4.4 4.6 1,133 842 39.5 18.2 57.5
PYSL Jul-10 18 5.1 5.4 1,246 568 38.4 4.7 64.3
naked goby PYSL Aug-09 22 5.6 5.9 107 34 65.6 41.6 86.5
PYSL Jun-10 18 3.7 3.8 54 39 8.5 -66.3 51.4
PYSL Jul-10 13 4.4 5.6 162 128 48.8 17.5 73.8
striped bass YSL Jun-10 18 6.6 6.1 460 383 42.5 -4.3 75.8
PYSL Jun-10 15 6.7 8.0 689 27 52.6 4.3 87.7
hogchoker PYSL Jul-10 15 2.6 2.9 54 14 57.8 16.0 90.0
Highlighted fields indicate significantly different reduction than an estimated 0% reduction.
5-48
A sensitivity analysis determined weighted reduction averages for each collected pair based off
of total number of fish collected in the sample. These results showed to be similar to the
averages not weighted in terms of being significantly different or similar to an estimate of 0%
reduction (Table 5-22). The disparities between the two analyses were Atlantic tomcod
(Microgadus tomcod) PYSL in March 2010, bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) June 2010, and
naked goby PYSL in July 2010.
5-49
Table 5-22
Summary of numbers of larvae collected through open pipe and wedgewire screen unit and estimates of average reduction in
entrainment densities due to wedgewire screen unit, in comparison to open pipe. Shaded areas indicate estimates that are statistically
significant, based on confidence limits not overlapping a reduction of 0% (AKRF 2010).
Numbers of
Average Length Weighted Average Reduction in
Number of Paired Organisms
of Larvae (mm) Entrainment Densities (%)
Life Sampling Samples Containing Collected
Species
Stage Period Species and Life
Confidence Intervals
Stage
Open Wedge- Open Wedge- Lower 95 Upper 95
Pipe wire Pipe wire Estimate % %
Alosa spp. PYSL Jun-10 20 6.2 5.3 79 45 38.7 -7.8 71.6
Atlantic tomcod PYSL Mar-10 10 7.9 8 128 96 22.6 0.7 40.7
bay anchovy Eggs Jun-10 24 -- -- 698 717 -3.4 -29.2 17.1
Eggs Jul-10 18 -- -- 4,488 4,481 2.7 -11.0 14.8
PYSL Aug-09 33 7.5 8.2 635 274 53.8 35.4 70.0
PYSL Jun-10 24 4.4 4.6 1,133 842 23.8 -3.7 45.5
PYSL Jul-10 18 5.1 5.4 1,246 568 52.4 35.9 67.0
naked goby PYSL Aug-09 22 5.6 5.9 107 34 66.0 48.0 82.1
PYSL Jun-10 18 3.7 3.8 54 39 25.4 -15.4 54.8
PYSL Jul-10 13 4.4 5.6 162 128 17.5 -23.4 46.7
striped bass YSL Jun-10 18 6.6 6.1 460 383 7.2 -76.7 52.9
PYSL Jun-10 15 6.7 8.0 689 27 95.2 83.7 106.5
hogchoker PYSL Jul-10 15 2.6 2.9 54 14 67.8 34.8 95.4
Highlighted fields indicate significantly different reduction than an estimated 0% reduction.
5-50
Field Evaluation – Mississippi River, Mississippi
A study was conducted to determine the effectiveness of a remote wedgewire screen intake
module at reducing the numbers of entrained fish eggs and larvae compared to field densities on
the Mississippi River (Otto et al. 1981). The screen was T-shaped with 1.0-mm (0.04-in) slot
stainless steel and was 4.1 m (13.45 ft) in length, and 0.9 m (2.95 ft) in diameter (Figure 5-18).
Sampling occurred between May 24 and June 28 1979 in a side channel on the east side of Pool
13 of the Mississippi River at approximately River mile 530. The screen module was situated at
the center of the side channel, where river velocities ranged from 0.37 to 0.81 m/sec (1.21 to 2.66
ft/sec) during testing. Sampling events consisted of day and night samples collected over a
continuous 24-hour sampling period.
Samples were collected through the screen module using a propeller like irrigation pump at a
maximum rate of 0.25 to 0.28 m3/sec (9 to 10 cfs). Downstream of the pump, samples were
collected in a flow reduction trough, designed to screen large amounts of water with minimum
detrimental effects to screened organisms. Sampling volume ranged from 25 to 75 m3 (882.87 to
2648.6 cfs). Ambient samples were collected using fixed nets mounted to anchor float arrays
and tow nets deployed from a boat, both collecting at similar depths to the module. All collected
samples were washed into a collected box and preserved in 10% buffered formalin containing
rose bengal. Fish and eggs were then identified to the lowest possible taxon.
Figure 5-18
Test module with wire design (University of Iowa, Institute of Hydraulic Research)
Entrainment results from from the wedgewire screen were well below background densities from
one taxon of eggs and four of the five taxa of larvae present at the test site during the evaluation
(Table 5-23). The module was effective at excluding Clupeidae, emerald shiner (Notropis
atherinoides), carp (Cyprinidae), and freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens) larvae, having an
11% or less proportion of the population only collected by the module. The module was less
effective at screening crappies (Pomoxis spp.), entraining 25.4% of the collected population in
the module. Module entrainment densities were also well below the background densities.
However, the hope was that the 1.0-mm (0.04-in.) screen to totally exclude freshwater drum
eggs, averaging 1.42 mm (0.55 in) in diameter. These eggs may have been more susceptible to
entrainment due to a large perivitelline space, which may be deformable to a degree that would
permit passage through the slots. These large perivitelline spaces were observed while egg
5-51
diameters were being measured. The diameter of eggs of other species were not measured, so it
is unknown the extent to which other species exhibit large perivitelline spaces. The authors
suggest that the successful reduction of entrainment for larval fish was partly due to mechanical
and behavioral components. Zeitoun et al 1981 and Browne 1981 also suggest a negative
rheotrophic response to the nearfield velocity regime adjacent to the intake orifice.
Table 5-23
Relative catches of larvae (Otto et al. 1981)
Entrainment % Entrainment % Entrainment %

Species
by Module by Fixed Net by Tow Net
Clupeidae 7 47.5 45.5
emerald shiner 10.5 48.2 41.3
carp 7.5 40.3 52.2
freshwater drum 4.4 50 45.6
freshwater drum eggs 10.5 52.2 38.3
crappies 25.4 35.2 39.4
Field Evaluation – Marin Municipal Water District Desalination (MMWD) Pilot Plant
A 12-month sampling effort was conducted to quantify potential entrainment impacts of the
narrow slot intake screens installed at Marin Municipal Water District Desalination (MMWD)
Pilot Plant, San Rafael, California (Tenera 2007). The MMWD water intake consisted of a
cylindrical narrow-slot intake screen (2.4-mm [0.09-in.] slot width) (Figure 5-19), an intake and
priming pump, intake piping, and seawater holding tank. The intake withdrew water from the
San Pablo Bay from approximately 609.6 m (2,000 ft) offshore at approximately 473 lpm (125
gpm).
5-52
Figure 5-19
MMWD pilot plant cylindrical narrow slot intake
Entrainment samples were collected at the pilot plant intake. Sampling was collected bi-weekly
from July 8, 2005 – June 21, 2006. Surveys were 8 hrs long, scheduled for equal amounts of day
and night conditions. Sixteen, 30-min collections were made during each 8-hr survey. Water
was pumped from the screen intake through 365.8 m (1,200 ft) of 10.2-cm (4-in) diameter pipe
into the intake holding tank. Plankton nets with 363-µm mesh were deployed in the holding
tanks during sampling. After sampling was completed, the contents of the net were rinsed into
the codend and collected for identification.
Source water sampling was conducted from February – March 2006, concurrently with
entrainment sampling. Hydraulic data from U.S. Geological Services (USGS) and biological
data from California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) provided basis for selecting
locations. A small boat equipped with a sampling apparatus consisting of two 0.31-m (1-ft)
diameter, 363-µm mesh conical plankton nets was used to collected samples. Each collection
sampled an average volume of approximately 28 m3 (988.8 ft3). Once the collection was
completed, contents of both nets were rinsed from the nets and combined into one codend.
Organisms collected during both sampling efforts were indentified to the lowest possible taxon,
measured (notochord length for up to 200 individuals per species), and enumerated.
A total of 28,001 entrainable size fish and 2,185 fish eggs were collected during entrainment
sampling. A total of 65,662 entrainable size fish and 127 fish eggs were collected during source
water sampling (Table 5-24). Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii) comprised 98% of both samples.
Emperical transport modeling (ETM) estimates the probability of mortality due to entrainment
ranged from 0.02 to 0.06%. The study authors concluded that a full scale desalination facility
(113.6 MLD [30 MGD]) would be low risk to the ambient fish populations.
5-53
Table 5-24
Numbers of larval fishes and fish eggs during entrainment and source water sampling at Marin
Municipal Water District Desalination (MMWD) pilot plant
Entrainable Larval Fishes:

Taxon Common name Total Sample Count
Entrainment Source water
Clupea pallasii Pacific herring 27,490 64,448
Gobiidae unid. gobies 225 640
unid. Larval fish damaged unid. larval fishes 92 5
Engraulis mordax Northern anchovy 81 --
Acanthogobius flavimanus yellowfin goby 68 436
Osmeridae unid. smelts 10 62
Cottus asper prickly sculpin 8 21
Lepocottus armatus Pacific staghorn sculpin 8 13
Cottidae unid. sculpins 3 1
Lepidogobius lepidus bay goby 4 2
Hypsopsetta guttulatta diamond turbot 3 --
larval/post-larval fish unid. larval fishes 3 --
Genyonemus lineatus white croaker 2 14
Atherinopsidae undi. silversides 1 --
Cebidichthys violaceus monkeyface eel 1 3
Platichthys stellatus starry flounder 1 --
Sebastes spp. rockfishes 1 3
Psettichthys melanostictus sand sole -- 5
Paralichthys californicus California halibut -- 3
Ammodytes hexapterus Pacific sand lance -- 1
Artedius spp. sculpins -- 1
Bathymasteridae unid. ronquils -- 1
Parophrys vetulus English sole -- 1
Pleuronectidae unid. flounders -- 1
Sygnathus spp. pipefishes -- 1
Total Entrainable Fishes: 28,001 65,662
Non-Entrainable Larval Fishes:
Gobiidae unid. gobies 1 --
Lepidogobius lepidus bay goby -- 1
Total Non-Entrainable Fishes: 1 1
Fish Eggs:
non-engraulidae eggs eggs, unidentified 1,558 126
Engraulidae eggs anchovy eggs 626 1
Atherinopsidae undi. eggs silverside eggs 1 --
Total Eggs: 2,185 127
Invertebrates:
Crangon nigricauda black-tailed bay shrimp 17 --
Crangon spp. (zoea I) bay shrimp 3 --
Total Invertebrates: 20 0
5-54
6
BARRIER NETS
Introduction
Barrier nets have been effectively applied at several power plant cooling water systems as well
as a number of hydroelectric projects and other water intakes. The ability of barrier nets to
exclude fish from a water intake depends on the fish species and size to be protected, near-field
hydraulic conditions, and the amount of debris present. The mesh size must be selected to block
fish passage but not cause fish to become gilled in the net. Debris cleaning and biofouling
control can be labor-intensive. Further consideration should be given to the effects of the net’s
location on navigation within the source waterbody.
In 2006, EPRI produced a comprehensive report on the use of barrier nets to reduce fish
impingement at CWIS (EPRI 2006c). That report presented a review of existing fish barrier net
installations and design considerations and specifications for new installations at CWIS. Also
presented was guidance to plant operators, managers, and engineers in the planning and
designing of fish barrier nets, including three different barrier net support designs
Barrier nets can be considered a viable option for protecting fish provided that reasonable
hydraulic conditions can be achieved and debris loading is light. A thorough evaluation of site-
specific environmental and operational conditions is generally necessary to determine whether a
barrier net might be applicable to a given site. New information on the operation and
maintenance of nets will become available in the future as effectiveness evaluations are
performed on newly installed nets.
Existing barrier net installations for power plant cooling water intakes and hydroelectric plant
intakes were reviewed and are listed in Table 6-1 and Table 6-2, respectively.
6-1
Table 6-1
Existing barrier net installations, power plants/diversion field tests
LaSalle Pickering
Bowline Arkansas Osage Power
J. P. County Nuclear
Parameter Generating Chalk Point Dallman Laskin Nuclear Plant at
Pulliam Generating Generation
Station One Bagnel Dam
Station Station
Wisconsin Minnesota
Mirant Mirant City Water Ontario Power
Owner Public Power & Entergy Exelon Corp Ameren
Bowline, LLC MidAtlantic and Light Generation
Service Light
Hudson Lake Colby Lake/

Patuxent Lake Dardanelle Cooling Lake of the
Waterbody River/Bowline Michigan, via Partridge Lake Ontario
River Springfield Reservoir Pond Ozarks
Pond Fox River River
Flow
Capacity 1,408 1,060 ~920 805 223 1,323 2,890 8,970 unknown
(cfs)
Max Water
39 25 N/A 14 16 20 20 8.5-13.5 100
Depth (ft)
Net Length 533 inner

597 N/A 112 600 1,500 1,200 2,000 850
(ft) 671 outer
0.4
Approach
< 0.5 0.13 (proposed <0.5 0.08 0.04 0.1 unknown 1.0
Velocity (ft/s)
net)
0.5 (existing)
Bar Mesh
0.10/0.20 0.75/1.25 0.38 0.25 0.25 0.5 & 0.38 0.38 0.5x0.5 2
(in)1
(proposed)
6-2
LaSalle Pickering
Bowline Arkansas Osage Power
J. P. County Nuclear
Parameter Generating Chalk Point Dallman Laskin Nuclear Plant at
Pulliam Generating Generation
Station One Bagnel Dam
Station Station
knotted nylon knotless

Net Material N/A nylon N/A Polyethylene Dyneema Dyneema
nylon (proposed) nylon
alewife,
paddlefish,
bay anchovy emerald
centrarchids,
striped bass shiner, rainbow
moronids,
white perch smelt,
Species gizzard shad black catostomids,
American misc. finfish alewife threespine
Protected/ white crappie N/A gizzard shad cyprinids,
shad crabs yellow perch stickleback,
Evaluated crappie yellow perch ictalurids,
alewife brown
sciaenids,
blueback bullhead,
clupeids,
herring walleye, yellow
perceids
perch
84-97% large
~ 91% 84% fish mortality
96% 85 - 98%
reduction reduction in reduction and
Effectiveness impingement impingement N/A N/A N/A unknown
from 1977 - crab 92.2%
reduction reduction
1985 mortality entrainment
reduction
FNT
American Mid Lakes Delta Net
Industries,
Net Net or Sterling Net Corps, and Twine,
N/A N/A Inc. of unknown unknown
Manufacturer Memphis and Twine Knoxville Greenville,
Menominee,
Net Tenn. Miss.
Michigan
1. Bar mesh is the length between two knots measured from the inside of one knot to the outside of the second knot. Stretch mesh is the inside
diagonal distance between two knots on opposite sides of the stretched square mesh.
6-3
Table 6-2
Existing barrier net installations, hydroelectric/diversion field tests
Pine Brule Hayward Ludington Baker River Puntledge Crystal Falls

Banks
Parameter Hydroelectric Hydroelectric Hydroelectric Pump Storage Hydroelectric Hydroelectric Hydroelectric Highline¹
Lake¹
Project2 Project Project¹ Project Project Project Project
US
Consumers
Bureau Highline
Energy Puget Sound City of Crystal
Owner WE Energies WE Energies Xcel Energy BC Hydro of Lake State
Company and Energy Falls
Reclam- Park
Detroit Edison
ation
Namekagon Puntledge Banks Highline

Waterbody Pine River Brule River Lake Michigan Baker River Paint River
River River Lake Lake
Flow
Capacity 640 1,377 180 66,000 4,100 1,060 N/A 7,910 ~2,000
(cfs)
Max Water
35 30 10 45 285 25 20 79 19
Depth (ft)
Net Length
260 217 75 12,850 1,520 141 100 4,400 363
(ft)
Approach
0.1 to 0.5 0.2 < 0.5 < 2.5 0.01 0.4-1.7 N/A 1.6 <0.3
Velocity (ft/s)
Bar Mesh
0.5 0.38/0.50 0.38 0.75/0.50 0.25 0.75 0.5 3.25 0.25
(in)
knotless
Net Material knotted nylon knotless nylon knotted nylon Dyneema nylon knotless nylon knotted nylon Dyneema
Dacron
6-4
Pine Brule Hayward Ludington Baker River Puntledge Crystal Falls
Banks
Parameter Hydroelectric Hydroelectric Hydroelectric Pump Storage Hydroelectric Hydroelectric Hydroelectric Highline¹
Lake¹
Project2 Project Project¹ Project Project Project Project
large mouth
rainbow smelt lg. mouth
Species bass, bluegill,
centrarchids alewife sockeye bass
Protected/ channel walleye coho salmon N/A Kokanee
percids yellow perch coho bluegill ch.
Evaluated catfish, white
salmonids catfish
sucker
from
92.1% target
99.3% 64% to
fish effective
85% to 99% effective 10%
Effectiveness ~ 50% N/A 85.1% non- N/A N/A N/A
effective during test entrain-
target fish
evaluation ment
effective
reduction
Pacific
Net Redden Redden
N/A N/A N/A Netting/Redden N/A N/A N/A
Manufacturer Marine Marine
Marine
1. Banks Lake and Highline CWISs are irrigation facilities.

2. Pine Hydroelectric is entraining what would be considered impingeable organisms at a Phase II facility. Pine Hydroelectric uses 25mm mesh
(stretch).
6-5
Dallman Generating Station, Lake Springfield, Illinois

The city of Springfield, Illinois, City Water and Light Company (SCWLP) has had a barrier net
installed in the intake canal entrance of Dallman Generating Station (Dallman) since 1981 to
reduce the number of fish (gizzard shad [Dorosoma cepedianum] and white crappie [Pomoxis
annularis]) and the amount of debris in the canal. The net is used to minimize fish impingement
and debris accumulation on the intake screens which are located upstream of the circulating
water pumps. Dallman has an intake flow of approximately 26 m3/sec (920 cfs/595 mgd). The
net has a mesh size of 13 mm (0.5 in.) and is support by a top line cable anchored at each end to
shore. The bottom of the net is secured by bottom anchors. However, the bottom is not
continuously anchored and occasionally gets lifted.
SCWLP has proposed the barrier net as the most appropriate compliance alternative for meeting
its 316(b) requirements. The company will modify the existing barrier net to a nylon net with a
the mesh size of 9.5 mm (3/8 in.; 70% open area) and add a continuous chain and supplemental
anchor weights to eliminate uplift of the net and avoid gaps that have developed in the past
(Schimmoller 2005). Pilings will be installed on the downstream side of the net to reduce bowing
under high debris loads and increase the reliability of the net remaining in contact with the
bottom of the lake. The net will have a surface area of 213.7 m2 (2,300 ft2). The modified net
will have an approach velocity of about 0.1 m/sec (0.4 ft/sec) (Schimmoller 2005). The only
biological effectiveness data found is from Schimmoller (2005) who reports a 90% reduction in
impingement mortality.
Heavy loading of leaves and debris in the spring and fall require net removal for cleaning and
maintenance. Algae growth in the summer causes the net openings to become plugged
(Schimmoller 2005). The net was replaced in May of 2003, as shown on Figure 6-1. The old net
was sent back to the manufacturer for repairs and recoating with “plastic net treatment” to
minimize the potential for biogrowth (SCWLP 2004).
6-6
Figure 6-1
Dallman barrier net installation 2003
Bowline Point Generating Station, Hudson River, New York

Bowline Point Generating Station installed a barrier net on the Hudson River in 1977. The net is
located in Bowline Pond, off the main river channel and is not subjected to high river currents.
The flow capacity at Bowline is 40 m3/s (1,408 cfs/910 mgd). The net is 182 m (597 ft) long with
a maximum depth of 12 m (39 ft). The net configuration at Bowline is shown on Figure 6-2. The
barrier net is multifilament, knotted nylon mesh with 0.38- to 0.5-cm (0.15- to 0.2-in.) openings.
The net is deployed in the winter from mid-October to mid-May to prevent impingement of
white perch (Morone americana) and striped bass (Morone saxatilis). At this site, velocities are
generally well below 0.1 m/sec (0.33 ft/sec).
In 1993 and 1994, Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. sponsored an effectiveness study of a 3.0
mm (0.1 in.), fine-mesh net at Bowline Point as a possible means to reduce fish entrainment
(LMS 1994). The fine-mesh net deployment system is shown on Figure 6-3. Results of the study
are provided below.
The barrier net was evaluated from 1976-1985 in the V-arrangement shown in Figure 6-2. The
barrier net is deployed during periods of historically high impingement months (October-May).
Impingement at Bowline is dominated by young-of-the-year and yearling white perch (75%),
striped bass (15%), rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax; 5%), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus),
blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), and American shad (Alosa sapidissima;1% for all clupeids).
The majority of fish impinged at Bowline range from 5 to 10 mm (0.2 in. to 0.4 in.) total length.
Starting in 1973, impingement samples were collected 1-3 times per week between October-
May. Densities of fish impinged (number of fish/106 m3) for comparable periods before and after
net deployment (1976) were evaluated. Fish impingement for all species combined was
significantly reduced (91%; P ≤ 0.0001) with the net deployed (Hutchison and Matousek 1988).
Survival probabilities were determined for white perch and striped bass released inside and
outside the net. Fish movement into and out of the embayment was blocked using a barrier net
across the inlet. Fish were netted, marked, and released in the inlet. Three days after the final
6-7
release, surface, midwater, and bottom trawls were used to collect fish for population estimates.
In addition, impingement was monitored during the same period. Fish released inside of the net
had 72% lower survival (P ≤ 0.0001) (Hutchison and Matousek 1988).
Investigation of a fine-mesh barrier net began in 1993 at Bowline. Entrainment at Bowline is
dominated by bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli; >80%). A full-scale net was designed, constructed,
and deployed during a 6-week test period from mid-July through August, which corresponds
with the historical peak in bay anchovy post yolk-sac ichthyoplankton. The net was made of 9.5
mm nylon mesh and deployed using pilings. During the evaluation, problems with net clogging
and sinking were encountered. The primary clogging agent was very fine suspended silt.
Additional floatation at the surface and in situ cleaning using high pressure water sprays were
used to maintain the net. Ichthyoplankton levels were too low during the evaluation to determine
biological effectiveness (LMS 1994).
Additional tests were undertaken from July 12 through August 5 1994. Extensive biofouling
resulted in snapping of two of the support piles. High pressure underwater sprays which had been
effective in 1993 was unsuccessful in removing the algae Ectocarpus sp. The net was effectively
cleaned by removing it from the water and applying the high pressure sprays. There were no
significant differences in bay anchovy ichthyoplankton inside and outside the net during the
1994 study period (LMS 1996a).
In 1993, clogging with fine suspended silt caused the fine-mesh test net to clog and sink. Labor-
intensive, high-pressure spraying by divers and additional flotation countered this problem and
the net was maintained for nearly one month (LMS 1994). In 1994, spraying was not effective in
cleaning the net when it became fouled by the algae Ectocarpus. Excessive fouling caused two of
the support piles to snap, ending the evaluation (LMS 1996a). Successful cleaning of the net was
achieved by removing it from the water, using the high-pressure spraywash system and then
reinstalling the net.
Figure 6-2
Bowline Point barrier net configuration (LMS 1978)
6-8
Figure 6-3
Bowline Point fine-mesh barrier net configuration (LMS 1994)
Chalk Point Station

A temporary barrier net was installed at Chalk Point Generating Station in July 1981 in the
estuarine Patuxent River (a tributary to the Chesapeake Bay) in response to operational problems
caused by blockage of the condensers by blue crabs. A single permanent net was installed in
1982, and an additional net was added in 1982. The net system was used to meet the BTA
requirements under Maryland’s State 316(b) regulations (Bailey 2005). The original barrier net
has undergone a variety of modifications over the past 20 years to improve its performance. A
description of the Chalk Point intake and the barriers nets follows.
Cooling water at Chalk Point is drawn into the once-through cooling system via a 140 m (459 ft)
wide 5 m (16.4 ft) deep intake canal. The intake has two units each fitted with two traveling
water screens with 9.5 mm (3/8-in.) square mesh. Each unit has an intake capacity of 16 m3/s
(557 cfs/360 mgd per unit or 720 mgd total).
The current outside net is designed to trap most of the debris and jellyfish, while a finer mesh net
is used on the inside to exclude smaller organisms. Net support pilings are arranged in two rows
measuring 162.5 and 213 m (533 and 700 ft) long at the intake canal mouth (Figure 6-4). The
pilings are driven into the bottom and extend 1.5 m (5 ft) out of the water. Forty pilings make up
6-9
the inner row and fifty-one pilings comprise the outer row. They are spaced approximately 3.7 to
4.0 m (12 to 13 ft) apart, and a 6 m (20 ft) gap exists in the outer row to allow maintenance boats
to enter between the nets.
The inner barrier net has eight 45.7 m (150 ft) long, 7.6 m (25 ft) deep panels suspended from
hooks on the pilings approximately 0.9 m (3 ft) above the water surface at high tide. A heavy
chain is attached to the bottom of the net and floats are attached to the top. The net panels
overlap each other by 18.3 m (60 ft). The inner barrier net is 19.5-mm (0.75-in.) stretch mesh. A
1.2 m (4 ft) deep and 115.8 m (380 ft) long skirt was added to the system in 1984 when divers
observed the net off of the bottom at numerous pilings. The skirt is attached to the pilings of the
inner barrier net across the mid-channel zone. The outer barrier net is made of a series of sewn
panels 61 m (200 ft) long and 7.6 m (25 ft) deep with 31.8-mm (1.25-in.) stretch mesh. The nets
are manufactured by American Net or Memphis Net.
Barrier net effectiveness has been estimated using three different techniques: pre- and post-net
deployment impingement monitoring; long-term relative abundance monitoring; and analytical
methods (Bailey 2005; Loos 1986a, b, 1987).
Impingement monitoring was conducted between June 1976 and November 1977 prior to net
installation to estimate the numbers of fish and blue crabs impinged on the traveling screens.
Following net deployment, impingement samples were collected from March 1984 to September
1985. Additional qualitative impingement sampling was conducted from June 1989 through 1999
to monitor net performance (Bailey 2005). Relative abundance data tracks changes in long-term
fish and crab abundance in the area of Chalk Point based on seine and trawl sampling. Analytical
methods involved adjusting impingement data to account for differences in sampling methods,
plant operations, changes in population abundance, and bias imparted due to fish deterioration
and crab predation in warm months.
Blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) were the most commonly impinged organism, making up 45.1%
of the total impingement in 1976–1977 and 75.3% in 1984–1985 (38.1% using the census data in
1984–1985). Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) were the most commonly impinged fish
species, making up 56.9% of total fish impingement in 1976–1977 and 36.5% in 1984–1985
(54.1% using the census data in 1984–1985). These two species made up 76.4% of the total
impingement prior to and 84.2% (71.6%) of total impingement after deployment of the double
barrier net system (Bailey 2005). The percent reduction in impingement was estimated by
comparing numbers impinged in a 12-month period in 1984 and 1985 (after the second barrier
net was deployed) with baseline numbers during an 18-month period in 1976 and 1977 (before
deployment of any of the nets). There were 78% and 18% reductions in the impingement of fish
and blue crab, respectively. However, these estimates were confounded by changes in river
populations. To alleviate this bias, the estimated reductions were adjusted where this could be
supported by finding good correlations (R2 > 0.4) between impingement and relative abundance
for those individual species representing more than 1% of the impingement totals during both
evaluation periods. Of the seven species meeting the 1% criteria, the relationship was judged
sufficient for Atlantic menhaden, spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), white perch (Morone americana),
hogchoker (Trinectes maculates) and blue crab and insufficient for bay anchovy (Anchoa
mitchilli) and Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia). Proportionally adjusted estimates of
reduction for these five species ranged from 82 to 98%.
6-10
The dominant biofouling species are the colonial hydroid Garvia franciscana and the bryozoan
Victorella pavida. Jelly fish (summer) and leaves (fall) are the predominant debris that collects
on the outer net. To control biofouling and debris, the net panels are changed on a regular basis.
All net panels are changed once every other week except in the summer during peak biofouling
when panels are changed once or twice per week. The net changing process minimizes the
potential for organism passage: as one net is removed by a boat, another net is set in place by a
second boat. The new net is deployed just upstream of the support piles and allowed to drift into
place with the current. After installation, divers perform an inspection and adjust the net bottom
to ensure a good seal.
Each fall around mid-November the barrier nets are removed for ten days to two weeks. This is
done to prevent impingement of Atlantic menhaden in the fall. It is believed that small juvenile
or late larval stage menhaden go through the net in the spring or early summer and take
advantage of the continuous flow of cooling water and associated food supply in the intake canal.
They grow quickly, reaching a size of 102 to 152 mm (4 to 6 in.) by the fall, and are too large to
pass back through the net in order to migrate downstream in the fall. Small impingement
incidents can occur in late November if the nets are not removed and the fish allowed to escape.
Historically, the barrier nets were removed in early December when ice could damage the netting
and redeployed in late February (Bailey 2005). However, in the late fall of 1996, the inner net
was left in place with the top of the net submerged several feet below the water surface for as
long as there was a threat of the river freezing.
6-11
Figure 6-4
Chalk Point barrier net configuration (Loos 1986a, b)
J.P. Pulliam Plant, Fox River, Wisconsin

The J.P. Pulliam Power Plant, owned by Wisconsin Public Service (WPS) is a 380 MW coal-
fired power plant located at the mouth of the Fox River on the southern end of Green Bay, Lake
Michigan (R. Oswald, WPS, pers. comm. 1999). This is a six-unit plant with each unit having
two forebays. All forebays are fed by a common tunnel that runs between the north and south
intake. The north intake is located on the bay, while the south intake is at the interior end of a
boat slip used for coal unloading and is located on the Fox River. Under the current operating
arrangement, the north intake is closed so the source of all cooling and plant service water is the
Fox River via the south intake.
The net system was initially installed in 1982. Prior to construction, a net system was tested that
consisted of a net suspended from a floating log boom. In 1998, modifications were made to the
system, including:
• A new bulkhead was constructed to ensure a better net seal along the vertical edge of the
net end panel. Formerly, the end net panel draped up the sloped rip-rap shore.
• A win. lifting station was added for raising the end panel.
• Pilings were added inward from the vertical net line to prevent net billowing.
6-12
• The seal between the net bottom and the underwater surface was checked. Additional rip-
rap was added to improve the seal.
The barrier net system is a two-level, open-grid steel structure. The net is a continuous sheet
comprised of four panels, each approximately 8.5 m (28 ft) across and 4.3 m (14 ft) high. There
are two separate nets; one is on the interior side of the steel structure and the other on the exterior
side. The net manufacturer is FNT Industries of Menominee, Michigan. Flow to the plant ranges
from approximately 10 to 23 m3/s (356 to 805 cfs / 230 to 520 mgd) across the face of the nets
and into the plant intake. Corresponding velocities ranged from 0.06 m/sec to 0.15 m/sec (0.2
ft/sec to 0.5 ft/sec).
The four net panels are attached to roller-mounted I-beams that travel along five downrigger
columns. There is a heavy nylon/plastic reinforcing material sewn over the net fabric along the
vertical edge of the nets. The net is sandwiched along these edges and bolted to the I-beams with
aluminum flat bar stock. A 9.5 mm (3/8 in.) diameter nylon reinforcing rope is sewn into the top
and bottom edges of the net fabric at 51 mm (2 in.) intervals. The net fabric consists of
multifilament knotless nylon netting with 6.4-mm (¼-in.) square mesh. Fastened to the bottom of
the net is a heavy chain to ensure that the net has a good bottom seal. Three to four piles per
panel are driven approximately 0.4 m (15 in.) out downstream of the vertical net line to minimize
net billowing under high flows. Billowing normally does occur to about 0.6 to 0.9 m (2 to 3 ft)
past the driven pile. There is a plastic log boom out in front of the nets to reduce floating debris
accumulation.
The only information found on net effectiveness is from the Technical Development Document
in the Phase II Rule (EPA 2004), as quoted below:
“The JP Pulliam Station is located on the Fox River in Wisconsin. Two separate nets with 6-
mm mesh are deployed on opposite sides of a steel grid supporting structure. The operation
of a dual net system facilitates the cleaning and maintenance of the nets without affecting the
overall performance of the system. Under normal operations, nets are rotated at least two
times per week to facilitate cleaning and repair. The nets are typically deployed when the
ambient temperature of the intake canal exceeds 37°F. This usually occurs between April 1
and December 1.
Studies undertaken during the first 2 years after deployment showed an overall net deterrence
rate of 36 percent for targeted species (noted as commercially or recreationally important, or
forage species). Improvements to the system in subsequent years consisted of a new bulkhead
to ensure a better seal along the vertical edge of the net and additional riprap along the base
of the net to maintain the integrity of the seal along the bottom of the net. The improvements
resulted in a deterrence rate of 98 percent for some species; no species performed at less than
85 percent. The overall effectiveness for game species was better than 90 percent while
forage species were deterred at a rate of 97 percent or better.”
The nets are put in service when the intake water temperature reaches 2.8º C (37º F) or by April
1 of each year. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit conditions
allow the nets to be raised after the temperatures are above this minimum or after April 1 when
the potential for ice damage no longer exists. Normal procedure in the spring is to put the system
into service as early as possible. The system stays in service until intake temperatures drop below
2.8º C (37º F), or December 1, whichever occurs later.
6-13
The nets can be rotated for cleaning or repair. Electric win., cables and pulleys are used for
raising and lowering each net as a single unit. Under normal operation, the nets are rotated a
minimum of two times per week (rotation between interior and exterior nets). Rotation takes
approximately 10 min. Because the net is continuous, the entire net can be raised with a master
switch. However, once the roller-mounted I-beams are lowered, an operator makes minor
adjustments to each individual I-beam to ensure a good bottom seal.
The out of service net is cleaned using a fire hose or is manually picked clean. Cleaning takes
about 1 hr. The out-of-service net remains suspended above the water to allow drying and to
make any necessary repairs. Although repairs are infrequent, each net is replaced every year or
two.
Laskin, Colby Lake/Partridge River, Minnesota

A seasonal barrier net was deployed at Laskin in 1985 and has been used continuously on a
seasonal schedule since that time. The net is deployed from May 15 to September 30. In addition
to fish protection, the net also keeps debris, mainly leaves, out of the screenhouse which helps to
reduce operation and maintenance (O&M) requirements on the screens.
Laskin’s flow capacity is 6.3 m3/sec (223.4 cfs /144 mgd). The net is approximately 183 m (600
ft) long and 5 m (16 ft) deep. The net manufacturer is Sterling Net and Twine. The net has three,
61-m (200-ft) panels connected by 12.7-mm (0.5-in.) polypropylene rope. The net material is 20
kg (44 lb) nylon Delta netting with 6.4-mm (1/4-in.) hexagonal mesh. The net is held in place by
two shoreline anchors and 11 bottom anchors spaced approximately 15 m (50 ft) apart. The
bottom anchors are 0.6 m by 0.6 m by 0.3 (2 ft by 2 ft by 1 ft) concrete blocks, each weighing
about 272 kg (600 lbs). Lead weights 114 g (4 oz.) are spaced every 0.5 m (18 in.) along the
length of the net’s lead-line to keep the net anchored to the lake bottom. Floats with 851 g (30
oz) buoyancy are spaced every 0.3 m (12 in.) along the float-line to support the top of the net.
There are 11, 5 kg (172 oz.) buoyancy floats connected to the bottom anchors. The net forms a
semi-circular barrier approximately 31 to 46 m (100 to 150 ft) in front of the intake structure
(Jasperson pers. comm. 2005). A smaller net (122 m [400 ft]) is used in the winter to reduce the
effort required to keep the net ice free.
Impingement sampling was conducted weekly during the barrier net deployment period in 1985.
The total number of fish impinged in 1975 and 1985 over the same period of time in both years
(June 12-October 2) was 903 and 5, respectively, indicating a large reduction possibly due to the
net. It is not possible to calculate the precise reduction since the population of young of the year
black crappie in Colby Lake may have been greater or less in 1985 than in 1975.
The barrier net is deployed upstream from the screenhouse from May through October. The two
main maintenance issues are the need to reposition the net if wave action causes the net to shift
and buoy maintenance to keep the net afloat. Some mending is also needed to repair damage
caused during installation or over time. The net is thoroughly cleaned when it is removed in
October.
Baker River, Baker River, Washington

Puget Sound Energy’s Baker River Hydroelectric plant is located on the Upper Baker River,
Washington. The project is rated for a flow rate of 144 m3/s (5,100 cfs /3.3 billion gallons per
6-14
day [BGD]) (Puget Sound Energy 2002)). A barrier net is used to guide sockeye (Oncorhynchus
nerka) and coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) to the entrance of a surface collector where they
pass to a fish trap and holding facility (Puget Sound Energy 2002). An aerial photograph of the
net installation is shown on Figure 6-5.
The guide net was installed in 1986, spanning the forebay and extending to a depth of 30.5 m
(100 ft) with a mesh size of 2 in. In 1987, the mesh size was decreased to 6.4 mm (0.25 in.) and
was made of nylon. The new mesh allowed only juveniles to pass under the net or to the surface
collector. A full depth barrier net was installed in 1992, with a net depth of 87 m (285 ft). The
net has a 0.1-m (4-in.) diameter inflatable hose for flotation at the surface, continuous cork floats
at a depth of 15.2 m (50 ft), and 0.5-kg (1-lb) weights sewn in along the net bottom at 0.3 m (1
ft) spacing following the contour of the reservoir. For deployment, the first net section is
anchored on shore and fed out into the water using a pontoon boat. The second section is then
spliced to the first section and the process is continued to the third section. This section is then
anchored to shore.
Puget Sound Energy also installed a barrier net at the Lower Baker River section in 1986 (Puget
Sound Energy 2002). The powerhouse is rated for a total flow rate of 113 m3/sec (4,000 cfs/2.6
BGD). The net spanned the forebay with a depth of 30.5 m (100 ft). The net had a mesh size of
6.4 mm (0.25 in.).
In 2001, a full depth net was installed at the Lower baker River section reaching a depth of 72 m
(236 ft), extending from shore to shore. The net is supported by cork floatation across the top and
0.5-kg (1-lb) weights at the bottom sewn at 0.3 m (1 ft) spacing. The net is removed during off-
migration period beginning in August and redeployed in February. The manufacturer for both
nets is Redden Marine (Puget Sound Energy 2002).
Figure 6-5
Baker River aerial photograph of barrier net
Arkansas Nuclear One, Dardanelle Reservoir, Arkansas

Arkansas Nuclear One, owned and operated by Entergy Arkansas, Inc. and located on Dardanelle
Reservoir, installed a seasonal barrier net in 1999. The net is deployed about 120 days annually,
6-15
between late October and early March. The winter deployment was intended to block the
entrance of gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) and threadfin shad (Dorosoma petenense) into
the CWIS during cool months when they are subject to the natural effects of cold shock.
The barrier net is installed outside an intake canal in the reservoir. The net manufacturer is Mid
Lakes located in Knoxville, TN. The net is 457 m (1,500 ft) long and 20 ft deep. The net material
is nylon with bar mesh sizes of 9.5 and 12.7 mm (3/8 and 1/2 in.). The net is made up of six, 76-
m (250-ft) wide panel sections. The plant flow capacity is 38 m3/s (1,322 cfs/854 mgd).
Velocities are approximately 0.01 m/sec (0.04 ft/sec) (Adams pers. comm. 2006).
Installation and take down require about 240 man-hrs. While installed, the net is checked daily
either by boat or from land. Daily inspections require an average of 3 man-hrs per day. On a
periodic basis, the net is lifted and partially cleaned. Installation and takedown of the net requires
approximately 240 man-hrs (Adams pers. comm. 2006). The nets are in 250 ft sections; two new
sections are purchased each year to replace sections of worn net.
LaSalle County Generating Station, Cooling Pond, Illinois

Exelon Corporation’s LaSalle County Generating Station has a barrier net installed upstream of
the intake on a cooling pond to reduce fish impingement, in particular gizzard shad (Dorosoma
cepedianum). LaSalle’s flow capacity is 82 m3/s (2,890 cfs/1,868 mgd). The barrier net is 1,200
ft long and 20 ft deep. The net material is polyethylene with a mesh size of 9.5 mm (3/8 in.). The
original installation in 1982 had two parallel nets installed. During the early 1990s, one net was
removed to reduce O&M costs (Kehring pers. comm. 2006) and the station now operates with a
single net.
The barrier net is visually inspected by divers and cleaned as necessary using a high pressure
spray wash. The net is replaced every four years. During net replacement, the new net is installed
prior to the removal of the old net to prevent the entrance of fish (Kehring pers. comm. 2006).
Crystal Falls, Paint River, Michigan

The City of Crystal Falls owns and operates the Crystal Falls Hydroelectric facility which is
located in Iron County, Michigan on the Paint River. By FERC Order, a seasonal barrier net is
installed to reduce the entrainment of fish. The net is 30.5 m (100 ft) long and the maximum
water depth is 6 m (20 ft). The net material is knotted nylon with a mesh size of 12.7 mm (1/2
in.).
The barrier net is deployed from early spring until the beginning of the fall season. A barrier net
inspection is conducted daily, including visual observations and pulling on the vertical ropes to
dislodge debris. The barrier net is lifted for cleaning as often as necessary, but not less than once
a month. The cleaning schedule required approximately sixteen days in 2000. The net is
maintained and cleaned by pulling the vertical ropes up and shaking the net vigorously to
dislodge the debris. Underwater inspections are conducted every two weeks for the first 10-12
weeks the net is deployed (FERC 2001a,b).
Highline Irrigation Canal, Highline Lake, Colorado

Colorado State Parks installed a barrier net in 1999 at the spillway approach of Highline Lake to
reduce or eliminate continuous introduction of nonnative, warm-water fish, specifically
6-16
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and black crappie
(Pomoxis nigromaculatus), into the Colorado River. Facilities located on this reservoir are in use
seasonally, primarily for irrigation. The barrier net material is Dyneema with a mesh size of 6.4
mm (0.25 in.). The net is 111 m (363 ft) long and 5.8 m (19 ft) deep. Approach velocities are less
than 0.3 ft/s. The maximum intake flow is approximately 56.6 m3/s (2,000 cfs/1,300 mgd).
Rigging attaches to the sides of the spillway and to 13 anchors secured on the bottom of the lake.
The buoy system consists of 2.4-kg (85-oz) buoys for the main panel and 0.7-kg (23-oz) buoys
for the skirts. The net is manufactured in 82-m (270-ft) panels, which are attached to riblines. If
the design loading is exceeded, the net is designed to fail in the middle of the 82-m (270-ft)
panel, leaving the ribs and top/bottom lead intact. The net is designed to flex with the current and
has top and bottom skirts for when the water depths change to prevent fish from escaping under
or over the net. Ayres Associates, Inc. of Boulder, Colorado designed the net and anchoring
system. Redden Nets of Bellingham, Washington was the net manufacturer (Ayres Associates
2001).
Visual inspections of the net and buoy line are conducted weekly. Divers perform underwater
surveys every month examining the net for small tears and determining if the net needs to be
cleaned. Cleaning is necessary prior to water entering in the canal in late March. The barrier net
is cleaned from a barge using a spray wash system. Additional cleaning of the top is necessary
prior to the fall season when large amounts of water are dumped from the canal and flow through
the lake.
It has been determined that cleaning the top 1.8 to 2.4 m (6 to 8 ft) of the net is possible by using
the barge and win. and cleaning the net with a pressure washer system. Cleaning the remainder
of the net requires using divers and a high pressure cleaning system. The length of time the net
can be deployed was still being evaluated in 2001 (Ayres Associates 2001).
Ludington Pumped Storage Plant, Lake Michigan, Michigan

The largest (3.9 km or 2.5 miles) barrier net installed to date is at the Ludington Pumped Storage
Plant, operated by Consumers Energy Company on Lake Michigan (Guilfoos et al. 1995; Reider
et al. 1997). The net was first deployed in 1989 and has undergone substantial modifications
since then. Changes have included modifying the net’s fabric, the amount of flotation, the
addition of top and bottom skirts, and the installation of anchor piles. The Ludington net is
deployed each year from mid-April to mid-October, the time frame of highest fish abundance.
Species of concern at Ludington include alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), yellow perch (Perca
flavescens), salmonids (Family Salmonidae) and rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax). The net is
not used during the winter because storms and icing conditions make deployment of the net at
that time impractical. The maximum flow at Ludington is 1,869 m3/s (66,000 cfs/42.6 BGD).
The 3.9 km (2.5 miles) long barrier net (the length necessary to accommodate the pumping
return flow and minimize hydraulic force on the net), manufactured by Pacific Netting or Redden
Marine, is set in open water around the intake jetties. The main portion of the net is located 1 km
(0.62 miles) offshore, parallel to the shore. This parallel section is approximately 13.7 m (45 ft)
deep. At both ends of the parallel section, there are perpendicular sections extending to the shore
to close access to the waters closest to the plant. The barrier net is constructed with Dyneema (a
6-17
“superfiber” from the Dutch company DSM) material and has 19 mm and 12.7 mm (3/4 in. and
1/2 in.) bar mesh openings. The net consists of 62 panels ranging in length from 30.5 m (100 ft)
to 91.4 m (300 ft) that are sewn together for deployment. An aerial photograph of the net
installation is shown on Figure 6-6.
The biological effectiveness of the Ludington barrier net was determined via an index of fish
population size, by species and size, inside and outside of the net. A report to FERC prepared by
Consumers Energy Company and Detroit Edison Company (2005) provides an excellent
overview of the history of the net; the many enhancements that have been made to improve net
effectiveness and ease O&M activities; and the ability of the net to reduced fish passage.
As a result of design enhancements and maintenance activities, overall effectiveness for target
species (i.e., species of commercial, sport and recreational value, namely, rainbow smelt,
alewife, yellow perch, chubs [Family Cyprinidae], Chinook salmon [Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha], coho salmon [Oncorhynchus kisutch], steelhead [Oncorhynchus mykiss], lake trout
[Salvelinus namaycush] and brown trout [Salmo trutta]) was 92.1% in 2005. Effectiveness for
non-target fish species (all other species combined) was 85.1%. Target species made up 90.1 %
of the 2005 collection (Consumer Energy Company and Detroit Edison Company 2005).
Inspections of the net are performed often. Surface observations are made twice daily from shore
and, when possible, from a boat. Subsurface inspections are performed once daily. Dive teams
make small repairs and perform the subsurface inspections. The divers also clean the net with
spray wands to combat the build-up of algae and zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha). The net
was cleaned four times during 2005 (Consumer Energy Company and Detroit Edison Company
2005).
6-18
Figure 6-6
Ludington aerial photograph of barrier net
Pine Hydroelectric Project, Pine River, Wisconsin

In the summer of 1990, Wisconsin Electric (WE) installed and tested a prototype barrier net
system at the Pine Hydroelectric Project (Pine) on the Pine River in Wisconsin (Stone and
Webster 1991). The 25-mm (1-in.) nylon mesh (stretch) barrier net was 79.2 m (260 ft) in length,
ranged in depth from 0.6 to 10.7 m (2 to 35 ft), and was placed along an angled log boom located
directly upstream of the power canal intake, as shown on Figure 6-7. Table 6-2 provides
pertinent project information. The top of the net was set 30.5 to 45.7 cm (12 to 18 in.) below the
water surface to avoid entanglement of floating debris. Pine has a flow capacity of approximately
18 m3/s (640 cfs/414 mgd), equivalent to the flow of a moderately sized CWIS. Average
approach velocities ranged from 0.03 to 0.15 m/sec (0.1 to 0.5 ft/sec).
In 1991, additional floatation was added to raise the main net to within 15.2 cm (6 in,) of the
surface, and a surface net was added to the barrier net section closest to the dam to reduce fish
passage over the net in this area. The bottom of the barrier net was held in place by using 36.3-kg
(80-lb) iron blocks, spaced about every 3 m (10 ft) (Michaud and Taft 2000). The barrier net was
deployed from June to November of 1990 and April to October of 1991. During the winter, the
net was lowered to the bottom of the reservoir for storage.
The Pine barrier net was evaluated to determine its effectiveness in reducing entrainment of
riverine fish, which included largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) and white sucker (Catostomus commersonii),
through the project’s turbines. Effectiveness was evaluated by comparing power canal
6-19
entrainment data prior to net deployment in 1990 to data with the net in place in 1991 and by
comparing mark-recapture studies with fish released upstream and downstream of the barrier net.
Power canal entrainment was estimated from the number of fish caught in a 9.1 m (30 ft) trap net
that sampled the entire canal flow. Net sampling was performed for a total of 253 hrs prior to
deployment of the barrier net, and 1,593 hrs following deployment. Entrainment monitoring
before and after the barrier net was installed demonstrated the net was successful at reducing the
numbers of adult fish passing into the intake canal. The barrier net reduced fish entrainment by
85 to 99% from the May through August of 1991 (SWEC 1991; Michaud and Taft 2000).
Figure 6-7
Pine barrier net
Plante et al. (1997) review the design, operation and maintenance of the net, in particular its
response to changes in flow, debris loading, and biofouling. To address concerns over heavy
debris loading, the existing log boom was modified to support the net. Safety rails, new decking
and floatation were added for stability. The estimated expenses for these modifications were
$2,800 for materials and 160 hrs of labor.
Biofouling on the net mesh was controlled by using a long brush to scrape the net on a periodic
basis. Heavy surface debris was removed by reversing flow through the net by opening an
adjacent spillway gate and spilling 10 m3/sec (350 cfs). In 1991, a protective coating of Flexibar,
an antifouling substance was applied to the net to limit biological growth. In addition, new
inspection methods were employed to estimate the frequency of cleaning needed for long-term
deployment. The net was inspected by divers once each month during the 1991 deployment
period.
During the initial deployment period the Pine barrier net design was easy to install and maintain.
The net effectively limited the passage of fish (EPRI 1994a; Michaud and Taft 2000). There
were occasional periods of heavy debris loading, but plant flows were not seriously impaired.
Reversal of flow through the net was an effective procedure for cleaning the net when river flows
were high enough to permit spilling. Brushing was necessary to keep the net mesh clean and free
of silt and debris. The storing of the net at the lake bottom in the winter allowed microorganisms
to feed on the biofouling on the net material while in the stored position.
6-20
Brule Hydroelectric Project, Brule River, Wisconsin
Wisconsin Electric (WE) installed a barrier net system at the Brule Hydroelectric Project on the
Brule River in Wisconsin in 1999. The barrier net spanned 217 ft across the front of the
hydroelectric project forebay and was suspended by a cable. The 9.7- by 13-mm (0.38- by 0.5-
in.) knotless nylon mesh barrier net extended about 6.1 m (30 ft) below the water surface and the
bottom of the net was attached to weights to hold the net vertical. The net was attached to the top
cable by clevises and nylon pulleys. This unique deployment system allows that net to be
installed and removed in a similar manner to operating a clothes line, as shown on Figure 6-8.
The top cable support is anchored to the dam at one end and the other end by a suspended
concrete block to maintain a constant tension on the cable. This system limits tension on the
cable resulting from debris loading on the net. Brule has a flow capacity of approximately 39
m3/s (1,377 cfs/890 mgd). Average approach velocity to the net is 0.06 m/sec (0.2 ft/sec).
Figure 6-8
Brule barrier net
The Brule net was designed to be a partial depth net due to the fact that studies confirmed the
existence of a seasonal, intense stratification that sets up in the flowage from late spring to early
September and creates dissolved oxygen levels well below 3.0 mg/l at depths greater than 9.1 m
(30 ft). The net design rationale was to place the net where fish are most likely to be and at the
times of greatest abundance.
In 1999, a FERC approved study (Normandeau 2000) was conducted to estimate the
effectiveness of the barrier net. There were two test periods in the experimental design: July 7-15
and September 29 through October 13, 1999, which were selected to correspond to periods of
peak fish entrainment. Within each sampling period, a series of replicates were conducted. Each
replicate included a 24-hrs of sampling with the net in and 24-hrs of sampling without the barrier
net. Individual samples were collected at 2 hr intervals (Normandeau 2000).
Total number of fish collected with and without fish was low (416 fish). There were significantly
more fish entrained without the net deployed when both test periods were combined and for July
alone, but there were no significant differences in entrainment rates during the
September/October period. The overall barrier net effectiveness was estimated to be 50%.
Effectiveness for fish <100 mm was 61%. The net did not significantly reduce entrainment of
fish >100 mm, but the sample size was low (55 fish in July and 43 fish in September/October).
6-21
Overall species effectiveness of fish <100 mm (3.9 in.) were: white sucker (Catostomus
commersonii; 84%); smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu; 83%); yellow perch (Perca
flavescens; 70%); walleye (Sander vitreus; 36%). The barrier net was not effective at reducing
bluegill entrainment (Normandeau 2000). Agency comments to FERC (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
and Michigan Department of Natural Resources) stated that the results of the study were
inconclusive (FERC 2001a,b).
The Brule net experiences heavy biogrowth (Figure 6-8) which, on at least one occasion, has
caused the net to lift to the water surface rendering it ineffective. The pictures on Figure 6-8 were
taken in September 2004, about one month after the net was cleaned by divers and just before the
net was removed for winter storage. The net is stored for the winter in the hanging position from
an onshore tower (see right picture, Figure 6-8).
Hayward Hydroelectric Project, Namekagon River, Wisconsin

Northern States Power Company (NSP) (now Xcel Energy) installed a seasonal barrier net at the
Hayward Hydroelectric Project in 1999. The net is located in the bay just above the intake on the
west bank of the Namekagon River in Wisconsin. The net is about 22.9 m (75 ft) long by 3 m (10
ft) deep and is knotted, 9.5 mm (3/8 in.) square nylon mesh. The top of the net is supported by
floats and a steel cable strung between two anchor points. The bottom is anchored by four, 36.3-
to 45.4-kg (80- to100-lb) weights spaced evenly along the lake bottom. A 1 m (3 ft) deep bottom
skirt helps maintain a tight closure. Hayward has a flow capacity of approximately 5 m3/s (180
cfs/116 mgd). Velocities approaching the net are considerably less than 0.15 m/sec (0.5 ft/sec).
The barrier net is intended primarily to protect young-of-the-year walleye (Sander vitreus) and is
installed from May through approximately June 15 each year (FERC 1997). The Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) is responsible for maintaining and cleaning the
barrier net as necessary (FERC 1997).
Banks Lake, Columbia River, Washington

A fish barrier net was installed in Banks Lake Reservoir in 1977 to prevent entrainment of
mature Kokanee salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) into the main irrigation canal. Banks Lake is
located in Washington and is supplied by a feeder canal from a pumping station on Franklin D.
Roosevelt Reservoir. The barrier net is located in front of the main irrigation canal and
positioned between two islands and the lake shore in three net sections. The maximum irrigation
withdrawal is 224 m3/s (7,910 cfs/5.1 BGD). The south net section is 379 m (1,243 ft) long with
a maximum depth of 24 m (78.7 ft), the middle section is 126 m (413.4 ft) long with a maximum
depth of 8 m (26.2 ft), and the east net is 859 m (2,818 ft) long with a maximum depth of 12 m
(39.4 ft). An aerial photograph of the net is shown on Figure 6-9; it appears the middle section
may have been replaced with a rock dike. The net is made of knotless Dacron material with a
stretch mesh of 8.3 cm (3.25 in.). The net is supported by anchors and floats. Three pairs of
anchors set at 85 m (287 ft) spacing supports the south net; one anchor pair supports the middle
net; and four anchor pairs at 166 m (544 ft) spacing supports the east net.
The screening efficiency of the barrier net was evaluated by numerous methods: sampling the
fishes entrained in the irrigation canal with large nets, mark and recapture of adult Kokanee in
the reservoir, estimates of the number of beach spawners, sonic tracking near the net, census of
the sport fishery, and mortality of Kokanee gilled in the net. Based on four years of catch data,
6-22
annual canal entrainment of Kokanee declined from an average of 64% before installation of the
net to 10% afterwards (Stober et al 1983). Based on mark/recapture studies, an estimated 35,391
adult Kokanee were retained in the lake during the fall of 1978 (96% retention of the
population). It was concluded that the net provided an economical means of reducing the
entrainment loss of adult Kokanee through a spillway.
Net cleaning at Banks Lake is conducted using a flat bottomed fiberglass boat and an attached
small floating platform. All the cleaning is done on the boat by hauling the net onto the boat with
a power block and using a high pressure spray wash to remove debris and biogrowth. The power
block pulls the boat along the net length as it lifts the net to the boat deck.
Figure 6-9
Banks Lake fish barrier net – aerial photograph
Puntledge Hydroelectric Project, British Columbia

A barrier net study (Bengeyfield 1992, 1993) was conducted during 1991 and 1992 at the
Puntledge Hydroelectric Project in British Columbia. The facility is owned by B.C. Hydro. The
diversion net was installed in the Puntledge River at an angle across the entrance to the project's
power canal and diverted fish, primarily coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), to a bypass
located at the dam. The net was 43 m (141 ft) long and 25 ft deep. The net material was of tarred
knotless nylon 210/20, 19-mm (3/4-in.) stretch mesh which was square-hung from a float line.
Secondary nets of marquisette mesh overlapped the two ends of the net, and the bottom of the net
was weighted by a cable to follow the contour of the river bed. The float line and upper section
of the net extended about 30 cm (11.8 in.) above the water level and was hooked to a series of
Topper floats. Flow passing through the net consisted of the powerhouse flow 27.2 m3/s (960
cfs/620 mgd) maximum and a bypass flow 2.8 m3/s (100 cfs/65 mgd) (for most of the two study
periods) which was discharged into the bypass reach via a sluice adjacent to the powerhouse.
River flows during 1991 were quite low, ranging from 13.4 to 16.6 m3/s (474 to 586 cfs) over the
6-23
study period, but were higher in 1992 (33.2 to 40.4 m3/s [1,173 to 1,425 cfs]) (Bengeyfield 1992,
1993).
Yearling coho salmon smolts were the principal test subjects used to evaluate the barrier net
(Bengeyfield 1992). Traps placed in the bypass enumerated fish that were successfully diverted
by the net while traps in the sluice and tailrace enumerated fish that circumvented the net. Trap
catches were enumerated twice a day, seven days a week, usually between 0800-0900 h and
between 1600-1900 h. Fish caught in the traps were sorted by species, examined for marks, and
counted.
This evaluation showed that 99.3% of the estimated 107,890 coho smolts that migrated in the
spring of 1991 were effectively diverted by the net. Impingement was negligible and was limited
to the highest velocity area of the net. The netting was well-sealed along the bottom and at both
ends against the face of the dam and bedrock bank, respectively. There were some problems with
the net lifting off from the bottom of the channel (Bengeyfield1992).
The study was conducted again in 1992 under the substantially higher flow conditions. Water
velocities measured on May 4, 1992 at a river discharge of 37.5 m3/s (1,324 cfs) indicated that
the approach velocities (perpendicular to the net) ranged from 0.13 to 0.5 m/sec (0.44 to 1.70
ft/sec). While 132,123 fish were successfully diverted to the bypass, impingement (measured as
the number of dead fish on the screen each morning) occurred as follows: 272 coho smolts, 2
coho fry, 22 Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) fry, and 41 sculpins (Family Cottidae). Most
of these fish were impinged on the net at the downstream section of net where velocities were
highest and where most of the leafy and woody debris accumulated.
Although the diversion net was highly effective over the 2 years of the study (Bengeyfield 1992,
1993), B.C. Hydro concluded that the net would be less effective during years with higher stream
flow. The results of one study (Bengeyfield 1992, 1993) indicate that a barrier net installed at an
angle to the flow can be effective in diverting fish to a bypass. The diversion net was removed in
1993, and Eicher screens were installed to divert fish from the project's penstocks (Smith 1997).
Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, Lake Ontario, Ontario, Canada

Due to the negative effects of consistent algae blooms and the need for fish protection, a barrier
net was designed and installed at Ontario Power Generation’s Pickering Nuclear Generating
Station, Lake Ontario, Ontario, Canada (Lew 2012). The net surrounds the entire intake channel
at a length of 609.6 m (2,000 ft) and consists of 12.7- by 12.7-mm (0.5- by 0.5-in.) mesh made of
Dyneema. The length of the net was selected so that if 90% of the net was clogged, 61.0 m (200
ft) would remain open, which is the same length as the width of the intake channel. The net
deployed an anchoring system and the top of the net was equipped with a float line. More
resilient, permanent steel panels were installed at the intake groin interface. A 1.5-m (5-ft) skirt
was installed to minimize debris carryover and wave action stress. In the event of debris/algae
over load, the net is designed sink, an inherent fail safe concept. The net is cleaned, as needed
by an underwater dive team using high pressure sprays.
Modifications were introduced in 2011 as a result of 2010 algae loading experience and fish
impingement impacts. Modifications included an 8 ft skirt extension, increasing the mesh size to
6.4 by 6.4 cm (2.5 by 2.5 in.) to allow greater water passage, and the addition of 10 crown bouys
6-24
for additional floatation. After these modifications, fish impingement and algal impacts were
reduced substantially.
Osage Hydropower Plant/Bagnell Dam, Osage River, Missouri

Ameren Missouri owns and operates Osage Hydropower Plant/ Bagnell Dam which is located on
the Osage River, approximately 35 miles southwest of Jefferson City, Missouri, and
approximately 82 miles upstream of the confluence with the Missouri River. The Plant is
operated primarily to generate electricity during peak demand periods, but also provides
environmental enhancements, recreational opportunities, and flood control. By FERC Order, a
seasonal barrier net was installed in December 2008 to reduce the entrainment of fish (Ameren
2011).
The net is 1,100 ft long and spans across the reservoir 850 ft with a maximum water depth of 100
ft. It was installed 103.6 m (340 ft) upstream of the reservoir. The net is made of 5.1 cm (2 in.)
mesh Dyneema material with a bottom and top skirt. A pre- and post-net installation comparison
survey was conducted to describe the success of the barrier net at reducing mortality and injury
of fish below Bagnell Dam during spring months (April-June).
Pre-net installation fish surveys were conducted in 2005-2006 and post-net installation fish
surveys were conducted in 2009-2010. Both pre- and post- net surveys lasted for 12 weeks and
spanned from April 1 to June 30 with the exception of 2009, during which sampling was delayed
until mid-May. Fish surveys were also conducted during October in 2009 and 2010 to account
for differences in species composition and abundance after destratification during the fall season.
At 10-min intervals, a boat was driven crosswise from bank to bank downstream of the
downstream side of the dam on a predetermined transect. All dead or dying fish along the
transect were collected in 18.9-L (5-gal) buckets until the end of the interval. All fish were
subsequently identified, measured, and visible injuries were recorded. Fish collected were
assumed to have passed the dam through turbine entrainment. Fish that were capable of passing
through the mesh (maximum mesh diameter= 2.8”) were removed from net success analysis.
Freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens) was the dominate species in 2005,2006, and 2009
(representing 46.9, 44.3, and 60.9% of the total, respectively) while black crappie (Pomoxis
nigromaculatus)and white crappie (Pomoxis annularis) were the dominate species in 2010
(26.3% and 21.1%, respectively). Dead fish collected considered too large to pass through the
mesh were substantially less during post net surveys (Table 6-3). Despite considerable decrease
in sample size from pre- net to post-net installation, there is still concern of the effectiveness of
the net. During the October fish survey collections in 2009 and 2010, 67 and 66 dead fish were
collected, respectively. This is a reduction of 54% and 82% after destratification.
6-25
Table 6-3
Number of dead fish collected and prevent of fish collected considered too large to pass through
the mesh during pre- and post-net installation
No. Dead
% Too Large
Year Fish
to Pass Mesh
Collected
Pre-Net 2005 2,709 15%
2006 782 19%
Post-Net 2009 1,239 2%
2010 360 5%
J. R. Whiting Plant
Consumers Power Company (CPC 1984, 1985) has demonstrated that a barrier net can
substantially reduced the numbers of fish impinged at the J. R. Whiting Plant in Michigan.
Gizzard shad and yellow perch are the primary species of concern at the Whiting facility.
Continued effective operation and maintenance of the deterrent system has been credited with
impingement reductions observed since its installation in 1980. Consequently, the barrier net
was considered to be the best technology available for minimizing environmental impact at the
plant by the Michigan Water Resources Commission (WRC) in 1982.
Monitoring, verification, and reporting of net performance at Whiting were required by the
WRC. Monitoring included weekly inspections by divers to verify proper net installation, to
identify and correct any non-sealed areas in the net and to determine whether any accumulation
of dead gizzard shad has occurred on the channel bottom. Effectiveness monitoring and
maintenance activities were reported on a monthly basis to the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources (DNR).
The key indicator species at the Whiting Plant are gizzard shad during the fall and yellow perch
during the spring. Impingement of these species was greatly reduced with the barrier net in place
compared to the numbers impinged prior to barrier net use (monitoring results through 1984 are
shown on Figure 6-10).
6-26
Figure 6-10
Estimated annual fish iImpingement at the J. R. Whiting Plant from 1978 through 1984 (CPC 1984)
6-27
7
AQUATIC FILTER BARRIER
Introduction
There are limited data available on the deployment of aquatic filter barrier (sold commercially as
Gunderboom® Marine Life Exclusion System™ – MLES) for the protection of fish at water
intakes. The AFB consists of polyester fiber strands that are pressed into a water-permeable
fabric mat (Figure 7-1). This material can be perforated to allow greater flow rates. In addition,
Gunderboom also developed a woven material with greater opening sizes than the original fabric
mat.
Because of its limited application, the AFB system should be considered experimental for
application at cooling water intakes (CWIS). Long-term deployment of the AFB at the Lovett
Generating Station (described below) resulted in substantial improvements in anchoring and
cleaning systems. Because AFB is one of a few technologies suitable for reducing entrainment
and has potential to be biological effectiveness, AFB is an alternative that facilities can consider
for reducing both impingement mortality and entrainment.
Figure 7-1
Close-up of perforated AFB material (courtesy of Alden)
7-1
Lovett Generating Station

An AFB was installed at the Lovett Generating Station on the Hudson River in New York in
1994 (Figure 7-2). Lovett, now decommissioned, was a three unit, fossil fuel power plant with a
462-MW capacity and used 391-MGD of cooling water in its once-through cooling system. A
subsequent 11-year evaluation of the engineering and biological performance of the AFB was
undertaken. Biological evaluations conducted between 1995 and 2001 compared the entrainment
rates of a protected intake to that of an unprotected intake (Figure 7-3). Later biological
evaluations conducted between 2004 and 2006 evaluated a full scale AFB installation at Lovett
Station with comparisons made between the inside (protected) and the outside (unprotected) of
the AFB (Figure 7-4).
Figure 7-2
Location of the Lovett Generating Station on the Hudson River, NY (LMS 1996b)
7-2
Control Station
Test Station
Figure 7-3
Site plan of the AFB deployment at the Lovett Generating Station showing sampling locations
for entrainment sampling conducted between 1995 and 1999 (LMS 1998a,b).
Figure 7-4
Site plan of the AFB deployment at the Lovett Generating Station showing sampling locations
for entrainment sampling conducted between 2004 and 2006 (ASA 2004).
Biological evaluation of the AFB began during the summer of 1995 (LMS 1996b). The AFB
deployed was 5 mm thick with an apparent opening size (AOS) of 20 µm. The entire AFB
measured roughly 122 m (400 ft) wide by 6 m (20 ft) high and was designed to filter the entire
Unit 3 flow of 163.5 m3/min (43,200 gpm; 96 cfs) at an average velocity of 15.2 mm/s (0.05
7-3
ft/s). During this study, a total of 81 ichthyoplankton samples were collected at each of the
intakes being evaluated (control and test, see Figure 7-3). Samples were collected in 30-min
intervals every 4 hrs over a 24-hour period. Based on pump flow rate, each sample comprised
approximately 34.1 m3 (9,000 gallons). All pumped samples were screened through a 500-µm
plankton net. Concentrations of ichthyoplankton collected during this evaluation indicated that
the AFB was successful in reducing entrainment by 82% over controls.
During the evaluation period, the AFB experienced a number of engineering difficulties
including overtopping due to plugging of the filter fabric with suspended silt and failure of the
anchor and support lines. These engineering issues were the likely cause of the decreasing
effectiveness of the AFB over the study period. Initial biological effectiveness was 97%, but
decreased to 61% by the conclusion of the study.
Based on the promising biological results of the 1995 evaluation, a feasibility study was
conducted in 1996 to evaluate the efficacy of expanding the AFB to protect the cooling water
intake structures of Units 3, 4, and 5 (LMS 1997). This AFB differed from the one evaluated in
1995 in that two layers were used for additional strength. Overtopping of a 29.9-m (98-ft)
section of the 243.8-m (800-ft) AFB occurred within the first 30 min of deployment. Significant
failure of the anchoring system necessitated removal of the expanded AFB within 22 hrs of its
deployment. It was concluded that the combined flow rate of Units 3, 4, and 5 (1,027.6 m3/min
[271,463 gpm; 605 cfs]) exceeded the AFB’s designed flow rate. Though part of the original
scope, no biological sampling was conducted because of the failure of the anchoring system.
Evaluation of the AFB designed to protect Units 3, 4, and 5 was continued in 1997; however,
modifications were made to the 243.8-m (800-ft) AFB so that it could be used to protect only
Unit 3 (LMS 1998a,b). A 121.9-m (400-ft) section of AFB was, therefore, cut from the original
243.8 m (800 ft) used in 1996 testing. Additionally, the anchoring system was updated from
Danforth anchors to concrete blocks measuring 0.9 by 0.9 by 1.8 m (3 by 3 by 6 ft) and weighing
3,674.1 kg (8,100 lbs) each. It was concluded that the concrete block anchors adequately
anchored the 121.9-m (400-ft) AFB and did not move throughout the study period. The airburst
system was shown to be most effective in sections of the AFB that matched the bathymetry of
the river closely. In sections that did not match the bathymetry well, airbursting was less
effective in keeping the AFB clean. The indication was that if the AFB depth did not closely
match the depth of the water column, excess AFB material would billow and prevent effective
cleaning of the upper parts of the material. The study period ended when a major tear in the
fabric was deemed too difficult to repair in place.
A new AFB was fabricated for testing in 1998 with 0.5-mm (0.02-in.) perforations to allow
adequate filtering capacity. The AFB was deployed around the Unit 3 cooling water intake
structure and measured 152.4 m (500 ft) long and between 7.6 and 9.1 m (25 and 30 ft) deep.
The new AFB with 0.5-mm (0.02-in.) perforations demonstrated a significant improvement in
filtering capacity and was successful in filtering the entire Unit 3 flow of 163.5 m3/min. (43,200
gpm; 96 cfs). The new automated airburst cleaning system was effective in keeping the AFB
clean, however it was noted that it would benefit greatly from a programmable function allowing
for cleaning to be coordinated with tidal cycle (LMS 1998a,b).
Additional biological evaluation of the AFB was conducted at Lovett in 1998 with this new
deployment (ASA 1999 and LMS 1998a,b). Similar to testing in 1995, simultaneous
entrainment sampling was conducted at the intakes for Unit 3 (protected) and Unit 4
7-4
(unprotected). Sampling was conducted twice a week at night from June 11 through August 31
(excluding August 11–19). Each day of sampling yielded 30 samples (15 from Unit 3 and 15
from Unit 4), for a total of 702 individual samples. Samples were collected from three depths.
Samples were pumped with a trash pump to a net/barrel sampling system. The plankton nets had
a 505 µm mesh. Volumes of sampled water were recorded with a digital flow meter.
A total of 6,343 eggs, larvae, and juveniles were collected. Forty-two percent (2,645) were
collected from Unit 3 and 58% (3,698) from Unit 4. The most abundant species was bay
anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), comprising 68% of the total collected. Other abundant species were
striped bass (Morone saxatilis), naked goby (Gobiosoma bosc), and river herring (Alosa spp.),
comprising 29% of the total collectively. The majority (89%) of organisms collected were post
yolk-sac larvae. The four notable periods of peak entrainment were early to mid-June, early
July, early August, and late August. The results of sampling conducted over two 24-hour periods
reveal a diel variation in abundance, with generally higher densities at night and lower densities
during the day time. A vertical density gradient also existed with higher densities near the
surface, intermediate densities at the middle depth, and lowest densities at the bottom.
It was concluded that the AFB was effective in reducing entrainment of fish eggs and larvae
during the early part of the study period (June 18 – July 13) by 76%. By the end of the study
period, however, entrainment between the protected and unprotected intakes was essentially
equal, indicating that the AFB’s integrity may have been compromised at some point during the
evaluation.
System evaluations continued in 1999 and 2000. LMS (2001) evaluated various MLES
components including in-field maintenance, monitoring of the automated air-burst system, AFB
integrity, and performance of an industrial-strength zipper for joining sections. ASA (2001)
conducted the biological assessment of the AFB for excluding ichthyoplankton. As with
previous tests, Unit 3 was surrounded by the AFB while Unit 4 was used as a control.
It was concluded that all aspects of the MLES deployment, operation, and retrieval went well.
Minimal operational issues were encountered. The fabric maintained its integrity and the air-
burst system kept the MLES clean of sediment. Installation of the zippers allowed for easier
maintenance and the zippers held up under severe weather conditions. Biological sampling
revealed that the AFB reduced entrainment of fish eggs and larvae by 74% during the initial
stages of the study. A total of 31,966 eggs and larvae were collected at the unprotected intake
(Unit 4) and 8,438 at the protected intake (Unit 3). Striped bass (Morone saxatilis) was the most
abundant species collected, comprising approximately 74% of the total collected (40,404). Post
yolk-sac larvae were the most abundant life stage collected, comprising 63.4% of the total
collected during this evaluation. After six weeks of operation, the level of protection began to
decrease until there was no detectable difference in entrainment rates between the protected and
unprotected intakes. This decrease in physical exclusion was attributed to a hole that developed
in the AFB that went unnoticed during the final stages of the evaluation.
A full-scale AFB covering all operational intakes (Units 3, 4, and 5 were in operation; Units 1
and 2 were retired in 1996) was installed at the Lovett Generating Station in 2004 (Figure 7-4).
The total flow rate with Units 3, 4, and 5 in operation was 1,027.6 m3/min (271,463 gpm; 605
cfs). Biological monitoring of this expanded AFB system was conducted by ASA between 2004
and 2006 (ASA 2004, 2006a, 2006b). Control samples were collected outside of the protected
intake, while test samples were collected from inside. Simultaneous samples were collected
7-5
weekly from each sample station during the nighttime. Daytime samples were collected once per
month. Samples were collected from three depths and pumped with a trash pump to a net/barrel
sampling system. The plankton nets had a 505 µm mesh. Volumes of sampled water were
recorded with a digital flow meter and were approximately 70 m3/min (18,500 gpm).
A total of 8,049 organisms were collected in the 382 samples during 2004 sampling. A reduction
in entrainment of 73% was realized between the test and control stations. Approximately 91% of
the organisms collected were larvae. Striped bass (Morone saxatilis) and bay anchovy (Anchoa
mitchilli) larvae were the most abundant species collected, representing 35% and 34% of the
total, respectively. The percent reduction in entrainment of striped bass and bay anchovy were
84% and 68%, respectively.
Impingement sampling was also conducted as part of the 2004 scope. During the first 48 hrs of
the study, the traveling water screen collection baskets were checked hourly. For the remainder
of the study, impingement collections were made once per day. A total of 15,950 organisms
were collected in impingement samples. Blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) comprised 72% of the
total number of organisms collected, indicating that there is potential for organisms (especially
blue crabs that were noted to be swimming near the surface at night) to circumvent the physical
barrier provided by the AFB.
Entrainment sampling continued in 2005 and followed the same sampling protocol developed in
2004. A total of 1,830 organisms were collected in the 416 samples during the 2005 sampling.
A total reduction in entrainment of 92% was realized between the test and control stations.
Approximately 95% of the organisms collected were larvae. Striped bass (Morone saxatilis) and
bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) larvae were the most abundant species collected, representing
41% and 36% of the total, respectively. The percent reduction in entrainment of striped bass and
bay anchovy was 93% and 90%, respectively.
Entrainment sampling continued in 2006, following the same sampling protocol used in the
previous two years of sampling. A total of 4,246 organisms were collected in the 342 samples
during the 2006 sampling. A total reduction in entrainment of 89% was realized between the test
and control stations. Approximately 91% of the organisms collected were larvae. Bay anchovy
and striped bass larvae were the most abundant species collected, representing 39% and 21% of
the total, respectively. The percent reduction in entrainment of bay anchovy and striped bass
were 89% and 90%, respectively.
Gunderboom, Inc. (2006) prepared a comprehensive report to address National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit concerns of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Included in the report is a description of the
“Operations, Monitoring, Maintenance and Repair Protocol” (OMMR), which is used to assure
the integrity and continued functionality of the MLES. The authors concluded that biological
monitoring alone would not be reliable or timely enough to assess system compromises, MLES
integrity, or optimization of entrainment exclusion. This indicates that at future installations,
development of a comprehensive monitoring program would be necessary to ensure that any
compromise of AFB system is identified before a drastic increase in organism entrainment
occurs.
7-6
Bethlehem Energy Center
The Bethlehem Energy Center (BEC) is located on the Hudson River just south of Albany in
Bethlehem, NY. A review of potential intake alternatives was undertaken in Public Service
Enterprise Group’s (PSEG’s) permit application for the generating facility before its planned
start-up in 2005. Based on available information provided by PSEG, NYSDEC required a
combination of wet/dry cooling towers, 2-mm (0.08-in.) cylindrical wedgewire screens, and a
seasonally-deployed AFB as the Best Technology Available (BTA) for reducing the entrainment
and impingement of aquatic organisms at BEC.
Due to physical constraints imposed by the busy shipping channel in the river, an anchored
floating deployment of the AFB was not possible. Instead, the AFB was designed to be deployed
in a fixed-panel arrangement in front of the cooling water intake structure. The AOS of the AFB
fabric was 0.4 mm (0.02 in.) and had a designed through-fabric flow rate of less than 15.2 cm/s
(0.5 ft/s).
With the intake technologies in operation at the BEC, the intake should have been very
protective of all life stages of aquatic organisms; however, no biological data are available on the
effectiveness on the AFB at the BEC at this time. Shortly after installation, the fixed panel
deployment experienced significant failures most likely due to boat-generated waves associated
with commercial shipping traffic. Under repetitive wave action, the fabric is alternately stressed
inward contributing to fabric stretch and outward (due to backflow) onto the fabric support
frames causing abrasion. Prolonged exposure to wave action is expected as the cause of fabric
failure. In addition, consideration of wave action is important for design of the automatic
airburst system that is activated by preset pressure differentials. A low differential water level
set-point could activate the airburst on a very frequent basis. A high differential set-point would
allow more debris and biofouling to accumulate on the fabric prior to airburst.
A wave-attenuating bar rack was subsequently proposed and piloted in front of the fixed-panel
AFB at BEC. Though observational data indicate that it may have been successful in decreasing
the impact of waves, a full-scale bar rack in front of the AFB would significantly decrease the
ambient sweeping velocity of the river which is critical to the proper flushing of debris after
airbursting of the fabric occurs. The AFB has subsequently been removed from the BEC site.
Case Studies – Field Evaluations
Pisces
Henderson et al. (2001) conducted an evaluation of the biofouling of the AFB in a field setting.
The objectives of the study were to determine the effects of biofouling on the flow distribution
and filtering capacity of the AFB fabric and to characterize the biofouling community. The
evaluation was conducted at the Bowline Generating Station in Bowline Pond on the Hudson
River. Five-inch by 10.2 cm (4-inch) pieces of AFB were hung at 0.9, 2.7, and 4.6 m (3, 9, and
15 ft) depths from a boom in Bowline Pond. Some pieces were air-burst backwashed, while
others remained static. The pieces of AFB were removed from the water on days 11, 20, and 29
for visual inspection, qualitative assessment of the biofouling community, permeability testing,
and microbiological assay.
7-7
Results indicated that there was a significant difference in permeability among the three depths
tested. In the no flow/no air burst treatments, there was a significant decrease in permeability
over time. There was no change in permeability after 11 days, a 49% decrease in permeability
after 20 days, and a 62% decrease in permeability after 29 days (Figure 7-5). In the treatments
exposed to flow and airbursting, there was an even greater reduction in permeability. After 29
days, the flow was reduced to 4% that of clean fabric. The authors linked the decrease in
permeability to the development of a diverse biofouling community. Additionally, it was
hypothesized that the biofouling community was comprised of a number of potentially predatory
species that could prey upon the eggs and larvae occurring near the AFB.
Figure 7-5
Appearance of AFB pieces after 11, 20 and 29 days of exposure (moving from left to right) to
water in Bowline Pond at a depth of 3 ft (Henderson et al. 2001).
Case Studies – Laboratory Evaluations

Laboratory testing of the AFB is limited to two studies. The first was conducted by NYSDEC in
2001 (Radle 2001) and the second by Alden Research Laboratory in 2002 (EPRI 2004).
NYSDEC
A small-scale laboratory study was conducted by NYSDEC to evaluate the survival of American
shad (Alosa sapidissima) eggs impinged on AFB and to observe the swimming behavior of
American shad larvae in the laboratory at a typical AFB approach velocity. For the impingement
survival trials, eggs were placed in a hatching jar that had a disc of AFB mounted on one end
(Figure 7-6). Uni-directional flow was initiated such that all eggs were impinged on the AFB
surface. Eggs were impinged for 1, 2, or 4 hrs and then held for 24 hrs to assess latent mortality.
Swimming observations of day-old larvae were conducted in a 0.3- by 1.1-m (1- by 3.5-ft) test
channel with a piece of AFB at the downstream end. Flow in the channel was such that the
through-AFB velocity was 5 gpm/ft2.
7-8
Figure 7-6
Hatching jars used in American shad egg impingement trials at the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) (photo courtesy Ed Radle, NYSDEC).
The results of this laboratory evaluation indicate that impingement of American shad eggs on the
AFB fabric did not significantly affect survival. Additionally, since the impinged eggs were
easily freed from the AFB after the cessation of flow, the author concluded that the automatic
airburst system could be expected to efficiently dislodge eggs in the field. Results of the
swimming experiments indicate that day-old American shad larvae were capable of avoiding
impingement on the AFB fabric withdrawing flow at a rate of 5 gpm/ft2.
Electric Power Research Institute

This laboratory evaluation was sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI 2004,
Black et al. 2008) in order to evaluate the engineering and biological performance of a relatively
new intake protection technology. This evaluation had two primary objectives. First was to
investigate the engineering performance of the AFB when subject to physical forces common at
CWIS. Second was to investigate the biological effectiveness of the AFB in reducing
impingement mortality and entrainment of fish eggs and larvae.
The engineering portion of the evaluation was designed to focus on determining the AOS of
AFB fabrics with three different perforation sizes (0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 mm [0.02, 0.04, and 0.06 in.),
determining the headloss coefficients for AFBs with these perforation sizes, determining the
relationship between headloss and debris loading, and determining the effectiveness of the
airburst system in cleaning the AFB.
Headloss and debris loading testing was conducted in a small acrylic test flume to develop a
headloss coefficient (Figure 7-7). Investigation of the effects of ambient sweeping currents on
the headloss of the various fabrics was conducted in a large test flume (Figure 7-8). Four
simulated AFB intake configurations were evaluated in this study:
• the bottom portion of a floating anchored AFB oriented parallel to the ambient flow
• the middle or top portion of a floating, anchored AFB oriented parallel to the ambient
flow
• the corner anchor point of a floating anchored AFB with the boom oriented at 45 degrees
to the ambient flow
• a sloped fixed-panel AFB oriented parallel to the ambient flow
7-9
Figure 7-7
Small test flume used in headloss and debris load testing (EPRI 2004).
Figure 7-8
Large flume used in the investigation of the effects of ambient sweeping currents on
headloss. AFB is installed to simulate the bottom portion of a floating anchored deployment
oriented parallel to the ambient flow (EPRI 2004).
7-10
Two intake flow rates (10 gpm/ft2 and 20 gpm/ft2) and two ambient sweeping velocities (7.62
and 30.5 cm/s [0.25 and 1.0 ft/s]) were tested during the engineering evaluation. Airburst testing
was conducted in the large flume and evaluated the effectiveness of the airburst system in
clearing the AFB after 85% blockage with simulated debris (Mylar sheets).
Biological evaluation of the AFB was conducted in a recirculating testing facility comprised of
14 small acrylic test flumes (Figure 7-9). Each small flume contained 5 individual testing
channels with AFB covering the downstream end of each channel. The two objectives of the
biological testing were to determine the effect of flow rate and perforation size on the survival
and retention of eggs and larvae. Flow rates tested during the biological evaluation included 0,
10, and 20 gpm/ft2. Perforation sizes of 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 mm were used in the biological testing
as well. Species tested during this study included common carp (Cyprinus carpio), rainbow
smelt (Osmerus mordax), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus),
yellow perch (Perca flavescens), walleye (Sander vitreus), and white sucker (Catostomus
commersonii). Trials were run for 6 hrs and post-test fish were held for 48 hrs to assess latent
mortality.
Figure 7-9
Biological testing facility comprised of 14 small acrylic test flumes (EPRI 2004)
Results of the AOS study indicated that the measured AOS in the lab were not significantly
different from the nominal perforation sizes of the fabrics supplied. Engineering evaluation
indicated that the headloss across the various fabrics is small, between 0 and 0.2 ft for flow rates
ranging between 0 and 20 gpm/ft2. After reaching 75% blocked, however, a large increase in
loading from increasing headloss occurs in a short period of time. Results of the testing of the
AFB in the large flume demonstrated that it is best to deploy AFB where ambient sweeping
velocities are sufficient to carry debris away after airbursting occurs. Airburst testing indicated
that the AFB would be adequately cleaned after one to three airburst cycles.
Results of the biological evaluation indicated that, for the most part, neither perforation size nor
flow rate significantly affected survival. Retention decreased significantly with increases in
perforation size and flow rate. The relationship between perforation size, flow rate, and retention
is based on the morphology of the species interacting with the AFB and is therefore very species-
specific.
7-11
8
POROUS DIKES
Introduction
Porous dikes, which allow water to pass while preventing fish passage, have been shown to be
effective on an experimental basis and at a limited number of CWISs. However, entrainable
organisms with limited swimming ability will generally be trapped in the porous medium or
entrained into the pump flow.
Results of laboratory and pilot studies, as well as full scale CWIS applications have indicated
that these dikes can be effective in preventing passage of juvenile and adult fish by eliciting a
behavioral avoidance response. However, entrainable organisms with limited swimming ability
will generally be trapped in the porous medium or entrained into the pump flow.
In addition to the case studies provided below, other power generators are looking at porous
dikes as a fish protection alternative. For example, a technical and economic feasibility study
was conducted for Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) to evaluate the
replacement of the existing intake crib structure at the Bailly Generating Station (BGS) with a
new porous dike cooling water intake structure (CWIS) as fish impingement and entrainment
control (W.F. Baird 2012).
Case Studies
Wisconsin Electric Power Plants – Field Test and CWIS Application

The effectiveness of porous dike and leaky dam systems in minimizing impingement and
entrainment at power plant intakes was assessed from monitoring studies conducted by the
Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Michaud 1981). The study design, sampling methods, and
impingement and entrainment results by species appear in Michaud (1981). The study also
reviewed operation, maintenance, and reliability concerns of using these intake designs and
provided alternative design suggestions.
The results of this study indicated that, for several species of adult and larval fish, the
impingement and entrainment rates of the porous dike and leaky dam structures were lower than
the rates at nearby onshore intake structures. The accuracy of these results was limited by the
variable densities of Lake Michigan ichthyoplankton populations. Data interpretation also was
limited by differences in operating characteristics and environmental conditions among the four
plants. In spite of these limitations, the low approach velocity and the physical barrier to fish
encroachment afforded by the leaky dam were found to be environmentally preferable to other
systems. Although the lower entrainment rates could not be attributed per se to these features,
the study’s authors considered it intuitively reasonable that such a structure would result in lower
entrainment of motile larvae.
The lower impingement rates observed for large salmonids at the Point Beach Nuclear Plant
were thought to be due in part to the intake design, but for alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus),
8-1
spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius), emerald shiner (Notropis atherinoides), and trout-perch
(Percopsis omiscomaycus), the different rates probably reflected differences in area fish
densities. The high degrees of spatial and temporal variability in the alewife population
precluded statistical comparisons among the plants. The density of ichthyoplankton was
generally higher in the lake samples than in the cooling water, indicating either disproportionate
entrainment in relation to their abundance in the lake or a disparity in sampling efficiency
between the submersible pumps and the plankton nets. Because of this variability, guidelines for
the design and location of intakes could not be based on impingement rates alone. The study’s
authors recommended that variations in month-to-month operating modes among the four plants
also be considered when drawing conclusions from this study.
In 2001, the porous dike at Point Beach was modified by replacing half of the structure with an
open grate/steel plate. Consequently, water is currently withdrawn through both the remaining
half of the dike and the newly added open grate/steel plate. In addition, a high frequency sonic
deterrent system (125 kHz) was added to counter the high densities of alewife occurring near the
intakes during the spring.
WE Energy built a porous dike system at Port Washington on Lake Michigan during repowering.
A two-year biological (impingement and entrainment monitoring) and operational performance
evaluation study commenced in January 2009 and was completed in December 2010.
Impingement rates after the installation of the porous dike were 92-99% lower than pre-
installation levels (Lee 2011). Similarly, egg entrainment was reduced by around 96%. Total
larval entrainment increased, but this was driven by the invasive round goby, which constituted
more than 70% of larval entrainment after the dike was installed as compared to about 25% of
pre-construction larval entrainment (Lee 2011). Species entrained included: alewife, gizzard
shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), smelt (Osmerus spp.), spottail shiner, sticklebacks (Gasterosteus
spp.), gobies (Family Gobiidae), and trout and salmons (Family Salmonidae).
Brayton Point – Laboratory and Field Trials

Field and laboratory studies using marine fish species also indicated that a rock porous dike is a
barrier to juveniles and adults, and that it may be a physical or behavioral barrier to larval fish
(Ketschke 1981). In the laboratory studies, swimming orientation and avoidance response of
five larval species and ten juvenile and adults species was tested in a T-shaped flume with a rock
gabion of 20-cm (8-in.) stones. The laboratory flume was designed to provide a unidirectional
cross current in the forward chamber and to allow withdrawal of all or part of the flow through
the rock gabion into the main chamber. The threshold for avoidance response was defined as the
ability to detect and swim against a withdrawal current velocity of 0.01 m/sec (0.1 ft/sec). The
response did not have to result in actual entrainment avoidance.
All of the species tested as larvae, with the exception of windowpane flounder, exhibited an
upstream orientation response. Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) and stickleback
showed a strong avoidance response at an early larval stage and an improved swimming ability
with increased size. Winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) and Northern pipefish
(Syngnathus fuscus) were passive drifters during the early larval stage and showed little or no
swimming response throughout the larval period. During their later larval stage, winter flounder
often sought the bottom of the flume in response to currents.
8-2
Most species of juvenile and adult fish showed at least partial entrainment avoidance in the
laboratory flume and showed little or no attraction to the gabion. However, mummichog
(Fundulus heteroclitus) and cunner (Tautogolabrus adspersus) were strongly attracted to the
gabion. The cunner took up residence in the gabion but were not actually entrained.
Prior to field tests conducted at New England Power Company’s porous dike test facility, a
hydraulic laboratory study on porous dikes (Alden 1976) was conducted at Alden Research
Laboratory. Conclusions from this study indicated that head loss is affected most by stone
angularity and to a lesser degree by porosity; that if shape and porosity are constant, stone size is
not important; that the stability of the downstream dike face is important as large head loss can
compromise structural integrity; and that the velocity distribution on the downstream side of the
dike can be highly irregular due to variations in porosity.
Subsequent field tests were conducted at the porous dike test facility at Brayton Point Station,
which is located on the Narragansett Bay in Massachusetts. The reinforced concrete-and-steel
dike was 18.3 by 6.4 by 6.1 m (60 by 21 by 20 ft) deep, with a three-cell chamber open at the top
and front to hold the gabions. Water was drawn through the dike by a 1.2-m (4-ft) diameter axial
flow pump, which had a capacity of 2.9 m3/sec (103.8 cfs), and the flow was regulated by
baffles. The first cell of the chamber had two rows of gabions filled with 7.6 cm (3 in.) stones to
form a wall 1.8 m (6 ft) wide, 1.8 m (6 ft) thick, and approximately 4 m (13 ft) high. The third
cell had three rows of gabions filled with 20.3-cm (8-in.) stones to form a 1.8 m (6 ft) wide, 2.7-
m (9-ft) thick wall about 4 m (13 ft) high. The middle cell was sealed and was not in use.
In the field studies, naturally occurring ichthyoplankton were sampled via pumps from locations
upstream and downstream of the dike to determine differences in larval fish abundance related to
each of the gabion types. If the downstream densities were lower than the upstream densities, it
was assumed that avoidance, filtration, or cropping had occurred. In addition to naturally
occurring ichthyoplankton, groups of seven finfish species (n = 2,000+) were fin-clipped and
impounded upstream of the gabions for periods of 24 to 48 hrs. The numbers of fish caught by
seining downstream of the gabions were counted as entrained.
Significant differences between upstream and downstream larval densities were seen for bay
anchovy and for winter flounder. Field test data for larval bay anchovy with 7.6 cm (3 in.) stone
gabions and for other larval species were not available. With the 20.3 cm (8 in.) stones, the
density of bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) was reduced by 94 to 99% and winter flounder was
reduced by 23 to 87%. The differences in winter flounder density became larger and more
significant as the season progressed. Similar results were obtained for winter flounder with 7.6
cm (3 in.) stones, except that the differences in density were not noticeable until later in the
season. Entrainment avoidance was 100% for all juvenile and adult finfish species, which
strongly indicated that these fish would not or could not pass through either a 7.6 cm (3 in.) or a
20.3-cm (8-in.) rock porous dike.
Laboratory Evaluation – Kinetrics

A laboratory evaluation was conducted to determine the optimum pipe diameter for the design of
a pipe-based dike. Specifically, this study was undertaken to investigate fish perception and
reaction to various pipe diameters and configurations (Patrick et al. 2006a).
8-3
Trials were conducted in a 7- by 7-m (23- by 23-ft) tank with a 1.5 m (4.9 m) water depth.
Circular flow (0.15 m/sec [0.5 ft/sec]) ensured that fish would interact with the experimental pipe
array. Seven pipe configurations were tested: straight pipes with openings of 0.3, 0.6, and 0.9 m
(1, 2, and 3 ft); cone-shaped pipes constricting from 0.9 to 0.3 m (3 to 1 ft) and 0.6 to 0.3 m (2 to
1 ft); as well as cone-shaped pipes expanding from 0.9 to 0.3 m(1 to 3 ft) and 0.6 to 0.3 m (1 to 2
ft). Groups of 25 fish were held in a caged acclimation area within the test facility prior to
release. An overhead camera captured fish behavior as they encountered the pipe array. Counts
were made of fish position (0.6 or 1.2 m [2 or 4 ft] away from the pipe array, or in the pipes
openings).
General observations revealed that schooling species avoided confined spaces. Overall passage
deterrence was over 70% for all species. The 0.3 and 0.6 m (1 and 2-ft) pipe openings provided
higher retention of fish upstream of the barrier than the 0.9-m (3-ft) pipe openings. Regarding
the cone-shaped pipes, better performance was realized with those expanding from a small
opening to a larger opening versus those constricting from a large to a smaller opening (Patrick
et al. 2006a). Species evaluated included: alewife, gizzard shad, white sucker (Catostomus
commersonii), brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus), and shiner species (Family Cyprinidae)
Laboratory Evaluation – Consumers Power

Consumers Power Company sponsored a laboratory investigation in 1972 to determine the
practicality of a rock barrier permeable dike as a fish barrier (Bell et al. 1974). The investigation
was undertaken in two phases: the first was to determine a method of predicting hydraulic
performance (head loss) or acceptable void size in such a barrier, and the second was to test the
behavior of fish when encountering such a barrier.
Tests were conducted in an experimental flume. The three samples tested were all well-rounded
stream gravels, with nominal maximum diameters of 3.8, 7.6, and 15.2 cm (1.5, 3.0, and 5.0 in.),
respectively.
In the first phase of testing, hydraulic performance experiments were conducted to determine the
variation of the Fanning friction factor, f (commonly used in porous media flow), with the
Reynolds number over the range of test variables possible in the laboratory setup. Tests were
conducted in 3 m (10 ft) wide rectangular channels. Gravel samples were contained in
commercial gabions, lined with appropriate wire mesh to retain all gravel within the gabion.
In the second phase of testing, the examination of the rock barrier as a screen was accomplished
by placing fish of various species and sizes upstream under velocity conditions approximating
their normal swimming cruising speeds (range: 0.04 to 0.09 m/sec [0.13 to 0.28 ft/sec]). Eleven
tests were performed in the flume with rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) ( 2.8 to 5.8 cm [1.1
to 2.3 in.]), Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) (7.1 to 8.1 cm [2.8 to 3.2 in.]), bluegill
(Lepomis macrochirus) (3.0 cm [1.19 in.]), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) (4.14 cm
[1.63 in.]), bullheads (Ameiurus spp.) (5.1 cm [2.0 in.]) and stickleback (Gasterosteus spp.) (n =
1, no length data).
Rainbow trout moved into and through the dike after 96 hrs in one test. In another test, the
bluegill, bass, and bullheads placed below the rock barrier did not penetrate it upstream in a
period of 24 hrs. In two tests with young rainbow trout, and one with the warm water fish,
8-4
illuminating either the downstream or upstream face of the barrier appeared to have little or no
effect on the effectiveness of stopping fish at the rock barrier.
As was expected, a few of the fish were trapped in the rock barrier. Rainbow trout stayed in the
area upstream of the rock barrier when they reached a size at which they did not penetrate the
barrier. The barrier was effective when the critical head depth range was exceeded.
Observations showed that the fish were usually entrained through the barrier during the darkness
hrs when it is normal for them to seek the protection of a river bank.
8-5
9
FISH PUMPS
Introduction
Several pumps have demonstrated an ability to transfer fish with little or no mortality. Recent
results using new designs indicate that pumps are available that induce little injury and mortality.
The screw-impeller pump appears to offer a potentially effective means of transporting larval,
juvenile, and adult fishes with low mortality. As evidenced in some of the following case
studies, even fragile species such as gizzard shad (at the Monroe Power Plant) and rainbow smelt
(at the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station) have been pumped with low mortality.
Darlington Nuclear Generating Station

A series of studies were conducted to evaluate various fish protection technologies at Ontario
Hydro’s Darlington Nuclear Generating Station on Lake Ontario (Christie 1990). Laboratory
tests were conducted for a Hidrostal impeller type pump, which was chosen for evaluation based
on earlier data demonstrating its potential to transport fish with minimal injury.
Two Hidrostal pump models were used in this laboratory evaluation. Pump model H5F which
had an intake measuring 10 cm (3.9 in.) in diameter and a discharge measuring 25 cm (9.8 in.) in
diameter was used for tests with eels (30 to 50 cm [11.8 to 19.7 in] TL). Pump model H5 which
had a smaller intake measuring 7.6 cm (3 in.) in diameter and a discharge measuring 25.4 cm (10
in.) in diameter was used for tests with rainbow trout (12 to 20 cm [4.7 to 7.9 in.]), yellow perch
(10 to 20 cm [3.9 to 7.9 in.]), alewife (10 to 16 cm [3.9 to 6.3 in.]), and rainbow smelt (8 to 12
cm [3.1 to 4.7 in.]). Two lengths of discharge pipes measuring 2.1 and 15.5 m (6.9 and 50.9 ft)
generated two velocities of 1.4 and 1.8 m/sec (4.6 and 5.9 ft/sec) respectively. Variables for eel
tests included three pump speeds of 890, 1,043, and 1,204 rpm and four eel densities ranging
from 13 to 85 individuals per 100 L of water. Variables for the other four lake fish species
included four pump speeds of 436, 604, 944, and 1,163 rpm and two fish densities of 14 and 55
individuals per cubic meter volume.
Forty-eight-hour survival was recorded for each species tested. Average eel survival was 98%
across all test conditions. Pump speeds and eel densities had no significant effect on survival.
Average lake fish survival was 93% across all test conditions. Average survivals of 99, 94, 91,
and 90% were experienced by rainbow trout, yellow perch, alewife, and rainbow smelt,
respectively. Pump speed was inversely related to survival with the highest average survival
(96%) occurring at the two lowest pump speeds (436 and 604 rpm) and the lowest average
survival (91%) occurring at the two highest pump speeds (944 and 1,135 rpm).
Evaluation of injuries associated with passage through the pump system revealed that an average
of 5% of eels sustained only bruising across all test conditions. The other lake fish species
experienced a wider range of injuries including hemorrhages, bruises, cuts, and scale loss. Pump
speed and frequency of injury were shown to be directly related to injury averages for all species,
9-1
rising from 2.2% for 436 rpm to 9.4% for 604 rpm to 13.5% for 944 rpm to 27.7% for 1,135 rpm.
These results led the author to designate a pump speed of 600 to 900 rpm for the efficient design
of a fish pump system.
Further laboratory analyses were conducted on the efficacy of mercury lights used alone and in
concert with strobe lights, electroshocking, and air bubble curtains in increasing attraction to the
fish pump intake. Mercury lights alone were shown to effectively increase the capture efficiency
of the pump intake. Three-hour trials were conducted with rainbow smelt and alewife to discern
the fish intake efficiency of the pump alone and in combination with mercury lights. The pump
capture efficiency increased from 6.7% to 14.0% for rainbow smelt and from 19% to 61.3% for
alewife with the use of mercury light.
At the Thunder Bay Thermal Generating Station on Lake Superior, a model L12FS Hidrostal fish
pump is used at the cooling water intake structure. Other fish protection technologies employed
at this site include trash racks and modified traveling water screens with fish buckets that direct
collected fish to a sump where the fish pump (set at 650 rpm) transports them to a 45-cm (17.7
in.) diameter return pipe that measures about 500 m (1,640.4 ft) long. A mark-recapture study
resulted in recovery and return efficiencies of 85% for both the pump and return pipe.
Another study of a fish pumping system evaluated the efficiencies of different pump intake
designs in capturing fish. At the Bruce A. Nuclear Generating Station on Lake Huron, three
different intakes were evaluated: a 15-cm (5.9 in.) diameter PVC pipe, a 15-cm (5.9 in.) diameter
clear acrylic pipe, and a cone shaped PVC pipe. The velocities associated with each intake
design were 0.39 m/sec (1.3 ft/sec) for the cone shaped PVC and 3.8 m/sec (12.8 ft/sec) for the
other two. The PVC and cone shaped PVC had a combined average capture rate of 1.2 fish/hr,
while the clear acrylic intake averaged approximately 600 fish/hr. This discrepancy has been
attributed to visual avoidance of the PVC. Furthermore, capture rates of 6,000 fish per hour
during the day and 3,000 fish per hour during the night were reached by extending the length of
the intake pipe and illuminating it with mercury lighting.
Sioux Power Plant

Union Electric Company (1982) conducted an evaluation of a fish pump that was installed in
1980 at its Sioux Power Plant. Sioux is a coal fired thermal generating plant located on the
Mississippi River just north of St. Louis. Cooling water is withdrawn through a 487.7-m (1,600-
ft) long canal into the two 500-MW units. At normal low water levels, the intake velocity in
front of the trash rack is 0.43 m/sec (1.4 ft/sec) and drops to 0.40 m/sec (1.3 ft/sec) in front of the
screens.
The Sioux intake consists of four screenwells, each containing a 7.6-cm (3-in.) spaced trash rack
and a vertical traveling screen to remove debris. The screens can be rotated at two speeds (1.5 or
6.1 m/min [5 or 20 ft/min]). Trash and other debris (including fish) are removed by spray wash
and delivered back to the river via a discharge pipe.
The fish pump collectors face the screens and cover the entire width of the screenwells. Fish are
pumped with Hidrostal type F pumps, which are capable of pumping 1,678 gpm against 11 m (36
ft) of head at 900 rpm. Collected fish are returned via a 518.2 m (1,700-ft) long pipe back to the
river to a discharge point 3 m (10 ft) below the surface.
9-2
A total of 10, 24-hr samples were collected during the yearlong study. The immediate and latent
effects of pump passage were determined by holding fish for 24 hrs. Fish were collected by
diverting flow from the return pipe to collection tanks where fish could be held for monitoring
latent mortality. Similar sampling and holding protocols were followed for fish impinged on the
traveling screens (i.e., impinged fish were diverted from their return trough and held for 24-hour
latent mortality observation). After 24 hrs, the fish were weighed, measured, and sorted into
groups of live, dead, and injured.
Additional tests were run to determine the extent of injury imparted by the pump. These samples
consisted of making a 1-hr collection and then examining their condition immediately.
Immediate assessment of the fish condition afforded the opportunity of enumerating numbers of
fish dead or moribund before passage through the pump.
Data were used to calculate pumping efficiency (number pumped / number pumped and
impinged), survival efficiency (number alive and uninjured / number pumped), and net survival
efficiency (number alive and uninjured / number pumped and impinged).
A total of 35,398 fish representing 30 species were collected. Forty-six percent of these were
collected by the pumps and 54 % were collected off the screens. Gizzard shad and freshwater
drum were the most abundantly collected species comprising 93% and 5.8% of the total,
respectively. Pumping, survival, and net survival efficiencies for each species are presented in
Table 9-1.
9-3
Table 9-1
Species specific results of the Sioux fish return system 24-hr pumping and 24-hr holding tests,
March through December, 1981 (Union Electric Company 1982).
Total Number of Pumping Survival (24 Net Survival
Common Name Fish Pumped Efficiency Hr) Efficiency Efficiency
And Impinged (%) (%) (%)
shovelnose sturgeon 1 0 -- 0
paddlefish 8 38 33 13
shortnose gar 6 17 100 17
longnose gar 1 100 0 0
gizzard shad 32,923 46 82 38
mooneye 3 0 -- 0
goldeye 4 25 100 25
emeral shiner 2 100 100 100
golden shiner 1 100 100 100
bullhead minnow 1 0 -- 0
carp 92 75 87 65
river carpsucker 7 71 100 71
shorthead redhorse 6 100 100 100
white sucker 1 100 100 100
smallmouth buffalo 2 50 100 50
bigmouth buffalo 1 100 100 100
channel catfish 95 59 84 50
blue catfish 13 62 100 62
black bullhead 8 88 100 88
flathead catfish 4 100 75 75
white bass 131 48 76 37
green sunfish 4 75 100 75
warmouth 2 100 100 100
orangespotted sunfish 3 0 -- 0
bluegill 33 76 84 64
largemouth bass 2 100 100 100
white crappie 23 48 91 44
black crappie 2 100 100 100
walleye 2 50 100 50
freshwater drum 2,037 36 84 30
Total 3
35,398 Mean = 46 Mean = 82 Mean = 37
3
Total presented in Table 1 (Union Electric Company 1982) does not match the sum of the individual
species (n=35,418). The source of this discrepancy is unknown.
9-4
The average survival efficiency for all species was 82% for pumped fish. While some species
displayed very good survival rates, sample sizes were small lending little power to the data. The
average net survival efficiency was 37% for all species. By season, net survival was highest in
the fall (48%) and lowest in the winter (2%) (Table 9-2).
9-5
Table 9-2
Sioux fish return system 24-hour pumping and 24-hr holding tests, March through December, 1981 (Union Electric Company 1982).
# of Fish in Collection
Tank After 24-hr
Holding Period Total Pumped
No. of No. of Fish in Collection No. of % % Net
Operating Impingement Tank Fish % % % % Pumping Survival
Date Pumps Baskets Live Dead Injured Total Sampled Impinged Live Dead Injured Efficiency Efficiency
3/23/1981 2 1,593 272 189 4 465 2,058 77.4 58.5 40.6 0.9 22.6 13.2
3/30/1981 2 5,028 222 73 1 296 5,324 94.4 75 24.7 0.3 5.6 4.2
4/6/1981 1 478 176 45 1 222 700 68.3 79.3 20.3 0.4 31.7 25.1
5/5/1981 2 61 79 18 3 100 161 37.9 79 18 3 62.1 49.1
6/8/1981 1 31 37 9 4 50 81 38.3 74 18 8 61.7 45.7
7/20/1981 3 1,431 888 171 0 1,059 2,490 57.5 83.9 16.1 0 42.5 35.7
8/26/1981 3 399 315 74 1 390 789 50.6 80.8 19 0.2 49.4 39.9
9/28/1981 3 312 86 16 2 104 416 75 82.7 15.4 1.9 25 20.7
11/10/1981 3 9,718 11,161 2,255 44 13,460 23,178 42 83 17 0 58 48
12/16/1981 3 195 5 21 0 26 221 88.2 19.2 80.8 3.9 11.8 2.3
Average 2.3 1,925 1.325 287 6 1,617 3,542 54.3 81.9 17.7 0.4 45.7 37.4
9-6
Results of the 1-hour samples revealed a relatively high immediate survival of 80%. It was
concluded that the 19.5% dead were dead upon pumping. Another 0.5% of pumped fish were
assessed as injured, indicating that the pumps were imparting very little physical stress on the
fish. Gizzard shad, the most abundantly pumped fish, had a survival efficiency of 82%. Net
survival efficiencies (pumped and impinged fish) for gizzard shad were 41% and 24% for fish
measuring between 0–100 mm and 101–150 mm, respectively.
Overall, the net survival efficiency of the collective fish return system was 37% for all species.
It was noted by the author that the net efficiencies for important game and commercial fish were
considerably higher with most species, exceeding 50%. The author concludes that the fish return
system at Sioux functions successfully in decreasing impingement.
Monroe Power Plant

Detroit Edison (1975) installed a complete fish pump and transportation system in all four units
of the Monroe Power Plant following an extensive evaluation of the concept in two intake bays
of the Unit 2 screenhouse.
The experimental fish pumping system, modeled after an operating system at the Contra Costa
Power Plant in California, was installed in August 1973. The system consisted of two barrier
screens, two collection pans, piping elements, and a volute pump (Figure 9-1). The collecting
pans were located near the bottom of the existing skimmer walls directly in front of, and facing,
the traveling screens. They were mounted horizontally and measured 3.7 m (12.8 ft) wide by
20.3 cm (8 in.) deep. The barrier screens were installed to prevent fish from penetrating the area
above the collecting pans and behind the skimmer wall. The volute pump had a 0.5-m (1.7-ft)
diameter impeller with two channels and was rated at a capacity ranging from 0.07 to 0.2 m3/sec
(2.6 to 8.2 cfs). The piping system consisted of two 20.3-cm (8-in.) pipes, leading from each of
the two collecting pans, which transitioned into a common 25.4-cm (10-in.) pipe connecting to
the pump.
9-7
Figure 9-1
Monroe Power Plant section view of fish pump system (Detroit Edison 1975)
During the experimental period, the pump discharged into a holding pool that measured 6.4 m
(21 ft) in diameter and 1.2 m (4 ft) in depth (capacity of 37,850 L [10,000 gal]). After collection,
live fish were transferred to holding tanks for observation and were ultimately transported by
truck to Lake Erie for release.
After 4 months of operation, modifications were made to the pumping system to enhance
collection efficiency. The bottom lip of the collecting pan was removed, and a flexible barrier
was placed above the pan to guide fish into the collector (see Figure 9-1). To increase the size of
the collecting pan opening, the horizontal barrier screens were relocated, and holes were cut in
the bottom of the pan. In addition, two incandescent underwater lights were installed in the
9-8
collector cover to help attract fish to the pan. Modifications were also made to the piping system
and holding pool in an attempt to reduce mortality in the pumping system.
A complete description of the biological studies conducted with the fish pumping system at
Monroe is presented in separate reports (Detroit Edison 1975; Eisele and Malaric 1977). In
brief, these studies showed that the pumping system can reduce existing impingement by more
than 70%, and that latent mortality is low.
On the basis of these results, Detroit Edison backfitted all of the screenwell bays at Monroe with
fish pumps that return fish to a discharge point in Lake Erie via a 81.2-cm (32-in.) diameter,
1,341-m (4,400-ft) long polyethylene pipe. In addition, the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources accepted a fish pump system based on the Monroe design for Union Electric’s Sioux
Power Plant.
Case Studies – Water Diversion Applications
Red Bluff Research Pumping Plant

Evaluations of "fish friendly" pumps for possible use at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam (RBDD)
were conducted at the Red Bluff Research Pumping Plant located adjacent to the diversion dam
on the Sacramento River (Frizell et al. 1996; McNabb et al. 1998). The RBDD, which diverts
water to the Tehama-Colusa irrigation canal system, affects both the upstream and downstream
migrations of several species, including Chinook salmon. As described below, three pumps (two
Archimedes and one Hidrostal helical) are being evaluated as part of ongoing research efforts to
develop an effective method for protecting outmigrating fish at the diversion (Figure 9-2). The
pump studies involve intensive fisheries and engineering evaluations. The design flow of each
pump is 2.8 m3/sec (100 cfs) at an operating head of 5.5 m (18 ft). Vertical V-shaped screens
with wedge-wire panels are used to guide fish to evaluation holding tanks and bypasses (similar
to those we describe under Diversion Systems).
Initial exploratory tests of fish passage through the pumps were conducted in 1995 and 1996.
The estimated survival rate for all fish collected was 96.2%. Passage survival has been estimated
for naturally entrained fish and for fish released during mark-recapture experiments. A total of
2,281 entrained fish representing 20 species were collected during 29 sample events in 1995 and
1996. About half of the fish collected were juvenile Chinook salmon. Estimated injury rates for
entrained Chinook salmon were between 0.6 and 1.2%. Mark-recapture experiments were
conducted with hatchery-reared juvenile Chinook salmon that were almost all greater than 46
mm (1.8 in.) in length. Survival and injury rates of marked fish passing through the pump
facilities were estimated by releasing them at different locations within system (i.e., pump
intakes, pump outfalls). A total of 2,080 fish were released into the pump intakes during 65
experimental trials, and 1,725 fish were released into the bypass outfalls during 54 trials. The
estimated pump-related direct mortality rate was less than 1%, and the estimated 96-hour
mortality rate was approximately 1%. Estimated external injury rates were less than 1%.
Although the preliminary results indicated that the pump facilities were effective, no final
recommendations with respect to the overall feasibility of using the pumps on a permanent basis
were made. Other studies associated with predation, adult migration, and survival of fish under a
wider range of environmental conditions are ongoing. Also, operational issues associated with
the centrifugal (WEMCO) pump are being addressed.
9-9
A subsequent side-by-side comparative evaluation of the Archimedes lift and the Hidrostal pump
was conducted at the Red Bluff Research Pumping Plant on the Sacramento River. The plant’s
intake structure had a trash rack with vertical slats spaced 5 cm (1.96 in.) apart (Figure 9-2).
There were four 1.22-m (4-ft) diameter intake pipes that open into four pumping bays. Bays 1
and 2 contained Archimedes lifts (Figure 9-3) measuring 11.58 m (38 ft) in length and 3.05 m
(10 ft) in diameter, the barrels of which contained three internal flights. Bay 3 contained a
Hidrostal pump (Figure 9-4) with an intake diameter of 0.91 m (3 ft) and a single vane impeller.
The lift and pump were run at 26.5 and 350-375 rpm, respectively, to give each a discharge of
2.3 to 2.8 m3/sec (81.2 to 98.9 cfs). Water discharged by the lifts and pump traveled through a
concrete sluiceway where approximately 90% of the water was removed via vertical wedgewire
screening. The remaining 10% containing the debris and fish was diverted to a dewatering ramp
where fish and debris were intercepted and diverted to holding tanks (McNabb et al. 2003).
Figure 9-2
Schematic of the Red Bluff Research Pumping Plant, Sacramento River, CA. Archimedes lifts were
in pump bays 1 and 2. The Hidrostal pump was in bay 3, and bay 4 was empty. Dotted lines
indicate underground portions of water intakes, the conveyance system for irrigation water, and
the fish bypasses (McNabb et al. 2003).
9-10
Figure 9-3
Cut-away perspective of Archimedes lifts in bays 1 and 2 of the Red Bluff Research Pumping
Plant, Sacramento River, California. During operations, entrained fish were carried upward and
discharged into a sluiceway that led downstream to the vertical screens shown in Figure 9-2
(McNabb et al. 2003).
Figure 9-4
Cut-away perspective of the Hidrostal pump in bay 3 of the Red Bluff Research Pumping Plant,
Sacramento River, California. During operations entrained fish were carried upward and
discharged into a sluiceway that led downstream to the vertical screens shown in Figure 9-2
(McNabb et al. 2003).
The hatchery reared juvenile Chinook salmon obtained from the Coleman National Fish
Hatchery measured 34 to 74 mm (1.3 to 2.9 in) (fork length). Two releases were made
simultaneously for each trial during this evaluation (27 paired trials using two Archimedes lifts,
and 40 paired trials using one lift and one pump). Two groups of control fish were also released
9-11
per trial into the sluiceway downstream from the discharge pipes. Release of these four groups
of fish took approximately 1 hr. All trials were conducted during darkness. Fish were collected
from the holding tanks and held for 96 hrs to record latent mortality. Fish not collected were
assumed to be alive and holding somewhere in the system. Only 3.5% of control fish and 4.2%
of treatment fish went uncollected during the whole evaluation.
Recovered fish were assessed for immediate mortality and then evaluated for injuries and scale
loss. Two control and two treatment fish were examined prior to each trial for handling injuries.
Two more fish were examined thoroughly after the trial before being held for 96 hrs to assess
latent mortality. Other environmental conditions (temperature, dissolved oxygen, total gas
saturation, turbidity, and debris load) were monitored also.
Twenty-four trials (each lasting 24 hrs) were conducted to sample naturally occurring fish
entrained when the two lifts and the single pump were run simultaneously. Entrained fish were
enumerated by species and the number of immediate mortalities was recorded. Live entrained
fish were examined for injuries.
Results of the 27 trials during which both Archimedes lifts were operated reveal that there were
no pump passage effects on survival since the mean survival of all treatment and control groups
was 98.3 to 99.0% (Table 9-3). Statistically significant (P-value ≤ 0.05) relationships were
determined using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Results of the 40 trials during which one lift
and one Hidrostal pump were operated reveal that there was a statistically significant pump
passage effect associated with the Archimedes lift (despite high survival rates) (Table 9-4).
Similarly, a significant pump passage effect is shown to exist for the treatment fish passing
through the Hidrostal pump when compared to controls. Finally, the higher survival of lift-
passed fish over that of pump-passed fish is shown to be significant. No significant difference
was found to exist for the 96-hr latent survival between treatment and control fish from either
trial group. Therefore, the authors concluded that the significant pump passage effects seen are
attributable to immediate mortalities. Control groups for both the lift and pump trials had
significantly higher immediate survival than the treatment groups of these same trials. Of the
fish that were immediate mortalities, 25% of the controls and 89% of the treatment fish had
“strike” or “grinding” injuries caused by contact with the impeller blades and fixed parts of the
pumps.
9-12
Table 9-3
Survival for juvenile Chinook salmon in test groups used to compare Archimedes-1 and
Archimedes-2 lifts on the Sacramento River at Red Bluff, CA (McNabb et al. 2003).
Survival (%)
Number
Wilcoxon P-
Test groups of Paired
Mean Range Statistic Value
Releases
Archimedes 1 control vs. treatment 27 -- -- 0.535 0.593
Archimedes 1 control vs. treatment -- 98.3 86.7–100 -- --
Archimedes 1 treatment -- 98.8 92.6–100 -- --
Archimedes 2 control vs. treatment 27 -- -- 0.158 0.875
Archimedes 2 control -- 99 93.5–100 -- --
Archimedes 2 treatment -- 98.8 90.6–100 -- --
Archimedes 1 vs. 2 controls 27 -- -- 0.891 0.373
Archimedes 1 vs. 2 treatments 27 -- -- 0.059 0.953
Table 9-4
Survival of juvenile Chinook salmon in test groups used to compare the Archimedes lifts and
Hidrostal pump (McNabb et al. 2003).
Survival (%)
Number
Wilcoxon P-
Test groups of Paired
Mean Range Statistic Value
Releases
Archimedes control vs. treatment 40 -- -- 2.257 0.024
Archimedes control -- 99.5 93.8-100 -- --
Archimedes treatment -- 98.6 85.7-100 --
Hidrostal control vs. treatment 40 -- -- 3.276 0.001
Hidrostal control -- 98.9 92.9-100 -- --
Hidrostal treatment -- 96.5 85.2-100 -- --
Archimedes vs Hidrostal controls 40 -- -- 1.612 0.107
Archimedes vs. Hidrostal treatments 40 -- -- 2.333 0.020
Fish size did not significantly affect passage survival in lift trials, while size did have a
significant effect on the survival of fish passing through the pump. Though some passage related
injuries were documented, no significant difference was noted between injuries of treatment and
9-13
control fish in both the lift and pump trials. For example, the percent of descaling on the body of
both treatment and control fish was similar: 8–23% descaled on affected control fish, and 8–35%
descaled on affected treatment fish. Survival was not significantly related to debris load either.
During the 24 trials run to entrain naturally occurring species at Red Bluff, 6,110 fish
representing 27 species were collected. Of these, 55% were juvenile Chinook salmon. Ninety-
eight percent of all the fish collected were ≤ 200mm (< 7.9 in). Though survival was slightly
higher for those fish entrained by the lifts, there was no significant difference between the
survival of Chinook entrained by the lifts or the pump (Table 9-5). The injury rates for Chinook
associated with passage through each intake were 2.2, 1.5, and 3.0% for lift 1, lift 2, and the
pump respectively. A significant relationship between Chinook survival and debris load during
these trials was found, though during the trials there was considerably more debris build up in
the holding tanks since they were only checked once every 24 hrs as opposed to being checked
every 2 to 3 hrs during the experimental release trials with the hatchery reared fish.
Table 9-5
Mean percent survival (S) and total numbers of fish collected from holding tanks (C) for juvenile
Chinook salmon and the four other most common fish species that were entrained from the
Sacramento River during 24-hr trials (N = 24) (McNabb et al. 2003).
Archimedes 1 Archimedes 2 Hidrostal
Species S C S C S C
Chinook salmon 98 918 98 1,806 94 613
prickly sculpin 98 683 98 420 95 501
lamprey ammocoetes 99 175 99 126 98 251
Sacramento sucker 97 29 89 27 89 19
Sacramento pikeminnow 100 28 98 40 86 14
all but Chinook salmon 95 1,098 95 769 94 906
all fish 96 2,016 97 2,575 94 1,519
Overall, the survival of fish passed through the Archimedes lifts was slightly higher than those
passed through the Hidrostal pump. Both pumps however show promise in successfully passing
juvenile Chinook salmon without significant injury.
In other studies at Red Bluff, researchers quantified the amount of stress experienced in passage
through Archimedes lifts and a Hidrostal pump. Through the measurement of plasma cortisol
levels (elevated levels indicate stress) in post-passage juvenile Chinook salmon, stress could be
monitored over an extended period of time (Weber et al. 2002).
The evaluations took place at the Red Bluff Research Pumping Plant, which contained two
Archimedes lifts and one Hidrostal pump. The Archimedes lifts had intake pipes measuring 1.2
m (3.9 ft) in diameter with rotating cylinders measuring 11.6 m (38.1 ft) in length and 3.05 m (10
ft) in diameter. The cylinders contained three internal flights. The Hidrostal pump had an intake
diameter of 0.91 m (3 ft), and a single vane impeller. The lift was operated at 26.5 rpm, yielding
9-14
a discharge of 2.4 m3/sec (84.8 cfs), and the pump was operated at 350 rpm, yielding a discharge
of 2.3 m3/sec (81.2 cfs). Water discharged by the lifts and pump traveled through a concrete
sluiceway where approximately 90% of the water was removed via vertical wedge wire
screening. The remaining 10% containing the debris and fish was diverted to a dewatering ramp
where fish and debris were intercepted and diverted to holding tanks.
All trials were conducted 2 hrs before sunrise during mid to late summer in 1998 and 1999.
During this time, water temperature averaged 14.0ºC; turbidity averaged 5 NTU; and dissolved
oxygen averaged 97% saturation. Throughout the 2 years of study, a total of 6 trials were
conducted on each of the two Archimedes lifts (1998 and 1999), 6 trials on the one Hidrostal
pump (1999), and 6 handling control trials (1999).
Juvenile Chinook salmon (75 to 87 mm [3 to 3.4 in]) for this evaluation were obtained from the
Coleman National Fish Hatchery. The fish were held up to 4 weeks prior to testing in flow
through tanks supplied with well water. Fish were fin clipped to distinguish between treatment
and control fish and also between test groups. Forty-eight hrs prior to testing, fish were
acclimated to river water. For a trial, 400 fish (200 control and 200 treatment) were removed
from the holding tanks and placed in carboys for transport. The treatment fish were then lowered
through the 30 cm (11.8 in) wide insertion tube and released into the lift or pump intake, while
the control fish were released in the sluiceway just downstream of the pump or lift discharge.
The handling controls went through the pre-trial netting, carboy transport, and were lowered and
raised through the insertion tube before being released to a post-trial holding tank.
Twelve fish from each group (treatment or control) were removed immediately upon collection
and euthanized (in a solution of Finquel and sodium bicarbonate) to take plasma cortisol
samples. The remaining fish were transferred in carboys to holding tanks where 12 fish were
euthanized at each observation interval (1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 hrs) to take plasma cortisol samples in
1998. In 1999, 12 fish were euthanized at 1, 1.5, 3, 6, and 12 hrs for plasma cortisol samples.
Plasma cortisol samples were analyzed by an independent laboratory.
Though there was a peak (~175 ng/mL) in plasma cortisol levels at 1 hr post-test for both
treatment and control fish, there were no significant differences between the two groups passed
through the Archimedes lift in 1998 (Figure 9-5). The slight increase in plasma cortisol levels
between 12 and 24 hrs for this group of fish suggests that stress may have been caused by
confinement in the holding tanks.
9-15
Figure 9-5
Mean plasma cortisol concentrations (ng/mL; vertical bars represent 1 SE) of Chinook salmon
(A) at 0, 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 hrs after passage through Archimedes lifts during 1998 (706 fish),
(B) and 0, 1, 1.5, 3, 6, and 12 hrs after passage through Archimedes lifts (720 fish) or (C) a
Hidrostal pump (710 fish) during 1999. Asterisk indicates a significant time-specific difference
between treatment and control groups. The handling control was not compared statistically
with the other groups (Weber et al. 2002).
During the 1999 Archimedes trials, the same trend prevailed, revealing no significant difference
between plasma cortisol levels of treatment and control fish. There was a similar peak (~225
ng/mL) at 1 hour post-test for both groups. The significant interaction between time and group
revealed that treatment and control groups may respond differently over time.
9-16
During the 1999 Hidrostal trials, there were no significant differences between treatment and
control fish. There was a peak (~250 ng/mL) in plasma cortisol levels 1 hour after passage for
both groups. A significant difference between treatment and control fish is seen at 3 hrs, when
treatment fish exhibited higher levels of plasma cortisol. Like the 1999 Archimedes trials, there
was a significant interaction between time and group, indicating that treatment and control
groups may respond differently over time.
Plasma cortisol levels in the handling control fish also peaked at 1 hour post-test, however their
levels decreased faster than any other groups between hours 1 and 6, indicating (when compared
to trial controls) an amount of stress being experienced in passage through the screening facilities
as opposed to the pump passage itself.
Estimates of the overall passage effects are given in Table 9-6. The treatment effect represents
the difference between plasma cortisol levels in treatment and control fish.
Table 9-6
Estimates of overall treatment effects for juvenile Chinook salmon passed through the
Archimedes lifts and Hidrostal pump (Weber et al. 2002).
Treatment Effect 95% Confidence Interval

(ng/mL) (ng/mL)
Archimedes lifts 1998 <1 0–8
Archimedes lifts 1999 5 0–17
Hidrostal pump 1999 <1 0–13
Since lethal limits of cortisol levels in juvenile Chinook salmon have been established at 400 to
500 ng/mL, it is believed that neither the lift nor the pump will have an adverse impact on their
survival after passage. The authors suggest that further research is needed on the ecological
consequences of increased cortisol levels and if it affects fish behavior by limiting escape from
predators.
Tracy Fish Collection Facility

A field evaluation of a Hidrostal fish pumping system was conducted at the Tracy Fish
Collection Facility in the Central Valley of CA during 1998 and 1999 (Helfrich et al. 2001).
This facility is part of the Tracy Pumping Plant, which supplies approximately 2.5 by 109m3 (8.8
by 1010 ft3) of water annually to the Delta-Mendota Canal for irrigation and industrial needs.
Fish are guided via louvers to collection tanks where they are then lifted and trucked back to the
rivers. The feasibility of installing a fish pump in lieu of the lifting buckets is addressed in this
study. Specifically, this study aimed to elucidate the survival and injury rates of splittail and
Chinook salmon passed through the pump; the immediate survival of native and nonnative
species; and the relationship between mortality and injury as functions of species, size, density,
pump speed, debris load, and various environmental conditions.
A Hidrostal pump with an intake measuring 41 cm (16.1 in.) in diameter was used in this study
(Figure 9-6). The pump was run at speeds of 461 to 601 rpm, generating velocities of 0.17 to
0.40 m3/sec, for 25 to 35 min per trial. Trials were conducted during 2 to3 day periods during
each month of the evaluation in order to gather data on a variety of species.
9-17
Figure 9-6
Cross-sectional view of the Hidrostal pump and fish injection ports (the fish protective
impeller shroud is not shown in this drawing) (Helfrich et al. 2001).
Splittail were collected directly from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, while juvenile Chinook
salmon were obtained from the Mokelumne River Hatchery. Test fish were marked, injected in
groups of 20 to 30 just upstream of the pump intake through a 30.5cm (12 in.) diameter pipe,
passed through the fish return piping, and discharged into a collection pool measuring 4.2 by 8.5
by 1.2 m (13.8 by 27.9 by 3.9 ft). Collected fish were assessed for immediate mortality and then
dipnetted from the tank and evaluated for injuries such as scale loss. After two representative
fish (“quality controls”) were examined thoroughly, the collected fish were transferred to holding
tanks and monitored daily for latent mortality (96 hrs). A minimum of 6 replicates of each
treatment and control condition were completed for both splittail and Chinook salmon.
The average recovery rate for test fish (splittail and salmon) was 97% (Table 9-7 and Table 9-8).
Ninety-nine percent of injected fish were recovered after 4 days. Fish not recovered were
assumed to be alive and holding somewhere in the system. Immediate survival rates for both
species averaged over 99%. Latent (96 hr) survival averaged 93% for splittails and 96% for
Chinooks. The only significant difference noted between treatment and control fish was the
decreased survival of splittail at 96 hrs for the June trials (Table 9-7). This has been attributed to
high water temps that existed during splittail testing. Pump speed (461–604 rpm), debris load
(10-7,000 g/L wet weight), and fish density (8 to 39 injected fish/L) did not significantly affect
survival of splittails or Chinooks. Descaling rates for splittails and Chinooks averaged 1.9 and
2.4% of the body, respectively. When compared to handling and pumping controls, the Hidrostal
pump was shown to have no significant effect on descaling rates. Temperature was directly
correlated to scale loss.
Average injury rates to the head, eyes, skin, and fins ranged from 1.5 to 10.3% for splittails and
from 0.1 to 0.6% for Chinook salmon (Table 9-9 and Table 9-10). The only significant
difference noted between injury rates of treatment and control fish occurred during March trials
with splittails; however, these increased rates have been attributed to nitrogen supersaturation
caused by a broken air pipe in the holding system and not the fish pump.
9-18
Table 9-7
Mean recovery and immediate and 96 hour survival of splittail passed through the Hidrostal pump
(treatment fish) compared with those of control fish (Helfrich et al. 2001).
Fish Out Survival (%)

Group Month Trials (N) Fish In (N)
(%) Immediate 96hr
Treatment 10 295 98.3 99.6 97.8

Dec
Control 10 284 96.9 99.0 90.8
Treatment 9 177 99.4 100.0 100.0

Feb
Control 9 179 95.5 99.4 98.3
Treatment 6 142 97.9 99.1 99.1

Mar
Control 6 162 98.6 92.9 92.9
Treatment 12 240 97.1 98.3 94.7

Apr
Control 12 237 97.1 99.5 95.7
Treatment 11 240 98.7 98.6 83.1

May
Control 11 218 97.2 100.0 85.9
Treatment 21 409 99.3 99.8 83.0

Jun
Control 21 416 97.8 100.0 90.0
Treatment 20 447 98.5 98.9 92.6

Jul
Control 20 430 99.2 99.5 95.6
Table 9-8
Mean recovery and immediate and 96 hour survival of Chinook salmon passed through the
Hidrostal pump (treatment fish) compared with those of control fish (Helfrich et al. 2001).
Survival (%)
Group Month Trials (N) Fish In (N) Fish Out (%)
Immediate 96hr
Treatment 7 160 95.6 98.1 96.9

Feb
Control 7 138 99.3 99.3 99.3
Treatment 13 332 95.7 98.6 98.6

Mar
Control 13 311 94.7 99.6 98.8
Treatment 11 263 99.6 98.6 92.4

Apr
Control 11 263 98.5 99.6 78.3
Treatment 10 220 98.3 99.5 95.8

May
Control 10 201 99.0 100.0 96.4
9-19
Table 9-9
Descaling and injury for quality control (handling), control (no pump passage), and treatment
(pump passage) groups of splittail (Helfrich et al. 2001).
Descaling Body injury (% of fish)

Group Month Fish (N)
(% of body) Head Eyes Skin Fins
Quality Control 40 1.4 20 55 2.5 52.5
Control Dec 20 1.6 10 95 5 55
Treatment 20 1 15 80 5 15
Quality Control 36 3.1 0 2.8 0 30.6
Control Feb 18 2.8 0 5.5 0 11.1
Treatment 18 2.6 0 0 0 0
Control Mar 18 1.9 0 5.6 5.6 5.6
Treatment 18 1.3 0 0 11.1 22.2
Quality Control 44 1.1 0 0 0 0
Control Apr 22 1.5 0 0 0 0
Treatment 22 1.3 0 0 0 0
Quality Control 40 1.6 0 0 0 0.2
Control May 20 1.8 0 0 0 0.4
Treatment 20 2.2 0 0 0 0.4
Control Jun 25 3.9 2 2 0 8
Treatment 25 2.6 2 2 0 6
Control Jul 20 2.7 0 0.3 0 0.1
Treatment 20 2.6 0 0.4 0 0.1
9-20
Table 9-10
Descaling and injury for quality control (handling), control (no pump passage), and treatment
(pump passage) groups of Chinook salmon (Helfrich et al. 2001).
Descaling Body injury (% of fish)

Group Month Fish (N) (% of
Body) Head Eyes Skin Fins
Quality Control 28 0.1 14.3 0 3.6 3.6
Control Feb 14 0.1 7.1 14.3 7.1 0
Treatment 14 0.6 0 0 0 14.3
Control Mar 20 1.5 0 0 5 20
Treatment 18 4.3 0 0 0 0
Control Apr 22 0.3 0 0 0 0
Treatment 22 0.8 0 0 0 0
Control May 20 3.8 0 0 0 0
Treatment 20 4 0 0 0 0
Incidental collection of 7,197 fish representing 26 other species entrained during this evaluation
allowed generation of additional survival data. The average survival of these species was 99%
(Table 9-11).
While other evaluations concluded that pump speed (tested in wider ranges of 385–950 rpm with
smaller pumps) was significantly correlated to survival and injury rates, the author found no
correlation between the speeds tested during this evaluation (400–600 rpm with a larger pump)
and survival and injury.
9-21
Table 9-11
Monthly number, total length range, and survival rate of native and nonnative fish entrained and passed through the helical pump at the
Tracy fish collection facility (Helfrich et al. 2001).
Total Length Survival

Species Dec Jan Mar Apr May Jun Jul
(mm) (%)
white catfish Ameiurus catus 25 5 37 22 3 26 100 70–208 99
threadfin shad Dorosoma petenese 3 21 22 3 0 9 40 49–98 98
American shad Alosa sapidissima 3 8 0 1 0 1 75 74–119 100
splittail Pogonichthys macrolepidotus 2 7 0 0 1 7 21 21–206 97
yellowfin goby Acanthogobius flavimanus 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 85–179 100
tule perch Hysterocarpus traski 3 3 2 3 2 0 2 99–138 100
channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus 3 2 2 2 0 25 22 71–129 100
brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus 1 1 0 1 4 0 0 121–316 100
redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus 1 2 0 0 1 1 3 154–280 100
bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 1 0 2 5 3 6 7 78–143 100
Chinook salmon Oncorhyncus tshawytscha 0 44 13 137 195 38 0 50–106 100
delta smelt Hypomesus transpacificus 0 15 0 0 379 164 0 33–72 99
striped bass Morone saxatilis 0 9 6 2 353 4,913 298 17–118 99
golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 0 3 6 0 0 2 0 107–170 100
red shiner Cyprinells lutrensis 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 59–60 100
steelhead Oncorhyncus mykiss 0 1 7 7 1 0 0 222–288 100
Sacramento blackfish Orthodon microlepidotus 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 139 100
bigscale logperch Percina macrolepida 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 117–133 100
Common carp Cyprinus carpio 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 163–228 100
black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 238 100
inland silverside Menidia beryllina 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 60–74 100
largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 58–371 100
longfin smelt Spirinchus thaleichthys 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 38 100
prickly sculpin Cottus asper 0 0 0 0 5 9 6 38–51 100
hitch Lavinia exillicauda 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 260 100
American eel Anguilla rostrata 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 780 100
9-22
Agricultural Pump Station, Cherry Creek, Washington
Cherry Creek is the lowest tributary to the Snoqualmie River in Washington (Thompson et al.
2011). The lower section of Cheery Creek has been ditched, straightened, and isolated from the
floodplain. Two hydrostal pumps were installed at the Cheery Creek pump facility, Duvall, WA.
These pumps replaced conventional axial pumps, which were causing harm to the listed juvenile
Chinook salmon. The pumps move water from the a lateral ditch system, which provides water
for agriculture, into the mainstem Cheery Creek and typically operate in April and June when
water levels in the lateral ditch trigger operation.
One pump was low-pitch, low-volume screen impeller design (Wemco model MD – referred to
hereafter as MD) the other was a high-pitch impeller designed for lower head and higher flow
(Wemco model SS – referred to hereafter as SS). During the study, the pumps were operated
manually with a variable frequency drive. Pumps were operated at maximum speed (Vmax) and
optimal efficiency speed based on manufacturer’s efficiency curves (Vopt) (Table 9-12).
Table 9-12
Trial conditions tested. Reported capacities are site-specific electrical supply limits.
Max Total
Capacity
Impeller Pitch Trial Hz Speed Flow Rate (cm3/sec) Dynamic
(%)
(rpm) Head (m)
MD Low 100 Vmax 60 870 3,000 – 3,800 2.04
50 Vopt 38 600 1,500 – 1,900 2.13
SS High 90 Vmax 45 653 4,000 – 5,500 2.13
50 Vopt 35 508 2,000 – 2,750 2.38
Fish tests were conducted using two species of hatchery origin juvenile salmonids – steelhead
(Oncorhynchus mykiss) and coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Two size classes of coho
were tested. Three replicate trials were conducted at each condition (approximately 50
individuals per replicate). Control fish were used to separate mortality associated with pump
passage from mortality associated with handling, introduction, collection, and holding. Fish
were introduced via pipe directly below the bellmouth into the pump. Immediately following
passage, fish were collected and examined for injuries. Injuries were divided into categories: 0 –
no injury; 1 – minor injury (bruising, descaling, and other abrasioins); 2 – major injury (crushing
and open wound lacerations); 3 – disorientation (loss of equilibrium, impaired swimming
behavior); 4 – dead.
Instantaneous mortality rates ranged from 0 to 4% for the high-pitch trials and 3 to 10% for the
low-pitch trials (Table 9-13). In all cases, instantaneous injury and death occurred in smaller
percentages among the SS trials than the MD trials, indicating that the pump with the high-pitch
impeller designed for lower head and higher flow was more fish-friendly than the pump with the
low-pitch, low-volume screen impeller design.
9-23
Table 9-13
Death and injury rates. Hydrostal pumps with two impeller/speed configurations: Mmax, low-pitch
impeller, maximum speed; Mopt, low-pitch impeller optimal speed; Smax, high-pitch impeller,
maximum speed; and Sopt, high-pitch impeller, optimal speed.
Injury Type (%)
Species Condition n 0 1 2 3 4
Mmax 148 77.0 12.8 1.4 1.4 7.4
Mopt 146 82.2 8.2 0.7 3.4 5.5

coho fry
Smax 150 88.0 6.7 0.7 0.7 4.0
Sopt 150 86.0 9.3 0.7 0.0 4.0
Mmax 92 59.8 23.9 1.1 5.4 9.8
coho Mopt 114 78.9 9.6 0.9 1.8 8.8

yearling Smax 146 89.7 6.8 0.0 3.4 0.0
Sopt 147 89.1 8.2 0.0 2.0 0.7
Mmax 78 38.5 35.9 7.7 10.3 7.7
Mopt 75 69.3 26.7 0.0 1.3 2.7

steelhead
Smax 125 75.2 20.8 0.0 2.4 1.6
Sopt 150 84.7 12.7 0.0 0.0 2.7
R. H. Saunders Generating Station

The effectiveness of using a Hidrostal pump for the live transfer of American eels over a
hydroelectric dam was evaluated at the Saunders Generating Station on the St. Lawrence River
near Cornwall, Ontario, in September 1985. A submersible Model 16-F Hidrostal pump was
submerged approximately 2 m (6.6 ft) below water level and operated at a fixed impeller speed
of 1,200 rpm. The calculated head of the transport system was over 10 m (33 ft), with a
discharge rate of 0.18 m3/sec (6.2 cfs) and a velocity of approximately 5.1 m/sec (17 ft/sec). At
the beginning of a test, fish were placed in a wire enclosure leading directly to the pump intake.
Fish densities varied from 34 to 547 individuals per liter over a series of 18 tests. Survival was
determined immediately following pump passage (time 0 h) and at 24, 48, 72, 96, and 148 hrs.
In total, 2,300 American eels were passed live through the pump with no latent mortality. Fish
injury was minimal, averaging less than 3% over all test conditions (Patrick and McKinley
1987).
9-24
Laboratory Study – Ontario Hydro

This laboratory study evaluated the effectiveness of a Hidrostal fish pump in transferring live
eels, as well as the survival of eels passed through such a system. This study used a Hidrostal
pump (model H5F) designed to pass solids up to 10 cm (3.9 in.) in diameter. The trials were
conducted in a concrete pool measuring 6.0 by 6.0 by 1.2 m (19.7 by 19.7 by 3.9 ft). The pump
intake pipe measured 15 cm (5.9 in) in diameter, while the discharge measured 25 cm (9.8 in)
(Figure 9-7). At speeds over 1,000 rpm, velocities reached 4.4 and 1.6 m/sec (14.4 and 5.2
ft/sec) in the intake and discharge, respectively. Head loss through the test system was
calculated to be 3.2 m (10.5 ft). Since eels actively avoided the pump intake, they were confined
to the area immediately upstream of the intake with a screened cage during mortality testing. For
this study, American eels (350 to 500 mm [13.8 to 19.7 in]) were collected from the R.H.
Saunders Dam on the St. Lawrence River in Cornwall, Ontario.
Figure 9-7
Cross-sectional view through the laboratory testing facility (Patrick and Sim 1985)
Variables during this evaluation were pump speed (890, 1,043, and 1,204 rpm) and fish density
(13-85 fish/100 L water). Thirty-five trials were run at various treatment combinations. The
testing schedule appears in Table 9-14. Survival rates and injuries were recorded at 0 hrs
(immediate survival), 24, 48, and 72 hrs. Passage survival rates were adjusted for handling
controls, which averaged less than 2% mortality (Patrick and Sim 1985).
9-25
Table 9-14
Effectiveness of a Hidrostal pump in the live transfer of American eels (Anguilla rostrata) (Patrick
and Sim 1985)
Pump No. No. of Approximate Percent survival following Type

passage Percent
Speed of Organisms/ Density of
Injury
(rpm) Tests Test (No./100 L) 0 hr 24 hr 48 hr 72 hr Injury
890 5 15 13 100.0 100.0 93.3 98.7 5.0 bruises
5 30 26 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.3 5.0 bruises
1,043 5 15 13 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 5.0 bruises
5 30 26 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 5.0 bruises
1,204 5 15 13 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 5.0 bruises
5 30 26 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.0 5.0 bruises
1,043 4 50 43 100.0 100.0 95.0 94.5 5.0 bruises
1 100 85 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 5.0 bruises
Observations during testing revealed that when crowded with a net, eels avoiding the intake’s
zone of influence could not maintain position at intake velocities greater than 1.0 m/sec (3.3
ft/sec). Overall, 72-hour survival for the 975 eels passed through the system at different
treatment conditions averaged 98%. No significant differences were found between treatment
and control fish. As shown in Table 9-14, no mortality was apparent until 48 hrs post-test. It was
also noted that no latent mortality was evident for eels held several weeks post-test. Neither
pump speed nor fish density had a significant effect on survival. Furthermore, there was no
significant relationship between mortality and injury (bruising).
Though survival in this laboratory evaluation was high, the authors noted that the average head at
the Saunders Generating Station is much larger, and that the effects of this increased head on
passage survival are unknown.
Earlier, Ontario Hydro evaluated the effectiveness of a 12.7 cm (5 in.) screw impeller pump and
transport system in the laboratory using rainbow trout, alewife, yellow perch, and rainbow smelt
(Patrick 1982a). Fish ranging in length from 7.9 to 20.1 cm (3.1 to 7.9 in.) were successfully
transported through the pump with minimal damage. Survival varied with pump speeds and
generally increased with a decrease in pumping speed. Few minor injuries were reported at
pump speeds of 438 and 604 rpm. The highest survival after 48 hrs was obtained with rainbow
trout (99.2%), followed by yellow perch (93.6%), alewife (91.2%), and smelt (90.1%). Juvenile
gizzard shad, brown bullhead, and white sucker ranging from 8.9 to 40 cm (3.5 to 15.7 in.) in
length were also passed through the pump at speeds of 604 and 944 rev/sec with essentially no
mortality after 48 hrs (Patrick 1982a).
9-26
Laboratory Study – ESEERCO
The Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation (ESEERCO) sponsored a laboratory
study designed to evaluate the effects of two pump types on the extended survival of fish larvae.
A jet pump and a screw impeller-type Hidrostal pump were evaluated in this study. During
initial testing, menhaden, alewife, white perch, and striped bass were used in the jet pump trials,
while Hidrostal trials were conducted with juvenile alewife (ESEERCO 1981b). Figure 9-8 and
Figure 9-9 show the design of the jet pump and Hidrostal test facilities, respectively.
Figure 9-8
Jet pump test facility (ESEERCO 1981b)
9-27
Figure 9-9
Hidrostal pump test facility (ESEERCO 1981b)
Jet pump trials were conducted in 1978 and 1979 with groups of 50 individuals at a jet nozzle
velocity of 10.4 m/sec (34 ft/sec). The resulting suction pipe velocity and mixing tube velocity
were 2.6 and 3.7 m/sec (8.5 and 12.3 ft/sec), respectively. Post-test fish were held for 96 hrs. A
total of 32 trials were conducted; however, only 30 trials were used in the statistical analysis,
since the two trials run with alewife were beyond the scope of this study. A summary of the
results from the jet pump trials is presented in Table 9-15.
The results of the statistical analyses indicated that mortality was significantly influenced by
temperature differences between the holding and testing water. Mortality was also significantly
dependent upon species. Although, there were significant differences in mortality rates among
species, the analyses indicate that passage through the jet pump did not significantly affect
mortality rates within species (i.e. between test and control organisms).
Hidrostal trials were also conducted in 1978 and 1979 (ESEERCO 1981b). The preliminary
trials in 1978 were conducted with juvenile menhaden, striped bass, and white perch. These
trials resulted in both instantaneous mortality and high latent mortality (Table 9-16). Trials in
1979 were conducted with a modified pump design which included a shroud to decrease fish
injury. Groups of 50 juvenile alewife were passed through the pump operating at a speed of 430
9-28
rpm. Post-test fish were held for 96 hrs. A total of 40 trials were conducted. The results are
presented inTable 9-17. No statistical analyses were conducted on these data since both the
values and the variability were low. It was concluded that passage through this modified
(shrouded) Hidrostal pump did not significantly affect survival of juvenile alewife.
Table 9-15
Jet pump test results (ESEERCO 1981b)
No. Range in No. of Mean

of Test Mean Test Control Control
Species Tests Mortality (%) Mortality (%) Tests Mortality (%)
menhaden 9 2 - 20 9.1 5 6.4
white perch 13 2 - 60 24.9 4 25.0
striped bass 8 4 - 28 15.8 3 9.3
Table 9-16
Hidrostal test results from 1978 trials (ESEERCO 1981b)
Length No. of Initial Total 96-hr

1
96-hr Control
Range Fish Mortality Mortality Range Mortality Range
Species (cm) Tested Range (%) (%) (%)
menhaden 5.7 - 6.2 333 6.0 - 18.0 10.6 - 66.0 10.0 - 26.0
striped bass 9.4 100 0 - 16.0 22.0 - 42.0 10
white perch 6.8 100 0 - 4.0 36.0 - 66.0 44

1
Includes initial mortality
Table 9-17
Hidrostal test results 1979 (ESEERCO 1981b)
No. Range in Mean 96-hr No. of Mean 96-hr

of Length Test Test Control Control
Species Tests Range (cm) Mortality (%) Mortality (%) Tests Mortality (%)
alewife 40 9.95 - 10.17 0 - 10.0 1.25 40 1.25
ESEERCO sponsored additional studies of the Hidrostal pump and the jet pump in 1979 and
1980 to determine their ability to transport striped bass, winter flounder, alewife, and yellow
perch with low resultant mortality (ESEERCO 1981b). During these additional evaluations, the
Hidrostal pump was evaluated with alewife and yellow perch larvae only. Alewife prolarvae
could not be successfully tested due to their small size. Postlarvae were tested at mean lengths of
9.6 mm (0.38 in) (three tests) and 12.4 mm (0.5 in) (three tests). Mean test and control mortality
among the 9.6-mm (0.38-in) group was 22.4 and 23.1%, respectively. Mean test and control
mortality among the 12.4-mm (0.5 in) groups was 46.2 and 32%, respectively.
9-29
Yellow perch prolarvae (mean length of 6.1 mm [0.24 in]) were successfully tested in the
Hidrostal pump. In three tests, mean mortality was 8.3%. No control larvae died. Yellow perch
postlarvae were tested in four length groups (Table 9-18).
Table 9-18
Hidrostal test results – yellow perch prolarvae (ESEERCO 1981b)
Mean
Mean Number Test Control
Length of Mortality Mortality
(mm) Tests (%) (%)
6.5 3 93.2 72
7.3 3 9.7 20
7.6 3 52.4 57.7
19.4 2 0 0
In the jet pump studies, two nozzle velocities of 9.7 and 15.6 m/sec (31.8 and 44.6 ft/sec) were
evaluated; however, percent mortality did not differ significantly. A total of 126 tests were
conducted with striped bass larvae ranging in length from 7.5 to 35.5 mm (0.29 to 1.4 in.). Mean
mortality for all tests was 4.7% with a 95% confidence interval of 3.7 to 6.1%. Control larvae
experienced a mean mortality of 2.6% with a 95% confidence interval of 1.4 to 4.4%.
Alewife prolarvae (mean length of 6.0 mm [0.24 in]) were difficult to test due to their small size
and transparency. These factors necessitated more extensive handling during collection than
with larger larvae. Test mortality in two tests was 40 and 76%, while control mortality was 16%.
Alewife postlarvae were tested at mean lengths of 9.6 and 12.4 mm (0.38 and 0.50 in). Mean
mortality between the two test groups was 80 and 69.5%, respectively. Associated control
mortalities were 8.3 and 32%.
Yellow perch prolarvae were also difficult to recover; however, one test with these 6-mm (0.23-
in) larvae was successfully completed. Test mortality was 32%; controls were not held.
Postlarvae were tested at four different mean lengths. Results are presented in Table 9-19.
Table 9-19
Jet pump test results – yellow perch postlarvae (ESEERCO 1981b)
Mean Length Number Mean Test Mortality Control Mortality

(mm) of Tests (%) (%)
6.5 3 91.2 65.2
7.3 2 44.7 17.4
8.1 4 86.5 79.2
19.4 2 10.0 0.0
9-30
Laboratory Study – Nine-mile and Mystic Stations
From 1974 to 1976, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC 1977) evaluated the
ability of a jet pump and a screw impeller pump (Hidrostal) to transport fish safely with low
resultant mortality at the Alden Research Laboratory. The most pertinent of the jet pump studies
involved the evaluation of a system demonstration model, which combined an angled screen
model (discussed in Angled Screens) connected to a large-scale, peripheral-type jet pump by a
pipe loop (SWEC 1977).
Biological test procedures involved introducing approximately 500 alewives per test into the
angled screen model and allowing them to react naturally in the system. Fish that were
successfully guided along the screen and that entered the bypass then passed through the pipe
loop and the peripheral jet pump before being collected in the secondary bypass. Test fish were
held 1 week for mortality studies. Results of the study are briefly summarized below.
It was anticipated that mortality in the system demonstration model would be higher than
mortality with the angled screen alone (discussed in Angled Screens). This higher mortality
would have been due to cumulative stresses from passage through a pipe and jet pump at high
velocities and to guidance along a second screen to the collection area. However, such results
were not observed. In 11 tests, with screen approach and bypass velocities ranging from 0.3 to
0.6 m/sec (1.0 to 2.0 ft/sec), pipe velocities from 1.5 to 2.7 m/sec (5 to 9 ft/sec), and jet nozzle
velocities from 9.1 to 15.2 m/sec (30 to 50 ft/sec), the mean test mortality in the system was
11.8%. Mean control mortality was 7.8%, thus resulting in a mean differential mortality of 4%.
In 1979, Stone & Webster (1979) evaluated the ability of a 30.5 cm (12 in.) screw impeller
centrifugal (Hidrostal) pump to safely transport fish. Using juvenile alewives, 40 tests were
conducted from September through November 1979. Length of the alewives tested ranged from
9.9 to 10.1 cm (3.9 to 4.0 in). Approximately 50 fish per test were placed in a specially designed
introduction box and passed through the pump, which was operated at a speed of about 430 rpm.
Mortality of fish passing through the pump was very low. In the majority of the tests (27 out of
40), 100% survival was obtained. Mean test and control mortality were both 1.25%.
9-31
10
ANGLED SCREENS
Introduction
Angled fish diversion screens leading to bypass and return pipelines have been extensively
investigated and are commonly used for guiding salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. A wide
variety of other species have been shown to guide effectively on screens given suitable hydraulic
conditions. In order to be biologically effective, angled screens require uniform flow conditions,
a fairly constant approach velocity, and a low through-screen velocity. Resource agency design
and operational criteria should be reviewed when designing an angled screen facility. In addition
to concerns over predation at a screen bypass outfall, stresses associated with diversion and
piping (and pumping that may be required in some cases to return fish to a safe release location)
varies by species and also needs to be considered in evaluating potential effectiveness of angled
screens at a given site.
Maintaining screens in a clean condition is critical to biological performance. McMillen and
Smith (1996) present a review of available cleaning systems for use with angled, vertical flat-
panel fish screen panels leading to a bypass. Most screen facilities of this type incorporate a
profile wire (or wedgewire) screen design comprised of individual bars. The bars can be
oriented either perpendicular or parallel to the flow. Screens with vertical bar orientations
require specially-designed screen cleaning systems to match the exact orientation of the screen
panels. To date, the most effective screen cleaning systems for this orientation has been
mechanical (brush) screen cleaners and water backwash systems. Some facilities have used
woven wire mesh which has different cleaning needs.
The basic criteria used when selecting a cleaning system are debris type, flow hydraulics, screen
structure location, screen type, fish protection, operations and maintenance, and economics
(McMillen and Smith 1996). In the case of floating debris, mechanical screen cleaning systems
are best. For heavier debris, such as algae and ice, water backwash cleaning systems are more
effective. Flow hydraulics are important in providing a sweeping mechanism for debris once it
has been cleared from the screen face. Wedgewire screens are best cleaned with brushes, while
wire mesh is best cleaned with backwash. In some cases, fish may need to be protected from the
cleaning device, especially when a mechanical brush is used. Operations and maintenance
requirements vary by site, but typically, mechanical cleaning is less complex and therefore less
expensive than water backwash cleaning.
Mechanical cleaning systems, the most common type, usually consist of a brush mounted on a
support frame that is pulled along the screen face. The brush is usually mounted on a monorail
using either a motorized trolley or a cable trolley system. There are two cleaning actions
incorporated into a mechanical cleaning system. First, the brush physically pushes small debris
through the screen. Second, the brush creates eddies in its wake that lift the debris from the
screen and carry it downstream as the brush moves toward the bypass. With the second cleaning
action, the eddy actually does the majority of the cleaning. If the designer decides to implement
a mechanical cleaning system, there are specific design characteristics that must be considered.
10-1
The screen must withstand the loadings created by the brush. The drive for the system’s travel
along the monorail must be easily accessible. An effective but not destructive travel speed for
the brush must be chosen. Lastly, the brush position should always be known and monitored by
some sort of tracking device.
Water backwash systems can be considered at sites where high velocities exist, space is limited,
and/or distinct debris such as ice or weeds are a concern. The backwash system works by lifting
the debris off the screen such that it is carried to the bypass by downstream currents. The
backwash is created with high-pressure water jets that are directed toward the screen. The series
of jets can be fixed or moveable. Coverage of each jet depends on the distance at which the jet is
located from the screen. If the designer decides to implement a water backwash cleaning system,
there are slightly different design characteristics that must be considered. Proper placement of
the nozzles is imperative for cleaning efficiency. The nozzles should be as close to the screen as
possible for maximum pressure to be exerted on the debris. A typical cleaning system should be
designed to clean each screen on a 5 to 10 min rotating schedule. Plant operators should be able
to easily inspect the cleaning system either visually or remotely by measuring headloss. Lastly,
the spray water must be of sufficient quality to not add debris to the screen.
Angled flat-panel fish diversion screens are becoming common in the Pacific Northwest. In
addition to the White River Project facilities (described in the angled bar rack and louver
section), angled screens have been installed at a variety of other sites, but evaluations of their
biological effectiveness have not been performed or are not available. Since most facilities have
been designed to meet applicable and conservative resource agency criteria that target an
effectiveness level of 100%, biological performance is likely high. Most screen installations
have been installed to protect early life stages of salmonids. Therefore, information is sparse on
the potential effectiveness of angled screen with the many non-anadromous species that
commonly occur at many CWISs. However, if the stringent design and operating conditions
applied to facilities in the Northwest are applied elsewhere, it is likely that angled screens will be
reasonably effective. Therefore, data addressing the effectiveness of this technology with non-
anadromous species is important. Such data is being generated in laboratory evaluations using
potamodromous species in a “fish treadmill” at the University of California at Davis. By
simulating a fish screen of indeterminate length, the design of the treadmill has allowed the
testing of fish behavior, impingement, and survival in complex flow fields (approach and
sweeping velocities) similar to those experienced at many CWISs (Swanson et al. 1998). Angled
flat-panel screens, therefore, can be considered a viable option for protecting various species
provided that proper hydraulic conditions can be maintained and that debris can be effectively
removed.
Oswego Steam Station

Oswego Steam Station Unit 6 uses and angled screen diversion system similar to the system at
Brayton Point Station Unit 4 (described below) (LMS 1992). Unit 6 has a maximum output
rating of 815 MW. Two dry pit circulating water pumps draw water through a velocity cap inlet
into two screen bays. Design flow is 20.5 m3/sec (724 cfs). Fish entering the screen well pass
through a set of trash racks with 7.6 cm (3 in.) clear spacing before encountering four flush-
mounted traveling screens angled toward a 15 cm (6 in.) wide bypass. The screens are 3 m (10
10-2
ft) wide with 9.5 mm (0.375 in.) mesh and are angled at 25 degrees to the direction of the flow
(Figure 10-1 and Figure 10-2). Biological studies were conducted to investigate the
effectiveness of the screens as both diversion and collection systems.
Figure 10-1
Oswego Unit 6 angled screen layout (LMS 1992)
10-3
Figure 10-2
Oswego angled screen intake system dewatered (courtesy of Alden Research Laboratory, Inc.)
A diversion flow-sampling program was conducted from April 1981–March 1984. The studies
were designed to obtain biological performance on the angled screen/fish return system, i.e.,
bypass diversion efficiency and post-diversion survival. The angled screen bypass return system
was evaluated by sampling the bypass flow from the primary and secondary screen wells
offshore discharge pipe. The flow was diverted into a 2.4 by 2.4 m (7.9 by 7.9 ft) collection
basin where organisms were collected, identified by species and condition, and held for initial
and extended survival observations.
Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax) made up 90% of the
collected species (from April 1981–March 1983). Diversion efficiency was 79.3% and 74.2%
for alewife and rainbow smelt, respectively. The combined diversion efficiency for all the
species collected was 77.9%, ranging from 53.4% for mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdii) to 94.9%
for gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum).
Initial survival ranged from a low of 45.2% for rainbow smelt to a high of 87.4% for emerald
shiner (Notropis atherinoides). A total of 34,294 individuals from the seven most frequently
collected species were examined for initial survival and 7,534 fish were observed for extended
survival. The lowest extended survival rate was exhibited by alewife (22.4%), while the highest
was mottled sculpin (93.6%). Overall, the angled screen system was effective in diverting fish
from the primary screen well through the secondary screen well back into the lake. The degree
of effectiveness varied widely by species, size class (age), and condition of the population.
10-4
Brayton Point
An 18-month (October 1984 to March 1986) biological evaluation was conducted at Brayton
Point Station Unit 4 to determine the species, number, and initial and extended survival of fish
diverted from the angled screen intake (Davis et al. 1988). We present a discussion of the
collection system efficiency in Section 3 of this report.
The intake structure has eight openings 4.2 by 3.3 m (14 by 11 ft) that extend to the bottom of a
skimmer wall. Trash racks with bar spacing of 7.5 cm (3 in.) on center cover the intake
openings. Approximately 10 m (33 ft) behind the trash racks the width of the screen well
constricts to 12.3 m (41 ft). A center wall divided the structure in half, and each half is equipped
with three 3.0 m-wide (10 ft) flush-mounted modified vertical traveling screens. The screens are
set at a 25 degree angle to the flow. Each screen panel is modified with a fish-lifting bucket and
is capable of interchanging standard 9.5 mm (0.38 in.) screen and 1.0 mm (0.04 in.) fine-mesh
screen. Cooling water is drawn into the intake structure, through the screens, and into a cooling
canal by two circulating water pumps. The fish bypass is a rectangular opening 5.1 m by 15.2
cm (17 ft by 6 in.), located at the apex of each screenwell. The bypass leads into a 46 cm (18 in.)
diameter bypass pipe. Two shrouded 30 cm (12 in.) diameter screw impeller centrifugal pumps
discharge to the Lee River. Fish that do not enter the bypass and become impinged on the
traveling screens are removed by a low-pressure backwash system and returned via a fish sluice
back to the Lee River in the same location as the bypass return (Figure 10-3).
Figure 10-3
Brayton Point Station Unit 4 angled screen intake structure fish return systems (Davis et al.
1988)
Diversion efficiency of the angled screen system was determined by comparing the proportion of
fish entering the bypass to the number of fish entering the screen well. The number of fish
entering the screen well was calculated by adding the number of fish impinged on the angled
screens to the estimated number of fish diverted during the corresponding impingement period.
10-5
The angled screen intake system had a high diversion capability and demonstrated effectiveness
for mitigating fish impingement. Initial and extended survival varied by species. However, a
certain group of numerically dominant taxa was classified by the authors as “fragile” (primarily,
bay anchovy [Anchoa mitchilli] and Atlantic silverside [Menidia menidia]). The fragile group
had a calculated survival below 25.0% and a “hardy” group, dominated by winter flounder
(Pseudopleuronectes americanus) and Northern pipefish (Syngnathus fuscus) had survival values
greater than 65.0%.
A control study was also conducted to examine the effects of collection and handling on
diversion and impingement survival. The control specimens were collected from the Lee River
using various devices. The fish were marked by fin-clipping. Fish that were still alive after 24
hrs were introduced into their respective collection devices and held for the 48-hr survival
evaluations.
The diversion efficiency for all species combined was 76.3%. The authors showed that the
diversion efficiency was increased to 89.7%, when young-of-the-year bay anchovy, primarily
collected with fine-mesh screens, were excluded. A total of 79,206 fish was collected from the
angled screens and the diversion flow combined during the study period. An estimated 60,415
fish were netted from the diversion and 18,791 were collected from the angled screen wash
water. Between August and September 1985, over 93% of the total bay anchovy entrapment
occurred within a 2-month period. Fine-mesh screens were employed to exclude the entrainable-
sized bay anchovy from the cooling canal. Nine of the top 12 taxa collected had diversion
efficiencies greater than 83.2% (Table 10-1).
10-6
Table 10-1
Diversion efficiency of angled screens at Brayton Point (Davis et al. 1988)
Number Collected Collection by Location

Diversion
Common Name % Estimated
Abundance Impingement Efficiency (%)
Composition Diversion
bay anchovy 32,563 41.1 13,986 18,577 57.0
Atlantic silverside 23,504 29.7 727 22,777 96.9
winter flounder 8,284 10.4 1,021 7,263 87.7
Northern pipefish 3,284 4.1 1,548 1,736 52.9
threespine stickleback 1,481 1.9 113 1,368 92.4
Atlantic menhaden 1,279 1.6 124 1,155 90.3
fourspine stickleback 1,108 1.4 183 925 83.5
tautog 843 1.1 319 524 62.2
American eel 837 1.1 5 832 99.4
butterfish 819 1.0 37 782 95.5
hogchoker 811 1.0 117 694 85.6
seaboard goby 750 0.9 126 624 83.2
others (45 taxa) 3,643 4.6 485 3,158 86.7
total fish 79,206 18,791 60,415 76.3
total excluding bay

46,643 4,805 41,838 89.7
anchovy
The diversion flow collections resulted in an initial survival rate of 57.8% for all taxa (n=28,186)
combined. The initial survival rate ranged from 5.6% for bay anchovy to 99.7% for American
eel (Anguilla rostrata). Initial survival with the exclusion of bay anchovy was 82.6%. Extended
survival for all fish (n=9,209) collected at the diversion flow was 63.4%. Extended survival
trends were similar for the major species involved. Survival ranged from a low (bay anchovy) of
0% to a high of 99.6% (tautog [Tautoga onitis]).
Danskammer Point
A full-scale angled screen test facility was constructed at the Danskammer Point Generating
Station on the Hudson River in 1981 (LMS 1985). The angled screen facility was located in the
cooling water intake canal (Figure 10-4) and consisted of two 3 m (10 ft) wide vertical traveling
screens set at a 25 degree angle to the approach flow. The approach channel led to a 3 m (10 ft)
high by 0.15 m (0.5 ft) wide bypass. The screens were designed with interchangeable screen
panels with 9.6 and 1 mm (0.38 and 0.04 in.) mesh. The bypass led to a 0.46 m (1.5 ft) diameter
pipe, which then bifurcated to two 0.3 m (1.0 ft) diameter pipes to convey bypassed organisms to
10-7
two 30.5 cm (12 in.) screw-impeller centrifugal pumps. The bypass approach velocity matched
the angled screen approach velocity.
Figure 10-4
Danskammer angled screen system layout (LMS 1985)
The effectiveness of the system was evaluated over a 3-year test period (LMS 1985). The study
was separated into two programs: one to evaluate young-of-the-year and older fish and the
second to evaluate ichthyoplankton.
Juvenile and older fish were collected on a seasonal basis from the fish pump discharge using
nets (for determination of abundance) and from collection tanks from which fish could be
evaluated for latent (96-hour) mortality. Nets located on the screenwash discharge were used to
collect all fish impinged on the angled screens. A total of 59,309 fish representing 38 species
were collected between February 18, 1981, and October 27, 1983. Study variables included
velocity, conductivity, and diel periodicity.
Diversion efficiency ranged from 95.4 to 100.0%, with a mean of 99.4%. Species included bay
anchovy, blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), white perch (Morone americana), spottail shiner
(Notropis hudsonius), alewife, Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod), pumpkinseed (Lepomis
gibbosus), and American shad (Alosa sapidissima). Overall, system efficiency (diversion
efficiency times; initial survival times; extended [96-hour] survival) ranged from 67.9%
(alewife) to 98.7% (spottail shiner) with a mean of 84.4% (LMS 1985). Initial survival for all
the organisms tested was variable among taxa and life stage. Juveniles generally exhibited
higher survival compared to yolk-sac and post-yolk-sac larvae. Extended (48-hr) survival was
highest for yolk-sac larvae and lowest for post-yolk-larvae. No significant difference was found
for initial or extended survival between the three approach velocities tested. Results of the
10-8
young-of-the-year and older fish program indicate that the angled screen system is an effective
device for mitigating impingement, has a high guiding capability, and demonstrates high initial
survival of fish following passage through the system (LMS 1985).
White River Hydroelectric Project

Puget Sound Power and Light Company’s (Puget Power) decided to replace the existing fish
screens at its White River Hydroelectric Project in Washington (Dorratcague et al. 1996). Puget
Power constructed the new fish screens as part of the FERC relicensing process. The screen
structure is 105.0 by 21.3 by 8.5 m (344.5 by 69.9 by 27.9 ft) and is located in a power canal
(Figure 10-5; Figure 10-6; and Figure 10-7).
Figure 10-5
White River angled screen system — plan view (Dorratcague et al. 1996)
10-9
Figure 10-6
White River screen system — section view (Dorratcague et al. 1996)
The primary screens are in a V-shape to guide the fish toward a bypass while allowing the
majority of the flow to pass through the screens to the powerhouse. At the apex of the V, the
screens are 1 m (3.3 ft) apart as they transition into a bypass. At this point, secondary screens are
10-10
installed in the bypass walls to further concentrate the bypassed fish. The secondary screens are
vertical panels measuring 2.7 by 1.2 m (8.9 by 3.9 ft). The secondary screens guide fish to a
return channel and pipeline for return to the White River downstream of the canal. The fish
screening project became operational in 1996.
Figure 10-7
White River angled screen diversion system (courtesy of U.S. Filter — Johnson Screen)
As part of the design effort for the new screens, Puget Power decided to conduct a physical
model study of the proposed facility to optimize hydraulic conditions. The prototype design was
modeled at a scale of 1:8.5. The model results identified several problems with the proposed
design. The original design incorporated a downwell just prior to the fish entering the return
channel. Because of a severe change in water direction in the downwell, water backed up
enough in the bypass to create a vertical backroller along the screens. It was decided that the
turbulence created by the backroller could potentially trap debris and injure fish. The screen
structure was redesigned to incorporate an adjustable chute instead of the downwell. The model
also identified the proper adjustment of flow-straightening baffles located downstream of the V-
screens needed to create a uniform flow distribution over the screen surfaces. Finally, the model
identified potential sediment deposition problems within the structure. To solve this problem, a
high-pressure spray system was designed and the secondary screen panels were relocated to
sufficiently increase velocities and minimize sediment deposition (Dorratcague et al. 1996).
In another paper on the White River Project, McMillan and Porter (1996) provide additional
information on the planning and design of the V-screen facility. Using the results of the
hydraulic model study, a final design was prepared. The screen structure size was determined
based on the types and sizes of fish to be protected. The smallest and weakest-swimming fish
(pink salmon [Oncorhynchus gorbuscha] fry) determined the screen mesh size and the maximum
length of the screen allowable. The largest fish (spawned adult steelhead trout [Oncorhynchus
mykiss]) determined the minimum bypass channel depth and the trash rack bar spacing. Physical
10-11
criteria determined in the planning and design stages included screen hydraulics, primary and
secondary screens, and the bypass pipeline. The screen hydraulics consisted of a 56.6 m3/sec
(2,000 cfs) maximum and a 0.57 m3/sec (20 cfs) minimum design flow, a 0.12 m/sec (0.4 ft/sec)
velocity normal to the screen face, and a 0.61 m/sec (2.0 ft/sec) velocity in the channel
approaching the screens. The selected screen material was a stainless steel vertical flat plate
screen, with profile wedge-wire construction with a 2 mm (0.08 in.) clear bar spacing, a vertical
bar orientation, an open area of 40%, a flow distribution system using baffles, brush and water
backwash cleaning, and cleaner activation controls. The bypass pipeline was designed as a 76
cm (30 in.) diameter HDPE pipe 832 m (2,730 ft) in length with a design flow of 5.7 m3/sec (20
cfs).
Weeks Falls Hydroelectric Project

A series of monitoring studies were conducted at the Weeks Falls Hydroelectric Project to assess
the hydraulic performance of its screening facility (Jarrett and Winchell 1989). Field velocities
were measured as a requirement of the project’s FERC license. The Project is located on the
Snoqualmie River in Washington State. It is a run-of-river facility with a generating capacity of
5 MW and a maximum diversion of 21.2 m3/sec (750 cfs).
Water enters the intake through a trash rack and into two lateral intake channels. The water then
passes through the screens into a central channel and enters into the power shaft. Fourteen
traveling belt screens are arranged in two banks of screens. Each of the belt screens is 6.1 by 2.4
m (20 by 8 ft). The screens have and effective surface area of 11.7 m2 (125.7 ft2) with the
exception of the two downstream screens that have an effective screening surface of 9.6 and 5.2
m2 (103.2 and 56.2 ft2), respectively.
Water velocities were measured on the front side of the screen. In addition, sweeping and facing
velocities were recorded at nine positions on the face of each screen. Measurements were taken
at 20, 50, and 80% of the total depth, and at each depth, measurements were made at 0.3, 1.2,
and 2.1 m (1, 4, and 7 ft) from the upstream screen edge. Velocities were also measured at the
back side of the screens 0.6 m (2 ft) below the water surface at distances of 0.4, 1.2, 1.8, and 2.1
m (1.3, 4, 6, and 7 ft) from the upstream edge of the screens.
Sweeping velocities ranged from 0.91 to 1.37 m/sec (3 to 4.5 ft/sec) at screens 1–7. Velocities
measured at screens 8 through 14 were lower and more variable than the screens on the opposite
side. Previous measurements of total flow volume indicated that flow volume is greater on the
left bank of screens, which may have accounted for the difference in sweeping velocities. Facing
velocities on screens 1–6 were 0.03 m/sec (0.1 ft/sec) and 0.15 m/sec (0.5 ft/sec) on screens 8–
14. Screen 7 had a facing velocity of greater than 0.15 m/sec (0.5 ft/sec).
The initial measurements indicated a need to re-distribute flow to the upstream screens.
Modifications were made to the facility, including an increase in flow through the fish bypass.
Sweeping velocity measurements were similar to those made prior to the modifications. Facing
velocities were more evenly distributed after the modifications. Behind-the-screen velocity
measurements indicated high volume passing through the screens in the downstream end of the
facility. It appeared that the modifications had moderated the flow passing through screens 7 and
14. The screen modifications were considered successful. Future investigations at Weeks Falls
include the evaluation of baffles on screens 3 through 7 and 10 through 14.
10-12
Case Studies – Laboratory and Field Studies
Field Study Newhalen River, Alaska

A flume evaluation was conducted on the Newhalen River near Iliamna, Alaska, in June 1983
(Taft and Isakson 1983). This study focused on determining the potential effectiveness of a
stationary angled screen for diverting sockeye salmon smolts and fry (Oncorhynchus nerka).
Additionally, impingement survival studies were conducted.
A 2.4 by 1.2 by 1.2 m (8 by 4 by 4 ft) test flume was constructed to receive flow directly from
the river for the testing of the angled screen. The screen was constructed of 2 mm (0.08 in.)
spaced plastic mesh and was set at 25 degrees to the flow (Figure 1). The bypass located at the
downstream end of the screen measured 6 in. wide, 24 in. long, and extended the full flume
depth (18 in.). The upstream end of the flume was covered by 5 mm mesh to contain the test fish
and block the passage of debris into the testing flume. Screening tests were conducted at an
average approach velocity of 0.4 m/sec (1.3 ft/sec) for smolt and at a lower velocity (as low as
0.15 m/sec [0.5 ft/sec]) for fry.
Figure 10-8
Angled screen flume arrangement (plan) (Taft and Isakson 1983)
10-13
Impingement tests were conducted with fry in a segmented box inserted into the test flume. The
box was divided into four channels, each measuring approximately 0.3 m (1 ft) wide. Screen test
meshes included 1.0 and 2.0 mm (0.04 and 0.08 in.). Fish were introduced to the test channels
and impinged on the screening mesh for durations of 8 and 16 min. Approach velocities in the
testing channels ranged from 0.4 to 0.5 m/sec (1.2 to 1.5 ft/sec). Impinged fish were
subsequently held for 48 hrs to assess latent mortality.
Results of the screening diversion tests reveal that smolt successfully maintained their position in
the flume and easily avoided impingement at the velocities tested. Fry, however, displayed
difficulty in diverting even at low velocities. Upon release, 50% of the fry typically impinged on
the screen immediately but did eventually reach the bypass. The authors suggest that the high
impingement rates of the fry indicate the need for a collection type screen for this life stage.
Results of the impingement tests indicate high fry survival within an 87.3% to 95.8% range.
Average survival for all the test conditions was 93.1%. Control survival was 93.4%, indicating
essentially no handling mortality. The authors indicate that there is potential for efficient
diversion of sockeye salmon in the Newhalen River, but that further studies are required to
quantify the effects of higher approach velocities (above 0.3 m/sec [1.1 ft/sec]) and the effects of
abrasion on successfully diverted fish.
Laboratory Evaluation – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Creston National Fish Hatchery
Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) are a threatened species that can be impinged and entrained at
water diversion structures (Zydlewski and Johnson 2002). The authors evaluated whether
existing fish screening criteria used in the Northwest are adequate to prevent the impingement
and entrainment of recently emerged bull trout. Washington State screening criteria specify that
approach velocity not exceed 0.12 m/sec (0.4 ft/sec) to protect salmonids fry less than 60 mm
(2.4 in.) FL. These criteria define approach velocity as the water velocity component
perpendicular to and approximately 7.6 cm (3.0 in.) upstream of the screen face. In addition,
screening material must provide a minimum of 27% open area and can be made of perforated
plate with openings not greater than 2.4 mm (0.09 in.), wedgewire with 1.75 mm (0.07 in.) bars,
or woven wire with opening no greater than 2.4 mm (0.09 in.).
Tests were run from February 29 2000–March 4 2000 using bull trout 22.5–31.0 mm (0.9-1.2 in.)
TL (Mean = 25.0 mm [1 in.]) that had been feeding for at least one week. Tests were conducted
in an oval fish tank (Figure 1). Water depth was set at 35.6 cm (1.4 in.) and maintained between
6°C and 7°C throughout testing. Velocity was achieved using a propeller system and verified
using a Swoffer meter calibrated for low flows. The test chamber was 102 cm (40.2 in.) long.
Test fish were contained in the test chamber using 0.159 mm stretch mesh. Experimental test
screens were located midway in the test chamber. Entrained fish were collected downstream of
the experimental test screens. Test screens were metal plates with: 1) 2.4-mm (0.09 in.) evenly-
spaced round openings (perforated plate, PP); 2) wedgewire (profile bar) with 1.75-mm (0.07 in.)
openings oriented vertically (HPB); 3) 2.4 mm (0.09 in.) 14-gauge woven wire (WW) and 4) a
no-screen control (CL). Twenty-five were introduced into the release area with the screen or no-
screen (CL) in place.
10-14
Figure 10-9
Test tank (A) showing (a) video camera, (b) test chamber, (c) velocity meter), (d) cooling unit,
and (e) propeller system. The thick black arrow shows the direction of flow. (B) Test chamber,
showing (i) release area, (ii) capture area, and (iii) position of removable test screen
(Zydlewski and Johnson 2002).
Fish acclimated to the tank with no flow for the first 15 min then the propeller was turned on at
the lowest setting to generate a flow of 0.03 m/sec (0.1 ft/sec). At 15-min intervals over 1 hour,
velocity was increased to 0.12 m/sec (0.4 ft/sec) at 7.6 cm (3.0 in.) in front of screen to match the
current design criteria. Water velocity was maintained at 0.12 m/sec (0.4 ft/sec) for the
remainder of the 16 hour test (1545 to 0800 hrs). Once the velocity was set at 0.12 m/sec (0.4
ft/sec), fish were continuously observed of 1 hour and then checked every 30 min until 2200 and
from 0400-0800 hrs (n = 23 observations). The number of fish impinged and entrained was
recorded. The individual time to impinge or entrain was subsequently observed from the
videotapes. For these studies, impingement was defined as contact with the screen longer than 1
second. Any fish that did not contact the screen or entrain through the screen was considered
10-15
free swimming. During control replicates, entrainment was defined as those fish downstream of
where the screen would have been and free-swimming as those upstream of where the screen
would have been. The average number of fish impinged and entrained at the end of each 30-min
observation was reported.
At the end of the experiment, three groups of live fish (free-swimming, impinged, and entrained)
were transferred to separate holding tanks to assess 24-hour survival. Video tapes were used to
determine the frequency of screen contacts. Prior to evaluating the video tapes, a single tape was
analyzed to determine the frequency distribution of contacts. Since the majority (90%) of
contacts occurred between 1700 and 0000 hrs, only this portion of the tapes was subsequently
analyzed. Control tapes were not analyzed. Video analysis was used to determine the total
number of contacts between 1700 and 0000 hrs, whether the fish escaped from the screen, and
the start and end time of the contacts.
The greatest number of impingements was observed at the end of the VPB trials (approximately
3 fish; Table 10-2). The duration of contact with the VPB screen averaged 12.0 min. For the PP
trials, an average of one fish was impinged on the screens at the end of each observation period.
No fish were impinged in 13 of the 23 observation periods. Duration of impingement averaged
2.5 min. For HPB trials, an average of 1.61 fish were impinged. There were no impingements in
7 of the 23 observation periods. The duration of impingement on HPB screens averaged 7.1 min.
For WW trials, an average of 1.26 fish were impinged. No fish were impinged in 5 of the 23
observation periods. The duration of contact averaged 6.8 min. During all testing, only one fish
was entrained through a screen (VPB treatment). This fish was the smallest tested (23.0 mm [0.9
in.]). All the fish survived initially, but one control fish died during the 24 hrs after the
experiment.
Table 10-2
Mean number (SEs in parenthesis) of bull trout entrained and impinged on various types of screen
and the number surviving the experiments. Treatments were: CL = control; VPB = vertical profile
bar (wedgewire); PP = perforated plate; HPB = horizontal profile wire (wedgewire); and WW =
woven wire (Zydlewski and Johnson 2002).
Condition at the end of

each 30-min interval Condition at the end of experiment
Number
Experimental Number Number Number Number Number Surviving at
Condition Entrained Impinged Entrained Impinged Surviving 24-H
CL 12.70 (1.30) 2.10 (0.30) 12 2a 25 24
VPB 0.05 (0.05) 2.75 (0.30) 1 3 25 25
PP 0 0.39 (0.10) 0 1 25 25
HPB 0 1.61 (0.31) 0 2 25 25
WW 0 1.26 (0.20) 0 1 25 25
a
Two fish were impinged on the rear barrier screen.
The authors conclude that the screening criteria are likely protective of bull trout fry, but stressed
that since these tests were restricted to organisms held at 6-7°C and averaged 25 mm (1 in.) TL,
observations at field sites would be important to assure the protection of wild fish populations.
10-16
Laboratory Study, Redondo Beach, CA
A laboratory evaluation was undertaken to assess the guidance and survival of larval fish along
louvers and fine mesh angled screens at Southern California Edison’s Redondo Beach laboratory
(McGroddy et al. 1981). The flume in which the fish were tested contained a diversion system
similar to the one installed at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). The flume
measured 1.8 m (6 ft) wide by 1.2 m (4 ft) deep and was capable of achieving flow velocities of
0.85 m3/sec (30 cfs). The louver array was set at 20 degrees to the flow and measured 3 m (10
ft) in length. The louver slats measured 6.4 mm (0.25 in) thick, 25 mm (1 in) deep, and were
spaced 25 mm (1 in.) apart. For angled screen testing, panels of Smooth-Tex woven-wire mesh
were flush mounted on the louver array. The mesh openings were 14.0 mm by 1.2 mm (0.6 in.
by 0.05 in.) and oriented vertically when installed. The two approach velocities evaluated were
30 cm/sec (1.0 ft/sec) and 61 cm/sec (2.0 ft/sec), which corresponded to velocities of 12 cm/sec
(0.4 ft/sec) and 24 cm/sec (0.8 ft/sec) at the louver array.
Successfully bypassed fish entered the 7.6 cm (3 in.) wide bypass opening where the velocity
was maintained at 76 cm/sec (2.5 ft/sec) and were then collected in a fiberglass tray. Collected
fish were assessed for immediate survival and then transferred to a holding facility where latent
mortality was monitored at 24-hour intervals for a total of 96 hrs. Fish lengths were recorded at
the completion of the 96-hour holding.
Three replicate trials were run for each combination of variables. Test fish were released 1.5 m
(5 ft) in front of the upstream end of the louver array and 15.2 cm (6 in.) from the flume wall.
Each trial was run for 10 min, after which the flume was drained and the test fish were collected.
Total diversion efficiency represented the proportion of fish that were both diverted and
survived. Results are presented in Table 10-3 by species for tests with the louvers and with the
angled screen.
10-17
Table 10-3
Results of diversion tests for all species (McGroddy et al. 1981)
Mean Age Approach No. of Total No. % % % Total

Length (Days) Velocity Replicates of Fish Diversion Survival Efficiency
(mm) (cm/sec)
Grunion
I. With Fine Mesh
12.7 22 61 3 70 21 67 14
15.7 36 61 3 90 3 33 1
16.6 29 61 3 90 51 37 19
18.9 54 61 3 90 66 34 22
21.6 33 61 3 78 95 97 92
23.8 51 61 3 45 87 74 64
19.5 28 30 3 60 98 95 93
II. With Louvers
10.8 30 61 3 90 0 0
15.5 38 61 3 90 3 33 1
19.4 90 61 3 90 9 38 3
27.3 101 61 3 90 27 58 16
29.7 99 61 3 90 18 31 6
32.2 106 30 3 89 47 12 6
27.5 117 30 3 90 52 83 43
Topsmelt
I. With Fine Mesh
13.8 wild 61 3 60 28 100 28
18.2 wild 61 3 59 49 100 49
21.7 wild 61 3 60 92 93 85
22.3 wild 61 3 60 93 98 91
23.9 wild 61 3 60 95 91 86
26 wild 61 3 60 98 100 98
II. With Louvers

28 wild 61 3 60 48 100 48
36.1 wild 61 3 60 67 100 67
10-18
Mean Age Approach No. of Total No. % % % Total
Length (Days) Velocity Replicates of Fish Diversion Survival Efficiency
(mm) (cm/sec)
White croaker
I. With Fine Mesh

24.1 48 61 3 60 97 97 94
34.2 82 61 3 60 87 94 82
II. With Louvers

23.4 53 61 3 60 8 100 8
36.7 83 61 3 60 5 100 5
60 134 61 3 60 87 40 35
Kelpfish
I. With Fine Mesh
13 32 61 1 22 5 0 0
15 29 61 2 54 48 0 0
24.1 51 61 3 30 80 54 43
II. With Louvers — No Testing
Northern anchovy
I. With Fine Mesh
19.6 46 61 3 55 20 18 4
30.7 50 61 3 45 91 20 18
32.5 48 61 3 60 77 28 21
II. With Louvers — No Testing
A total of 42 tests were conducted with grunion larvae (Leuresthes spp.) that were reared in the
laboratory from wild-caught eggs. Average lengths ranged from 10.8 to 37.5 mm (0.4 to 1.5 in.).
Generally, results of testing with grunion and the fine mesh screen show an increase in diversion
with increases in fish length at the 0.6 m/sec (2 ft/sec) velocity. With the approach velocity
reduced to 0.3 m/sec (1 ft/sec), the efficiency increased to 93% from 22% for fish measuring
18.9 to 19.5 mm (0.7 to 0.8 in.). Trials in which the fine mesh screen was removed and the
efficiency of the louver array alone was evaluated revealed a significant decrease in total
efficiency to 16% and 43% for 0.6 and 0.3 m/sec (2.0 and 1.0 ft/sec) respectively.
A total of 24 tests were conducted with topsmelt (Atherinops affinis) larvae that were collected in
the wild. Average lengths ranged from 13.8 to 36.1 mm (0.5 to 1.4 in.). All trials with topsmelt
were conducted at the 2.0 ft/sec approach velocity. Similar to the fine mesh screen trials with
grunion, an increase in diversion was noted with increased fish length. Mean survival for all
tests was 97%. Trials in which the fine mesh screen was removed and the efficiency of the
10-19
louver array alone was evaluated revealed a significant decrease in diversion, but 100% survival
as these fish were fully metamorphosed juveniles. No significant difference was found between
trials run during daylight or darkness.
A total of 15 tests were conducted with white croaker larvae (Genyonemus lineatus) that were
spawned in the laboratory. All trials with white croaker were conducted at the 0.6 m/sec (2.0
ft/sec) approach velocity. Fine mesh screen trials with the two sizes of fish tested yielded high
diversion, survival, and total efficiencies. Louver trials of similar sized fish had significantly
lower efficiencies and therefore significantly lower total efficiencies.
A total of 6 tests were conducted with giant kelpfish (Heterostichus rostratus) larvae that were
reared in the laboratory from wild-caught eggs. All trials were run with the fine mesh screen at
the 0.6 m/sec (2.0 ft/sec) approach velocity. Though a similar trend of increasing diversion with
increasing fish length is seen, total efficiencies are extremely low due to the fragile nature of the
species. The sensitivity of this species to handling stress is evidenced by the high (72%) control
mortality.
A total of 9 tests were run with Northern anchovy larvae (Engraulis mordax) that were spawned
in the laboratory. Average lengths ranged from 19.6 to 32.5 mm (0.8 to 1.2 in.). Although
diversion rates were high for the larger fish, total efficiencies were low due to high mortality of
test fish. Like the kelpfish, Northern anchovy experienced high control mortality (73 to 75%).
Overall results from this evaluation indicate that diversion efficiency and extended survival are
species-specific and dependant on fish length and swimming ability.
Results of this evaluation were compared to previous larval diversion and survival testing done
by ESEERCO (1981b, Table 10-4) and found to be similar. Diversion rates and total efficiencies
from this evaluation with 1.2 mm (0.05 in.) slotted mesh most closely matched the diversion
rates and total efficiencies for the 4.0 mm (0.2 in.) square mesh results from the ESEERCO
study. Lower 50% and 100% diversion rates and total efficiencies were achieved in the
ESEERCO study with the 1.0 mm (0.04 in.) mesh due most likely to the increased retention of
smaller larvae by this size mesh. Overall, the authors conclude that diversion rates and total
efficiencies increase with decreasing approach velocities and mesh size.
10-20
Table 10-4
Comparison of predicted lengths for diversion and total efficiency between the Redondo Beach
study and the ESEERCO study (McGroddy et al. 1981)
I. ESEERCO Square Mesh
Diversion Efficiency
1.0 mm 4.0 mm 1.0 mm 4.0 mm
50% 100% 50% 100% 50% 100% 50% 100%
6.6 mm 13 mm 17.7 mm 24.1 mm 8.2 mm 16.1 mm 17.6 mm 25.5 mm
II. Redondo Beach Slotted Mesh
Diversion Efficiency
1.2 mm 1.2 mm
50% 100% 50% 100%
17.9 mm 23.7 mm 19.2 mm 24.4 mm
Laboratory Study – ESEERCO

Fine-mesh angled screen diversion tests were conducted with larval fish in a smaller flume
facility at Alden (ESEERCO 1981b; Taft et al. 1981b). These studies were conducted to
determine the potential effectiveness of angled fine-mesh diversion screens for application at
CWISs. Testing procedures differed slightly from 1978 (see previous case study) to 1980.
Therefore, we present the results of 1978 and 1979 striped bass (Morone saxatilis) tests and 1980
winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and yellow
perch (Perca flavescens) tests individually below.
In 1978, a total of 101 tests were conducted with striped bass larvae under both light and dark
conditions. Since the 42 tests conducted under dark conditions more accurately represent
conditions that would exist at a power plant, only these tests were subjected to analysis. Eleven
tests were conducted with the 1.5 mm (0.06 in.) synthetic screen, 10 tests each with the 1.5 mm
(0.06 in.) metallic and 2.5 mm (0.1 in.) synthetic screen, and 11 tests with the 2.5 mm (0.1 in.)
metallic screen. The measure of success of the screens in diverting larvae without mortality was
Total Efficiency (TE), defined as diversion efficiency adjusted for 96-hour mortality among
successfully diverted larvae.
Results of testing under all conditions are presented graphically on Figure 10-10 and Figure
10-11 for the 1.5 mm (0.06 in.) and 2.5 mm (0.1 in.) meshes, respectively. As the figures show,
TE increased with increasing larval length, as expected. Results of an analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA) indicated that mesh size and type significantly influenced TE, with the 1.5-mm
(0.06-in.) mesh yielding greater efficiencies than the 2.5-mm (0.1 in.) mesh and the synthetic
mesh yielding higher diversion efficiencies than the metallic mesh. The predicted TE lines
(Figure 10-10 and Figure 10-11) indicate a slightly higher efficiency at 0.3 m/sec (1.0 ft/sec)
than at 0.2 m/sec (0.5 ft/sec). However, this is believed to result from the fact that the 0.3 m/sec
(1.0 ft/sec) approach velocity was not tested until the larvae had reached a length of almost 15
mm (0.6 in.).
10-21
Figure 10-10
Total efficiency versus length for 1.5 mm mesh 1978 striped bass diversion study (Taft et al.
1981b)
10-22
Figure 10-11
Total efficiency versus length for 2.5 mm mesh 1978 striped bass diversion study (Taft et al.
1981b)
Based on results of testing in 1978, only synthetic meshes were evaluated with striped bass in
1979, and larger mesh sizes were added to the study. A total of 203 tests were analyzed: 29 with
a 1.0 mm (0.04 in.) mesh, 38 with a 4.0 mm (0.15 in.) mesh, 70 with a 5.0 mm (0.2 in.) mesh,
and 66 with a 9.5 mm (0.37 in.) mesh. Testing was conducted in a sequential manner beginning
with the smallest mesh and lowest velocity. Once diversion was observed, the next largest mesh
size and velocity were added to the testing regime. All tests were conducted under dark
conditions. During the testing period, the striped bass grew from 9.9 to 41.1 mm (0.4 to 1.6 in.)
in length.
We present the results of 1979 testing in Table 10-5, which summarizes the larval lengths at
which total efficiencies of 25, 50, and 100% are predicted to occur (based on the ANCOVA
model).
10-23
Table 10-5
Results of 1979 testing showing predicted efficiencies based on larval lengths (Taft et al. 1981b)
Predicted Total Efficiency (TE)

Range of Larval
Mesh Size (mm) Lengths (mm) Tested 25% 50% 100%
1.0 9.9–18.0 -- 8.2 mm 16.1 mm
4.0 10.4–24.7 13.6 mm 17.6 mm 25.5 mm
5.0 16.3–31.7 -- 20.0 mm 32.1 mm
9.5 18.0–41.1 22.8 mm 28.8 mm 41.0 mm
In general, these results are similar to those obtained in 1978: TE increased with larval length
(i.e., as swimming ability increased). As expected, mesh size influenced TE in such a way that
the larval length at which a specific efficiency value was achieved increased with each
successive increase in mesh size.
A separate analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of approach velocity on the TE obtained
with each mesh size. Again, at a specific larval length, TE decreased with increasing mesh size.
TE also decreased with increasing velocity at each mesh size.
Angled screen diversion studies were conducted with winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes
americanus), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), and yellow perch (Perca flavescens) larvae in
1980. Winter flounder were only available for testing over a 4.1 to 6.1 mm (0.16 to 0.24 in.)
length range. In four tests, no diversion was noted.
Alewife prolarvae (mean length of 5.5 mm [0.21 in.]) and early postlarvae (mean length of 9.5
mm [0.4 in.]) also showed no ability to guide along the angled screen in single tests with the 1.0
mm (0.04 in.) screen at 0.152 m/sec (0.5 ft/sec). Later postlarvae showed relatively high
diversion efficiencies. In two tests with 11.2 mm (0.44 in.) larvae, diversion efficiencies were 84
and 77%. In three tests with 14.7 mm larvae, efficiencies of 84, 84, and 60% were obtained.
However, in all five tests, 96-hour mortalities were high, and total efficiencies were, therefore,
low (less than 27%). The majority of postlarvae tested were observed to impinge on the 1.0 mm
(0.04 in.) mesh for varying periods of time prior to being diverted into the bypass. Since control
mortality was low, it would appear that stress from impingement contributed to the high
mortalities that occurred.
As with the other species, smaller yellow perch larvae (mean lengths of 6.0 and 9.3 mm) showed
no ability to guide along the 1.0 mm (0.04 in.) mesh at 0.152 m/sec (0.5 ft/sec) (six tests). In two
tests with 14.3 mm (0.56 in.) perch, diversion efficiencies of 16 and 72% were obtained.
Respective 96-hour mortalities were 11.1 and 1%. Further testing was not possible since
additional yellow perch larvae were not available.
Laboratory Study – Tennessee Valley Authority

Two years of studies by TVA (TVA 1980) examined the ability of several species of larval fish
to avoid impingement and/or entrainment in flowing water, using a stationary stainless steel
screen with wedge-shaped wire. Information generated by these studies is significant in that the
10-24
studies examined closely the interaction of fish with limited swimming ability and a screen set at
different orientations under various flow conditions.
During the first year of study, seven species of fish larvae ranging from 5.6 to 21.5 mm (0.2 to
0.8 in.) in length were tested. Results of 296 separate test conditions showed that except for the
very young of one species, all larvae exhibited the ability to avoid entrapment for all three slot
widths (0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 mm [0.02, 0.04, and 0.08 in.]), thus confirming that many larval species
have the ability to guide along screens.
During the second year of study, larvae of nine species ranging in length from 5.7 to 14.7 mm
(0.2 to 0.6 in.) were tested in 243 tests. Results of the study are briefly highlighted below:
1. Slot velocity had a highly significant effect on avoidance. Mean avoidance at slot
(through-screen) velocity of 0.075 m/sec (0.25 ft/sec) (80.5%) was significantly greater
than at 0.15 m/sec (0.5 ft/sec) (14.9%) for Northern pike (Esox lucius) larvae.
2. The effect of slot orientation (vertical versus horizontal) was species-dependent. Greater
avoidance occurred with the vertical slot orientation for white sucker (Catostomus
commersonii), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) and sauger (Sander canadensis),
whereas striped bass/white bass hybrid (Morone saxatilis x Morone chrysops) larvae and
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) larvae showed significantly greater avoidance
with the horizontal orientation.
3. The slot velocity by slot orientation interaction effect was significant for white sucker
and channel catfish. In each case, the effect of slot orientation was greater at the lower
slot velocity. At the high velocity, fish apparently have little chance of escaping once
contact is made, regardless of slot orientation. At the lower slot velocity, the probability
of escaping was greater with the vertical slot orientation. This was expected, since the
slot was oriented perpendicular to the length of the fish.
4. Significantly higher mean avoidance was observed for low slot velocity, vertical slot
orientation, and daylight among paddlefish and walleye larvae. Both species were more
vulnerable to entrapment by the horizontal slot screen at night.
5. All species except channel catfish showed significantly higher mean avoidance during
daylight tests. This was considered to be consistent with described habits of this
nocturnal species. Thus, orientation to visual stimuli appeared important in the overall
avoidance response.
6. Results of experiments conducted with striped bass/white bass hybrid indicate that mean
avoidance during daylight (77.8%) was significantly greater than during night (28%).
7. For white sucker, avoidance appeared related to visual stimuli (daylight) and was
strongest for the 0.04 in. mesh (1.0 mm) screen.
8. Slot velocity and slot width had a significant effect on avoidance. Higher avoidance was
associated with lower slot velocity and narrow widths for channel catfish, bluegill
(Lepomis macrochirus), and walleye (Sander vitreus).
9. Significantly higher avoidance occurred for white sucker and channel catfish for low slot
velocity and availability of a bottom refuge.
10-25
10. Avoidance was related to fish age for white sucker, striped bass, and sauger.
Significantly higher avoidance for low slot velocity and older fish was obtained.
The results of this study indicated that "fish avoidance" at water intake screens has high potential
for protecting a large percentage of fish larvae that could potentially be entrapped. All variables
that were tested represented important design parameters for a prototype screen. In addition,
large differences in avoidance among species and ages dictate the need to consider species and
sizes of fish available at a particular site when designing an intake of this type (TVA 1980).
The tests indicated that to provide optimum protection for very small larvae (<6.0 mm [<0.24
in.] total length), a screen slot width of 0.5 mm (0.02 in.) and a slot velocity no greater than
0.075 m/sec (0.25 ft/sec) may be required.
The study concluded that use of a 1.0-mm (0.04-in.) slot and sufficiently low through-screen
velocity would probably enable all larvae over 10-mm (0.4-in.) total length to avoid entrapment.
For some species, a through-screen velocity as high as 0.15 m/sec (0.5 ft/sec) would not
appreciably reduce avoidance, but for others, it would be necessary to limit slot velocity to 0.075
m/sec (0.25 ft/sec). Several species between 7- and 10-mm (0.3- and 0.4-in.) total length could
probably avoid a screen of 1.0-mm (0.04-in.) slot width if through-screen velocity was limited to
0.075 m/sec (0.25 ft/sec). For some species, slot orientation and lighting may need to be
considered in order to optimize avoidance (TVA 1980).
In addition, a screen with 0.1-in. (2.0-mm) wide slots could be used to effectively protect most
species of larvae which exceed 0.4-in. (10-mm) in length. With this slot size, use of low slot
velocity (7.6 cm/sec [0.25 ft/sec]) and orienting the slots perpendicular to flow direction may be
required to optimize avoidance for most species. Higher slot velocity could be used and still
provide adequate protection for juvenile and larger fish during periods when larvae are not
present. Inclusion of a bypass area located below the screen (in the case of a vertical flat screen
oriented parallel to flow direction) probably would increase avoidance for nearly all species
(TVA 1980).
Laboratory Study – Alden Research Laboratory

A variety of laboratory studies have been conducted that indicate that an angled diversion screen
concept is effective in diverting larval, juvenile, and adult fishes to bypasses. These studies led
to the development of angled screen diversions and fish transportation systems that were
incorporated into the design of two large power plants situated on Lake Ontario, one plant on the
Hudson River, and one coastal plant in Massachusetts.
Laboratory studies were conducted at Alden Research Laboratory, Inc., (Alden) to evaluate the
potential biological effectiveness of angled screens for three power generators. During the 4
years of development, three experimental flumes were used to evaluate the screen over a wide
range of environmental and engineering conditions. Variables investigated included test species,
temperature, approach and bypass velocity, light conditions, and the mortality associated with
diversion (Taft and Mussalli 1978). We provide a summary of the physical and biological
parameters investigated in each test flume in Table 10-6.
10-26
Table 10-6
Physical and biological parameters investigated in each test flume (Taft and Mussalli 1978)
Niagara Mohawk/
Niagara Mohawk Con Edison
Test Parameters Rochester Gas & Electric
3-ft flume 6-ft flume
6-ft flume
striped bass: 77–35

Test species and alewife: 78–49 (26-2)
temperature range, in (26–10) alewife: 82–39 white perch: 77–52
degrees Fahrenheit smelt: 37–36 (28–4) (26–11)
(degrees Celsius) (3–2) tomcod: 36–55
(2–1.5)
0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5,

0.5, 0.8, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 3.0
Approach velocities, in 1.0 3.0
(0.15, 0.24, 0.31, 0.46,
ft/s(m/s) (0.3) (0.15, 0.31, 0.46, 0.61,
0.06, 0.92)
0.76, 0.92)
0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5,

0.5, 0.8, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 3.0 3.0
Bypass velocities, in ft/s 1.4 (0.15, 0.31, 0.46, 0.61,
(0.15, 0.24, 0.31, 0.46,
(m/s) (0.423) 0.76, 0.92)
0.06, 0.92)
One week mortality

No Yes Yes
studies
Number of tests 7 36 32
1/4 (6.4 mm) 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) 3/8 in (9.5 mm)
Screen mesh
14 gage 11 gage 11 gage
Flume dimensions 3 by 3 by 70
6 by 6 by 40 6 by 7 by 80
W by D by L, in feet (0.91 by 0.91 by
(1.8 by 1.8 by 12) 1.8 by 2.1 by 24)
(meters) 21)
Flume flow capacity, in 12 130 110

cfs (m3/sec) (0.34) (3.68) (3.11)
Each test consisted of placing from 100 to 2,000 fish, ranging in length from 25 to 150 mm (1 to
6 in.), in a test flume under the desired conditions and allowing them to react naturally. After
being diverted, the fish were removed from a bypass collection area and held for up to 1 week
10-27
for observations of latent mortality. A separate control group was held for comparison. In this
way, differential (test minus control) mortalities were determined.
Initial studies for Niagara Mohawk were conducted in a flume that was 21.3 by 0.9 by 0.9 m (70
ft by 3 ft by 3 ft). These studies were designed to obtain a preliminary indication of the
effectiveness of a 25 degree angled screen in diverting alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and
rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax) to a 152.4 mm (6 in.) wide bypass (Taft and Mussalli 1978).
In seven tests with over 2,000 fish, diversion efficiencies for both species were nearly 100%.
Therefore, it was decided to conduct a further evaluation of the concept with alewife in a large-
scale flume in which all of the details of a prototype screen could be closely simulated.
The large-scale flume was approximately 12.2 by 1.8 by 1.8 m (40 by 6 by 6 ft) and incorporated
a 3.7 m (12 ft) long angled screen leading to a 152.4 mm (6 in.) wide bypass. Simultaneously, a
third flume with similar dimensions was constructed for Con Edison to determine the potential of
the angled screen concept for effectively diverting Hudson River species.
Results of testing in both large-scale flumes were similar (Taft and Mussalli 1978). In most
cases, the 25 degree angled screen was found to be 100% effective in diverting all test species
(alewife [Alosa pseudoharengus], white perch [Morone americana], striped bass [Morone
saxatilis], and Atlantic tomcod [Microgadus tomcod]) to the bypass under all test conditions.
The results of latent mortality studies showed a mean differential mortality and 95% confidence
limits of 35.7 ± 13.5% for alewife (25 tests) and 3.3 ± 2.5% for Hudson River species (32 tests).
The relatively high mortality observed among alewife was assumed to be largely attributable to
the difficulty in handling this fragile species in the model facility. This assumption was verified
in later studies in which the angled screen bypass was connected to a fish transportation system.
The system consisted of a 54.9 m (180 ft) long, 25.4-cm (10-in.) diameter pipe and 30.5 cm (12
in.) diameter jet pump that discharged into a large stilling basin where mortality could be
observed without handling. Since the pipe and jet pump were tested at velocities up to 2.8 m/sec
and 15.2 m/sec (9 ft/sec and 50 ft/sec), respectively, it would be assumed that mortalities in the
system would be higher than those observed in studies with the angled screen alone, due to the
additional stresses imposed.
However, the results of 11 tests in the combined angled screen and fish transportation system
model showed mean test and control mortalities of 11.8% and 7.8%, respectively, resulting in a
mean differential mortality of only 4%. Therefore, this value is considered to be a better
estimate of the most probable mortality that might be expected to occur in a prototype angled
screen application.
Tests were also conducted to study the distribution of trash on the screen and to determine the
percentage of trash entering the bypass. Three tests with approach and bypass velocities of about
0.31 and 0.15 m/sec (1.0 and 0.5 ft/sec) were performed. Test results indicated that the
distribution of trash between the screen and the bypass follows the distribution of flow. The
majority of the trash became lodged on the screen face at the point of initial contact.
Considering the high diversion efficiencies and low resultant mortalities obtained with the angled
screen in the laboratory, Niagara Mohawk installed the full-scale angled screen and fish
transportation system at the Oswego Steam Station on Lake Ontario, as we discussed previously.
10-28
Laboratory Study - California
Early angled screen evaluations were conducted in an experimental flume for the Southern
California Edison’s San Onofre Station (Schuler 1973; Schuler and Larson 1975). In these
studies, 1.6 cm (5/8 in.) mesh screens were found to yield poor-to-fair guidance (0 to 70%) of the
Northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), a primary test species. Moderate-to-good guidance (60
to 90%) of other test species was obtained with a screen set at 45 degrees to the approach flow,
an approach velocity of 0.6 m/sec (2.0 ft/sec), and a bypass velocity of 0.45 to 1.2 m/sec (1.5 to
4.0 ft/sec) (higher efficiencies corresponded to higher bypass velocities). This was also the best
setting for anchovies, which were guided with 30 to 70% efficiency. Further improvement of the
angled screen design was not attempted since a decision was made to pursue louvers for this site.
It is likely, however, that improved design and hydraulic conditions would have led to high
diversion efficiencies, as witnessed by other investigators who developed the angled screen
concept further.
Laboratory Study – University of California, Davis

Screening facilities were constructed at the State Water Project (SWP) and the Central Valley
Project (CVP) to reduce their potential effects on San Joaquin Delta fish, particularly the
Sacramento splittail (Pogonichthys mancrolepidotus) (Swanson et al 1998). Fish are diverted
away from the pumps through a series of bypass screens and louvers into holding tanks. Fish are
then transported from the holding tanks to other regions of the southern delta.
A study was conducted to investigate the swimming performance and physiological responses of
small age-0 splittail exposed to a wedge-wire fish screen. Four velocity treatments, found to be
common at the CVP and SWP diversions, were tested within a model water diversion facility
flume. The objective was to determine if fish screen expose contributed to increased sublethal
effects (physical or physiological) and mortality, and whether these responses were a function of
water velocities in front of the screen. It is hypothesized that this study would result in: (1)
random rheotaxis, increased screen contacts, and losses of equilibrium; (2) elicit acute
physiological changes (increased hematocit, plasma glucose, and plasma lactate); and (3)
contribute to increased mortality.
The test flume was equipped with a stainless steel, vertical wedge-wire (0.12 cm bar interval)
fish screen angled 10 degrees from the flume wall and bypass channel (Figure 10-12). Stainless
steel wire mesh screens were also used to enclose the swimming chamber at both the upstream
and downstream end. The mean depth was 15.4 cm (0.5 ft) and a mean water temperature of
12.4°C.
Splittail (mean SL= 5.9 ± 1.3 cm) were acclimated to the 12°C water chamber temperature for a
period of 24-hrs. Fish were then subjected to a velocity acclimation within a 1.8- by 0.6-m (5.9
by 2 ft) section of the swimming chamber for 0.5 hrs. There was no flow for the first 0.25 hr and
then velocities were increased to 25 cm/sec ± 5 cm/sec (9.8 in/sec ± 2 in/sec) for the second 0.25
hr (no flow again for controls). Fish were released into the test flume for 1.5 hrs within one of
four water velocity treatments: control (0 cm/sec mean resultant velocity in front of the screen);
intermediate (32 cm/sec [12.6 in/sec]); and two high velocity (60 cm/sec[23.6 in/sec]) treatments
each with a different bypass entrance velocity (low = 50 cm/sec [19.7 in/sec], high = 72 cm/sec
[28.3 in/sec]). Velocities varied depending on the position and location within the test flume
(Figure 10-13). Three replicate experiments were conducted per treatment, each with 20 fish.
10-29
Figure 10-12
Diagram of the open-topped, glass water flume swimming chamber and bypass channel
Figure 10-13
Flow maps of water velocities at middepth (8 cm) in the high-velocity, high-bypass (60 cm/s
with a 72 cm/s bypass) and intermediate-velocity (32 cm/sec) treatments near the fish screen.
The x-axis indicates distance along the length of the flume, the y-axis indicates width, and the
contour lines indicate water velocities (cm/sec).
Swimming performance observations during each experiment included, screen contacts,

equilibrium loss, the number of fish entering the bypass, and survival. Screen contacts were
measured in one of two ways: (1) tail touches (screen contact with the caudal fin and an angle of
the body length to screen of >45 degrees); (2) body touches (screen contact by greater than half
of the body length and an angle of the body to the screen < 45 degrees). Results were measured
in the total number of screen contacts per experiment. Loss of equilibrium was defined as a body
roll greater than 90 degrees. All swimming velocities were calculated using the following
formula:
V = vf + vw or V = vf - vw
10-30
Where V is the swimming velocity of the fish through the water, vf is the swimming velocity of
the fish over the ground, and vw is the water velocity. Water velocities were added when fish
were positively rheotaxic (swimming upstream), and subtracted when fish were negatively
rheotaxic (swimming downstream).
Fish entering the bypass during a noncontrol test, were removed and 5 fish were randomly placed
into one of four hematological groups: 0, 0.5, 2, and 24 hrs. Blood was collected immediately
from 0 h fish, while the remaining sample groups were held in continuously water flowing tanks
until the fish’s respective post experimental sampling time. Fish not entering the bypass and
control fish were bled or taken for hematological sampling immediately following the end of
each experiment. Plasma samples held for analyses of plasma lactate and glucose concentrations
using a glucose-lactate analyzer.
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment velocity as the single factor was used to
compare treatments. A two-way ANOVA was used to test the physiological responses among
treatments, with the physiological response and time as the two main factors.
Screen contacts, both tail and body did not differ significantly among treatments, averaging less
than 1 fish/hr (Table 10-7). Swimming velocities were found to increase with water velocity,
with splittail in high/low and high/high velocity treatments swimming significantly faster than
splittail in medium or control treatments. Fish continued to swim at velocities slightly lower
than actual water velocities for the intermediate and high velocity treatments. Mean splittail
swimming velocities (up to 52.3cm/sec) were higher than the velocity found in earlier studies
(~27 cm/sec). Differences in study design may be held accountable for these differences; this
includes numbers of fish used per experiment and swimming chamber type. These results
indicate the juvenile spittail can swim faster than velocities found at the SWP and CVP diversion
facilities. Spittail were also found to adjust their swimming velocities with treatment while still
avoiding the screen. 60-80% of fish were able to remain on the upstream end of the chamber and
avoid the screen for the duration of the experiment. This station-holding ability and positive
rheotaxis suggests the fish would have been able to completely avoid the screen had they not be
restrained by the flume boundaries. 20–40% of the fish per experiment entered the bypass
regardless of velocity treatment and may explain the high numbers (almost 10,000 in June 1997)
of splittail collected at the SWP and CVP facilities in abundant years.
10-31
Table 10-7
Total number of tail contacts (T), total number of body contacts (B), swimming velocity (cm/sec,
V), total number of fish entering the bypass (E), and rheotaxis (angle of fish to flow, R) of age-0
splittail exposed to a linear, wedge-wire fish screen. Four velocity treatments were tested: control
(0 cm/sec flume and bypass), intermediate (32 cm/sec flume and bypass), high-low (60 cm/sec
flume and 50 cm/sec bypass), and high-high (60 cm/sec flume and 72 cm/sec bypass). Results are
presented as the mean ±SE of three replicates per treatment and are based on either direct
observations of 20 fish (T, B, and E) or video analyses of 5 fish (V and R) per replicate. Response
means followed by a common letter were not significantly different at P < 0.05 using a one-way
analysis of variance with 3 df.
Treatment T B V E R
Control 2 ± 2z 0 ± 0z 18.8 ± 3.5z 122 ± 12z

Intermediate 5 ± 3z 3 ± 3z 26.5 ± 4.2z 4 ± 3z 62 ± 18y
High-low 7 ± 2z 4 ± 4z 52.3 ± 1.2z 7 ± 2z 20 ± 6y
High-high 28 ± 12z 14 ± 9z 47.1 ± 3.0z 8 ± 4z 18 ± 7y
Rheotaxis was found to be significantly different for all treatments compared to controls and
positive for intermediate and high velocity treatments. Time-dependent physiological responses
were detected among fish from all treatments, but no velocity-dependent differences were found.
Stress responses among all treatments indicate that the responses must have arose from
something other than the treatment, such as capture and handling at the end of the study.
Hematocrit levels (%) increased following treatment and removal from the flume and were then
found to decrease to near-resting levels by the end of the study (Figure 3). Plasma glucose levels
(g/L) increased following velocity treatment and were significantly higher for the control
treatment group at 2 h (Figure 3). Glucose responses displayed typical acute responses,
consistently peaking at the 2-h sample before returning to near-resting levels at 24-h sample
(Figure 3). Plasma lactate levels (g/L) increased immediately following velocity treatment and
were significantly different from resting levels. The displayed lactate levels were the typical
response to an acute stressor. These levels are can indicate the use of anaerobic metabolism due
to fight-or-flight responses as would be expected with fish trying to avoid net capture.
10-32
Figure 10-14
Mean (±SE) splittail hematocrit (%), plasma glucose (g/L), and lactate concentrations (g/L) at
rest and without flume exposure (-2 h), immediately after swimming in the flume (0 h), and
during recovery (0.5, 2, and 24h) for each velocity treatment. Significant differences (P < 0.05)
are indicated by asterisks (* = higher from -2 h; ** = control lower than 2 h).
Under the conditions explored in this study it does not appear that screen exposure is related to
mortality at the diversion screening facilities. The experimental results did not find inadequate
swimming performance, elicit a velocity-dependent stress response, or result in increased
mortality.
10-33
11
HIGH-VELOCITY SCREENS
Introduction
High-velocity screens include both the Modular Inclined Screen (MIS) and the Eicher screen.
To date there has been no application of these types of screens at CWIS, but the Eicher screen
has been used at several hydroelectric power plants.
Modular Inclined Screens (MIS)

The MIS (Figure 11-1) was developed and tested in the 1990s (EPRI 1994b, 1996; Alden and
SWEC 1996; Amaral 1999). The MIS is intended to protect juvenile and adult life stages of fish
at all types of water intakes. An MIS module consists of an entrance with trash racks,
dewatering stop logs in slots, an inclined screen set at a shallow angle (10 to 20 degrees) to the
flow, and a bypass for directing diverted fish to a transport pipe. The module is completely
enclosed and is designed to operate at relatively high water velocities ranging from 0.6 to 3.0
m/sec (2 to 10 ft/sec), depending on species and life stages to be protected. To date, the MIS has
undergone extensive evaluation in the laboratory and at a prototype field site.
The MIS has yet to be used on a permanent basis to protect fish at water intakes. However, the
combined results of laboratory and field evaluations of the MIS to date have demonstrated that
this screen is an effective fish diversion device that has the potential for protecting juvenile and
adult fish at water intakes. Given the large number of species that has been evaluated, covering a
wide range of swimming capabilities and body shapes, it is reasonable to assume that juvenile
and adult life stages of many species may be diverted and survive within the range of net passage
survivals observed in the laboratory and field studies. Although the MIS screen material is
constructed of narrow-bars closely spaced (2-mm bars spaced at 2 mm (0.08 in.)), the effect of
the screen on eggs, larvae, and early juveniles with limited swimming capabilities has yet to be
determined. Given the high velocities used in this screen design, non-motile life stages that
cannot pass freely through the screen slots could be subject to impingement and injury.
Therefore, prototype evaluations of the MIS are needed before the effectiveness of this
technology for CWIS application can be determined.
11-1
Figure 11-1
Modular inclined screen (Taft et al. 1995)
Eicher Screens
The Eicher screen is a passive-pressure screen designed for application at hydroelectric facilities
with penstocks. The concept was patented in the United States and Canada by George Eicher
and is, therefore, commonly referred to as the "Eicher Screen." While the technology is not
applicable to CWIS, a brief review of its current status is provided. The available biological
information is pertinent to fish diversion screens in general (particularly the MIS) and should be
included in any review of fish protection technologies.
The first Eicher Screen was installed at the T. W. Sullivan Hydro Plant on the Willamette River,
Oregon in 1980. The facility incorporated a screen constructed of smooth-surfaced wedgewire
material that inclines upward toward a fish bypass. The screen is mounted on a frame and pivot
axis that allows the screen to be rotated and back flushed for cleaning. The screen has been
reported to be effective in bypassing spring and fall Chinook salmon and steelhead with little
injury or scale loss (Cramer 1997).
11-2
The second Eicher Screen was constructed and installed in a 2.7-m (9-ft) diameter penstock at
the former Elwha Hydroelectric Project on the Elwha River in Washington. Field testing of the
screen completed in 1990 and 1991 (EPRI 1992a) demonstrated that it effectively diverted over
98% of the steelhead, coho, and Chinook smolts (Figure 11-2).
Figure 11-2
Eicher Screen (EPRI 1992a)
The Eicher Screen continues to be a viable option for protecting juvenile salmonids at
hydroelectric projects. Given the similar results obtained during biological evaluations of the
MIS (described above) with anadromous and potamodromous fish, it would appear that both
screens have potential to divert a variety of species.
Case Studies – Hydroelectric Field Application
Green Island
Based on previous laboratory results, a pilot-scale evaluation of the MIS (Figure 11-3) was
conducted at Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation's Green Island Hydroelectric Project on the
Hudson River near Albany, New York (EPRI 1996; Alden and SWEC 1996;). The results
obtained in this field evaluation were similar to those obtained in laboratory studies. Golden
shiners and rainbow trout showed diversion and survival rates approaching 100% under most test
conditions. For blueback herring diversion efficiencies and extended survival values obtained
were similar to laboratory results. In both cases, there was a relationship between diversion and
survival and test velocity. Higher velocities resulted in lower diversion and survival rates.
11-3
Additional studies at Green Island in 1996 showed high diversion efficiencies and low latent
mortality of largemouth and smallmouth bass, yellow perch, and bluegill.
Figure 11-3
Schematic of modular inclined screens (Taft et al 1997)
Puntledge Hydroelectric Project

At B.C. Hydro’s Puntledge Hydroelectric Project on the Puntledge River, B.C., a number of past
efforts to divert fish around the project’s intake have proven largely unsuccessful. This situation
led to the eventual installation of Eicher Screens (Smith 1997). The selection of the Eicher
Screen was based on the excellent results of studies at the T. W. Sullivan Project (described
above). Fish species of interest included steelhead trout, and Chinook, coho, pink, and chum
salmon. A plan view of the Puntledge Eicher Screen System appears in Figure 11-4.
11-4
Figure 11-4
Puntledge Eicher Screen System (Smith 1997)
The following criteria were applied during the design of the facility: the design fish were 37-mm
(Chinook fry); the minimum hydraulic grade was 0.49 m; the design approach velocity was 1.8
m/sec (5.9 ft/sec), the ratio of screen sweeping velocity to normal velocity was 3:1; the
maximum acceptable variation in velocity upstream of screen was 10%; the maximum
acceptable variation in the normal velocity component was 20%; the screen angle was 16.5
degrees; the screen bar spacing was 2.5 mm; the bypass pipe had a diameter of 0.61 m; the
velocity in the bypass pipe was 2.4 m/sec (8.0 ft/sec); and the minimum radius of the bypass pipe
curvature was 6 diameters.
Biological evaluations of the Puntledge Eicher Screen System in 1993 and 1994 showed a bypass
efficiency of 99% for coho and Chinook salmon smolts. Bypass efficiencies for steelhead trout,
sockeye, and chum salmon fry were 100, 96, and 96%, respectively. From a reliability
viewpoint, the screens performed well. There was little maintenance required for the Eicher
Screen System. Routine trash rack cleaning and screen backwashing were the only common
maintenance tasks.
T. W Sullivan Plant
Installation of a fish diversion screen inside of a closed penstock was first accomplished at the
T.W. Sullivan Plant at Willamette Falls in October of 1980 (EPRI 1994b). The screen at the
Sullivan Plant is located in a 3.3-m (11-ft) diameter penstock, is 6.4 m (21 ft) long and is
inclined at a slope of 19 degrees to the flow. The wedgewire screen material has 2-mm (0.08-in.)
bars and 2-mm (0.08-in.) openings between bars. The average water velocity through the
11-5
penstock is approximately 1.5 m/sec (5 ft/sec), and the average velocity normal to the screen face
is approximately 0.45 m/sec (1.5 ft/sec). Only the inclined portion of the screen at the Sullivan
Plant may be rotated for back flushing.
Despite poor hydraulic conditions imposed by the layout of the intake structure, evaluation
studies conducted in 1981 with spring Chinook, fall Chinook, coho salmon, and steelhead trout
smolts indicated that the screen had high diversion efficiencies. The percentage of marked fish
recovered after passage through the facility ranged from 94.9 to 99.6% (Clark 1981). The
investigator assumed that the few fish that were missing remained in the trapping facility.
Prior to 1991, accurate assessment of fish injury was precluded by injuries caused in the fish
collection facility used for testing. In addition, roughness and obstructions in the penstock,
transition, and fish bypass pipe may have been responsible for some of the injuries observed.
Modifications have since been completed to reduce descaling potential from roughness and
obstructions.
The collection facility was modified in the fall of 1991 and subsequent monitoring results have
shown low injury and mortality rates. Injury data collected during 1991 and 1992 (Table 11-1)
have not been adjusted for any scale loss present on the fish prior to passing through the
screening facility.
Table 11-1
Number of fish and the percentage of fish descaled during observations made at the T.W. Sullivan
Plant in 1991 and 1992 (Clark and Cramer 1993).
Percent Number
Species Descaled Examined
hatchery spring Chinook 3.30 278,494

wild spring Chinook 3.90 9,368
hatchery steelhead 2.05 4,001
wild steelhead 1.15 610
coho 1.41 71
fall Chinook 3.11 2,144
In an update on the biological effectiveness of the Eicher Screen at the T.W. Sullivan Plant,
Cramer (1997) reports that the screen continued to be effective in bypassing these species with
little injury or scale loss.
Elwha Hydroelectric Project

Based on the encouraging results obtained during laboratory tests, the Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI) undertook a search for a suitable site to test a prototype Eicher Screen. In 1989,
EPRI entered into an agreement to evaluate a full-scale installation of an Eicher Screen to be
installed by James River II, Inc., in one of the 2.7-m (8.9-ft) diameter penstocks at the Elwha
Hydroelectric Project (Elwha). The screen design was developed based on fish passage
information gained during laboratory studies conducted by EPRI in 1984 and 1985 and a
hydraulic model study conducted by James River II, Inc., in 1989 (EPRI 1991).
11-6
Two major refinements were made to the screen design during the hydraulic model studies. The
design of the screen support structure was modified in order to reduce head loss and the porosity
(percent open area) of the screen was reduced at the downstream end of the screen to provide a
more uniform flow field over its entire length. Modifications to the screen support structure
included removing two-thirds of the U-clips (provided to maintain even bar spacing), angling the
U-clips and associated support bars into the direction of the flow, and removing excess material
on the upstream side of the U-clips. These modifications were found to reduce head loss across
the screen by more than 50%. During fabrication of the screen panels, "comb"-type spacers were
installed mid-way between the remaining U-clips to maintain even spacing between the screen
bars.
Using the refined design, the prototype was installed in one of the 2.7-m (9-ft) diameter
penstocks at Elwha in the spring of 1990. The screen was installed as part of a 14.1-m (46.3-ft)
long prefabricated penstock section. Screen panels of three different porosities were mounted on
a steel frame designed to withstand the pressure differential that would result from a fully
clogged condition. The inclined portion of the screen was comprised of two sections with
uniform bar width (1.9 mm [0.1 in.]) but different bar spacing. The upstream section was 6.1 m
(20 ft) in length and had a porosity of 63% with an opening between the bars of 3.2 mm (0.13
in.). The downstream screen section was 2.3 m (7.5 ft) in length and had a screen porosity of
32%, with an opening between the bars of 0.9 mm (0.04 in.). The section of screen in the bypass
transition was 2.1 m (6.9 ft) in length and had a porosity of 8%, with a 2.4-mm (0.9-in.) bar
width and a 0.2-mm (0.01-in.) opening between the bars. The entire screen, including the
transition section, was mounted on a frame and pivot so that it could be cleaned by back flushing
or put into a "neutral" position parallel to the penstock flow when not in use. The screen was
protected from large debris by a trash rack with 5-cm (2-in.) spacing at the penstock intake.
Tests conducted in 1990 and 1991 demonstrated a passage survival (diversion efficiency adjusted
for 96-hour survival) equal to or exceeding 98.7% for all three species of salmonid smolts tested
(EPRI 1992a). Although the facility was not specifically designed to pass fish smaller than
smolts, tests showed that passage survival averaged 99.2% for coho fingerling pre-smolts
(average length: 102 mm [4 in.]), 99.9% for Chinook fingerling pre-smolts (average length: 73
mm [2.9 in.]), 97.1% for steelhead fry (average length: 52 mm [2 in.]), and 91.6% for coho fry
(average length: 44 mm [1.7 in.]). Excluding tests conducted at penstock velocities of 2.1 m/sec
(6.9 ft/sec) or higher, the passage survival of coho fry was 95.9%.
Injuries were generally rare in tests conducted at penstock velocities of 2.1 m/sec (6.9 ft/sec) or
less. For all species and life stages tested except Chinook smolts, the proportion of fish with
>16% scale loss on one side ("descaled" as defined in criteria used on the Columbia River)
averaged less than 1% at velocities of 1.2 and 1.8 m/sec (3.9 and 5.9 ft/sec), less than 2% at 2.1
m/sec (6.9 ft/sec), and less than 6% at 2.3 m/sec (7.5 ft/sec). Descaling was most common on
Chinook smolts, averaging 0.4% descaled at 1.2 m/sec (3.9 ft/sec), 2.8% at 1.8 m/sec (5.9 ft/sec),
6.7% at 2.1 m/sec (6.9 ft/sec), and 12.6% at 2.3 m/sec (7.5 ft/sec), respectively. Injury rates
increased substantially when the screen was partially clogged with introduced debris. Debris
accumulations that produced as little as one or two tenths of a foot of head loss resulted in a
noticeable increase in injury, particularly at the higher penstock velocities. However, the screen
was readily cleaned by rotating it approximately 8 degrees.
11-7
The injury and mortality rates observed at Elwha were generally comparable to those found at
state-of-the-art screening facilities designed for much lower approach velocities (usually 0.1 to
0.15 m/sec [0.3 to 0.5 ft/sec]). Exceptions include somewhat higher scale loss for Chinook
smolts (up to 12.6%) and increased mortality of coho fry (up to 11.1%) at the highest velocities
tested (2.1 to 2.3 m/sec [6.9 to 7.5 ft/sec]). In contrast to the results obtained in tests at low
velocity screening facilities, high diversion efficiencies were conclusively demonstrated at
Elwha. The few fish that were not recovered were counted as non-diverted fish in the calculation
of the passage survival rates. Non-recovery of test fish at other types of facilities frequently
exceed 10 to 20%, with possible losses attributed to predation, loss of fish past screen seals, and
delayed passage through the facility.
No operational problems were evident during testing, and head loss with a clean screen ranged
from 0.15 m (0.5 ft) at 1.2 m/sec (3.9 ft/sec) to 0.58 m (1.9 ft) at 2.3 m/sec (7.5 ft/sec). Several
possible design changes were identified for future applications, including: 1) use of a hydraulic
operator to rotate the screen to increase the speed of screen cleaning and ensure more reliable
seating of the screen, 2) possible changes to the porosity configuration to eliminate injury at the
highest velocities, and 3) re-configuration of the bypass transition to enhance the velocity into
the bypass at the downstream end of the screen.
Laboratory Study – Denver, CO

A test was conducted at the Water Resources Research Laboratory in Denver, Colorado to
evaluate the exclusion and survival efficiency of a high-velocity, inclined, profile-bar Coanda
effect screen. Exclusion and survival rates of fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) were
assessed with different configurations of screens with 1.0- and 0.5-mm slot widths. The
generalized body shape of the fathead minnow made it an ideal species for this application and
allowed the test results to be generally applied to other species (Bestgen et al. 2004).
Inclined profile-bar screens consist of a flat or concaved surface, typically angled downward 46-
60 degrees from horizontal (Figure 11-5). Water is delivered to the top of the screen via an
overflow weir. Water continues onto an accelerator plate and across the screen face at a high
velocity (2 to 3 m/sec [6.6 to 9.8 ft/sec]). Each individual bar is angled 5 degrees downstream,
projecting the upstream edge of each bar slightly into the flow. A small proportion of the
passing water is diverted through the screen. The high velocities limit screen exposure time for
fish to 1 second or less, carrying them over the toe of the screen and into a bypass collection
channel. These perpendicular screen velocities also aid in self-cleaning. In addition, the absence
of moving parts minimizes the maintenance associated with operation. Unlike with traditional
screen barriers, fish behavior, swimming performance, and approach and sweeping velocities are
not considered in the design process or operation. Inclined profile-bar screens have a high
filtration capacity, originating from the shearing effect caused by the bar tilt angle rather than
from the screen porosity. Indications from other empirical and modeling data confirm this when
comparing identical screens with different slot widths. It was shown that a change from 1.0-mm
to 0.5-mm slot widths caused a reduction in screen porosity of 38%, but a reduction in filtration
capacity of only 18% (Wahl 2001).
11-8
Figure 11-5
Main features and operation of a typical high-velocity inclined profile-bar screen (A). The
section view (B) depicts the details of profile-bar position, arrangement, and function (Wahl
2001).
Four screen and overflow configurations were tested with five different fish sizes (5.0, 7.5, 12.5,
22.5 and 45.0 mm [0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.9, and 1.8 in.]) (Bestgen et al. 2004). Fish were released at
high and low positions in the water column (Table 11-2). The first configuration was with the
screen inclined 45 degrees from horizontal with a 1.0-mm (0.04-in.) slot width set at a high
(25%) overflow rate. For the second configuration, all factors remained the same except for a
11-9
decrease in the overflow rate to 10%. During the third configuration, the overflow rate and the
slot width remained the same, but the angle was increased to 60 degrees from the horizontal.
The fourth configuration was identical to the third with only the slot width decreased to 0.5 mm
(0.02 in.). Control tests were also conducted to estimate mortality associated with handling,
capture, and potential impingement on the toe of the screen.
Table 11-2
Experimental design and number of replicates conducted for each screen type, overflow rate
(high= 25%, low= 10%), experimental group (three control and two treatment groups), and nominal
fish size-classes used to test survival and exclusion of fathead minnow by high-velocity inclined
profile-bar screens (Bestgen et al. 2004).
Experimental replicates per nominal

fish size-group (mm TL)
Overflow
Screen rate Experimental group 5.0 7.5 12.5 22.5 45.0
45°; 1.0-mm slot width High Background control -- 3 3 -- --
Net recovery control -- 3 3 -- --
Screen control -- 5 5 -- --
High release 5 5 5 -- --
Low release 5 5 5 -- --
45°; 1.0-mm slot width Low Background control -- 3 3 -- --
Net recovery control -- 3 3 3 3
Screen control -- 5 5 5 5
High release 5 5 5 5 5
60°; 1.0-mm slot width Low Background control -- 3 3 -- --
Net recovery control -- 3 3 -- --
Screen control -- 5 5 -- --
60°; 0.5-mm slot width Low Background control -- 3 -- -- --
Net recovery control 3 3 3 -- --
Screen control 5 5 5 -- --
To assess the difference in exclusion and survival rates of fish that approach the overflow weir at
various depths, fish were released at either a high or low release point. High-released fish were
introduced just above the water surface, while low-released fish were introduced through a 12.7-
mm (0.1-in.) diameter plastic tube directly over the accelerator plate. Fish mortality was
monitored daily for four days following testing. Survival rates were calculated by dividing the
11-10
number of screened fish that survived by the total number of excluded fish (entrained fish were
not included). Abbott’s formula was used in conjunction with screen control mortality data to
adjust mortality rates of high and low releases.
Abbott’s formula: pc = (po – p)/(1 – p)
Where pc, po, and p are the corrected, original, and screen control mortality proportions,
respectively. Multifactor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess the differences in
exclusion and survival rates among treatments. Least-squares means (LSM) were used to
compare means of exclusion and survival data (Table 11-3).
Table 11-3
ANOVA results for models that assessed the effects of screen type, fish release position, and
screen by release position interaction on exclusion and survival rates of various sizes of fathead
minnow in tests of high-velocity, inclined, profile-bar screens (Bestgen et al. 2004).
Sum of
Model Effect df Squares F P
12.5 mm TL; survival screen 2 0.82151 5.85 0.0089
release position 1 0.71078 10.12 0.0042
screen X release position 2 0.75249 5.36 0.0123
7.5 mm TL; exclusion screen 2 1.76288 25.72 <0.0001
release position 1 0.52799 15.40 0.0006
7.5 mm TL; survival screen 2 0.14131 0.91 0.4162
release position 1 2.25853 29.07 <0.0001
5.0 mm TL; exclusion screen 2 6.01255 68.40 <0.0001
release position 1 2.50861 57.07 <0.0001
The survival rate of control and treatment fish increased with size. A similar trend was found
with the exclusion and survival rates among all screen and treatment types (Table 11-4). Nearly
100% of 12.5-mm (0.5-in.) and larger fathead minnows were excluded, with survival rates ≥
60%. High exclusion rates for this size group can be attributed to the 2.0-mm (0.08-in.) diameter
of the fish, which is twice the size of the largest slot width tested. It can be generalized that fish
larger than the size tested would also survive at high rates and be efficiently excluded by the
screen. Exclusion rates for 5.0-mm (0-2 in.) fish exposed to screens with 1.0-mm (0.4-in.) slot
width were low, ranging from 2–68%. However, for screens with a 0.5-mm (0.2-in.) slot width,
the range was higher (0-100%). Exclusion of 5.0-mm (0.2-in.) fish (maximum diameter of these
fish was 0.7 mm [0.03 in.]) was 68% for the 1.0-mm (0.04-in.) screen at the high release point.
The lowest exclusion (12%) was observed with the 1.0-mm (0.04-in.) screen at the low release
point, suggesting that encounters with screen slots larger than the fish’s maximum diameter
11-11
increased entrainment. Rate of exclusion observed with 7.5-mm (0.3-in.) fish was 0 to 98% for
all screen types and release points (Table 11-4).
Table 11-4
Mean exclusion and survival rates (% SE and number of replicates in parentheses) of 12.5-, 7.5-,
and 5.0-mm TL fathead minnow released over four different high-velocity inclined profile-bar
screen configurations. Screen Control (SC) fish were released over the lower surface of the
screen where the profile bars were covered by tape. High-release (HR) and Low-release (LR) fish
entered the screen model at the surface and the bottom of the water column, respectively
(Bestgen et al. 2004).
Screen and Treatment type
45, 1.0-mm slot width, high overflow 45, 1.0-mm slot width, low overflow
Fish Size (mm) SC HR LR SC HR LR
Exclusion rates
12.5 100 100 98 (2.5, 100 100 100

5)
7.5 100 76 (2.3, 5) 16 (4.0, 98 (2.0, 5) 90 (5.5, 5) 34 (9.1, 5)

5)
5.0 48 (17.5, 5) 2 (2.0, 5) 56 (6.8, 5) 2 (2.0,5)
Survival rates
12.5 56 (9.3, 5) 36 (14.9, 5) 4 (3.6, 5) 100 86 (9.3, 5) 62 (9.7, 5)
7.5 2 (2.0, 5) 0 0 37 (8.6, 5) 36 (10.1, 5) 9 (9.1, 5)
5.0
60, 1.0-mm slot width, low overflow 60, 0.5-mm slot width, low overflow
Fish Size (mm) SC HR LR SC HR LR
Exclusion rates
12.5 100 98 (2.0, 50 96 (2.5, 5) 100 100 100
7.5 100 76 (2.5, 5) 68 (8.6, 5) 100 98 (2.0, 5) 98 (2.0, 5)
5.0 68 (8.6, 5) 22 (8.6, 5) 100 95 (2.7, 10) 88 (2.5, 10)
Survival rates
12.5 100 62 (10.9, 4) 71 (8.6, 5) 80 (7.1, 5) 66 (5.0, 5) 15 (4.7, 5)
7.5 52 (15.0, 5) 26 (11.6, 5) 4 (4.2, 5) 62 (8.1, 5) 57 (3.3, 5) 0
5.0 56 (4.0, 5) 28 (16.5, 5) 0
Exclusion and survival rates of fish smaller than 12.5 mm (0.5 in.) were heavily dependent on
release position and screen configuration. When released higher in the water column, these
smaller fish were less likely to encounter the screen and therefore had higher exclusion rates than
those released lower in the water column. Survival rates were much higher because fish
11-12
sustained less physical abrasion. Physical abrasion was the principal cause of mortality in the
low-released fish that were dead. Low-released fish had the lowest survival, specifically in tests
with the 0.5-mm (0.02-in.) screens. Narrower spacing per unit of screen length in the 0.5-mm
(0-02 in.) screens effectively increased the frequency of screen contacts, thus adversely affecting
the survival rate.
Exclusion and survival rates were not significantly affected by screen angle. However, exclusion
rates were generally higher for the 60-degree screens than for the 45-degree screen. Conversely,
survival rates were generally higher with the 45-degree screen than with the 60-degree screen. It
was concluded that 0.5-mm (0.02-in) slot widths maximized the exclusion of 5.0- and 7.5-mm
(0.2- and 0.5-in) fish. Slot width was the most significant factor affecting exclusion rate. Screen
overflow rate had the greatest effect on survival and entrainment rates. Higher overflow rates
could reduce the frequency of screen contact, and therefore reduce entrainment and mortality
rates. While swimming ability typically plays an important role in the frequency of screen
contact, fish pass too quickly over the high-velocity inclined profile bar screens for swimming
ability to become a factor.
EPRI/Alden Laboratory Study

The MIS was evaluated first in laboratory studies at Alden Research Laboratories, Inc. to
determine: (1) the design configuration which yields the best hydraulic conditions for safe fish
passage (1:6.6 scale hydraulic model), and (2) the biological effectiveness of the optimal design
in diverting selected fish species to a bypass (1:3.3 scale biological test flume) (EPRI 1994b).
Results from tests performed with the 1:6.6 model indicate that the MIS creates optimal
hydraulic conditions for fish diversion. Biological tests were conducted in the 1:3.3 flume with
juvenile walleye (Sander vitreus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), channel catfish (Ictalurus
punctatus), American shad (Alosa sapidissima), blueback herring (Alosa aesitvalis), golden
shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (two size classes),
brown trout (Salmo trutta), Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho salmon
(Oncorhynchus kisutch), and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Fish passage (diversion efficiency
and latent mortality) was evaluated at water velocities ranging from 0.6 to 3.0 m/sec (2 to 9.8
ft/sec).
The range of mean lengths for all species tested was between 47 and 88 mm (1.9 and 3.5 in.),
with the exception of Atlantic salmon, which averaged 169 mm (6.7 in.) in length. Diversion
rates reached 98% or greater at water velocities up to 2.4 m/sec (7.9 ft/sec) for walleye and 1.83
m/sec (6 ft/sec) for bluegill. Diversion efficiencies of channel catfish, golden shiner, and brown
trout exceeded 98% at all water velocities that were tested, including 3.0 m/sec (9.8 ft/sec). The
diversion efficiency of rainbow trout fry and juveniles exceeded 99% at velocities up to 1.8 and
2.4 m/sec (5.9 and 7.9 ft/sec). Diversion rates exceeded 99% at all velocities for tests with coho
salmon and at all velocities up to 2.4 m/sec (7.9 ft/sec) for tests with Chinook salmon. Atlantic
salmon smolts demonstrated 100% diversion at all velocities tested, including 3.0 m/sec (9.8
ft/sec). Diversion efficiencies for American shad and blueback herring were lower and latent
mortality was higher than observed for the other species. However, latent mortality was
comparable between control and test fish of these species indicating that stress from capture,
handling, and testing probably contributed to the lower diversion rates. Generally, latent
mortality of test fish that was adjusted for control mortality was low (0 to 5%) for all other
species evaluated.
11-13
Hydraulic Model Study – Alden
In order to assess the potential for improving the flow distribution of the Eicher Screen at Elwha,
EPRI conducted a hydraulic model study in 1992 at Alden Research Laboratory (Alden). A
1:4.5 scale model of the Elwha Eicher Screen was constructed and several modifications to the
screen's porosity configuration were evaluated (Winchell et al. 1993). These tests showed that
using a more gradual transition in screen porosity in the downstream end of the screen resulted in
a slightly more uniform flow distribution than the original configuration, reducing the maximum
velocity normal to the screen by about 10%. In addition, the flow field upstream of the screen
was measured to determine whether the hydraulic conditions at the Elwha Eicher Screen were
affected by a 16-degree bend in the penstock located 4.6 m (15 ft) upstream of the screen. These
measurements showed that the bend had no significant effect on the flow distribution measured
at the upstream end of the screen. Further studies were conducted to evaluate a modified bypass
design for the Eicher Screen that should simplify construction and improve hydraulic conditions
for diverting and bypassing fish.
EPRI/University of Washington Laboratory Study

EPRI funded a laboratory study in 1984–85 that evaluated passage success of an Eicher Screen
with rainbow trout and smolts of coho salmon, Chinook salmon, and steelhead trout at the Harris
Hydraulics Laboratory, University of Washington (EPRI 1987, Wert 1988). A Plexiglas flume
was constructed with a test section 2.4 by 0.15 m (7.9 by 0.5 ft), which was used primarily to
evaluate the effect of bypass and channel water velocities on fish passage success. The effects of
lighting, various screen types, and screen angle were examined to a lesser extent. The screen
was found to be effective at diverting fish under a range of hydraulic conditions with little or no
injury. Flume velocities ranging from 0.82 to 2.7 m/sec (2.7 to 8.9 ft/sec) were evaluated. Fish
were most vulnerable to impingement in the area just upstream of the bypass entrance.
Impingement occurred primarily when the water velocity approaching the bypass was less than
the average velocity in the flume. The laboratory study also indicated that impingement was less
likely under high flume velocities (over 1.5 m/sec [4.9 ft/sec]). Wedgewire screening material
from two suppliers was tested. Both Hendrick and Johnson wedgewire type screens (with bars of
2 mm [0.08 in.] width and opening between bars of 2 mm [0.08 in.]) performed satisfactorily
with respect to fish and debris passage. Impingement was reduced when the opening between
bars was reduced from 2 to 1 mm (0.08 to 0.04 in.) in the downstream-most 0.45 m (1.5 ft) of the
screen.
11-14
12
ANGLED BAR RACKS AND LOUVERS
Introduction
Angled bar racks and louvers consist of an array of evenly spaced vertical slats aligned across a
channel at a specified angle and leading to a bypass. Louver slats are oriented 90 degrees to the
flow while angled rack slats are angled 90 degrees to the rack frame and their orientation to the
flow will be dependent upon the angle of the entire rack structure (Figure 12-1). Results of
angled bar rack and louver studies to date have been variable by species and site. However,
numerous studies have demonstrated that diversion efficiency of louvers can be on the order of
80 to 95% for a wide array of species and design and operational conditions (EPRI 1986b,
1994a, 2000; 2001).
Figure 12-1
Orientation of angled bar racks and louvers slats. The structures depicted are angled at 45
degrees to the approach flow (EPRI 2001).
Though typically classified as a diversion technology, the mode of action in the guidance of fish
along these structures is believed to be behaviorally based. Using their lateral line sensory
system, fish guiding along angled bar racks and louvers detect flow disturbances (turbulence)
created by the slats and actively avoid the structure while moving downstream with the flow
towards a bypass.
12-1
Louver systems have been used at one cooling water intake structure (CWIS) and have been
applied successfully at several hydroelectric and irrigation facilities in the Northwest and
Northeast. Laboratory studies that led to this application showed high diversion efficiencies for
the Pacific marine species of importance at this CWIS (Schuler 1973). Other laboratory studies
conducted for potential CWIS application on the East Coast showed reasonably high diversion
efficiencies with striped bass (Morone saxatilis), white perch (Morone americana), and Atlantic
tomcod (Microgadus tomcod) (Taft and Mussalli 1978). Studies of louver facilities at
hydroelectric and irrigation facilities on both coasts have shown that salmonid and clupeid
species were successfully diverted to bypasses. In all studies, louver effectiveness has been
shown to be species-, life stage-, and site-specific and depends extensively on the swimming
capabilities and behavior of target species, the angle and orientation of the louver array, approach
and bypass velocities, and localized hydraulic conditions. While louvers may be considered for
potential CWIS application, given the limited data available for such application to date, further
studies with species of importance at CWISs are needed to define the full potential of this
technology.
Case Studies – Hydroelectric and Water Diversion Applications
Grand Falls – Windsor Hydroelectric Project

Scruton et al. 2003 conducted a 5-year evaluation (1997–2001) of a louver system located in the
power canal of the Grand Falls generating facility on the Exploits River in Newfoundland
(Scruton et al. 2003). The power canal is 40 to 60 m (131.2 to 196.9 ft) wide, 450 m (1,476.4 ft)
long, and 6.0 m (19.7 ft) deep and has an average velocity of 0.7 to 0.8 m/sec (2.3 to 2.6 ft/sec)
(Figure 12-2). Water from the canal enters five Francis turbines through two submerged intake
gates at an average rate of 183 m3/sec (6,462.6 cfs) ranging between 160 to 210 m3/sec (56,503
to 7,416.1 cfs). The louver bypass system consists of a series of floating sections measuring 2.4
m (7.9 ft) long, with two louvers panels on each. Each panel extends to a depth of 2 m (6.6 ft).
The high density polyvinyl chloride slats measure 160 mm (6.3 in.) wide, 10 mm (0.4 in.) thick,
and extend to a depth of 2 m (6.6 ft). The slats are set at 72 degrees to the frame and are spaced
10 cm (3.9 in.) apart. The whole louver array measures 187 m (163.5 ft) in total length when set
at 18 degrees to the canal wall. The bypass at the downstream end of the louver array has a 1.0
m (3.3 ft) wide and 1.5 m (4.9 ft) deep entrance. The entire bypass system extends 26.5 m (86.9
ft) to its outfall, which is approximately 18 m (59.1 ft) above the plunge pool. Along its length,
there is a 2.5 m (8.2 ft) long counting table to which Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts can be
diverted by a 12.6 m (41.3 ft) long wedgewire screen for counting and examination.
The monitoring of the effectiveness of the louver bypass system had four original objectives: 1)
to assess the fish guidance efficiency (FGE) of the system for Atlantic salmon smolts, 2) to
assess the residency time of fish in the canal, 3) to assess fish condition, 4) and to monitor the
hydraulic conditions of the canal, louver array, and bypass. This 5-year evaluation, however,
focused mainly on FGEs and hydraulic conditions.
Trials began in 1997 with releases of passive integrated transponder (PIT) tagged and radio-
tagged smolts. The movement and behavior of tagged fish was documented through the use of
both fixed and hand held receivers. FGE (from the PIT-tagged smolts) over the 3 weeks of
testing averaged 33.4% for nighttime releases and 9.1% for daytime releases. Radio-tagged fish
held mainly near the surface indicating that smolts that were not diverted by the louvers likely
12-2
passed through the louver slats and beneath them. Low FGEs were attributed to suboptimal
hydraulic conditions related to the design and operation of the louver facility.
Figure 12-2
Schematic diagram of the Grand Falls Power Canal, showing louver line, bypass, and dam
(Scruton et al. 2003)
Trials in 1998 consisted of 14 releases of radio-tagged smolts and two releases of streamer-
tagged smolts. Tracking of these was done manually, with fixed antennae, and with the use of
digital spectrum processors (DSP). A total of 14 antennae were spaced 18 m (59.1 ft) apart
along the louver array giving full coverage of the entire louver array as well as the entrance to
the bypass. The DSP system logged all detections, antennae positions, and signal strengths.
Trials were run with the louver array set at 18 degrees and at 12 degrees (two trials). Velocities
were measured at 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 m (1.6, 3.3, 4.9, and 6.6 ft) deep along the louver array.
Trials conducted with the louver array at 12 degrees yielded an average FGE of 24.3%, which
was comparable to the 1997 results with the louver array at 18 degrees. The DSP telemetry
system proved extremely useful during the 1998 evaluations and indicated that smolts not
successfully bypassed went through as opposed to under array.
Water velocity measurements along the louver array appeared to be suboptimal and likely led to
the poor guidance efficiencies observed in 1997 and 1998 with the array at 18 degrees. With the
change in angle of the array in 1998 to 12 degrees, velocities showed much less variability
(Figure 12-3) but still had poor guidance characteristics (i.e., velocities decreasing along length
of louver array with bypass entrance velocities well below design criteria).
12-3
Figure 12-3
Water velocity profiles along the louver array at eepths of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0m in 1998.
Upper panel is for a louver angle of 18 degrees, after modifications to the bypass entrance.
Lower panel is for a louver angle of 12 degrees (Scruton et al. 2003).
In 1999, a hydraulic study was conducted in the hydraulics laboratory of the University of
Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, using a 1:25 scaled model to identify hydraulic problems within
the power canal and louver bypass system. This lab study helped identify needed modifications
before the next field evaluation. The studies confirmed the existence of poor guidance
conditions near the center of the array and at the bypass entrance, as well as the existence of
reverse flow conditions and large vortex eddies. The laboratory study identified the old penstock
bulkhead as a major source of flow perturbation. In addition to the removal of this abutment, the
louver array was found to function more efficiently at 12 degrees instead of at 18 degrees. The
laboratory study led to further modifications including: the addition of a vertical guide wall at the
bypass entrance, ramping flows into the bypass entrance, installing a half pipe at the bypass
entrance, and increasing the bleed-off capacity in the bypass.
After these modifications to the bypass system, field evaluations continued in 1999 with radio-
tagged smolts. Poor guidance conditions were again identified near the center of the louver
array, but data collected with the DSPs revealed more effective guidance along the louver
compared to previous years. FGEs increased to an average of about 54% with an associated
decrease in the loss of smolts in the vicinity of the bypass entrance (from 20% in 1998 to 3% in
1999).
12-4
Prior to continued field evaluations in 2000, the concrete abutment separating the forebay from
the power canal was removed based on the results of the laboratory studies conducted in 1999.
Additionally, the louver array was returned to an angle of 18 degrees. Tagging studies then
proceeded with the release of 668 streamer-tagged smolts and 200 radio-tagged smolts. Results
of the velocity monitoring showed that the poor guidance conditions at the bypass entrance still
existed (confirmed by the smolt loss data recorded by the DSP telemetry system [Figure 12-4]).
The DSP telemetry showed improved guidance along the louver from that of previous years.
The overall FGE averaged increased to 65.3% from the 54.0% observed in 1999. However, an
increase in smolt loss (from 3% in 1999 to 14% in 2000) was noted at the bypass entrance.
Trials in 2001 consisted solely of radio-tagged smolts (24 trials, 2,180 smolts total). The goals
of the releases in 2001 were to monitor FGE and canal hydraulics, conduct a count of smolt
migration, and to document the level of entrainment of river fish into the power canal. Other
than a slight improvement of the flow variability near the center of the array, guidance conditions
remained similar to 2000. The average FGE was slightly higher (73.3%) than 2000.
Figure 12-4
Schematic diagram of the louver line and bypass facility indicating detection cells (shaded
circles) of 13 underwater antennae of the DSP telemetry system, as deployed in 2000. The
Proportional losses of smolts at seven detection cells, as percentage of all fish released from
all trials (percentage values in boxes), is indicated (Scruton et al. 2003).
Overall, there was an improvement of the hydraulic characteristics and FGE of the louver array
at the Grand Falls project. Low mean FGEs in 1997 and 1998 were improved during each
following years of study (Figure 12-5). The data collected during field evaluations and the
hydraulic laboratory study were successful in defining the needed modifications to the louver
and bypass system.
12-5
Figure 12-5
Fish guidance efficiencies (unadjusted) for Atlantic salmon smolts for the 5 years of
monitoring, 1997 to 2001 (Scruton et al. 2003)
T. W. Sullivan Hydroelectric Project

Cramer (1997) provides an update of the effectiveness of the louvers that have been in operation
at the T.W. Sullivan Project on Willamette River, Oregon, since 1992. The flow enters the
forebay at 90 degrees, which enabled the plant to use the existing trash racks as the louver
system. All sharp angles were eliminated and a training wall was added. The forebay has a
depth of 6.7 m (22 ft). The last unit opening serves at the louver bypass. Bypassed fish are
diverted to a bypass and return pipe via the Eicher screen. The system incorporates an evaluator
that has been modified in a number of ways over time to reduce injury to fish. As currently
operated, the louver system is estimated to be 92, 82, and 85% effective in diverting spring
Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), fall Chinook, and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss),
respectively. Examination of over 500,000 fish between 1991 and 1995 showed an average
occurrence of injury and descaling of 0.44 and 1.81%, respectively (Cramer 1997).
Vernon Hydroelectric Station

In 1994, New England Power Company completed the installation of a louver guidance and
bypass system for outmigrant juvenile clupeids (Clupeidae) and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)
smolts at the Vernon Hydroelectric Project on the Connecticut River (Normandeau Associates
1996a). The station operates run-of-the-river and has a nominal generating capacity of 27 MW.
The louver system is 47.5 m (155.8 ft) long and contains eleven 3.7 m (12.1 ft) wide by 3.0 m
(9.8 ft) high removable louver panels. Each louver slat is made of stainless steel and measures 5
cm (2.0 in.) wide, 9.5 mm (0.4 in.) thick, and 3.0 m (9.8 ft) long. The slats are angled at 60
degrees to the structure and are spaced 7.6 cm (3 in.) apart. The louver system is installed in the
inner forebay and is designed to intercept fish following prevailing flows created by operation of
Units 9 and 10 and guide them to the bypass (called the “fish pipe”). The fish pipe is 25.1 m
12-6
(82.3 ft) in length and 1.2 m (3.9 ft) high throughout its length, and its width tapers from 2.3 m
(7.5 ft) at the entrance to 0.80 m (2.6 ft) at the discharge to the tailrace. The fish pipe discharges
9.9 m3/sec (349.6 ft3/sec) at normal pond elevations.
A second fish passage facility was also installed in 1994 and is referred to as the “fish tube.”
The fish tube makes use of an existing pipe that supplied attraction flow to the project’s fish
ladder. A surface-fed entrance was constructed in order to attract and pass fish. The entrance is
2.4 m (7.9 ft) high by approximately 0.9 m (3.0 ft) wide. The passage pipe tapers from 1.2 m
(3.9 ft) in diameter at the upstream end to 0.6 m (2 ft) in diameter, where it discharges into the
tailrace below the powerhouse.
The behavior and movement of hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon smolts was monitored near
Vernon to determine the guidance efficiency of the louver system, to monitor use of the fish
tube, and to track passage through the turbines and down the fish ladder. Radio-tagged smolts
were released in six groups upstream of the dam. A total of 173 (of 185 released) radio-tagged
smolts were monitored as they passed via various possible routes.
Forty-one smolts (23.7%) passed via the louver fish pipe bypass, 68 smolts (39.3%) passed
through the fish tube, and 60 (34.7%) passed through the turbines. Four fish (2.3%) had passage
routes that were undetermined. The louver system was successful in excluding 42.1% of the
smolts from the western forebay. However, most smolts resided in the eastern forebay for an
average of 12 hrs before passing though the fish pipe. The authors suggested that the hesitation
in passage was probably due to avoidance of the fish pipe entrance trash rack, which was
periodically clogged with debris and altered attraction flows even when not clogged.
A separate evaluation of injury and survival was conducted on smolts passing via the fish tube
(Normandeau Associates 1996a). Survival estimates for the test group were based on measures
of injury and survival relative to a set of control group specimens. Seventy-five treatment
specimens were passed through the fish tube and then recovered by netting the tailrace. They
were then examined for injuries and held for 48 hrs for observation. Of the 75 test smolts, 70
(93.3%) were alive after 1 hr of capture. All of these fish survived the 48-hr holding period, thus
the long term survival estimate was also 93.3%. Only 2 of the 70 (2.9%) smolts in the test group
exhibited injuries. These injuries were scale losses of 10 and 20%.
Tracy Fish Collection Facility

A series of fish diversion studies have been conducted at the Tracy Fish Collection Facility
(TFCF), which has a louver guidance system and is located on the San Joaquin River in
California (Karp et al. 1995; Bowen et al. 1998). The TFCF collects fish from water that is
diverted into the Delta Mendota Canal by the Tracy Pumping Plant. Passage studies conducted
to date have evaluated the effectiveness of the TFCF, which comprises a louver-bypass-
collection system that originally was installed in the 1950s. There are two louver arrays at the
TFCF, a primary system and a secondary system. The primary louvers are 97.5 m (319.9 ft) in
length and are oriented at a 15 degree angle to the flow. Four bypass openings are located at
22.9 m (75.1 ft) intervals along the array. Bypassed fish are diverted through 91.4 cm (36 in.)
diameter pipes to the secondary louver system. The secondary louver array consists of two
parallel panels that are 9.3 m (30.5 ft) long placed at a 15 degree angle to the flow. Fish diverted
by the secondary system are passed through a common bypass pipe to holding tanks, where they
are collected and returned to the river. All louver panels consist of vertical slats with 2.3 cm (0.9
12-7
in.) spacing. A surface trash deflector and trash racks with 5.3 cm (2.1 in.) bar spacing are
located upstream of the louver system and are designed to collect large debris and prevent large
fish from entering the system. The louvers are intended primarily to divert and collect juvenile
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and striped bass (Morone saxatilis) greater than
25 mm (1 in.) in length.
In 1993, mark-recapture studies were conducted to evaluate the efficiency of the TFCF in
diverting juvenile Chinook salmon and striped bass (Karp et al. 1995). Louver efficiency was
estimated by releasing marked fish at several locations within the system (e.g., upstream of each
louver array) and determining the proportion of fish re-captured in the bypass holding tanks.
Twelve groups of striped bass and Chinook salmon were released at six different locations.
Releases were conducted at several different flow, tide, and day/night conditions. The estimated
louver diversion efficiencies were variable and differed between the primary and secondary
systems. The diversion efficiency of the secondary louvers typically was higher than for the
primary system and, for all conditions evaluated, ranged from 72 to 100% for Chinook salmon
and 30 to 90% for striped bass. Primary louver efficiency ranged from 13 to 82% for Chinook
salmon and 0 to 96% for striped bass. The lowest diversion efficiencies that were observed
occurred with Chinook salmon during low flow/low velocity conditions (striped bass were not
tested under these conditions) and with both species during periods when the louvers were
clogged with debris or raised for cleaning. The highest diversion rates for Chinook salmon
occurred in a test with moderately high flows and velocities during an incoming tide. The lower
efficiency rates experienced during low flow/low velocity periods may have resulted, in part,
from released fish moving upstream away from the collection facilities.
Bowen et al. (1998) describes studies conducted from 1993 through 1995 that evaluated fish
collection and secondary louver efficiency at the TFCF. During these studies, the populations of
fish collected in the bypass holding tanks and passing through the secondary louvers were
characterized and diversion efficiency under a range of hydraulic and debris conditions was
examined for key fish species (green and white sturgeon [Acipenser medirostris and Acipenser
transmontanus], American shad [Alosa sapidissima], splittail [Pogonichthys macrolepidotus],
white catfish [Ameiurus catus], delta smelt [Hypomesus transpacificus], Chinook salmon, and
striped bass). The method used for these studies involved simultaneous sampling of the entire
flow downstream of the louvers and the flow diverted to the bypass holding tanks. A sieve net
was used to collect fish downstream of the louvers. A total of 254 paired samples were taken
from the two locations. All fish recovered from the holding tanks and the sieve net were
identified to the species and, when possible, measured for length. Secondary louver efficiency,
referred to as salvage efficiency in the study report, was estimated by dividing the number of fish
collected in the holding tanks by the total number of fish collected from both locations (i.e.,
holding tanks and sieve net). The effects of debris, time of day, and channel velocity on louver
efficiency were evaluated using analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistical methods.
During the paired sampling, a total of 11,065 fish (28 species) was collected in the sieve net and
21,408 fish (33 species) were collected in the holding tanks. Splittail comprised over 50% of the
fish collected from both locations and collection rates for all species combined were higher
during daytime hours than during nighttime hours. For target species collected in adequate
numbers (only two delta smelt and no green or white sturgeon were collected), the estimated
mean efficiency of the secondary louvers ranged from 62.6 (splittail) to 88.7% (white catfish).
Analysis of time of day, debris, and channel velocity effects revealed only two significant
12-8
relationships: a positive relationship between louver efficiency and time of day for all species
and a negative relationship between efficiency and time of day for American shad. However, the
analysis of these factors on louver efficiency was determined to be inconclusive due to
limitations in the statistical model used, variability in louver efficiency estimates, and gaps in
operational data that were collected (Bowen et al. 1998).
Holyoke Canal – Hadley Falls Hydroelectric Project

Northeast Utilities Service Company conducted a major research effort evaluating the use of
louvers for diverting juvenile and adult clupeids and Atlantic salmon smolts in the Holyoke
Canal (part of the Holyoke Hydroelectric Project; Figure 12-6 and Figure 12-7) on the
Connecticut River (Harza and RMC 1992; Harza and RMC 1993; Stira and Robinson 1997). An
evaluation of louver effectiveness was performed with juvenile clupeids (American shad [Alosa
sapidissima] and blueback herring [Alosa aestivalis]) at various canal flows. The study found
that 76% of marked and recaptured test fish were guided, and 86% of naturally migrating fish
were guided to a bypass that returned fish to the mainstem river (Harza and RMC 1993). A
separate evaluation performed with Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts indicated an overall
guidance effectiveness of between 85 and 90% (Harza and RMC 1992).
Figure 12-6
Holyoke louver system (Stira and Robinson 1997)
12-9
Figure 12-7
Holyoke louver system (photo courtesy of Alden)
Red Bluff Diversion Dam

An evaluation of both the upstream and downstream passage facilities at the Red Bluff Diversion
Dam (RBDD) was conducted from 1982 to 1987. The RBDD lies on the Sacramento River 243
river miles north of San Francisco Bay and was constructed to provide water to the Tehama-
Colusa irrigation canal. The dam is comprised of 11 overflow weirs, each measuring 18.3 m (60
ft) wide. The discharge over the dam is controlled by wheel gates. Typical river flows are
approximately 85.0 to113.3 m3/sec (3,000 to 4,000 cfs).
The louver screen array and associated fish bypass system were installed during the original dam
construction (Figure 12-8). The louver slats had a clear spacing of 3 cm (1.2 in.) and the array
was set at 15 degrees to the flow. Fish were guided to one of five bypass entrances that led to 75
-cm (29.5-in.) diameter return pipes that returned outmigrant fish to the river downstream of the
dam.
12-10
Figure 12-8
Red Bluff Diversion Dam and associated fish passage facilities (Vogel et al. 1990)
This evaluation of the louver array and bypass system at RBDD addressed four types of
mortality possible to fish passing through the system:
1. Direct injury from passage below the dam gates or through the bypass facility,
2. Delay of downstream migration leading to abnormal smoltification and disruption of
synchronization to seasonal temperatures and food production in the river and ocean,
3. Entrainment through the louver array and into the irrigation canal,
4. Increased predation in the impoundment and tailrace.
Thirty-three releases or marked juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and
steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) were conducted to quantify injury and survival associated
with downstream passage through the spill gates. When compared to controls, mortality of fish
passing via the spill gates was at or near 0%. Thirty-four releases were conducted to discern the
effects of passage through the louver bypass system and the results yielded a mortality of only
4%, though debris blockage of the return pipes leading to the tailrace may have had a negative
effect on fish survival.
Tracking of 192 radio-tagged juvenile steelhead and Chinook salmon revealed that the delay in
downstream migration in the impoundment was minimal. In addition to the radio tracking,
12-11
hatchery reared Chinook salmon were released 48.3 km (30 mi) upstream, passing into the
tailrace in a few hours. Entrainment of juvenile Chinook salmon through the louver bypass
system was monitored from January 1982 through November 1987. The number entrained
yearly was approximately 333,333 within a range of 180,000 to 618,000 fish. Entrainment rates
were highest at night. The screening efficiency of the louver system was about 98% for fish
between 50 and 60 mm (2.0 and 2.4 in.), but less than 40% for the smallest fish (30 to 40 mm
[1.2 to 1.6 in.]) (Figure 12-9). Estimates of overall mortality for emigrating salmon reached a
high of 55% for fish released during the daytime and 16% for those released at night.
Figure 12-9
Louver screening efficiency for young Chinook salmon released into the Tehama-Colusa
Canal Headworks (Vogel et al. 1990)
Though not measured directly, it is postulated that predation (principally by Sacramento

pikeminnow [Ptychocheilus grandis]) had a significant effect on the survival of downstream
migrant smolts. Downstream migrants also appeared to be disoriented by high velocities (6.1 to
9.1 m/sec [20 to 30 ft/sec]) and excessive air entrainment and turbulence associated with passage
under the spill gates as well as through the louver system. Solutions offered to decrease
predation included turning off the dam lights to decrease squawfish feeding efficiency, creating a
commercial fishery to control squawfish populations, and developing a squawfish dispersal
mechanism.
Due to inadequate performance, the louver array at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam was removed
and replaced with an angled rotary drum screen.
12-12
EPRI
A laboratory study took place during 1999 and 2000 at Alden Research Laboratory to evaluate
the ability of eight fish species to guide along various configurations of louvers and angled bar
racks (EPRI 2001; Amaral et al. 2002a). The laboratory test facility was a 24.4 by 1.8 by 2.1 m
flume (79 ft by 6 ft by 7 ft). The bar rack and louver arrays were angled 45 degrees to the flow
in 1999 (Figure 12-10) and 15 degrees to the flow in 2000 (Figure 12-11). The major
components of the test facility included an upstream fixed isolation screen, a fish release box, the
bar rack/louver array, a collection net and pen downstream of the bar rack/louver, and a bypass
with an inclined screen leading to a collection box. A bow thruster and motor were used to
recirculate water through the closed loop system at the desired velocities. The flow rate in the
flume ranged from about 0.8 m3/sec (28.3 cfs) at an approach velocity of 0.3 m/sec (0.4 ft/sec) to
2.5 m3/sec (88.3 cfs) at an approach velocity of 0.9 m/sec (3.0 ft/sec). Water depth in the test
flume was maintained between 1.65 and 1.75 m (5.4 and 5.7 ft) (shallower depths were required
for conditions that created more head, such as when the louvers were angled at 45 degrees).
Figure 12-10
Plan view of fish testing facility configured for tests with the bar rack and louver arrays angled
at 45 degrees to the approach flow (EPRI 2001)
Figure 12-11
Plan view of fish testing facility configured for tests with the bar rack and louver arrays angled
at 15 degrees to the approach flow (EPRI 2001)
12-13
The louver and bar rack were constructed of plastic using bar slats separated spacers held
together by four horizontal cross members. Three sets of spacers were used to create the two
spacings (25 and 50 mm [1 and 2 in.] spacing for the racks and 50 mm [2 in.] spacing for the
louver array) between slats that were evaluated. The horizontal cross members were 50 mm [2
in.] in diameter, and the slats were 1.8 m by 100 mm by 12.5 mm (5.9 ft by 3.9 in. by 0.5 in.).
The 45 degree bar rack and louver arrays were 2.0 m (6.6 ft) long, and the 15 degree array was
4.8 m (15.7 ft) long. A solid overlay was attached to the lower 30 cm (11.8 in.) of the 15 degree
bar rack and louver arrays for most of the tests conducted in 2000 in a an attempt to improve
guidance of bottom-oriented species (e.g., lake sturgeon [Acipenser fulvescens] and American eel
[Anguilla rostrata]).
The downstream end of each array terminated at the bypass entrance, which extended the full
depth of the water column and was 15 cm (5.9 in.) wide. The bypass received about 10 to 12%
of the total flume flow. A wedgewire screen angled at 16 degrees from the bottom passed most
of the bypass flow while guiding fish to a bypass collection box. The collection system for fish
entrained through the bar rack and louver arrays consisted of a net that tapered about 6 m (19.7
ft) to a funnel that delivered fish into a collection pen. The mouth of the collection net had a
steel frame that was seated in a slot about 0.5 m (1.6 ft) from the downstream end of the rack.
Approach velocities were measured at various vertical transects upstream of the arrays. These
velocities were within 10 to 15% of target velocities (i.e. 0.3, 0.6, and 0.9 m/sec [1, 2, and 3
ft/sec]). As expected velocities along the bar racks and louvers increased from the upstream end
to the downstream end of the guidance structures. Bypass entrance velocities for the 45 degree
arrays were slightly less than the velocities in front of the slats at the downstream end. For the
15 degree arrays, bypass entrance velocities generally were about the same or slightly higher
than the velocities at the downstream end of each array. We were able to achieve bypass
velocities that were about 1.2 to 1.5 times higher than the approach velocity for tests with the 45
degree structures and about 1.6 to 2.0 for tests with the 15 degree arrays. Head loss data were
also collected for all conditions except the 25 mm (1 in.) spaced bar rack tested at 0.3 and 0.6
m/sec (1 and 2 ft/sec). Head loss was greatest for the 45 degree louvers and lowest for the 15
degree bar racks.
Depending on species, between 10 and 50 fish per trial were released between 5.5 and 6.6 m (18
and 21.7 ft) from the upstream end of the arrays. In 1999, the release point was at the surface
along the wall opposite the bypass. In 2000, an air injection system released fish near the bottom
of the flume and a guide wall directed them toward an interaction with the arrays. Trials ran
from 1 to 5 hrs. The lengths of fish evaluated ranged from about 50 to 150 mm (2 to 6 in.)
(Table 12-1). Three trials were conducted per approach velocity for most of the array
configurations evaluated. Most trials were conducted at night in low-light conditions or
complete darkness.
12-14
Table 12-1
Fish length data (mm) for species tested with angled bar racks and louvers. Sample sizes (N) are
the number of fish measured for length, not the number of fish that were tested (EPRI 2001).
1999 Tests 2000 Tests

Species
N Mean (SD) Range N Mean (SD) Range
smallmouth bass (small) 635 59 (5) 49–86 437 72 (8) 31–108

smallmouth bass (large) 574 85 (11) 63–132 361 117 (13) 90–197
largemouth bass -- -- -- 1,006 73 (4) 55–88
walleye -- -- -- 1,061 75 (5) 28–95
channel catfish -- -- -- 800 109 (13) 81–145
golden shiner 1,072 79 (6) 50–96 -- -- --
lake sturgeon 517 153 (17) 82–194 639 132 (12) 91–161
shortnose sturgeon -- -- -- 29 319 (31) 243–389
American eel 388 558 (46) 151–697 324 569 (76) 410–781
The parameters evaluated in 1999 were: (1) bar rack versus louver slat orientation (Figure 12-1);
(2) bar slat spacings of 25 and 50 mm (1 and 2 in.) for the bar rack configuration and 50 mm (2
in.) for the louver array; (3) approach velocities of 0.3, 0.6, and 0.9 m/sec (1, 2, and 3 ft/sec) for
the two bar rack spacings and 0.3, 0.6, and 0.75 m/sec (1, 2, and 2.5 ft/sec) for the louver
configuration (0.9 m/sec [3ft/sec] was not tested with the louvers because of stress on the bow
thruster motor and other test facility components); and (4) array angle of 45 degrees to the
approach flow. In 2000, the parameters evaluated included: (1) bar slat spacing of 50 mm (2 in.)
for both structure types; (2) bar rack array angles of 15 and 90 degrees to the approach flow,
louver array angle of 15 degrees and no structure installed (i.e., an open flume); and (3) the
presence of a solid bottom overlay placed on the lower 30 cm (11.8 in.) of each structure for
most tests.
This evaluation also included a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis. The five
configurations chosen for the CFD analysis were: a bar rack at 45 degrees (50 and 25 mm (2 and
1 in.) clear spacing), a bar rack at 15 degrees (50 mm (2 in.) clear spacing), a louver at 45
degrees (50 mm (2 in.) clear spacing, and a louver at 15 degrees (50 mm (2 in.) clear spacing).
Both global (for the entire array) and local (for a series of slats) simulations were run to define
the flow fields created by the arrays and slats. The results of the CFD simulations indicate that:
(1) all bar rack and louver configurations created velocity and pressure gradients that could elicit
a directional avoidance response by fish; (2) the magnitude and related influence of the flow
separation between consecutive louver or bar slats was the most distinct difference between the
configurations simulated; (3) pressure gradients were not substantially different between the 15-
degree and 45-degree bar rack configurations simulated; (4) the local pressure gradient near the
leading edge of the 45-degree louver slat was higher than the local pressure gradient near the
leading edge of the 15-degree louver slat; and (5) 45 degree bar rack and louver configuration
simulations reveal hydraulic conditions favorable for fish guidance, however, laboratory
estimated fish guidance was poor at this angle.
12-15
The results of the biological evaluation are presented in Table 12-2. Overall, tests conducted at
the 0.6 m/sec (2 ft/sec) approach velocity demonstrated that the 15 degree angle (with and
without the bottom overlay installed) produced the highest fish guidance efficiencies (FGEs) for
the species that were evaluated with more than one angle. The next highest guidance rates were
observed with the 45 degree arrays and the lowest guidance rates of all the arrays that were
evaluated occurred with the 90-degree bar rack. When all test conditions are considered, the
lowest FGEs were observed when there was no structure in the flume (i.e., control condition),
indicating that all of the guidance array configurations that were evaluated produced some level
of diversion to the bypass above what might result from random distribution of fish in the flume.
It was also shown that the use of the overlay along the bottom of the 15-degree arrays increased
FGEs at approach velocities of 0.6 m/sec (2 ft/sec).
Slat orientation had a negligible effect on FGEs. However, slat spacing did affect FGEs.
Guidance efficiencies of American eel and freshwater species were lower for the 25 mm (1 in.)
spacing than for the 50 mm (2 in.) spacing (45 degree angle) at a velocity of 0.3 m/sec (1 ft/sec),
whereas lake sturgeon FGE was higher for the 25 mm (1 in.) spacing. At 0.6 m/sec (2 ft/sec), the
FGEs of freshwater species and lake sturgeon were considerably higher for the 25 mm (1 in.)
spacing; FGE of American eel at this velocity was nearly the same for the two spacings. At a
velocity of 0.9 m/sec (3 ft/sec), the difference between the guidance rates for the two spacings
(with guidance still being greater with the 25 mm (1 in.) spacing) increased even more for
freshwater species. Lake sturgeon FGE at this velocity was 0% for both spacings.
Guidance efficiency rates exhibited an inverse relationship with approach velocity during tests
with the 15- and 45-degree arrays. The highest FGEs for shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser
brevirostrum), lake sturgeon, and potamodromous species occurred at an approach velocity of
0.3 m/sec (1 ft/sec) and the lowest efficiencies occurred at 0.9 m/sec (3 ft/sec); American eel
FGE peaked at 0.6 m/sec (2 ft/sec) and was lowest at 0.9 m/sec (3 ft/sec). The differences in
guidance rates between the lowest and highest velocities were greater for freshwater species and
lake sturgeon than for shortnose sturgeon and American eel. These differences in FGE for the
upper and lower velocities appeared to be related to fish size, as the freshwater species and lake
sturgeon all averaged less than 200 mm (7.9 in.) in length and shortnose sturgeon and American
eel averaged greater than 300 mm (11.8 in.) in length. In general, FGE increased with fish
length for all three approach velocities regardless of rack angle.
The results of this study indicate that bar rack and louver arrays angled at 45 degrees to the
approach flow do not effectively guide potamodromous fishes and silver American eels.
Consequently, the application of these devices for fish protection purposes at hydro projects may
be limited. Bar rack and louver arrays angled at 15 degrees appear to have potential for
relatively high bypass diversion rates depending on approach velocities and species and sizes
targeted for protection. However, the authors point out that these evaluations were conducted
under ideal laboratory conditions using a full-depth bypass and relatively short lengths of bar
racks and louvers and may have produced guidance efficiency estimates that are higher than
would be expected for a field application.
12-16
Table 12-2
Summary of guidance efficiencies for bar rack and louver tests. Slat clear spacing for each structure is listed in parentheses. Species
codes are: SMB, smallmouth bass; WAL, walleye; LMB, largemouth bass; CHA, channel catfish; GSH, golden shiner; LAS, lake
sturgeon; SNS, shortnose sturgeon; EEL, American eel (EPRI 2001).
Bottom Velocity Fish Guidance Efficiency (%)

Guidance Structure
Overlay (m/s) SMB WAL LMB CHA GSH LAS SNS EEL
0.3 31.2 -- -- -- 56.1 27.3 -- 65.1
45° bar rack (25 mm) no 0.6 51.4 -- -- -- 52.6 18.3 -- 56.8
0.9 49.3 -- -- -- 37.1 0.0 -- 65.9
0.3 49.6 -- -- -- 51.3 20.4 -- 72.7
45° bar rack (50 mm) no 0.6 30.8 -- -- -- 27.9 10.0 -- 57.8
0.9 20.3 -- -- -- 13.1 0.0 -- 54.5
0.3 -- -- 67.8 94.2 -- -- -- --
15° bar rack (50 mm) no 0.6 69.7 57.1 58.3 75.6 -- 10.4 -- 83.3
0.9 -- -- 58.3 73.5 -- -- -- --
0.3 71.6 79.2 -- -- -- 27.5 100.0 95.1
15° bar rack (50 mm) yes 0.6 80.4 78.2 -- -- -- 17.4 100.0 95.0
0.9 76.3 63.2 -- -- -- 2.9 92.9 88.9
0.3 43.0 -- -- -- 29.5 28.0 -- 34.9
45° louver (50 mm) no 0.6 47.3 -- -- -- 34.6 0.0 -- 61.9
0.9 13.7 -- -- -- 22.1 1.7 -- 45.1
0.3 -- -- 73.3 82.5 -- -- -- --
15° louver (50 mm) no 0.6 55.7 51.3 71.6 73.4 -- 16.2 -- 60.0
0.9 -- -- 60.4 69.9 -- -- -- --
0.3 88.0 90.6 -- -- -- 36.8 100.0 88.6
15° louver (50 mm) yes 0.6 84.9 75.4 87.3 93.8 -- 15.9 96.0 95.1
0.9 88.8 62.6 -- -- -- 7.4 93.3 90.2
90° bar rack (50-mm) yes 0.6 53.3 8.4 -- -- -- 0.0 -- --
no structure installed -- 0.6 29.1 0.0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- --
12-17
Laboratory Evaluation – EPRI
Many North American sturgeon populations have experienced considerable declines over the last
century, including lake and shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens and Acipenser
brevirostrum). This study, which was conducted as part of the EPRI study described above,
examined the ability of these species to guide along angled diversion structures and into a bypass
entrance. Specifically, the study examined sturgeon guidance along angled bar racks (25 and 50
mm [1 and 2 in.] clear slat spacing) and louvers (50-mm [2-in.] clear spacing). The slats were
oriented perpendicular to the flow to create the louver arrangement and perpendicular to the
support structure to create the bar rack configuration. Other primary variables included rack and
louver angle to the approach flow (90, 45, and 15 degrees) and approach flow velocity (0.3, 0.6,
0.75, and 0.9 m/sec [1, 2, 2.5, and 3 ft/sec]). Tests were conducted in a large, laboratory flume
measuring 24.4 by 1.7 by 2.1 m (80.1 by 5.6 by 6.9 ft). The 15- and 45-degree louver arrays
were set in the flume to guide fish to a 15.2 cm (6 in.) bypass at the downstream end of each
array. In 2000, a solid bottom overlay covered the lower 30 cm (11.8 in.) of the 15-degree
louver arrangements (Amaral et al. 2002b).
The average total length (TL) of young-of-the-year (YOY) lake sturgeon was 153 mm (6 in.)
(1999) and 132 mm (5.2 in.) (2000). The average total length (TL) of age-1 lake sturgeon was
345 mm (13.6 in.). The average TL of age-1 shortnose sturgeon was 319 mm (12.6 in.). Mean
guidance efficiency was low with YOY lake sturgeon for all 45 degree angle configurations and
velocities tested in 1999, ranging from 0% to a high of 28%. Observations indicated that these
fish had limited ability to avoid the guidance devices and passed through them with little effort to
guide. In contrast, age-1 lake and shortnose sturgeon demonstrated excellent guidance
efficiencies, exceeding 90% at all velocities with the 15-degree bar rack and louver. These data
are summarized in Table 2-3 and Table 12-4 below (Amaral et al. 2002b). These results indicate
that angled bar racks and louvers have potential for guiding larger sturgeon to bypasses.
12-18
Table 12-3
Summary of results from age-1 lake sturgeon tests with bar racks and louvers angled 15 degrees
to the approach flow. Both structure types had 50-mm clear spacing between the slats and the
bottom overlay was used in all tests (Amaral et al. 2002b).
Mean
Approach Number Number Number
Number of Total Percent guidance
Velocity of fish of fish of fish
trials (N) recovered recovery efficiency
(m/s) released entrained bypassed
(%) (SE)
Bar rack (nighttime tests)
0.3 3 97 0 65 65 67.0 100.0 (0.0)
0.6 3 98 4 85 89 90.8 95.4 (3.2)
0.9 3 98 7 89 95 98.0 93.1 (5.2)
Louver (nighttime tests)
0.3 3 98 0 66 66 67.3 100.0 (0.0)
0.6 3 96 5 90 95 99.0 94.8 (0.9)
0.9 3 100 15 83 98 98.0 84.8 (2.5)
Louver (daytime tests)
0.60 3 98 1 74 75 76.5 98.8 (1.2)
12-19
Table 12-4
Summary of results from shortnose sturgeon tests with bar racks and louvers angled 15 degrees
to the approach flow. Both structure types had 50-mm clear spacing between slats (Amaral et al.
2002b).
Mean
(%) (SE)
Bar rack with bottom overlay
0.3 3 30 0 8 8 26.7 100.0 (0.0)
0.6 3 30 0 14 14 46.7 100.0 (0.0)
0.9 3 30 2 26 28 93.3 92.6 (7.4)
Louver with bottom overlay
0.3 3 30 0 15 15 50.0 100.0 (0.0)
0.6 3 30 1 24 25 83.3 95.2 (4.8)
0.9 3 30 2 28 30 100.0 93.3 (3.3)
Louver without bottom overlay
0.6 1 10 0 3 3 30.0 100.0 (-)
0.9 1 10 1 5 6 60.0 83.3 (-)
Laboratory Evaluation – EPRI

Little information has been available on the ability of American eels (Anguilla rostrata) to guide
along diversion systems that might prevent them from being injured or killed as a result of
passage through hydroelectric facilities. This laboratory study, which was conducted as part of
the larger EPRI study described previously, examined eel guidance along angled bar racks (25
and 50 mm [1 and 2 in.] clear slat spacing) and louvers (50 mm [2 in.] clear spacing) (Amaral et
al. 2003). The slats were oriented perpendicular to the flow to create the louver arrangement and
perpendicular to the support structure to create the bar rack configuration. The rack and louver
arrays were tested at angles of 45 and 15 degrees to the approach flow and at velocities of 0.3,
0.6, 0.75, and 0.9 m/sec (1, 2, 2.5, and 3 ft/sec). The test flume was 24.4 by 1.7 m by 2.1 m (80.1
by 5.6 by 6.9 ft). The 15- and 45-degree louver arrays were set in the flume to guide fish to a
15.2-cm (6-in.) bypass at the downstream end of each array. In 2000, a solid bottom overlay
covered the lower 30 cm (11.8 in.) of the 15-degree louver arrangements.
Test eels averaged 558 mm (22 in.) (1999) and 569 mm (22.4 in.) in length (2000). Because eels
are sensitive to light, tests were conducted at night. Three trials were conducted per approach
velocity for most bar rack and louver configurations. Mean E was greater than 50% for the two
bar rack spacing (25 and 50 mm [1 and 2 in.]) at all test velocities and for tests at 0.6 m/sec (2
ft/sec) with the louver array. These data are summarized in Table 12-5 and Table 12-6 (Amaral
et al. 2003). These results indicate that angled bar racks and louvers have potential for guiding
downstream-migrating silver eels to a bypass, particularly with the array angles at 15 degrees to
12-20
the approach flow. Up to 75% of eels were diverted with the 45-degree racks and louvers, and
up to 95% were diverted with the 15-degree array.
Table 12-5
Summary of results from American eel guidance trials with bar racks and louvers angled 45
degrees to the approach flow (Amaral et al. 2003).
Mean
(%) (SE)
45° Bar rack with 25-mm spacing
0.3 3 45 15 28 43 95.6 64.8 (8.0)
0.6 3 45 19 25 44 97.8 56.5 (7.0)
0.9 3 45 15 29 44 97.8 65.9 (12.0)
45° Bar rack with 50-mm spacing
0.3 3 45 12 32 44 97.8 72.5 (5.0)
0.6 3 45 19 26 45 90.0 57.8 (4.0)
0.9 3 45 20 24 44 97.8 53.3 (3.0)
45° Louver with 50-mm spacing
0.30 3 45 28 14 42 93.3 33.3 (2.0)
0.60 3 45 16 26 42 93.3 62.1 (4.0)
0.75 3 45 24 20 44 97.8 45.4 (4.0)
12-21
Table 12-6
Summary of results from American eel guidance trials with bar racks and louvers angled 15
degrees to the approach flow. The clear spacing of all 15 degree bar rack and louver
configurations was 50 mm (Amaral et al. 2003).
Mean
(%) (SE)
15° Bar rack with bottom overlay
0.3 3 45 2 39 41 91.1 95.1 (3.0)
0.6 3 45 2 38 40 88.9 95.2 (24.0)
0.9 3 45 5 40 45 100.0 88.9 (4.0)
15° Bar rack without bottom overlay
0.6 2 30 4 20 24 80.0 83.3 (0.00)
15° Louver with bottom overlay
0.3 3 45 5 39 44 97.8 88.7 (4.0)
0.6 3 45 2 39 41 91.1 95.2 (2.0)
0.9 3 45 4 37 41 91.1 90.3 (2.0)
15° Louver without bottom overlay
0.6 3 45 14 21 35 77.8 60.7 (4.0)
Laboratory Evaluation - Conte Anadromous Fish Research Center

Bar racks and louvers were evaluated in a laboratory flume to determine guidance efficiency and
behavior for shortnose and pallid sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum and Scaphirhynchus albus)
)(Kynard and Horgan 2001). The test flume was 5.4 by 1.5 m (17.7 by 4.9 ft) with a water depth
of 37 cm (14.6 in.). One vertical bar rack configuration with slats spaced 3.9 cm (1.5 in.) apart
(clear spacing) was tested. The bar rack slats were oriented parallel to the approach flow, and
the structure was oriented at a 45 degree angle to the flow. Two louver array configurations
were tested, one with slats spaced 3.9 cm (1.5 in.) apart and one with slats spaced 9.0 cm apart
(3.5 in.)(clear spacing). The louver slats were oriented at a 90 degree angle to the flow, and the
structure was oriented at a 20 degree angle to the approach flow. Mean approach velocity to
both structures was 0.31 to 0.34 m/sec (1.02 to 1.12 ft/sec).
The total lengths (TL) of test fish were as follows (mean, SD, and range): shortnose sturgeon
(275, 26, and 238 to 315 mm) and pallid sturgeon (216, 23, and 174 to 273 mm). The shortnose
sturgeon were tagged with passive integrated transponders (PIT tags) to track their movements
during each test. Eighteen shortnose and 24 to 38 pallid sturgeon were tested in each
configuration. Each shortnose sturgeon individual was tested in all four configurations, whereas
individual pallid sturgeon were tested in one bar rack and one louver configuration at most.
12-22
One-half of the shortnose sturgeon were tested first with the bar rack at night, and the other one-
half were tested first with the bar rack during the day. Each group of shortnose sturgeon was
then retested with the bar rack during the alternate time period. This sequence was chosen to
detect effects of experience on guidance behavior. Pallid sturgeon were not individually marked.
After each test, fish were measured for TL and shortnose sturgeon were checked for PIT tag
number.
Both sturgeon species were guided efficiently by the louver array (96 to 100%) but less
efficiently by the bar rack (58 to 80%). Shortnose sturgeon showed some behavioral differences
due to experience with the bar rack, but experience did not affect the percent guided. Shortnose
sturgeon were more likely to contact the bar rack at night than during the day; at night, they were
more likely to contact the bar rack than the louver array. The bar racks guided fewer individuals
at night than during the day. For pallid sturgeon, the guidance efficiency by day and night was
80 and 58%, respectively; for shortnose sturgeon, the efficiency was 80 and 67%.
Laboratory Evaluation - Conte Anadromous Fish Research Center

An experimental louver bypass system was constructed and tested in a flume at the Conte
Anadromous Fish Research Center (US Geological Survey) in Massachusetts (Kynard and
Buerkett 1997). The laboratory system was used to evaluate guidance and passage efficiency
and response of American shad (Alosa sapidissima) (juveniles and adults) to stimuli from
physical structures, light intensity, and water velocity.
The test flume was 39.6 of 6.1 by 6.1 m (130 by 20 by 20 ft). Water enters the flume by gravity
via a power canal. A 2.4 m (7.9 ft) high wooden weir (downstream end) and a barrier net
(upstream end) restricted fish to 26 m (85 ft) long test area in the flume. Water level in the test
area varied slightly between 2.1 and 2.3 m (6.9 and 7.5 ft). The vertical louver array was
constructed of wood and positioned at 20 degrees to the flow. The array consisted of a series of
vertical slats measuring 2.4 m by 14 cm by 1.3 cm (7.7 ft by5.5 in. by 0.5 in.) thick. Spacing of
the louvers could be adjusted from 7.6 to 15.2 cm (3 to 6 in.) by removing or replacing alternate
louver slats. Louver slats were oriented 90 degrees to the approach flow and extended from the
floor of the flume to above the water surface. Two types of bypass exits were evaluated: a sharp-
crested weir type (122 cm [48 in.] wide by 91 cm [35.8 in.] deep) and a vertical-slot exit (46 cm
[18.1 in.] wide by 183 cm [72 in.] deep).
A total of 436 fish were introduced into the flume during 40 trials. Test fish were collected from
the Connecticut River and included juvenile and adult American shad, depending upon seasonal
availability during testing of each set of conditions. There was no difference in the guidance
efficiency between the two louver types: the narrow array prevented 100% of the fish from
passing through the slats, and the wide array prevented 97% of the fish from passing. There also
was no difference in results between the two bypass types. Adults avoided moving closer than
0.5 m to either exit type. However, there were some differences depending upon the lighting
conditions. In general fish remained further upstream during daylight periods than at night.
Laboratory Study – Alden Research Laboratory

Laboratory testing with louvers was conducted with alewife and smelt in a 0.91 by 0.91 m (3 ft
by 3 ft) flume at Alden previously described in the Angled Screen chapter (Table 10-6). These
tests were conducted for Niagara Mohawk (Taft and Mussalli 1978). Consolidated Edison
12-23
sponsored separate studies with striped bass (Morone saxatilis), white perch (Morone
americana), and tomcod (Microgadus tomcod) (Taft and Mussalli 1978; Table 10-6). Tests were
conducted in a manner similar to that described for the angled screen studies. However,
mortality was not evaluated during louver testing. Therefore, efficiency of the louvers was
defined as the number of fish that were successfully diverted to a bypass relative to the total
number released upstream.
A total of 45 tests were conducted with alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and rainbow smelt
(Osmerus mordax) in the 0.91 m (3 ft) flume. Based on past experience, an approach-to-bypass
velocity ratio of 1.0:1.5 was established in all tests. Therefore, at the three test approach
velocities of 0.31, 0.46, and 0.61 m/sec (1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 ft/sec), bypass velocities were set at
0.46, 0.70, and 1.07 m/sec (1.5, 2.3, and 3.5 ft/sec), respectively. Louver array angles of 90, 60,
and 25 degrees to the flow and louver slat spacings of 25, 51, and 82.6 mm (1.0, 2.0, and 3.25
in.) were evaluated at these different velocities.
At angles of 90 and 60 degrees, average guidance efficiency was less than 80%. Therefore, more
extensive studies were conducted with a 25 degree orientation. At this angle, with a louver slat
spacing of 25 mm (1 in.) the average efficiency of the system in diverting alewife and smelt was
90 and 93%, respectively.
For tests conducted in the 1.83 m (6 ft) flume with striped bass, white perch, and tomcod, the
louver system was evaluated with slat spacings of 25 mm (1 in.) and an orientation of 25 degrees
only. The approach velocities were 0.31, 0.61, and 0.91 m/sec (1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 ft/sec), and the
corresponding bypass velocities were 0.46, 0.91, and 1.37 m/sec (1.5, 3.0, and 4.5 ft/sec). The
efficiency of the louvers was found to be species-specific, ranging from 50 to 80% for white
perch, 56 to 97% for Hudson River striped bass, 68 to 99% for hatchery-reared striped bass, and
96 to 99% for tomcod (Taft and Mussalli 1978). The average efficiency for all species combined
was 84.7%.
Laboratory Study – Redondo Beach Generating Station

Schuler (1973) tested various louver configurations with 18 species of fish, including Northern
anchovy (Engraulis mordax), queenfish (Seriphus politus), white croaker (Genyonemus
lineatus), walleye (Sander vitreus), surfperch (Embiotocidae), and shiner perch (Cymatogaster
aggregate), in a test flume at Southern California Edison’s Redondo Beach Station. Approach
velocities ranged from 0.15 to 1.22 m/sec (0.5 to 4 ft/sec). The louvers were placed at angles
ranging from 90 degrees to 20 degrees to the direction of flow. Maximum guidance (96 to
100%) occurred with louver slats spaced 2.5 cm (1 in.) apart, set at 20 degree orientation to the
flow, with flow vanes normal (90 degrees) to the frame and an approach velocity of 0.6 m/sec (2
ft/sec). Schuler (1973) also determined that the configuration of the bypass channel was as
important as louver and velocity settings to successfully divert fish. Test specimens would move
into the bypass channel only if the flow in the bypass was free of turbulence. Bypass channel
velocities should be at least 1.5 times the approach velocity and probably should be higher than
the sustained swimming speed of target species and size classes. Schuler (1973) also presented
the only data that indicate higher guidance efficiencies are achieved with louver slats placed
normal to the frame rather than normal to the flow. In addition, it was found that the system
worked equally well in light or in darkness (Schuler 1973; Schuler and Larson 1975).
12-24
This flume study led to the development and installation of a traveling louver system at Southern
California Edison’s San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). The station is located
near the San Diego-Orange County line in California. Its once-through cooling system includes
intake structures situated approximately 1 km (0.62 mi) from shore at a depth of 9 m (29.5 ft).
The intakes have a wide lower lip and velocity cap and the plant relies on a fish return system to
mitigate fish entrapment. The two units (served by four circulating water pumps) each have a
capacity to draw water at 50.5 m3/sec (1,783 cfs). A system of guiding vanes and louvers direct
fish away from the banks of traveling screens into a collection area (Figure 12-12). Velocity
through the screens is 0.6 to 0.9 m/sec (2 to 3 ft/sec). Maximum velocity into the return system
is 2.1 m/sec (7 ft/sec). Biological effectiveness data for this facility could not be found.
Figure 12-12
Louver system at SONGS (EPRI 1987)
12-25
13
LIGHTS
Introduction
Several types of light have been investigated as a method for attracting or repelling fish. Results
have varied depending largely upon light source and intensity, species, and water clarity. The
majority of tests have been conducted with strobe and mercury light. The relative success of
lights to illicit a behavioral response in juvenile and adult fish is discussed individually below by
type of light.
Strobe Lights
Strobe or flashing light has been intensively evaluated for repelling or guiding fish away from
hydroelectric facilities and water intakes, and in many cases, toward bypasses for transport to a
safe release location. Early studies with light examined the response of salmonids to both
flashing and continuous sources (Brett and MacKinnon 1953; Craddock 1956). The results from
these studies indicated that flashing light produced stronger avoidance reactions than continuous
light, and that responses appeared to be affected by species tested, developmental stage (i.e., age
or size of fish), and adaptation light level (Feist and Anderson 1991). More recent studies with
salmonids have corroborated these findings (Puckett and Anderson 1988; EPRI 1990; Nemeth
and Anderson 1992).
Examination of the deterrent potential of strobe light expanded considerably in the 1980s.
Laboratory studies were conducted with anadromous salmonids and Alosa species, several
potamodromous and estuarine species, and the catadromous American eel (Anguilla rostrata).
These studies involved both controlled experiments (laboratory and cage tests) and field efforts.
Extensive research with strobe lights has continued, including laboratory and/or cage test
evaluations with Pacific salmon, American eel, and several freshwater species, open water tests
with Kokanee salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), and field tests with freshwater species and Atlantic
salmon (Salmo salar).
The concept of strobe light as a fish protection technology is based on its potential to elicit an
avoidance response from fish resulting in a change in behavior that prevents CWIS involvement
or turbine entrainment. This concept is supported by the results of many laboratory and cage test
strobe light studies that have demonstrated strong avoidance by several fish species. Taking the
strobe light concept to the next level (i.e., successful field applications) has proven to be more
difficult. Field studies have shown that some species and life stages can be repelled by strobe
light, but results from these efforts have been less consistent and more difficult to interpret due to
confounding factors associated with environmental conditions and plant design and operating
parameters.
The design and manufacturing of strobe lights used in fish protection studies has varied, but most
studies conducted since 1992 have used light systems supplied by Flash Technology
Corporation. Other manufacturers of flash heads that have been used in past studies include
13-1
EG&G and Huey Philips. Off-the-shelf strobe lights modified for underwater applications were
used in earlier studies conducted prior to 1992. Therefore, results from these earlier studies can
be difficult to compare with results of more recent studies conducted with lights specifically
designed for underwater use. Improvements to the nascent science of using strobe lights for fish
protection have brought about more conclusive, more repeatable, and oftentimes more favorable
results than some of these earlier studies. Flash Technology Corporation, for example, has
developed strobe lighting systems designed specifically for fish protection applications to depths
of 80 m (262.5 ft). A typical system consists of strobe light flash heads, associated wiring,
power supplies, and a computer-operated control system.
Although many studies have evaluated strobe lights as a primary barrier system, they are often
evaluated as part of an integrated fish protection and passage system that includes other devices
such as screens, narrow-spaced bar racks, bypasses, and/or other behavioral systems (EPRI
1999). As a secondary system, strobe lights have the potential to incrementally increase fish
protection effectiveness.
In designing a strobe light array for a specific site, careful consideration must be given to site
physical, hydraulic, and environmental characteristics. The primary consideration is whether
strobe light has been shown to be effective in repelling the species of concern. Most often,
laboratory or field cage tests or small-scale pilot studies have been performed to verify fish
response and determine optimum parameters for repulsion (e.g., flash rate, intensity, direction of
light). Once these studies are completed, it is appropriate to move to larger-scale applications
where other parameters that might affect performance can be evaluated (e.g., turbidity, flow
velocity, bypass configuration). This approach generally has been followed in the many strobe
light evaluations conducted to date, as presented in the following discussion.
Controlled experiments and field tests with potamodromous fish (e.g., basses [Centrarchidae],
yellow perch [Perca flavescens], shiners, carps [Cyprinidae]) have produced mixed results with
no clear trends related to species tested (EPRI 1992b). During two field efforts conducted at
low-head hydro projects, one study demonstrated that strobe lights significantly reduced
entrainment of bullhead (Ameiurus spp.) and shiner species, whereas the other study determined
that strobe lights were ineffective at repelling juveniles of potamodromous species from one of
the project’s turbine intakes. Based on study results to date, strobe lights may not be appropriate
for projects that require protection for certain potamodromous species.
While there has been a great deal of research conducted on the biological effectiveness of strobe
lights, there are relatively few permanent installations to date. However, there are two sites that
have effectively demonstrated the applicability of strobe lights as viable fish protection
technologies: the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks in Washington and the Dworshak Dam in Idaho.
At the Chittenden Locks, preliminary data analysis indicated that strobe lights had been effective
in repelling juvenile Pacific salmon from a filling culvert. Consequently, a strobe light system
was installed as a permanent protection measure for this site and was shown to significantly
decrease the entrainment of juvenile salmonids.
Open water testing at Lake Pend Oreille and Spirit Lake demonstrated that free ranging Kokanee
salmon were repelled up to a distance of 120 m (393.7 ft) from underwater strobe lights. In
addition, preliminary results of recent evaluations of this strobe light system have shown a
significant reduction in Kokanee densities near the turbine intakes (Maiolie pers. comm. 2004) at
Dworshak Dam.
13-2
Results of evaluations at other sites remain somewhat inconclusive. For example, results from
field tests at the Milliken Station were mixed in past years, with some species and age classes
being repelled by strobe light and others being attracted. Due to the unclear results, confounded
by small sample sizes, the strobe light system at this site has not undergone any recent
evaluations. Similarly, the strobe light system installed at the Mattaceunk Project was part of an
effort to develop permanent downstream passage facilities for Atlantic salmon smolts and kelts.
Efficiency of the entire passage system (i.e., bypass collection box, strobe lights) has varied
among study years. Comparison of results from control samples (1993 and 1994) to test samples
(1995 and 1997) revealed an increase in guidance to the bypass entrance of 19% with the use of
the strobe lights (Brown 1997).
Additional research is needed to expand the growing database on the species, life stages, and
environmental conditions (e.g., flows, turbidity, and diel period) for which strobe lights are most
applicable. While the potential of strobe lights has been demonstrated with various salmonid
species, further research addressing the potential for use with non-salmonid species is needed.
Field studies need to focus on determining important engineering (number of lights and location,
project hydraulics) and environmental (water turbidity, ambient light conditions) parameters that
may influence the success of strobe light systems. The sites where studies have been conducted
are diverse, which makes comparative interpretation of results difficult.
13-3
Table 13-1
Summary of strobe light testing conducted during field, cage, and laboratory studies
Target/ Flash Rates Ambient Turbidity

Site and Reference Abundant Evaluated Light Conditions General Study Conclusions
Species (fl/min) Conditions (NTU)
Cooling Water Intake Field Tests
Results from two study years were

Milliken Station Not mixed; some species were attracted to
day, dusk,
Ichthyological Assoc. (1994, freshwater spp 300 Reported the strobe light and others repelled.
night
1997) (NR) Species-specific responses varied with
season and fish age.
Strobe light alone and in combination

400, 500, with a pneumatic popper and an air
Roseton Station riverine 600(EPRI bubble curtain demonstrated an ability
1998b) 24-hour
EPRI (1998b) anadromous NR to reduce impingement of most fish
testing
Matousek et al. (1988a, b) spp 200(Matousek species. Reductions in impingement
et al 1988a, b). were greater for combined device
operation.
Hydroelectric/Water Diversion Field Tests
Mattaceunk (Weldon Dam)

Strobe lights installed on the intakes of
Georgia-Pacific Corp. (1989,
Units 1 and 2 appear to repel smolts
1990) 200 (1998-89) 24-hour
Atlantic salmon NR into Units 3 and 4. Strobe lights on the
Great Northern Paper (1995, NR (1993-98) testing
lower half of Units 3 and 4 did not lead
1998)
to increases in surface bypass use.
Brown (1997)
No detectable reduction in fish

White Rapids
24-hour entrainment during three sample
EPRI (1998b) riverine spp 400 3.92-9.34
testing periods (July, September, and
Michaud and Taft (2000)
October).
During certain times of day,

Four Mile Dam
bullhead spp 60 (1994) 24-hour entrainment of bullhead and shiner
GLEC (1994) NR
shiner spp NR (1995) testing species was lower when strobe lights
McCauley (1996)
were operating.
13-4
Strobe lights were tested as part of an

integrated downstream passage
Rolfe Canal 24-hour
Atlantic salmon 300 NR system that was concluded to be
NDT and Lakeside Eng. (1995) testing
ineffective in the configurations
evaluated.
No identifiable response was exhibited

Fort Halifax by outmigrating alewife based on
alewife 120 day, dusk NR
ECS and Lakeside Eng. (1994) limited visual observations of fish
movement near the strobe light.
York Haven Passage of Juvenile American shad

Martin et al. (1991) through a sluiceway adjacent to Unit 1
EPRI (1990, 1992b) American shad 300 day, night was greater during periods of strobe
SWETS (1994) light operation than during control
Martin et al. (1994) periods.
Strobe light was effective at repelling

McNary Dam outmigrating smolts away from the
Pacific salmon 150, 200 NR NR
Johnson and Ploskey (1998) dewatering screens in the juvenile
bypass channel.
Strobe lights were tested in several

Chinook
Rocky Reach Dam configurations, none of which produced
salmon, 78-780 day, night NR
Anderson et al. (1988) an increase in fish guidance efficiency
rainbow trout
of submerged traveling screens.
A single strobe light used in

Puntledge Generating Station combination with hanging chains did
coho salmon 60 day, night NR
Bengeyfield and Smith (1989) not reduce the number of coho smolts
entering the station’s penstocks.
Strobe lights did not deter American

Hadley Falls
American shad 300 day NR shad adults from entering a branch
EPRI (1990)
canal.
13-5
Preliminary results indicate strobe

Burbank No. 3 Water Diversion 24-hour lights may by repelling juvenile salmon,
Pacific salmon 300 NR
John Easterbrooks (pers. comm.) testing but additional testing and analysis is
required.
Outmigrating sockeye salmon smolts

Hiram H. Chittenden Locks
Pacific salmon NR day NR were repelled away from a lock-filling
Brown (1999)
culvert.
Cage and Open Water Tests
Kingsford Mixed results. Avoidance most notable

Winchell et al. (1997) for walleye. Lesser responses by
riverine spp 200-600 day, night NR
EPRI (1998b) yellow perch, largemouth bass, and
Michaud and Taft (2000) Northern pike.
Chinook smolts exhibited strong

avoidance of strobe light during tests
Roza Diversion Dam day, dusk, conducted under nighttime conditions,
Chinook salmon 300, 450 3.3-6.5
Amaral et al. (1998) night but no avoidance was observed during
tests conducted during the day or at
dusk.
Kokanee salmon were repelled by

Dworshak Dam strobe light during open water tests.
Kokanee 300, 360, 450 day and night NR
Brown (1999) Response distance was shown to be
positively correlated with water clarity.
Consistent displacement of test fish

Hiram M. Chittenden Locks
away from a strobe light was observed
Ploskey and Johnson (1998)
Pacific salmon 300 day NR with the test cage oriented both
Ploskey et al. (1998a)
horizontally and vertically in the water
Johnson et al (2001, 2004)
column.
A floating trap without strobe lights

Seton Station dusk and
sockeye salmon >200 NR collected 56% more smolts that a trap
McKinley and Patrick (1988) night
with strobe lights.
13-6
Strobe lights were the least effective of

Pickering Station
three behavioral devices that were
Patrick et al. (1988a) alewife >200 NR NR
tested as fish deterrents at an open
EPRI (1989)
water experimental facility.
Based on fish ladder collection rates

R. H. Saunders Saunders dawn, dusk, during treatment and control periods,
American eel 800 NR
Patrick et al. (1982) night strobe lights were 65– 95% effective at
repelling eels from entering the ladder.
Fish abundance near the test area was

significantly lower during periods when
Ludington Pumped-Storage
freshwater spp 300 night NR the strobe lights were operated
EPRI (1990)
compared to periods when they were
off.
Laboratory Tests
Significant differences individual fish

Saimaa Fisheries Research Station responses to strobe in terms of swim
whitefish 180 dark NA
Königson et al. 2002 speed, direction of movement, and
distance from light source.
Responses observed during cage tests

Pacific Northwest National Chinook salmon were categorized as strong for wild fall
Laboratory steelhead trout 300 NR NR Chinook salmon and rainbow trout,
Mueller et al. (1999) brook trout moderate for hatchery Chinook salmon,
and none to slight for brook trout.
Eels demonstrated strong avoidance to

Ontario Hydro 66, 220, 484, all of the flash frequencies tested, with
American eel night NR
Patrick et al. (1982) 770, 1,090 no acclimation observed during
prolonged exposure.
13-7
Measurable effects on grass carp

Lee County Hyacinth Control
behavior were observed during
District grass carp NR 24-hour NR
laboratory tests conducted in an indoor
John Cassani (pers. comm.)
tank.
University of Washington All four species demonstrated some

coho salmon
Puckett and Anderson (1988) level of avoidance to strobe light. The
Chinook salmon
Nemeth (1989) 300 day, night NR type of behavioral reactions that were
steelhead trout
EPRI (1990) observed varied with ambient light
Atlantic salmon
Nemeth and Anderson (1992) conditions.
gizzard shad
hybrid bass All species tested, except largemouth
largemouth day, night bass, demonstrated some level of
University of Iowa
bass 300 (channel NR avoidance to strobe light. Juvenile
EPRI (1990)
sunfish spp catfish only) walleye exhibited the strongest
walleye response.
channel catfish
All species tested exhibited some level

Atlantic
of avoidance to strobe light. Strength
University of Maryland menhaden indoor
300 39-138 of avoidance varied with turbidity
McInnich and Hocutt (1987) ppot lighting
conditions, often increasing at higher
white perch
turbidity levels.
All species tested demonstrated

Atlantic
University of Maryland avoidance to strobe light. White perch
menhaden
Stauffer et al. (1983) 300, 600 day and night NR and spot avoidance decreased and
spot
Sager et al. (2000) menhaden responses appeared to
white perch
increase at higher water velocities.
Eels were deflected by strobe lights at

Marine Biological Unit, Fawley,
operated at two different illumination
U.K. European eel 600 NR NR
levels. The deflection rate was greater
Hadderingh and Smythe (1997)
at the higher illumination level.
13-8
Strobe lights used in combination with

other behavioral devices (the primary
Ontario Hydro alewife
>200 NR NR test device was mercury lights)
Rodgers (1983) rainbow smelt
significantly improved the collection
efficiency of a Hidrostal pump.
White croaker was repelled by the

Northern
strobe, Pacific sardine may have been
anchovy light and
San Onofre 90 NR attracted, and dark-adapted Northern
white croaker dark
anchovy showed a mixed reaction
Pacific sardine
(attraction and repulsion)
Kokanee More fish present when lights on, 50%

Grand Coulee Dam salmon of detections made 22 m away or
360 NR NR
Simmons (2002) rainbow further. Avoidence behavior observed
trout with lights on.
Strobe lights were effective at deterring

Lake Oahe Day and
rainbow smelt 450 NR rainbow smelt at high water conditions
Hamel et al (2008) night
during nighttime hours
largemouth
bass, fathead
minnow,channel All species exhibited avoidance
South Dakota State University catfish, yellow 86 NR NR behavior compared to control groups
Richard et al. (2007) perch, Chinook except for fathead minnow.
salmon
13-9
Mercury Lights
Mercury lights have been considered primarily as an attractant device that may improve fish
passage and protection by drawing fish to bypass entrances and/or away from intakes. Observed
responses to mercury light have varied among species and size classes, with some fish
demonstrating avoidance and others attraction. Generally, mercury lights have been evaluated or
employed to draw outmigrating salmonid smolts to bypasses.
Mercury light typically has been evaluated as a means to attract fish, but some researchers have
examined its ability to repel fish as well. As an attractant, mercury light can be used to direct
fish away from intakes and toward bypasses or safe areas. As a deterrent, mercury light can be
deployed to repel fish away from hydro projects. Similar to other behavioral technologies,
mercury lights have been used as a secondary fish protection measure that enhances the
effectiveness of a primary system designed to reduce entrainment. Mercury lights have been
evaluated at many hydroelectric projects as means to improve downstream bypass efficiency of
outmigrating anadromous fish (e.g., Alosa species, Atlantic salmon [Salmo salar], and Pacific
salmon species). Few applications have been investigated at CWISs, most likely because
mercury light has been considered primarily as an attractant and the use of deterrents provides a
more efficient means for reducing entrainment and impingement at CWISs.
13-10
Table 13-2
Summary of mercury light testing conducted during field, cage, and laboratory studies
Target/
Mercury Light Ambient Light
Site and Reference Abundant General Study Conclusions
Specifications Conditions
Species
Mercury lights were tested in combination with

Bergum Station
2 lights, 2,000W, underwater incandescent lights. Estimated
Hadderingh et al. (1988) European eel Night
above water deflection rates for the light system were 51 and
25% for yellow and silver eels, respectively.
Mattaceunk (Weldon Dam) The use of the downstream passage system by

Atlantic
Great Northern Paper (1995, 50W 24-hour testing outmigrating smolts appeared to increase when
salmon
1998) the surface inlets were backlit with mercury light.
The overhead mercury light appeared to

Turners Falls Atlantic 400W, 2 ft above contribute to increased passage of smolts
Night
NUSCO (1997) salmon water through a sluiceway. The positioning of the light
was important to improving bypass efficiency.
1988: 2 lights, Mercury lights did not demonstrate a significant

York Haven
American shad 1,000W Night or consistent ability to alter the behavior of
EPRI (1990, 1992b)
1991: 1 light, 250W juvenile American shad.
Hydro-Products Mercury lights were deployed at submerged

Priest Rapids Dam
American shad model L2, 2 lights, 24-hour testing orifices of a fish ladder in attempts to increase
Pock (1988)
1,000W adult shad passage.
Mercury lights attracted outmigrating smolts to a

Hydro-Products bypass entrance, but passage through the
Wapatox Pacific salmon
model L2, 2 lights, Night facility did not increase. Passage rates did
EPRI (1990) steelhead trout
1,000W increase during transitions between light on and
off periods.
13-11
Target/
Species
Mercury lights located on the spillway did not

increase downstream passage of outmigrating
Wanapum Pacific salmon Hydro-Products salmonids. However, results from this study
Night
(EPRI 1990) steelhead trout model L2, 1,000W were considered inconclusive due to
confounding factors associated with test
conditions.
American shad Hydro-Products Mercury lights were concluded to be ineffective

Hadley Falls
blueback model L2, 4 lights, day, night at attracting fish to a bascule gate for
LMS (1989)
herring 1,000W downstream passage.
Three to eight times more fish were bypassed

during light-on periods compared to light-off
Poutes Project periods. Maximum passage was observed more
Atlantic 4 lights, 400W (1),
Larinier and Boyer-Bernard Night than one half hour after light activation.
salmon 125W (2), 80W (1)
(1992) Illumination duration, light location, and intensity
appeared to be important parameters related to
mercury light effectiveness.
Annapolis Tidal Station river herring Adult and juvenile fish demonstrated slight
NR Night
McKinley and Patrick (1988) American shad attraction to mercury light.
Positioned at
Hell’s Gate Attracted alewife to bypass, however no
river herring entrance to fish Night
Toner (1988) passage of fish was observed
bypass
Mercury lights were tested in combination with

Haandrik
European eel above water Night underwater incandescent lights. The estimated
deflection rate for the light was 66%.
Kingsford
No responses to mercury light were observed for
Winchell et al. (1997)
riverine spp 2 lights, 175W day, night any of the species that were evaluated during
EPRI (1998a)
cage tests.
13-12
Target/
Species
Fish abundance near the mercury lights was

Ludington Hydro-Products
freshwater spp Night about twice as high when the lights were
EPRI (1990) model L2, 1,000W
operated compared to control periods.
Laboratory Tests
coho salmon
University of Washington Chinook Fish responses to mercury light were varied and
Puckett and Anderson (1988) salmon inconsistent. Attraction was exhibited by
Hydro-Products
Nemeth (1989) steelhead day, night steelhead trout fry and Chinook salmon, which
model L2, 1,000W
EPRI (1990) trout avoided dim mercury light. Chinook salmon and
Nemeth and Anderson (1992) Atlantic coho salmon avoided full-intensity mercury light.
salmon
hybrid bass
gizzard shad
Little or no attraction to mercury light was
largemouth day, night
University of Iowa Hydro-Products observed for the species tested. Largemouth
bass (channel
EPRI (1990) model L2, 1,000W bass, channel catfish, and walleye exhibited
sunfish spp catfish only)
avoidance reactions.
walleye
channel catfish
Both species were attracted to blue-filtered and

American shad
Turners Falls 250W, with and day, dusk, unfiltered mercury light. Attraction responses
blueback
NUSCO (1986) without blue filter night were observed during nighttime hours, but not
herring
during daylight hours.
Mercury light alone and in combination with

Ontario Hydro alewife 250W with blue
Dark other behavioral devices significantly improved
Rodgers (1983) rainbow smelt plastic filter
the ability of a Hidrostal pump to collect fish.
13-13
Other Light Sources
Other light sources that have been evaluated as behavioral guidance devices include
incandescent, fluorescent, overhead sodium vapor, and drop lights. Underwater incandescent
lights have been examined as fish attractants and deterrents, and underwater fluorescent and drop
lights have been tested as fish deterrents. Overhead sodium lights have been assessed as
attractants. Existing station lighting also has been used in attempts to enhance bypass
efficiencies. Most testing conducted to date with these types of lights has been done with
anadromous salmonids and clupeids and the catadromous European eel (Anguilla anguilla).
Incandescent, fluorescent, and sodium vapor lights appear to have some potential to be applied at
water intakes as a component of a fish passage or protection system. Underwater incandescent
and fluorescent lights have demonstrated an ability to repel European eels, and incandescent
lights have elicited avoidance responses from salmonids in some settings. The studies with
European eel suggest that underwater incandescent and fluorescent lights may be applicable as a
primary system depending on site design and operation and effectiveness goals. Overhead
sodium lights have increased bypass efficiencies of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts and
juvenile clupeids, but do not appear to affect the behavior of several riverine fish species.
Sodium lights may be considered as a secondary component to a fish passage or protection
system based on their ability to attract outmigrating fish to bypasses or safe areas. The results
from limited testing of drop lights with juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
do not support the use of this type of stimuli as a fish protection technology for salmonids.
13-14
Table 13-3
Summary of tests conducted with other types of light sources during field, cage, and laboratory studies
Target/ Ambient
Site and Reference Abundant Light System Description Light General Study Conclusions
Species Conditions
30 fluorescent lamps The estimated deflection rates for the

Amer
European eel located on river bottom 8 m Night fluorescent lights were 62% and 74% for
in front of intake yellow and silver eels, respectively.
The underwater incandescent lights were

incandescent lamps
tested in combination with overhead
(tungsten filament,
Bergum mercury lights. Estimated deflection
European eel continuous spectrum) Night
Hadderingh and Smythe (1997) rates for the light system were 51% and
located on river bottom 5 m
25% for yellow and silver eels,
in front of intake
respectively.
Richard B. Russell Sodium lights located on

Pickens (1992) each bank of the tailrace to Significantly higher densities of fish were
Ploskey et al. (1995a) blueback herring attract fish away from the Night found in the illuminated areas of the
Nestler et al. (1995a,b) turbine intakes during tailrace.
Nestler et al. (1998) pumpback operation
Incandescent lights were

Mattaceunk (Weldon Dam) used to illuminate the
Great Northern Paper (1995) downstream bypass Increased collection efficiencies of 37%
Atlantic salmon Night
Georgia-Pacific Corp. (1989, entrance: used in and 82% for mercury light
1990) conjunction with strobe light
repelling system
Backlit weirs with 50 W Only 34% of the total emigrating

Pejepscot halide lights, and lit bypass alewives passed through the turbines
Alosa spp Night
NDT et al. (1997) entrance with 500 W quartz with the behavioral deterrent system in
floodlights place
13-15
Target/ Ambient
Species Conditions
During this study, incandescent lights

were evaluated as part of an integrated
downstream passage system that also
Rolfe Canal 75W incandescent lights included strobe lights and physical
24-hour
NDT and Lakeside Engineering Atlantic salmon placed over downstream design features. Testing in 1993 and
testing
(1995) fishway entrance 1994 indicated that the integrated
system designs that were evaluated
were not effective at increasing bypass
efficiency.
79 fluorescent lamps
located on river bottom at a
Dietfurt The estimated deflection rate of eels by
European eel 20 degree angle; light array night
Hadderingh and Smythe (1997) the fluorescent lamps was 8%.
was 110 m long beginning
80 m upstream of intake
The underwater fluorescent lights were

9 incandescent lamps tested in combination with mercury
Haandrik
European eel (200W) located on river lights. The estimated deflection rate of
bottom 4 m in front of intake eels by the combined light system was
66%.
incandescent lights located The backlighting of the trash rack with

Rocky Reach Dam downstream of trash rack 24-hour incandescent lights did not improve fish
Pacific salmon
Anderson et al. (1988) and above submerged testing guidance efficiency of the submerged
traveling screen traveling screens.
Roza Diversion Dam 24-hour No detectable response in species

Chinook salmon Single underwater drop light
Amaral et al. (1998) testing tested
Kingsford
Overhead sodium,
Winchell et al (1997) No detectable response in species
Riverine spp underwater mercury lights in Night
EPRI (1998a) tested
a test cage
13-16
Target/ Ambient
Species Conditions
Row of 9, 200 W
River Vecht incandescent lights on the
River Regge European eel river bottom and 2 (200 W) Night Up to 85% deflection of eel at Regge
Hadderingh and Smythe (1997) high pressure mercury lights
above the water surface
Laboratory Tests
2 and 3 tungsten Dark- and

Significant attraction to the steady light
San Onofre incandescent lights (also light-
Marine spp source was exhibited by dark-adapted
Jahn and Herbinson (2000) used with strobes) located adapted
fish
above test pool fish
Deflection percentages of 57-86 % for

200 W continuous
three lamp types, no significant
KEMA Environmental Services spectrum, 36 W
European eel Dark difference in deflection was detected
Hadderingh and Smythe (1997) incandescent, and strobe
between lamp types at low water
light
velocities
Fish response to stimulus light was

dependent on ambient light levels.
Maximum attraction to the stimulus light
200W, 100W, 40W, and
University of Washington was when its intensity was equal to
Chinook salmon 20W lights located above varied
Puckett and Anderson (1988) ambient light intensity. Active avoidance
water
was observed when the intensity of the
stimulus light was 100 times ambient
light intensity.
13-17
Case Studies – Strobe Light – CWIS Field Tests
Milliken Steam Electric Station

New York State Electric and Gas Corporation installed a strobe light system at the Milliken
Steam Electric Station in response to requests by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) to determine the best technology available to reduce
fish entrainment at the station’s cooling water intake. An initial study was conducted in 1993
and 1994 to evaluate the effectiveness of the strobe lights as a deterrent (Ichthyological
Associates 1994). A request for additional information by NYSDEC prompted a full year of
study in 1995 and 1996 (Ichthyological Associates 1997).
Milliken Station is a coal-fired steam electric generating facility located on Cayuga Lake in
Lansing, New York. The station has two generating units that are cooled by a once-through
circulating water system that uses raw water drawn from Cayuga Lake. The cooling water intake
is an open-ended pipe located about 158.5 m (520 ft) from shore at a depth of 12.2 m (40 ft).
The pipe is covered with a very coarse bar grating to keep out large foreign objects. Circulating
water is supplied by four pumps at a rate of approximately 10.7 m3/sec (380 cfs). Since the plant
has no traveling water screens, fish entrainment was evaluated during both studies (i.e., 1993–
1994 and 1995–1996) using a partial flow netting system deployed in the station’s discharge
structure. During the 1993–1994 study, sampling was conducted during the last 8 hrs of strobe-
on and -off periods that were 48 hrs in length. In 1995 and 1996, sampling was conducted in a 3-
week cycle, with the strobes off for 2 weeks and on for 1 week. The net system was sampled at
12-hour intervals. Strobe light effectiveness was determined by statistically comparing
entrainment rates of strobe light on and off periods for significant differences.
Entrainment reductions during strobe-on periods varied with species and time of year, with
greater entrainment reductions occurring during months when the intake water was cooler. A
total of 29 paired strobe-on and strobe-off samples were collected during the 1993–1994 study.
Young-of-year and juvenile rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax) were the most abundant fish
collected, followed by alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), and
adult rainbow smelt. An overall reduction in fish entrainment of 37% was observed with the
strobe lights operating. Additionally, total fish entrainment increased when the strobe lights
were operating in July and August.
Species entrained during the 1995–1996 study at Milliken included alewife, rainbow smelt,
yellow perch, and trout-perch (Percopsis omiscomaycus). The most commonly entrained fish
was juvenile alewife, which comprised 73% of the total fish collected in the discharge nets. The
strobe lights significantly reduced entrainment of adult alewife, white sucker (Catostomus
commersonii), trout-perch, and slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus), whereas juvenile rainbow smelt
entrainment was significantly greater during strobe light periods for the entire study. Behavioral
patterns with respect to the strobe lights were distinctly different during certain times of year.
From December through mid-July, juvenile alewife, adult alewife, and yellow perch were
significantly repelled by the strobe light system. During late summer and autumn, juvenile
alewife and yellow perch were significantly attracted by the strobe lights. During October and
November, very few species were caught unless the strobe lights were on. Results indicated that
38% more fish were entrained when the strobe lights were operating than when they were off
(based on overall catch rate per hour). The overall increase in entrainment during strobe light
13-18
operation for the 1995–1996 study was mostly due to the large number of juvenile alewife
collected during strobe-on periods in October and November. Based on times of year when
certain species and size classes were repelled by the strobe light system, the project owners have
requested that strobe light be considered as the BTA for reducing fishery impacts related to
entrainment.

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), along with several member utilities, sponsored a
4-year field study to evaluate the effectiveness of behavioral barriers at power plant CWISs.
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation’s (CHGE) Roseton Generating Station on the
Hudson River was selected to represent power plants with shoreline riverine intake systems. The
effectiveness of strobe lights, a pneumatic air gun (popper), and an air bubble curtain (operated
as fish deterrents in combination and singularly) was evaluated at Roseton in 1986 and 1987
(EPRI 1999; LMS 1989; Matousek et al. 1988a, b). Tests conducted with strobe lights are the
focus of this review. Evaluations of other behavioral barriers are discussed later.
Roseton Generating Station is a fossil fuel stream electric generating station. Its two units have a
total generating capacity of 1,200 MW. The total flow capacity is 41.4 m3/sec (1,461 cfs), drawn
water from the Hudson River. The intake has eight vertical traveling screens that are mounted to
face the river. The behavioral devices were mounted on steel support cables and placed in front
of the station intake structure (Figure 13-1).
13-19
Figure 13-1
Roseton intake structure behavioral barriers — section (EPRI 1999)
The strobe light units evaluated at the Roseton intake were manufactured by EG&G Electro-
Optics. The system consisted of an FA-125 power supply and FA-107 flashhead. The strobe
lights were operated at 200 flashes per min with a flash duration of 100 μs. The strobe light
system was located directly in front of the trash racks in front of the 10 intake openings. Three
strobe lights were centered and evenly spaced at the top of the portal opening, at the center, and
at approximately 0.6 m (2 ft) from the bottom of the eight intake portals.
Spring (March–April) and summer/fall (August–November) were selected as seasonal test
periods because long-term fish impingement data suggested these were the times when seasonal
impingement peaks occurred. Predominant species impinged during spring were white perch
and pumpkinseed. During the summer/fall period, blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), alewife
(Alosa pseudoharengus), white perch (Morone americana), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), and
bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) were the predominantly impinged species.
A series of seven independent treatments were selected at random. During each 24-hour period,
one of seven possible behavioral barrier devices or device combinations was tested. The
treatment combinations included: pneumatic gun, strobe light, air bubble curtain; pneumatic gun
and strobe light; pneumatic gun and air bubble curtain; strobe light and air bubble curtain; and
13-20
pneumatic gun, strobe light, and air bubble curtain. The order of treatments within each 7-day
period was randomly assigned. Each 24-hr test period was subdivided into four, 6-hour blocks:
day, night, dusk, and dawn. A 3-hour control block was paired with each 3-hour test block. The
sequence of control and test block was randomly selected. Fish impingement data were collected
during treatment tests (behavioral barriers operated) and control tests (behavioral barriers not
operated) at 0.5 hour intervals. Water temperature, conductivity, turbidity, and tidal condition
were measured at the beginning and end of each 3-hour collection interval. An Effectiveness
Index (EI), the percentage reduction in impingement catch attributable to the operation of the
behavioral deterrents, was calculated for each device and combination of devices that were
tested. The effectiveness index was obtained by subtracting the sum of the fish collected during
treatment periods from the sum of fish collected during control periods, divided by the sum of
the fish collected during control periods. Statistical analyses were conducted on the
effectiveness index measurements to determine significant differences in impingement rates
among the treatment and control.
The overall results (both years combined) indicated that no device or combination of devices was
effective as a behavioral barrier for all species at all times. Behavioral barrier effectiveness was
species-specific and related to time of day. A total of 604 paired treatment and control tests were
performed during the 2-year study. Dominant species that were collected from the traveling
screens included white perch, bay anchovy, blueback herring, alewives, and American shad
(Alosa sapidissima). When data from both years and all species are combined, strobe light had
the second highest effectiveness index (3.0%). In 1986 and 1987, the overall effectiveness index
for strobe light was 22.6 and 3.3%, respectively. In 1986, the effectiveness index of strobe light
never exceeded 42.0% for individual species (except for bay anchovy; however, the abundance
estimate of bay anchovy during strobe light tests in 1986 was one fish). Strobe light
effectiveness indices exceeded 0.0% only for white perch (EI = 29.0%) in 1987. Generally, the
effectiveness of strobe light combined with other devices also was low and variable for
individual species and for all fish combined. The EI estimates for each device and combination
of devices must be viewed with caution, because there was considerable variation in the
estimates between years and among species and diel sampling periods. Confidence intervals
often broadly overlapped zero, indicating that the observed results could have happened by
chance (i.e., were not statistically significant). The observed variability for overall, annual,
individual species, and diel estimates may have resulted from inter-annual differences in
hydraulic conditions and species abundance and, specifically for all fish combined, physical and
behavioral differences among species.
Pickering Generating Station

Experiments were conducted with strobe lights, poppers, and an air-bubble curtain during 1985
and 1986 at the Pickering Generating Station as part of a multi-year research program developed
by EPRI to evaluate behavioral systems for fish exclusion. The station is located on Lake
Ontario approximately 25 km (15.5 mi) east of Toronto, Canada (Patrick et al. 1988a; Ontario
Hydro and LMS 1989). The fish diversion system is 78 m (23 ft) offshore from the surface
intake structure. Nine, 0.3 m (1 ft) diameter pilings were arranged in three rows within each of
the two identical diversion structures. Support frames, attached to the pilings, had 3.8-cm (1.5-
in.) mesh gill nets are stretched across them. Behavioral deterrents were fitted to the west
(experimental) structure, while the east structure was used for a control. Six strobes (Super
13-21
Freeze Flash Model in 1985 and EG&G Model LS-158 in 1986) were mounted on the
experimental test structure at mid-depth and facing offshore. The strobe lights were not
synchronized and operated at flash rates greater than 200 flashes per min.
A total of 63 control and experimental tests were conducted randomly in 1985, while a total of
79 control and experimental tests were conducted randomly during 1986. To assess the
effectiveness of each behavioral barrier and combination of barriers, sampling of alewife (Alosa
pseudoharengus) was performed with nets mounted on two test structures (experimental and
control) located near the entrance to the cooling water intake channel. Tests were conducted
primarily at night when fish movement appeared to be greatest. Alewife catches from 2-hr
sampling periods were compared between the experimental and control structures. Additionally,
a 15.2 by 1.7 m (49.9 by 5.6 ft) gill net panel (wing net) with 3.2-cm (1.3-in.) mesh was, set at
the bottom on the east and west sides of the system in order to identify fish movement on both
sides of the experimental and control structures.
Strobe light effectiveness was 56.8% for inshore moving fish and 21.2% for offshore-moving
fish. The authors hypothesized that reduced effectiveness for offshore-moving fish was due to
diminished flash effect to the rear of the strobes. The effectiveness indices for the strobe light/air
bubble combination (both years combined), strobe light/popper combination, and all three
devices combined were 67.1, 70.9, and 54.1, respectively. The effectiveness index for the strobe
light/air bubble curtain combination may not be accurate because there was substantial variation
in effectiveness estimates between the 2 test years (90.1% in 1985 and 39.0% in 1986).
Effectiveness varied considerably with depth, ranging from 76% in the surface and mid-water
locations to less than 2% near the bottom of the test platform (about 3.7 to 6.1 m [12 to 20 ft]
deep). The results from popper and air bubble curtain tests at Pickering are presented in later
sections of this report.
Case Studies – Strobe Light – Hydroelectric/Water Diversion Field Tests

The Chittenden Locksare located at the outlet of Lake Washington in the state of Washington.
The locks are a bottleneck to salmon and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) outmigration and
may a contributor to the decline of these species since the 1970s. Emigrants pass the locks
through one of three routes: the spillway, the lock gates, or the lock-filling culverts. The culverts
are injurious to fish.
Net pen studies of strobe lights at the locks in 1997 showed that yearling coho salmon
(Oncorhynchus kisutch) and sub-yearling coho and Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha) were strongly repelled (Ploskey and Johnson 2001). In 1998, 10 strobe lights
placed around the perimeter of the north-filling culvert showed a 96% reduction in fish density
before fills and an 87% decrease during fillings.
In 2001, 36 wall- and bottom-mounted AGL 901 series strobe lights were placed around the
filling culverts. From May 3 to June 14, 2002, 101 pairs of strobe-on/strobe-off treatments were
conducted during daylight hours. Two down-looking 6-degree split beam Precision Acoustic
Systems transducers were use to monitor fish abundance.
13-22
Based on the results of 95 valid, paired treatments, the strobe lights were shown to greatly reduce
the estimated number of fish entrained into the culvert. In 79% of the treatments, more fish were
entrained with the strobe lights off (1,427) than with them on (350) (Johnson et al. 2004).
The strobe lights skewed vertical fish distribution preceding filling events. However, the
distribution pattern did not differ much during filling events. The authors suggest that fish
response to strobe lights is site-specific and that, where fish are to be repelled under continuous
flow conditions, the flow may override the potential repelling effects of the lights.
White Rapids Hydroelectric Project

Field tests were conducted at the White Rapids Hydroelectric Project to evaluate the ability of
strobe light and acoustic signals to repel fish away from a turbine intake (EPRI 1998a, b;
Michaud and Taft 2000). The White Rapids Project is located on the Menominee River, which
borders Wisconsin and the upper peninsula of Michigan. The project has three Francis turbines.
Units 1 and 3 are rated at 3 MW each, with discharge rates of 43.7 m3/sec (1,543.3 cfs), and Unit
2 is rated at 2 MW, with a discharge of 25.8 m3/sec (911.1 cfs). Based on the results from cage
tests conducted at the Kingsford Project (discussed previously), strobe lights and several distinct
acoustic signals were selected for evaluation during intake tests conducted at White Rapids. The
behavioral deterrents were mounted on two steel frames that were deployed over the trash racks
of the two intake bays of Unit 1. Twenty-four strobe lights operated at 300 flashes per min were
deployed at the Unit 1 intake. Effectiveness was measured by comparing entrainment numbers
during treatment and control periods. Entrained fish were collected in full-flow tailrace nets that
sampled the two discharge bays of Unit 1. The field evaluation was conducted during three test
periods in July, September, and October of 1997. The following four test conditions were
evaluated during the field evaluation: (1) strobe lights on; (2) acoustic system on; (3) both lights
and sound on; and (4) control (no devices operating). An air bubble curtain also was evaluated
during the October test period.
A wide variety of species were collected in the Unit 1 tailrace nets during the three sample
periods. The majority of the fish were young-of-the-year, with mean lengths ranging from 45.5
to 85.3 mm (1.8 to 3.4 in.). There were no significant differences in entrainment numbers
between strobe light and control periods for any species, family, or size group analyzed, or for all
fish combined, during any of the three sample periods. The statistical analysis of the collection
data accounted for diel differences in entrainment rates, which typically were greater during
evening hours. Based on these results, it was concluded that strobe lights are not applicable to
projects that are similar to White Rapids with respect to project design and fish species
occurrence.
Burbank 3 Intake Channel

Strobe lights were evaluated as a means to reduce entrainment of juvenile Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) into the Burbank 3 intake channel located on the Columbia River
(Brown 1999). A strobe light barrier system was installed at a highway overpass and was
designed to exclude Chinook salmon from entering Casey Pond, to which water is diverted. To
evaluate the effectiveness of the strobe light barrier, estimates of catch per unit efforts from
electrofishing surveys conducted upstream and downstream of the barrier were compared.
Preliminary results indicated that the light barrier might have reduced the number of salmon
13-23
entering Casey Pond through the intake channel (Brown 1999). Technical problems that may
have impacted barrier effectiveness occurred during initial sampling events. Also,
environmental conditions (e.g., water temperature) that influence fish behavior are being
considered as potential factors that may reduce strobe light effectiveness at this site.
McNary Dam
Strobe lights and infrasound were evaluated for their potential for redistributing migrant yearling
and sub-yearling salmonids away from dewatering screens in the McNary Dam Juvenile Bypass
System (Johnson and Ploskey 1998). McNary Dam is a low head, river-run hydroelectric facility
located on the Columbia River in Umatilla, Oregon, approximately 322 km (200.1 mi) upriver
from Portland, Oregon.
Three separate strobe light applications were tested. For the initial spring application, one strobe
head (Flash Technologies AGL Series) was installed in mid-channel at the top of the screen
panels and aimed toward the screen wall. Two strobe heads were deployed later in the spring
and were affixed on the screen wall at 4.3 and 7.3 m (14.1 and 24.0 ft) up-channel from the
downstream edge of the side-dewatering screens. For both the spring tests, the strobe heads were
operated at an intensity of 400 watts and at a flash rate of 100 flashes per min (fpm; April) or 200
fpm (May). For the summer tests, two strobe heads were installed behind the dewatering screens
7.3 and 11 m (24.0 and 36 ft) up-channel, respectively, from the downstream edge of the side-
dewatering screens. A flash rate of 400 fpm and a light intensity of 400 watts were employed for
the summer tests. Strobe light performance was evaluated by comparing the difference in mean
counts of smolts near the side-dewatering screen during hourly strobe on and off treatments
(n=18). High resolution underwater cameras were used to monitor distribution and counts of
smolts during behavioral device tests.
The effectiveness of the strobe lights was evaluated by observing behavioral changes in smolts
passing through areas that were back lit by the strobe flashes. Over 95% of all smolts from
spring and summer strobe tests exhibited behavior modified from the normal behavior observed
by underwater cameras during control periods. Ninety percent of smolts during spring
treatments avoided strobe lights by turning downstream and/or toward the wall opposite of the
dewatering screens. In summer tests, 80% of smolts avoided lights by turning downstream
and/or toward the wall opposite the screens. The location of the strobe lights was important for
successful application. Lights located on or behind the screens flashed light into the left eye of
smolts that were backing down the channel. This usually resulted in avoidance of the screens.
The authors propose that lights located mid-channel flashed smolts from a tail aspect and may
have been an ambiguous stimulus. Factors including limited visibility (due to high water and
turbidity during the 1997 tests) and a skewed lateral distribution of fish toward the east wall
opposite side dewatering screens during both test and control treatments provided inconclusive
results from underwater camera counts.
Mattaceunk Hydroelectric Project

Strobe lights have been evaluated as a means to divert Atlantic salmon (Salmon salar) smolts
and kelts (post-spawned adults) away from turbine intakes and into bypasses at the Mattaceunk
Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2520) on the Penobscot River in Maine (Georgia-Pacific
Corporation 1989, 1990; Great Northern Paper 1995; Brown 1997). The Mattaceunk Project
13-24
(also referred to as Weldon Dam) has four turbine intakes with surface bypasses located at the
intakes to Units 3 and 4 (the two units closest to the shoreline). The bypasses are integral with
the trash racks and measure approximately 1.2 by 2.0 m (3.9 by 6.6 ft). The design flow for each
bypass is about 2 m3/sec (70.6 cfs) at normal pond elevation. The bypasses are covered with
bars spaced 30 cm (11.8 in.) apart. The remaining trash rack sections on the turbine intakes have
bar racks with 2.5 cm (1.0 in.) clear spacing to a depth of 4.9 m (16.1 ft). Fish that enter the
surface bypasses are directed around the dam through a series of rectangular collection chambers
and into a 1.1 m (3.6 ft) diameter pipe. At the terminus of the pipe is a monitoring facility.
Studies conducted since 1987 have assessed several configurations of strobe light arrays with
varying levels of success in diverting smolts and kelts to the surface bypasses. Radio telemetry,
the bypass monitoring facility, and underwater video have been used to determine the numbers
of fish passing the project either through the downstream passage system or through the turbines.
Hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon smolts and kelts were radio tagged and marked prior to their
release upstream of Weldon Dam. Routes of passage of radio tagged fish would be monitored by
scanning receivers. Additional wild and hatchery smolts were marked and released to
supplement efficiency data. All the fish passing through the downstream bypass could be tallied
at the monitoring facility.
The collection efficiency of the downstream passage facility for hatchery Atlantic salmon smolts
was 59% in 1993 and 45% in 1994. For Atlantic salmon kelts, collection efficiency was either
73 or 82% (due to possible fish escape) in 1993. Additional strobe lights were installed before
1995 because evidence revealed that Atlantic salmon were continuing to enter turbine intakes 3
and 4 below the area of illumination created by a single flashhead. The strobe lights were
positioned to provide Units 1 and 2 with complete light field coverage and Units 3 and 4 with
coverage over the lower half of their intakes. The upper halves of the Unit 3 and 4 intakes,
where the bypasses were located, are not illuminated with strobe light.
Results of studies using radio-tagged smolts in 1995 demonstrated that 15% of released fish that
were entrained passed through Units 1 and 2 (18% less than during the 1994 study), and 85%
went through Units 3 and 4 (an increase of 18% from the 1994 study) (Bernier 1995; Brown
1997). In 1997, 20% of entrained radio-tagged fish passed through Units 1 and 2 and 80%
through Units 3 and 4 (Brown and Bernier 1997). Despite the apparent ability of the strobe
lights to divert smolts away from the intakes of Units 1 and 2 and into the intakes of Units 3 and
4, fish capture efficiency did not increase. Radiotag data and underwater video indicated that an
increased number of smolts were directed to the entrance of the bypass outlets. However, there
was an apparent reluctance for fish to enter the bypasses. The percent of released fish that have
used the surface bypasses has never exceeded 59%. The lowest bypass efficiency was observed
during the most recent study in 1997, when 41% of released fish were recovered in the surface
bypasses. The collection efficiency of the downstream passage facility for hatchery Atlantic
salmon smolts was 52% in 1995 and 41% in 1997. For Atlantic salmon kelts, collection
efficiency was 76% in 1995. No smolt studies were conducted in 1996, and no kelt studies were
conducted in 1994, 1996, or 1997 due to high water levels.
Four Mile Hydroelectric Project

Field studies conducted at the Four Mile Hydroelectric Project in Michigan examined the ability
of strobe lights to reduce entrainment of potamodromous fish (GLEC 1994; McCauley et al.
13-25
1996). The Four Mile Project is a run-of the-river facility with three horizontal Francis turbines.
Each unit has a generating capacity of 600 kW and a discharge volume of 13.5 m3/sec (476.7
cfs). In an effort to reduce fish passage through the turbines at this project, an evaluation of the
strobe lights and an air bubble curtain was conducted by comparing fish entrainment rates for
behavioral device operation periods and control periods. Full-flow tailrace netting was used to
collect entrained fish during the behavioral device evaluations. The initial evaluation conducted
in 1994 evaluated "off the shelf" strobe lights. The results from this study indicated that the
behavioral devices had minimal or no impacts on entrainment rates. In 1995, a redesigned strobe
light system was installed and evaluated. Test days were divided into four, 6-hr time periods:
dawn, day, dusk, and night. Each time period was divided into 1.5-hr sample intervals. All three
treatments (strobe light alone, air bubble curtain alone, and strobe/air combined) and the control
were randomly tested during each 6-hr period. Twelve strobe lights were positioned near the six
rectangular openings to the forebay. The strobe light was visible 4.5 to 9 m (14.8 to 29.5 ft) in
front of the intake. To produce the air bubble curtain, three parallel perforated air lines were
placed 15 cm (5.9 in.) apart along the bottom of the reservoir, 2 m (6.6 ft) in front of the forebay.
The lines released air that formed a 30-cm (11.8-in.) wide curtain of air that extended from the
bottom of the reservoir to the surface.
The 1995 study conducted with the redesigned strobe light system demonstrated significant
reductions in entrainment for some fish species. The combination of strobe and air bubble
barrier reduced turbine passage by an average of 81% for all species combined. The strobe lights
operated alone reduced total turbine passage by an average of 77%, and the air treatment alone
produced an average reduction in total entrainment of 43%. Mean percent reductions for
bullhead (Ameiurus spp.), the most abundant species, were 82, 80, and 69% for strobe/air
combined, strobe light alone, and air bubble curtain alone, respectively. For the second most
abundant species, golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), mean percent reductions were 94,
86, and 55% for strobe/air, strobe light alone, and air bubble curtain, respectively. The
reductions in entrainment for bullhead species were statistically significant. However,
reductions for golden shiner were not statistically significant, most likely due to low numbers of
shiners passing through the turbines. The effectiveness of the behavioral barriers used during
this study was found to be dependent on the time of day. Dramatic reductions in the number of
fish (primarily bullhead and shiners) passed during dawn, dusk, and nighttime periods were
observed. None of the treatments were effective during the day time period with any of the
species collected.
Rolfe Canal Hydroelectric Project

A series of downstream fish passage studies, beginning in 1992, was conducted at the Rolfe
Canal Hydroelectric Project as part of a FERC license article requiring upstream and
downstream passage facilities for anadromous fish (Lakeside Engineering 1996). Strobe lights
and incandescent lights were installed prior to the 1993 study, and modifications were made to
the fishway entrance to improve attraction and passage efficiency of Atlantic salmon (Salmo
salar) smolts. Bypass efficiency tests using strobe lights included only the 1993 and 1994
studies and will be the only studies we discuss here. We will report other technologies used in
conjunction with strobe lights at the Rolfe Canal Project in the Hybrid Barrier chapter.
The Rolfe Canal Project is located on the Contocook River in New Hampshire. The project
consists of a concrete spillway, a 1,220 m (4,003 ft) long canal, a 293 m (961.3 ft) long penstock,
13-26
a powerhouse, and a 366 m (1200.8 ft) long tailrace canal. The penstock intake structure has two
3.7 m (12.1 ft) wide, 12.2 m (40 ft) deep bar racks with 8.9 cm (3.5 in.) clear spacing. A bar rack
with 1.9 cm (3/4 in.) clear spacing is located upstream of the wider-spaced racks and extends to a
depth of 4.3 m (14.1 ft) at normal canal level. The project has a single horizontal Kaplan turbine
with a runner diameter of 3 m (9.8 ft) and a rotational speed of 150 rpm. The hydraulic capacity
of the unit is 58 m3/sec (2,048.3 cfs) at minimum net head. The downstream facilities consist of
the narrow-spaced bar racks and a bypass facility with an entrance located next to the penstock
intake.
Strobe lights were used as a means to repel fish away from the penstock intake and guide fish
toward the bypass entrance. The strobes were operated at 300 flashes per min. For the 1993
study, a strobe light was installed on each side of the outer trash rack (1.9 cm [3/4 in.] spacing) at
2/3rds depth. A light-proof cover was installed over the trash rack frame to improve the day time
effectiveness of the strobes. The strobe lights were lowered to the bottom of the trash rack in the
1994 study to discourage smolts from sounding under the trash rack.
A mark-recapture technique was employed to determine the percentage of fish using the bypass
facility during the 1993 studies. A total of 861 marked and 450 unmarked fish were released into
the canal upstream of the intake structure from April 29 to June 11. Recapture rates for all
releases were low (ranging from 1.0% to 53.6%). Based on the 1993 study results, it was
concluded that none of the fishway modifications or additional measures were successful in
achieving an acceptable level of bypass efficiency.
Similar to the 1993 study, the effectiveness of the downstream passage facilities was evaluated
by releasing lots of hatchery smolts into the power canal and collecting fish that passed through
the fishway. Each lot consisted of about 520 fish, most of which were released into the canal.
Any remaining fish were held as controls. The first lot of fish was released 914 m (2,998.7 ft)
upstream of the penstock intake. Due to a low recapture rate of these fish, the next three lots
were released within 152 m (498.7 ft) of the intake. The settings for the various fishway
components (e.g., entrance weir setting) and diversion devices (e.g., barrier net in place, lights on
or off) varied for each release group. The percent of released fish recaptured in the downstream
fishway ranged from 0.4% for Lot 1 to 8.7% for Lot 4. Based on the low recapture rates, it was
concluded that the effects of the different fishway components (entrance weir level, strobe and
incandescent lights, barrier net) could not be reliably assessed. However, the low recapture rates
indicate that the bypass modifications and additional measures employed for the 1994 study, in
the various configurations that they were tested, were ineffective at increasing the efficiency of
the downstream passage facilities at the Rolfe Canal penstock intake.
Fort Halifax Hydroelectric Station

Strobe light was evaluated as part of the downstream fish passage facilities at the Fort Halifax
Hydroelectric Project (Environmental Consulting Services and Lakeside Engineering 1994).
Two sound devices also were examined during this study, and we discuss results from their
evaluation in the chapter on sound technologies. The Fort Halifax Project is the lowermost dam
on the Sebasticook River in Maine. The project has two vertical turbines, each with a maximum
intake flow of 24.1 m3/sec (851.1 cfs). The average approach velocity to the trash rack is 0.50
m/sec (1.64 ft/sec), with both turbines at full capacity. Intake flows approach the trash rack at
angle greater than 45 degrees, and the bar spacing is 3.8 cm (1.5 in.) clear. The bypass consists
13-27
of an automated floating crest weir entrance and a flume that carries fish to a tailrace pool. In
lieu of the installation of bar racks with 2.5-cm (1.0-in) clear spacing, existing trash racks were
modified with a 1.2 m (3.9 ft) plywood overlay. The downstream passage facilities are designed
for use by Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and American shad (Alosa sapidissima) as well as
alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus). Mark-recapture techniques were used to evaluate the ability
strobe light to repel or guide juvenile alewife away from the turbine intakes and toward the
bypass entrance. The strobe light was a 1,000 candela-seconds source operated at 120 flashes
per min. Based on the estimated bypass efficiencies, the strobe light did not appear to affect
alewife behavior. Limited water visibility (i.e., high turbidity) was cited as a possible reason for
a lack of response to strobe light.
York Haven Hydroelectric Project

Juvenile American shad (Alosa sapidissima) demonstrated a strong avoidance response to strobe
lights during field tests conducted over a 5-year period at the York Haven Hydroelectric Project
(EPRI 1990, 1992b; Martin et al. 1991; Martin and Sullivan 1992). The project is located on the
Susquehanna River 15 miles south of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. It consists of a 2,438 m (7,998.7
ft) dam and powerhouse containing six Kaplan turbines and 14 Francis turbines, each with a
capacity of approximately 22.7 m3/sec (801.6 cfs). Strobe lights were evaluated to determine
their ability to divert juvenile shad away from the plant turbines and into an existing trash
sluiceway.
From 1988 to 1991, various arrangements of strobe lights were evaluated (flash rate = 300
flashes per min). In all years, the lights were attached to various floats located in front of the
intake trash racks upstream of an ice/trash sluiceway (considered a safe bypass route) at which
the lights were aimed. The configuration tested in 1991 appears on Figure 13-2.
13-28
Figure 13-2
1991 forebay and float positions, York Haven Hydroelectric Project (Taft et al. 2001)
This configuration was highly effective in preventing fish passage into Units 1 through 6 and
repelling them to the sluiceway bypass. However, the float system created maintenance
problems. Therefore, the system was redesigned for 1992 tests. Four newly designed floats
were arranged in an arc around the sluiceway opening, with none positioned at the trash racks
(Figure 13-3). Two Flash Technology strobe lights were fastened to steel poles under each of the
floats at depths of 0.9 and 2.7 m (3 and 8.9 ft).
13-29
Figure 13-3
1992 forebay and float positions, York Haven Hydroelectric Project (Taft et al 2001)
The strobe light system was evaluated by using scanning sonar and a netting program. The
scanning sonar system (WESMAR Model SS390) was used to monitor fish responses and
behavior to the strobe lights. Tailrace nets were used to quantify the passage of fish through the
turbines and sluiceway. All tests were performed from dusk until early morning, when the
juvenile shad were actively migrating.
The strobe lights strongly and consistently repelled fish in 1988 tests. When the strobes were
turned on, large aggregations of fish were observed to pass immediately through the sluiceway.
The effect of the lights did not diminish over time (up to 1 hr). The illuminated area remained
void of fish as long as the strobes were in operation. When the strobes were turned off, fish
avoiding the lights moved quickly into the previously lit area. Data collected during 1989 and
1990 were limited by the occurrence of major floods, which resulted in most outmigrants passing
over the dam. During these years, however, hydroacoustic observations and limited net sampling
indicated that the light array effectively deterred fish that were approaching the turbine intakes.
In 1991, the new strobe light configuration was evaluated. Favorable flow conditions allowed
extensive sampling to be conducted, including netting in the tailrace and at the sluice gate.
During 156 paired tests (strobe light and control), juvenile American shad passage through the
sluiceway averaged 1,712 fish for strobe light tests and 38 fish for control tests (estimates
adjusted for volume of flow sampled). Passage through the turbine also increased during strobe
light tests. However, the increase only represented about 6% of the fish passed out the
sluiceway. The increase in turbine passage during strobe light illumination demonstrates the
need to determine relationships between behavioral fish bypass systems and site-specific
hydraulics in order to maximize bypass efficiency.
Hadley Falls Hydroelectric Project

In 1987, EPRI sponsored studies examining the use of strobe lights to repel adult American shad
(Alosa sapidissima) at the Hadley Falls Hydroelectric Project located on the Connecticut River in
Holyoke, Massachusetts (EPRI 1990). The project’s powerhouse is located on the west side of
13-30
the dam. The dam also diverts water into a canal system that supplies flow to another
hydroelectric project and various other water users. Adult and juvenile American shad encounter
the Hadley Falls project during outmigrations in the spring and fall, respectively. Once in the
canal system, fish can follow one of two passage routes: downstream to the Boatlock Hydro
Station (where a fish bypass and return pipe transports them back to the river) or down a branch
canal (where they become trapped).
The strobe lights were modified Fish Avoidance Xenon System (FAXS) designed by EG&G. All
the strobe heads were synchronized and operated at a flash rate of 300 flashes per min (fpm).
Strobe lights were suspended into the water from a canal bridge in attempts to repel adult shad
away from a first level canal branch. The effectiveness of the strobe lights in excluding shad
from the branch canal was evaluated by video monitoring. Strobes were sequenced on and off
on an hourly basis for 8 hrs per day, and monitoring efforts were conducted during both on and
off conditions. Video recordings were made during the first 15 min of each test period and for
several min at 0.5-hour intervals throughout the test period.
The tests indicated that the strobe lights were ineffective in repelling adult shad during daylight
hours, which was when most fish movement occurred. Although the point sources (flash tubes)
were highly visible to the human eye, the level of illumination was minor compared to daylight
illumination. This was true even when the photometer sensor was aimed directly at the strobe
lights. Fish were observed moving in schools that reacted to the bridge's shadow by maintaining
position upstream of the shadow. The addition of strobe lights had no apparent effect on the
fish’s behavior as they approached the bridge. Fish were observed swimming within a few
inches of the light even though the light was flashing directly toward their eyes. The lack of
reaction indicated that strobe light as an indirect or direct (point source) stimulus had no effect
on adult American shad during daylight hours.
Puntledge Generating Station

A study was conducted by B. C. Hydro to evaluate the effectiveness of strobe lights, an
underwater hammer, and a hanging chain system in deterring coho salmon (Oncorhynchus
kisutch) smolts from the penstock intakes at the Puntledge Generating Station (Bengeyfield and
Smith 1989). Puntledge Station is a hydroelectric project located about 6.5 km (4 mi)
downstream of Comox Lake, Vancouver, B.C. Water enters the generating station through a 100
m (328 ft) long, 15 to 20 m (49.2 to 65.6 ft) wide, 3 to 5 m (9.8 to 16.4 ft) deep approach
channel. The channel carries a minimum flow of 2.8 m3/sec (98.8 cfs). Fish passage is provided
by a 2.4 m (7.9 ft) wide stoplog spillway. Total turbine discharges during the test periods were
20.4 and 27.2 m3/sec (709.8 and 960.6 cfs).
A single underwater strobe light was positioned beneath the upstream end of the logboom near
the concrete wall and pointed diagonally downstream to illuminate the chain curtain. The strobe
light operated at approximately 1-second intervals. All the behavioral devices were on for two
nights and off for two nights each week and left on during weekends throughout the periods of
fish migration. Strobe lights were not operated during daylight hours except on weekends.
The effectiveness of the behavioral devices (all devices were operated in unison) was evaluated
by comparing the catch distribution of smolts in the bypass versus the catch distribution in the
tailrace when the devices were on and off. Trapping of smolts was conducted simultaneously in
the bypass and in the tailrace. Two 15 cm (5.9 in.) wide Wolf traps were used in the bypass, and
13-31
a single steel-mesh cone trap was used in the tailrace. From May 12 to June 23, 1989, both
migration routes were systematically trapped. All of the catches were sorted by species,
examined for marks, and counted. Additionally, a subsample of the smolt catches was measured
for fork lengths. The Wolf traps sampled 14.3% of the bypass spill width. Combined catches
from both Wolf traps were used in a regression formula to estimate the total number of smolts
that moved through the bypass during the study period. Estimates for the number of smolts
passing through the penstock were arrived at similarly. Tailrace trap numbers were recorded and
entered into formulas to adjust for weekend catches, water discharge rates, and trap efficiency.
A two sample t-test was used to compare the on and off sample observations.
The behavioral devices did not significantly increase the proportion of coho salmon smolts using
the bypass. Results of the calculated t-value of 0.81 suggested that the difference in mean
catches between on and off nights could have occurred by chance. Observations of coho smolt
behavior did indicate reaction to one or more of the behavioral devices. The devices, however,
failed to provide sufficient behavioral cues to divert or guide a significant number of fish away
from the penstock and into the bypass. The authors suggest that better results may have been
attained at sites with slower, near-laminar flow.
Rocky Reach Dam

The Chelan County Public Utility District No. 1 funded a 2-year study to investigate the potential
for strobe lights to improve fish guidance efficiencies (FGE) of a prototype submersible traveling
screen (STS) at Rocky Reach Dam on the Columbia River (Anderson et al. 1988). From 1986 to
1987, strobe lights, incandescent lights, and a deflector projecting outward from the trash rack
were deployed. The following discussion presents results of the strobe light evaluation at Rocky
Reach Dam.
Two strobe lights were attached to the trash rack and aimed upward into the water column during
spring of 1986 in an attempt to drive fish upward where they would be intercepted by the STS.
Field tests and model studies suggested that fish could move horizontally away from the strobe
beam, and therefore the configuration of the strobes (located on the trash rack and facing into the
forebay) would not significantly improve guidance. In summer of 1986, the strobe lights were
moved to provide illumination to the trash rack from below. It was postulated that fish moving
down the trash rack face would encounter the strobe lights and escape through the trash rack and
into the STS. Field tests indicated that lighting the trash rack did not improve passage of fish. A
bar screen deflector was mounted immediately below the level of the STS, and strobe lights were
attached just above the bar screen. The purpose of the deflector was to “box-in” fish between the
strobe and the deflector so that passage through the trash rack was the only available escape
route. The deflector strategy was proven ineffective in field tests. Fish were able to move
around the front of the deflector with or without the strobe light operating.
Seton Creek
Strobe lights, pneumatic poppers, and a hammer device were tested as means to divert
downstream migrating sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) smolts away from turbine intakes
at the Seton Hydroelectric Station. The station is located on Seton Creek near the town of
Lillooet in British Columbia (McKinley et al 1987; McKinley and Patrick 1988). The strobe
lights used were Superfreeze flash unsynchronized units, operated at 200 flashes per min.
13-32
Tests were performed by sampling downstream migrants with fyke nets attached to two
platforms (i.e., experimental and control) anchored in the forebay about 350 m (1148.3 ft)
upstream of the project intake. The behavioral devices were mounted on one of the platforms
(experimental platform) near the top of the water column. Testing was performed at night when
peak diel migration occurs. Five to 10 paired control and experimental tests were conducted for
each behavioral device. Additionally, 12 control replicates, with no behavior devices operating
on either test structure, were conducted to correct any bias in fish distribution between the two
platforms. The effectiveness of the behavioral devices was assessed by comparing the fyke net
catches from each platform during 0.5-hour test periods. The difference in the number of fish
caught between the control and experimental nets (effectiveness index) was calculated for each
device.
The percent effectiveness for the strobe lights was approximately 56%. A lower catch of
sockeye in the experimental structure was observed in all tests except the last one, during which
it was noticed that one of the strobe lights was giving off less light, thereby reducing the area of
influence. Earlier laboratory tests had indicated that the effectiveness of strobe lights would be
reduced significantly at high water velocities, especially at velocities approaching about 1.0
m/sec (3.3 ft/sec). The maximum sustained swimming speed for sockeye smolts was estimated
at about 0.4 m/sec (1.3 ft/sec). Because water velocities were relatively high at Seton, it was
believed that the smolts would have to respond to the strobe lights within a certain distance if
they were to avoid net capture. The area of influence of the strobe light was estimated to be
approximately 4.9 m (16.1 ft). The results from popper and hammer tests are presented in the
sound barrier section.
Case Studies – Strobe Light – Cage and Open Water Tests
Dworshak Dam
Strobe lights have been evaluated as a potential means to reduce entrainment of Kokanee salmon
(Oncorhynchus nerka) at Dworshak Dam in Idaho (Brown 1999). Exploratory tests were
conducted at night at nearby lakes and in the project impoundment in 1997 and 1998 during
spring, summer, and winter months. The tests consisted of anchoring a boat in an area of the
study site with high densities of Kokanee salmon and then lowering four strobe lights to a
predetermined depth. The lights (Flash Technologies, Franklin, TN) were pointed horizontally at
90 degree angles and turned on and off. Flash rates of 300, 360, and 400 flashes per min were
evaluated and intensities at a Secchi depth of 9.5 m (31.2 ft) were between 59 and 56 lux at the
360 and 450 flash rates, respectively. Another boat equipped with a Simrad EY500 split-beam
echosounder made multiple passes in the area of the light and recorded any change in the
distribution of Kokanee when the lights were alternated on and off. Fish densities were
estimated (EP500 software, v. 4.5 or 5.2) within 30 m (98.4 ft) in horizontally and 5 m (16.4 ft)
vertically of the flash heads in all trials except during testing in October 1998 when they were
estimated within 70 m (229.7 ft) horizontally of the flash heads. The experimental design was
the same for all three tests with variations in strobe light depth, duration of the on/off intervals,
and strobe light flash rates. The results of all trials are summarized in (Table 13-4).
The initial tests with Kokanee and strobe lights were conducted during the spring of 1997. In
May, the strobe lights were tested at a depth of about 12 m (39.4 ft) in water that was 22 m (72.2
ft) deep, with flash rate 450 flashes per min. During treatment, fish mean fish distance and
13-33
density dropped significantly from 7 m (23 ft) and 814 fish/ha, respectively, during controls, to
30 m (98.4 ft) and 138 fish/ha. Similarly, during testing in June, mean fish distance and density
dropped from 7 m (23 ft) and 1,200 fish/ha to 30 m (98.4 ft) and 235 fish/ha with the lights
operating at 300 flashes per min. Additional tests were performed with the boat drifting to
simulate fish approaching the lights. The distribution of Kokanee appeared unaffected when the
lights were off. Fish were observed moving rapidly away from the strobe lights when they were
activated. All flash rates tested appeared to be equally effective at repelling Kokanee to an
average distance of 30.5 m (100 ft) for the entire duration (about 45 min) of each test. Summer
tests were conducted in August 1997, with a flash rate of 360 flashes per min. The boat from
which the strobe lights were deployed was kept in the same place the entire night to determine if
salmon would habituate to the strobe over an extended period of time. During this test, Kokanee
were repelled by the strobe light for the duration of the test (approximately 6 hrs) and maintained
an average distance of about 40 m (131 ft) from the lights. Fish densities also decreased
significantly by 94% within 30 m (98.4 ft) of the lights.
Testing conducted in Lake Pend Oreille yielded very similar results (Table 13-4). During June
testing, a flash rate of 300 flashes per min yielded significant decreases in fish distance and
density from 4 m (13.1 ft) and 751 fish/ha to 45 m (147.6 ft) and 120 fish/ha. A flash rate of 450
resulted in significant decreases in fish distance and density from 6m (19.7 ft) and 548 fish/ha to
45 m (147.6 ft) and 154 fish/ha.
The winter tests were conducted in February 1998 to determine the effectiveness of strobe lights
during periods when water clarity was high (Secchi depth of 17.5 m [57.4 ft]) and at locations
where depths exceeded 183 m (600.4 ft). During the winter tests, the strobe lights (360 flashes
per min) were lowered to a depth of 20.1 m (65.9 ft). Kokanee were a mean distance of 14 m
(45.9 ft) from the strobe lights when they were turned off. Fish moved an average of 120 m
(393.7 ft) away from the strobe lights after they were activated. The densities of Kokanee within
30 m (98.4 ft) of the strobe lights decreased significantly from an average of 372 fish/ha to 4
fish/ha. The much greater avoidance distance that was observed during the winter tests (about
three times as far as observed during spring and summer tests) was attributed to the higher level
of water clarity. Tests conducted in Lake Pend Oreille in October of 1998 yielded similar results
although the Secchi depth was substantially lower (9.9 m [32.5 ft]) (Table 13-4). Based on the
results of these tests, the potential for effective application of strobe lights at Dworshak Dam was
considered promising, but additional testing, including an on-site evaluation, was recommended.
Results of a recent onsite evaluation conducted by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game
demonstrated the effectiveness of the lights in decreasing densities of fish near the turbine
intakes.
13-34
Table 13-4
Strobe light testing results for Spirit Lake and Lake Pend Oreille. P-values are for paired t-tests
between treatment and control groups (Maiolie et al. 2001).
Reduction in
Mean distance to first
Secchi Flash rate fish density
group of fish (m)
Lake Date depth (flashes within 30m
(m) /min) P- P-
control test Percent
value value
Spirit Lake 5/29/97 3.7 450 7 39 0.036 83 0.023
Spirit Lake 6/17/97 - 300 7 30 0.006 80 0.071
Spirit Lake a
7/30/97 4.7 360 1 40 < 0.001 94 0.002
Lake Pend Oreille 6/18/97 2.75 300 4 45 < 0.001 84 0.098
Lake Pend Oreille 6/18/97 2.75 450 6 45 0.009 72 0.084
Lake Pend Oreille 2/25/98 17.5 360 14 120 0.026 98 0.021
Lake Pend Oreille 10/29/98 9.9 300,360,450b 0 136 0.004 100 0.015c
a
Testing July 30, was the habituation experiment
b
Analysis of three flash rates were combined
c
Kokanee density estimates were analyzed within 70m of the lights
Kingsford Hydroelectric Project

The response of potamodromous fishes to types of behavioral guidance devices was evaluated
during cage tests conducted at the Kingsford Hydroelectric Project on the Menominee River in
Wisconsin (Winchell et al. 1997; EPRI 1998a, b; Michaud and Taft 2000). The cage tests were
designed to determine whether stimuli produced by the selected devices could elicit avoidance or
attraction responses that may be useful for designing or enhancing the effectiveness of fish
passage and protection systems. As part of this study, the ability of strobe lights to elicit
avoidance reactions during cage tests and to reduce entrainment at a turbine intake was
evaluated. The field evaluation was conducted at the White Rapids Hydroelectric Project and is
discussed above in the section describing strobe light field evaluations. Similarly, we discuss
tests with the other behavioral devices that were evaluated in their respective sections.
Fish response to strobe light was assessed by placing a group of fish in the test cage (3.6 by 1 by
1 m [11.8 by 3.3 by 3.3 ft]) and alternating the operation of single lights located at either end of
the cage. Each light was activated for periods up to 10 min in duration. An underwater video
system was used to observe fish during each test. Qualitative observations describing fish
response were made based on spatial and temporal movements (i.e., distance, direction, and
speed of movement). The species that were evaluated with strobe lights included walleye
(Sander vitreus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), smallmouth bass (Micropterus
dolomieu), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), sunfish species (Centrarchids), and rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss). The target size range for test specimens was 50 to 250 mm (2.0 to 9.8
in.) in length. Test fish were collected from the Menominee River and from private hatchery
sources. During the cage tests conducted at Kingsford, strobe lights elicited consistent avoidance
13-35
reactions from walleye, and weak reactions from largemouth bass and yellow perch. No
responses to strobe light were observed for smallmouth bass, sunfish species, and rainbow trout.
Based on observations for the three species that exhibited avoidance, strobe lights were selected
to be evaluated during the field study conducted at the White Rapids Project, as we discuss
above.

Cage tests were conducted at the Chittenden Locks to evaluate the response of juvenile
salmonids to strobe light and sound stimuli (Ploskey and Johnson 1998, 2001; Ploskey et al.
1998a; Johnson et al 2001). Experiments were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of these
devices in eliciting vertical avoidance in juvenile salmonids. Tests with sound devices are
discussed later. The studies were conducted using a 4 m (13.1 ft) long, 1.5 m (4.9 ft) diameter
net pen with 3.2-mm (0.1-in.) mesh webbing. Four underwater cameras were mounted at 1 m
(3.3 ft) intervals on the net pen frame to monitor fish behavior. The strobe lights used in this
study consisted of three flash heads mounted together on a single frame. Each light was operated
at 300 flashes per min. Tests were conducted with the long axis of the cage oriented vertically
and horizontally. The lights were located below the pen for vertical tests and within 1.5 m (4.9
ft) of one end of the pen during horizontal tests. All tests were conducted during daylight hours
due to difficulty of monitoring with the video system at night. Groups of 10 to 25 fish were
placed into the net pen approximately 30 to 60 min before a test was initiated. Each camera’s
field of view was divided into two parts, producing a total of eight zones. The number of fish
located in each zone was used to assess fish movement during each test by calculating a center of
school position at specified time intervals.
Avoidance responses were observed during most of the strobe light tests. The maximum range
of effectiveness for the strobe light was estimated at approximately 4.5 m (14.8 ft). If the
ambient light intensity was weak (i.e., greater contrast between strobe light and ambient light),
the strobe light had a greater effectiveness distance. The frequency of vertical avoidance by
juvenile salmonids was 90 to 100% when the strobe lights were located within 0.5 m (1.6 ft) of
the bottom of the pen. Avoidance frequency decreased to about 45% for yearling coho salmon
(Oncorhynchus kisutch) when the pen was moved 2.5 m (8.2 ft) away from the lights. When the
lights were moved 4.5 to 6.5 m (14.8 to 21.3 ft) away, avoidance frequency decreased to about
19%. Thirty-second reactance tests demonstrated initial avoidance responses, whereas 10-min
exposures revealed prolonged changes in movement patterns. During these 10-min trials, the
fish that received the strobe light treatment moved quickly at least 3 m (9.8 ft) away from the
light source and eventually to the uppermost portion of the net pen furthest from the light until
the lights were shut off and the fish slowly began to redistribute. We present results of the 10-
min trials in Figure 13-4. Observations indicated that horizontal and 45 degree upward aiming of
strobe lights into the bottom 1 m (3.3 ft) of the pen were effective in eliciting strong and
consistent avoidance.
13-36
Figure 13-4
Vertical distance of yearling coho salmon above strobe lights that were flashing five times/sec
for 0 to 10 min (left) and the same distances for schools during control treatments without
strobe light (right) (Ploskey and Johnson 2001).
An open water study produced similar results in May 1998 when 10 strobe light flash heads at
flash rates of 300 flashes per second were installed around the perimeter and in the front of the
north-filling culvert. (Johnson et al 2001). This study compared paired strobelight on/off
densities of juvenile salmon before and during fill event at the lock during daylight hours. Fish
densities at the depth of the culvert (8 to 13 m [26.2 to 32.8 ft]) decreased by 96% with the strobe
lights on during daylight hours.
13-37
This experimental strobe light system was consequently accepted as a permanent installation
based on its effectiveness in deterring the passage of juvenile salmonids. Since then, an
evaluation of the strobe light system was conducted and concluded that, on average,significantly
less fish were entrained during periods when the lights were on at all strata (P = <0.0001). It was
not determined whether or not strobe lights enhanced passage at the locks by vertically
displacing juvenile salmon, however tests showed that fish were displaced closer to the surface
when strobe lights were used (Johnson et al. 2004).
Roza Diversion Dam

The response of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) smolts to strobe lights was
evaluated during cage tests conducted at the Roza Diversion Dam screening facilities located on
the Yakima River in Washington (Amaral et al. 1998). The tests were conducted to determine if
strobe lights could be used to guide outmigrating smolts to the screening facilities and increase
bypass use. A drop light and an infrasound generator also were evaluated during this study. We
describe the response of Chinook salmon to these devices later. In addition to Chinook salmon, a
limited series of tests were conducted with Northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis)
and smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) to assess the potential of strobe lights to be used as
a predator deterrent.
Behavioral deterrent tests at Roza were conducted using a cage (3.7 by 0.9 by 0.9 m [12.1 by 3
by 3 ft]) suspended from a floating test facility (modified pontoon boat). A test channel (0.4 by
3.4 by 0.6 m [1.3 by 11.2 by 2 ft]) was constructed within the cage and was supplied with a
continuous flow of water that created velocities of about 0.12 m/sec (0.4 ft/sec) during most
tests. Both the cage and the test channel were enclosed with transparent plastic sheeting. An
underwater video system with four cameras was used to monitor fish behavior in the test channel
during each test. Strobe lights were mounted on aluminum poles and deployed at either end of
the test facility deck (i.e., upstream and downstream of the cage). Three different light positions
relative to the ends of the cage were evaluated. The strobe light flash heads were aimed
perpendicular to the length-wise axis of the test channel. This positioning created a light
gradient across the length of the test channel that varied in intensity depending on ambient light
levels and the position of the lights relative to the end of the cage.
Two series of tests were conducted with strobe lights and Chinook salmon. The first series
consisted of exposing fish to strobe light from one end of the cage for 1 to 2 min periods. The
second series consisted of alternating the operation of the lights at either end of the cage for 10-
min exposure periods during a total test period of 60 min (i.e., each light was operated for three
10-min periods). Flash rates of 300 and 450 flashes per min were evaluated during both test
series. A group of 12 to 25 Chinook salmon smolts were used in each test. Northern
pikeminnow also were evaluated during two 60-min nighttime tests with four fish (one test was
conducted at 300 flashes per min and the other at 450), and four smallmouth bass were evaluated
during one test at 450 flashes per min.
Fish responses were evaluated by calculating a center of school position at 15-second intervals
during 1-min exposure tests, at 30-second intervals during 2-min tests, and at 1-min intervals
during 60-min exposure tests. Tests were conducted during daytime, dusk, and nighttime hours
to assess fish responses under different ambient light conditions. Supplemental lighting was
used within the test cage during 1-min nighttime tests to allow for video observations. This
13-38
lighting was not used during 2-min and 60-min tests, during which observations of fish
movement were made by a biologist positioned above the cage (this also prevented the use of
control periods because fish could not be seen without any lights on). Fish movement during 1-
min exposure tests was compared to movement during control periods. Fish movements during
2-min and 60-min tests were assessed for speed and distance of movement away from the active
light source based on the center of school position over time.
Chinook salmon did not demonstrate any obvious or consistent avoidance responses to strobe
light during the 1-min test periods. Movement of fish during treatment periods generally was
similar to movements observed during control periods. Fish responses during the 2-min
exposure tests (which were conducted at night without supplemental lighting) also were limited,
but there was some movement away from the active light source. Movement of fish during these
tests was constrained by their location at the beginning of a test. During the 60-min tests
conducted at night, Chinook salmon strongly and consistently avoided the strobe lights.
Avoidance reactions were characterized by movement from the end of the cage nearest the active
source to the end furthest away, where fish remained until the light source was switched to the
end at which fish were holding position. This pattern of behavior was observed during the entire
duration of nighttime tests, although the strength of response when the upstream light was
activated appeared to diminish with time. No discernible reactions to strobe light were noted
during 60-min daytime and dusk tests. A lack of response during these periods of the day most
likely was due to little or no contrast between ambient light and the strobe light within the test
channel.
Northern pikeminnow exhibited moderate directional responses to 300 flashes per min but not
450 flashes per min. Smallmouth bass reactions were similar to those observed for Chinook
salmon during 60-min tests. Strong directional avoidance to the end of the cage opposite the
active source was observed each time light operation was switched. Because a limited number of
tests with only a few fish were conducted with Northern pikeminnow and smallmouth bass, it
was recommended that further studies be conducted to verify the observations that were made
during this study.
Ludington Pumped Storage

The effects of strobe lights, mercury lights, and hammers on fish densities were examined at the
Ludington Pumped Storage Project (EPRI 1990). The devices were tested as potential means to
reduce entrainment of Lake Michigan fish into the reservoir during pumpback operation. The
project is located near Ludington, Michigan, on the east shore of Lake Michigan. The
powerhouse consists of six turbine units that also serve as pumpback units. Flows are 1,869
m3/sec (66,003.1 cfs) during pumpback operation.
A boat, secured by piles on both side, served as a work platform in the test zone. Four strobe
lights were used, two set at a depth of 1.5 m (4.9 ft) and two set at a depth of 4.6 m (15.1 ft), with
9.l m (29.9 ft) of horizontal distance between the pairs. The strobe lights used were modified
Fish Avoidance Xenon System (FAXS) designed by EG&G. The 1,000 W mercury lights were
set in a similar configuration. Ontario Hydro supplied the two hammers that were tested.
Over a 4-month period in 1987, the behavioral devices were evaluated during nighttime hours
near one of the project's intake jetties (where fish were known to congregate). Each test lasted
for 2 hrs. During this time, three test conditions or two test conditions and one control were
13-39
evaluated. When the plant was operating in pumpback mode, fish abundance was monitored
using hydroacoustic techniques during periods with and without test devices operating. Gill net
sampling was performed during testing to identify fish species in the test area.
Statistical procedures were used to determine the influence of the test devices and test periods on
fish abundance. For all three of the months in which strobe lights were tested, fish abundance
was lower during periods of strobe light illumination than periods with the lights off. When the
monthly data are combined, the average fish abundance during strobe light illumination periods
[abundance index (A.I.) = 2.99] was significantly less than the average abundance for the control
condition (A.I. = 8.03). The mercury lights achieved a consistent attraction of resident fish. The
average abundance of fish present with the mercury lights on (A.I. = 15.38) was nearly twice that
of the control condition (A.I. = 8.03). The difference in fish abundance between test and control
conditions was significantly different in all test months. The results of hammer tests were
considered inconclusive. Overall, the mean abundance of fish in the test area with the hammers
operating was less than the control condition. However, the results for individual months were
variable. In 1 month, the mean abundance of fish was greater when the hammers were operating
(EPRI 1990).
R. H. Saunders Generating Station

American eels (Anguilla rostrata) showed strong avoidance response to strobe lights in both
laboratory tests and in the field (Patrick et al. 1982). Field test with strobe lights were conducted
at the entrance to an eel ladder at the R. H. Saunders Generating Station. The station is located
on the St. Lawrence River in Cornwall, Ontario. The study objective was to determine the
feasibility of using strobe lights to exclude migrating eels from the turbine housing at R. H.
Saunders GS.
American eels were netted at the R. H. Saunders GS dam in August of 1979 and placed in 2.4 m
(7.9 ft) circular diameter tanks for the laboratory investigations. The eels used ranged in length
from 30 to 50 cm (11.8 to 19.7 in.). The tank was divided into three areas approximately 1.5 m2
(16.1 ft2) each. One of the chambers was illuminated with white strobe light (1 watt flash power,
Tandy Electronics). Varying degrees of light intensities and flash rates (66, 220, 484, 748, and
1,090 flashes per min) were tested. Nine replicates, using 15 eels per replicate, were conducted
at 5- and 15-min test intervals. After each test interval, the number of eels in each chamber was
recorded, and observations on the distribution of eels (relative to the light source) were noted. A
closed circuit TV was used to monitor eels during laboratory tests to determine if eels were
exhibiting behavioral adaptations to the strobe light.
Field studies used the existing eel ladder, with modifications, as a collection facility. A
collecting trough was installed at the terminus of the ladder. The trough led into a collection
tank with sizing chambers. Strobe lights were located at the entrance to the eel ladder. Two
strobe light intensities were tested. One configuration included three strobes: two small (1-watt
flash power, Tandy Electronics) strobes and one large (40 watt flash power, York Instruments)
strobe pointed toward the entrance of the ladder. The alternative configuration employed an
additional strobe light (York Instruments) at the mouth of the eel ladder. The number of eels
passing over the ladder was recorded for both test (strobe lights operating) and control (strobe
lights off) conditions.
13-40
Results for the laboratory tests reported that the mean number of eels was at least six times lower
in the illuminated chamber for all strobe frequencies. There was no statistical difference
between strobe frequencies (F2,49=0.87, p>0.05), which suggested that the rate of strobe flashing
did not influence eel avoidance. Behavioral monitoring in laboratory tests indicated that eels
showed a strong avoidance to the lit area. There was a 94% reduction in the total number of eels
in the lit zone compared to chamber occupancy under uniform light conditions.
Field studies resulted in high variability in numbers of eels collected in control and test periods.
The lower intensity strobe configuration produced reductions of 66.9, 77.0, and 65.3% in eel
numbers passing the ladder (relative to control numbers). The higher intensity tests achieved
reductions of 89.1 and 91.6% in eel ladder passage. The experimental test number of eels
collected was statistically lower than that recorded from the control tests.
Lake Oahe
A field study was conducted to test the effectiveness of strobe lights deterring rainbow smelt
(Osmerus mordax) in Lake Oahe, South Dakota (Hamel et al. 2008). Lake Oahe is the largest of
four main stem, multi-purpose reservoirs on the Missouri River in South Dakota. By volume, it
is the 14th largest reservoir in the world. The Oahe Dam has seven intake structures that
transport water through 7.3-m (24-ft) diameter, steel-line concrete tunnels to the powerhouse that
consist of seven Francis turbines. Intakes are located at mid-depth of the dam to facilitate deep-
water releases.
Night testing of strobe lights was conducted from June through September of 2004 and 2005.
During 2004 tests, a model AGL-FH 901 flash-head consisting of four horizontal lights
positioned at 90 degrees was used. It flashed at 450 flashes per min and 2,634 lumens per flash.
A model AGL-FH 920 omni-directional flash-head was used during 2005 testing. This model
has a single vertical light tube that is able to produce flashes in a full 360 degrees range. It
flashed at 360 flashes per min and 6,585 lumens per flash.
From 1996-1999, the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks conducted
hydroacoustic and mid-water trawl surveys in lower Lake Oahe. This survey was dominated by
rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax), comprising 90-100% of the trawl catches. From this data, fish
were assumed to be rainbow smelt during the 2004-2005 study. The strobes were deployed in
the lacustine zone at the thermocline (i.e., the area of high rainbow smelt abundance during the
period of testing). An anchored boat with a hydraulic winch was used to lower and raise the
strobes out of the water. Behavior and abundance of rainbow trout was monitored using a
separate boat, equipped with radar, GPS, and hydroacoustic equipment. To determine the
position to deploy the device, hydroacoustic transects were undertaken to determine locations
and depths of high abundances. Once deployed, behavior and abundances were tracked using a
hydroacoustic transducer housed in a buoyant PVC platform. The platform was positioned and
re-positioned every 5 min along a transect starting at 3 m (9.8 ft) out from the strobes and
increasing at intervals 3 m (9.8 ft) to maximum distance of 21 m (68.9 ft). Data collection was
first conducted with the strobes turned off to serve as a control. After the control data collection,
the strobes were activated and the transect was repeated. Once completing the transect, the
hydroacoustic transducer was turned off while the strobes remained on. After 4 hrs, the
transducer was reactivated and the transect was repeated. The EchoShape post processing
program was used to estimate rainbow smelt densities and determine difference between time
13-41
and depth interval. The effectiveness of the strobes was evaluated by comparing densities at
exposures of 1 hr and 4 hrs to control densities.
Testing of the FH-901 model was conducted on September 7th and 16th in 2004. On September
7th, water depth was 45 m (147.6 ft) and the depth of the thermocline was 25 m (82 ft). The
strobe was deployed at 24 m (78.7 ft), the maximum allowable depth because of the length of the
cord. Density of rainbow smelt in the area was approximately 5 fish/100 m3.There was a
significant decrease densities by 51% (P<0.01) after 1 hr and 46% after 4 hrs (P<0.01) compared
to control densities. Upon activation, a significantly higher portion of fish densities (89%
(P<0.01)) occupied the bottom strata below the strobe light. Because of such high densities at
the bottom strata, there was no significant difference between time intervals and depth (P= 0.87).
On September 16th, water depth and strobe depth were comparable to the prior test and rainbow
smelt density was 4 fish/100 m3. The 4 hr waiting period after the transect was not carried out
because of inclement weather. There was a significant decrease of densities by 78% (P <0.01)
after 1 hr compared to the control group. Densities were significantly larger at the bottom strata
(P<0.01) upon activation. There were significant differences between time intervals and depth
(P=0.02).
In 2005, tests for the FH-920 were conducted on August 11, 15; and September 24. On August
11, water depth was 44 m (144.4 ft) and the thermocline depth was 21 m (68.9 ft). Densities of
rainbow smelt in the area were 7 fish/100 m3. Before activation, fish densities were significantly
higher at the top strata than the bottom (P<0.01). Once activated, densities at the bottom strata
were greater than the top strata (P<0.01). However, there was no significant difference in
densities at the bottom strata between control and treatment fish (P>0.5). It was suggested that
fish present at the top strata before activation were deterred beyond the furthest distance of
measure. Identical densities were seen after the 4 hr waiting period, suggesting no acclimation
behavior. Testing on August 15 was conducted at a similar water depth with fish densities of 5
fish/100 m3. Testing during this period produced almost identical results to the previous day of
testing.
Testing conducted on September 26th was at water depths of 35 m (115 ft) at fish densities of
fish/100 m3. Densities between treatments and controls demonstrated a significant shift to the
bottom strata (P=0.04). After the 4 hr waiting period, densities significantly increase compared
to controls (P<0.01), however the distribution remained greater in the bottom strata.
Results collected from this study determined that strobe lights would reduce entrainment of
rainbow smelt at high water conditions during nighttime hours. With this being said, not all
potential factors effecting success of strobe lights as a deterrent were tested.
Grand Coulee Dam

Grand Coulee Dam is located on the Columbia River, Washington. The dam consists of four
power plants and a spillway. Thirty-three generators have a total generating capacity of 6,809
MW. The spill way is 498 m (1,635 ft) long, located in the middle of the dam and consists of 11
spill gates.
Fish distribution and behavioral analyses were conducted to determine the effectiveness of strobe
lights at eliciting negative phototactic response by Kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka) and rainbow
trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (Simmons et al. 2002). Testing was conducted at the entrance of
13-42
the forebay of the third power plant from June 30 through August 1 2001. Strobes were aimed at
a restricted region directly upstream of the barge location. Three strobe lights, each produced a
maximum of 20,000 lumens/flash at a flash rate of 360 flashes/min, were mounted on an
aluminum frame and deployed from the barge at a depth of approximately 9 m (29.5 ft) (Figure
13-5). Four splitbeam hydroacoustic transducers were used to track fish movements, two
directed upward in the water column and two directed downward. Treatment scenarios for fish
distribution testing were lights on 24 hrs, lights off 24 hrs, and alternating lights on/off every
hour for 24 hrs. A fixed barge was set upstream of the power plant. Fish behavior was observed
during 24 hour on/off periods. Swim speed and amount of turning behavior determined
avoidance behavior.
Figure 13-5
Deployment of strobe lights and hydroacoustic transducers from fixed barge (Simmons et al.
2002)
In comparing 24-hr lights on/off conditions, 19,485 and 15,869 were present with the lights on
and off respectively. Fish were more evident in downward looking transducers than upward
looking transducers.A total of 15,329 fish were detected during the 1-hr on/off treatments. In
general, more fish were detected while lights were on during the 1-hr on/off treatments, but there
was no significant trend. As with the 24-hr on/off conditions, more fish were evident by the
downward looking transducers. Substantial factors affecting the fish distribution analysis
included power plant discharge, distance from lights, and test date.
Behavioral tests demonstrated that fish attempted to avoid the lights within a distance of 14 m
(49.5 ft) by swimming across the lighted region or upstream. Swimming behaviors were found
to be faster and straighter while the lights were on. These behaviors were more pronounced by
medium and large sized fish during night conditions.
13-43
Although more fish were present during lights on conditions, 50% of the detections were beyond
22 m (72.2 ft). Behavior evaluations indicate negative phototactic responces to lights. The
authors indicate that this is first complex hydroacoustic study conducted at the third power plant
forebay of Grand Coulee and recommended a number of modifications and enhancements for a
follow-up study. Further studies providing additional data will help merit future strobe light
installation.
Case Studies – Strobe Light – Laboratory Studies
Laboratory Study - Saimaa Fisheries Research and Aquaculture Station, Finland

To evaluate the effect of strobe light on the behavior of whitefish (Coregonus lavaretus), field
and laboratory experiments were carried out in 1999. The response of whitefish to strobe light
had not been previously studied. While most other studies of fish response to strobe light
focused on groups of fish, this study examined the responses of individual fish. Fish behavior
was characterized by both swimming speed and swimming direction to determined if they
exhibit an avoidance response to strobe light and if it is possible to guide fish in a certain
direction using strobe light (Königson et al. 2002).
Both the field and laboratory efforts used a bank of three strobe lights (3 by 20 W, 100 µs pulse)
set to flash independently about three times per second. The field study was conducted during
darkness in an 8,000 m2 (86,111 ft2) rectangular net enclosure located at Birkö, an island on the
Swedish coast of the Baltic Sea. The maximum depth in the enclosure was 8 m (26.2 ft). Wild
whitefish (850 g mean weight) were externally tagged with ultrasonic transmitters and released
in the enclosure. The fish were given up to 20 hrs to recover before testing commenced. Three
hydrophones were used to triangulate the position of fish in the enclosure and monitor their
movement at 30 second intervals. The strobe light device was suspended from a small row boat
at 1.5 m (4.9 ft) below the water surface aiming horizontally towards the front of the boat. Prior
to activating the strobe light, the boat was moved closer to the tagged fish. After the strobe light
was activated, the boat was rotated for 10 seconds to ensure that the fish was subjected to the
light. To determine whether the movement of the boat was responsible for the fish’s behavior
rather than the strobe light, five control trials were conducted in which the boat was maneuvered
in the same manner but without activating the strobe light.
The laboratory study was conducted at the Saimaa Fisheries Research and Aquaculture Station in
Finland in a 2.5 by 1.4 by 0.5 m (8.2 by 4.6 by 1.6 ft) rectangular tank. The test facility was
surrounded by a black tarpaulin to create a darkened environment. The strobe light device was
positioned in the middle of the tank on one side in a vertical orientation. A shield was installed
over the strobe light device to create a 25-degree wide beam when activated. An infrared lamp
illuminated the tank and an infrared sensitive video system was used to monitor fish. Forty-six
hatchery reared fish of wild stock (17 to 24 cm [6.7 to 9.4 in.] total length) were separately
introduced to the tank and allowed to acclimate for a minimum of 4 hrs before a trial began. Fish
movement was monitored for 5 to 10 min before and after the strobe light was activated, and
during the 5 to 10 seconds the strobe light was on. To determine if strobe light could be used to
guide fish in a certain direction, the stimulus was applied in three different manners: just ahead
of, directly at, or directly behind each fish. Any change in swimming direction that resulted was
quantified as a turning angle.
13-44
Results from the field study showed that swimming speed increased after exposure to strobe light
for all nine fish tested (Table 13-5), and the increase was statistically significant. In addition, all
fish increased their distance from the strobe light. In contrast, control tests did not result in a
change in swimming speed after the boat had maneuvered near the fish.
Table 13-5
Median swimming speed (v) of experimental fish before and after the strobe light
was switched on.
Fish v before light (m/sec) v after light (m/sec) Difference (m/sec)
1 0.11 0.13 +0.02

2 0.04 0.09 +0.05
3 0.03 0.22 +0.19

4 0.04 0.1 +0.06
5 0.13 0.24 +0.11
6 0.28 0.48 +0.20
7 0.07 0.2 +0.13

8 0.11 0.12 +0.02
9 0.04 0.06 +0.02
Results from the laboratory study also demonstrated significant differences in swimming speed
before and after fish were exposed to strobe light for all three types of light application (Table
13-6). All fish increased their swimming speed after being subjected to the stimulus. The
turning angles of fish subjected to strobe light from the side and in front were significantly
different than those of undisturbed fish. However, there was no significant difference when light
was applied behind the fish. Eight of sixteen fish demonstrated a sudden change in swimming
direction when light was applied from the side of the fish. Fifty-four percent of these fish swam
away from the light source, while 46% swam toward it. When light was applied in front of the
fish, 12 of 15 fish suddenly changed direction. Of these, 57% turned away from the light source
while 43% turned toward it. No change in swimming direction was observed when light was
applied behind the fish.
.
13-45
Table 13-6
Mean swimming speed (v) and standard deviation for experimental fish before and after exposure
to light in the different rounds. Significant differences (P <0.05) between swimming speed are
indicated by **.
v before v after light v before v after light v before v after light

light behind behind light in in front light at the at the side
(m/sec) (m/sec) front (m/sec) side (m/sec)
(m/sec) (m/sec)
Mean 0.03 0.07 0.05 0.09 0.05 0.09
S.D. 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.04
n 15 15 15 15 16 16
P ** ** **
Table 13-7
Number of observations, mean and standard deviation of the fish’s turning angle (in degrees) after
exposure to light. Significant differences (P < 0.05) between turning angles from the different
treatments in the aquarium experiments, and normal behaviour turning angles is indicated by **.
Light on the
Light behind Light in front Normal behavior
middle
Mean 36 113 93 21
S.D. 39 43 49 26
n 15 15 16 353
P ** **
The field study demonstrated that whitefish subjected to strobe light increased their swimming
speed and increased their distance from the light source. This indicated a behavior that can be
classified as a fright and avoidance response. In addition, based on where strobe light is applied
relative to the position of a fish, the laboratory study showed that fish can be guided in a certain
direction. Possible physical factors that may influence the effectiveness of strobe light include
the absorption coefficient, transmission properties, scattering, and depth as well as biological
factors such as fish age, physiological condition, and motivation.
Laboratory Study – Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)

The effectiveness of strobe lights and infrasound as behavioral barriers for use at diversion
facilities was evaluated at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) (Mueller et al.
1999). The strobe lights tested by PNNL were Flash Technology AGL 901 Aquatic Guidance
Lights. Initially, tests were conducted with a single strobe light positioned at the end of the net
pen. An additional strobe light was acquired about halfway through the test period. The lights
were mounted on an aluminum pole and positioned approximately 0.8 m (2.6 ft) from the end of
the net pen. The strobe lights were operated at a rate of 300 flashes per min (fpm) at 400W.
13-46
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), and wild and hatchery
fall Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) were evaluated for avoidance responses to
strobe lights during the PNNL study. The average size of each group of fish tested was less than
50 mm (2.0 in.), with the exception of larger brook trout that averaged between 80 and 100 mm
(3.1 and 3.9 in.).
Testing was conducted in a large tank with test fish contained in a net pen (1.5 by 1 by 2 m [4.9
by 3.3 by 6.6 ft]). Gridlines were included along the walls, floor, and ceiling to facilitate
recording the fish responses. Testing was run in three cycles each day: morning (0700–0900 h),
late morning through early afternoon (1100–1300 h), and late afternoon (1400–1600 h). Test
groups of 20 fish were exposed to 10, 3-min light-on events during a 1-hour period. Fish
behavior during 10, 3-min control periods was also monitored. The light-on and control periods
during each 1-hour test were randomly selected. Fish behavior was monitored and recorded on
videotape using three underwater cameras. The strength of fish responses was determined by the
distances that fish moved during strobe light exposure periods. Responses were classified as
follows: (1) none, no movement; (2) slight, 0.15 to 0.3 m (0.5 to 1.0 ft); (3) moderate, 0.3 to 0.8
m (1.0 to 2.6 ft); and (4) strong, >0.8 m (2.6 ft). Responses also were classified based on type of
reaction (startle, avoidance, and habituation).
The results from this study indicate variability in fish responses depending upon the species
tested. Wild Chinook salmon were more likely to demonstrate avoidance and startle responses
when exposed to strobe lights than hatchery Chinook salmon. Activation of the strobe lights
caused a startle response followed by a flight path away from the strobe. Rainbow trout fry
demonstrated strong avoidance to the strobes. A startle response was followed by flight away
from the light source. Very little habituation to the strobe lights was observed. Eastern brook
trout exhibited no observable startle response or avoidance to the strobe lights.
Laboratory Study – University of Maryland

Laboratory tests were conducted at the University of Maryland to determine behavioral
responses of white perch (Morone americana), Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), and
spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) to different light wavelengths, strobe lights, and a strobe light/air
bubble curtain combination (Stauffer et al. 1983 and Sager et al. 1999). Investigations involving
behavioral devices, other than strobe light, are discussed elsewhere.
The test facility was a rectangular chamber that could deliver water at regulated flow rates
(diffusers and baffles were used to maximize flow evenness). It was 1.8 by 1.2 m (5.9 by 3.9 ft),
with a barrier running down the middle of the chamber to within 25.4 cm (10 in.) of the upstream
fish barrier. Strobe lights were mounted underwater in the channels created by the barrier. The
strobe lights could be controlled individually and could operate at various flash frequencies.
Flash rates used were 120, 300 and 600 flashes per min. The water flow rates used for the
experiments were 0.2, 0.3, and 0.5 m/sec (0.7, 1.0, and 1.6 ft/sec). Specimens were kept in one
of two acclimation rooms on a 12:12 hour day:night cycle, 12 hrs out of synchronization from
each other.
Five previously untested specimens were used for each experiment. The fish were allowed to
acclimate for 20 min after being introduced into the test tank. After 20 min, the video camera
was turned on and the water velocity was initiated. Fish were kept in the chamber with the flow
on for 1 hour (without test light stimulus activated). A strobe light was then operated in one of
13-47
the test channels and fish behavior was recorded for 1 hour. Replicates were run four times for
all test conditions. Videotapes were reviewed and fish positions were plotted at 5-min (2.5-min
for white perch) intervals. Observations were made on fish occurrence before and after strobe
lights were activated.
White perch, in general, exhibited avoidance behavior to strobe light. Avoidance to strobe light
was increased at lower water velocity. Highest avoidance behavior was exhibited by white perch
when strobe lights were operated at 300 flashes per min under low light conditions. Spot
exhibited avoidance to strobe lights under all conditions, but greatest avoidance was observed for
experiments conducted on dark-acclimated specimens at a flash rate of 600 flashes per min. Spot
also showed greater avoidance at the lower flow rate. Atlantic menhaden consistently avoided
strobe lights under all test conditions. Little difference in avoidance was observed between flash
rates, but avoidance was greater under dark conditions and at the higher flow rate.
Laboratory Study – San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station

Laboratory tests were conducted with strobe lights and overhead incandescent flood lights to
determine the feasibility of their application at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
(SONGS) in increasing the proportion of fish that enter a fish salvage system (Jahn and
Herbinson 2000) (see also discussion on San Onofre louver system in Chapter 12).
The laboratory tests were conducted in three phases from June to December 1995. Strobe lights
were used along with a steady light source in the Phase I experiments only. The strobe
experiments were conducted with a variable-speed xenon wide-angle strobe light (realistic
Catalog number 42-3009A) with an R. S. 272-1146 bulb. The testing apparatus consisted of a
box 2.4 by1.2 by 0.8 m (7.9 by 3.9 by 2.5 ft). The downstream end of the box was divided and
led to a 20 cm (8 in.) diameter exit pipe on each side. The upstream chamber could be isolated
from the divided portion by lowering a moveable screen. The exit pipes led into fish collection
troughs. Water flow was supplied by gravity from a head tank and was introduced into the
chamber through a 20 cm (8 in.) diameter down spout directed into a 30.5 cm (12 in.) perforated
standpipe.
For the Phase I experiments, a Y-maze with high flows to simulate the conditions near the
SONGS traveling screens was employed. Batches of fish were given a choice between exiting
the apparatus on a lighted side or a dark side. Fish were transported in a bucket and introduced
into the experimental chamber through a large pipe. The pipe was then capped with a light-tight
cover for 7 min (the approximate transportation time through the SONGS intake conduits). The
light stimulus was then switched on, and the moveable screen was raised so that fish could exit
the chamber. After 20 to 30 min, the moveable screen was lowered and a flood light illuminated
the chamber. The difference in the number of fish ending up on the north and south sides of the
apparatus was recorded. The difference was always computed as north-south, so that a selection
by fish for the north side would be a statistically significant positive number and a selection by
fish for the south side would be a negative number. It was expected that in the absence of a light
stimulus, fish would show no preference for either side. All the data for dark control sets were
tested in a one-sample t-test with the null hypothesis H0 that the mean (n-s) difference = 0.
Treatment and dark control test were replicated, up to 10 times each. The number of fish
evaluated per test was either six (white croaker) or eight (other species) fish.
13-48
Three species, Northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), white croaker (Genyonemus lineatus), and
Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax), were tested in Phase I. For strobe light tests with white
croaker, there was no indication of bias toward one or the other side of the apparatus in either
light- or dark-adapted controls. Light-adapted fish reacted negatively to the strobe light
presented on the south side but not on the north. Dark-adapted white croaker were repelled by
the strobe on both sides, however, the north treatment had a marginal probability and lower
power (56%).
Because of their limited quantity, only four experiments were conducted with Pacific sardine.
Dark adapted-fish reacted positively to the strobe (p<0.05). No firm conclusions could be drawn
from strobe light tests with Pacific sardine because the stimulus was only presented on one side,
and a dark-adapted control was not conducted.
Problems were encountered in testing Northern anchovy in late summer and fall since the test
fish were scarse and were small enough to swim though the 1.3 cm (0.5 in.) mesh panels in the
experimental chamber. The authors report that fish size, as well as day length and season, may
have accounted for the difference in behavior in the summer and fall batches of fish. Dark-
adapted Northern anchovy showed a mixed reaction (attraction or repulsion) to strobe light,
depending on which side of the apparatus the strobe was presented.
Laboratory Study – Lee County Hyacinth Control District

Studies are being conducted by the Lee County Hyacinth Control District (LCHCD) to determine
the potential for using strobe lights to control grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) movements
in Florida waterways (Cassani pers. comm. 1998). Although the purpose of these studies was
not to develop methods for reducing fish entrainment, the results have implications for the use of
strobe lights at water intakes. Preliminary laboratory tests conducted by the LCHCD were
completed in 1998. Testing was conducted in 4.9 m (16 ft) diameter pools using a Flash
Technology AGL 901 Strobe system. The study was designed to assess the differences in grass
carp swimming behavior and movement between strobe on/off periods.
The experimental design consisted of testing the minimum and maximum strobe light flash rates
during four 3-day trials (two trials per flash rate). The strobe light flash head was attached to the
pool wall at mid-depth. Water depth in the test pool was about 0.6 m (2.0 ft) and an opaque
sheet of plastic (1.0 by 0.5 m [3.3 by 1.6 ft]) was placed in the pool opposite the strobe light to
provide a visual refuge. Five grass carp (a pond-cultured, triploid strain) were placed in the pool
and acclimated for 3 days before a test was initiated. Response to the strobe lights was assessed
by comparing the ambient behavior of a fish group to their behavior during strobe light exposure
periods. Ambient behavior was characterized by counter-clockwise swimming around the pool.
The time that it took the lead fish to swim completely around the pool was recorded and defined
as the "swim interval." The swim interval was the variable that was used to detect differences
between ambient behavior and behavior observed during strobe light exposure periods.
The initial behavioral responses of grass carp when the strobe light was activated varied among
trials but differed from the counter-clockwise swimming behavior observed during strobe-off
periods. Immediate response behaviors included erratic back and forth movement, formation of
smaller groups (two or three fish per group versus all fish in one group), and momentary
positioning behind the visual barrier. These behaviors were classified as disorientation and
typically lasted from 10 to 35 min after the strobe light was activated. When fish resumed
13-49
counter-clockwise swimming, the swim interval was decreased from that observed during
ambient conditions (i.e., swim speed around the circumference of the pool increased during
strobe-on periods), even after 20 hrs of strobe light exposure. Because only preliminary data
analyses have been conducted, no information was available with respect to flash rate effects.
The general conclusion based on the preliminary analysis of the laboratory data was that strobe
light had a measurable effect on grass carp behavior. Further testing was recommended to
evaluated grass carp responses under more turbid conditions with natural light and with a refuge
where fish could completely avoid the light field.
Laboratory Study - Marine Biology Unit at Fawley, U.K.

Strobe lights were evaluated during laboratory tests at the Marine Biology Unit at Fawley, U.K.
to assess their ability to repel or deflect European eels (Anguilla anguilla) from water intakes
(Hadderingh and Smythe 1997). Incandescent and fluorescent lights also were evaluated during
this study, and we discuss tests with these lights later. The strobe light used in the evaluation
was a 30 W source operated at 600 flashes per min. Tests were conducted in a variable speed
flume with an experimental area that was 6.3 by 1.4 by 2.6 m (20.7 by 4.6 by 8.5 ft). Two
compartments were located at the downstream end of the test area: one compartment was
illuminated from above, the other was not. Infrared cameras and lights were used to observe
response of eel to the strobe source. Two tests were conducted with strobe light, one at an
illumination level of 3.1-3 lux and the other at 80.1-3 lux. The flume velocity during each test
was set at 0.11 m/sec (0.4 ft/sec). A deflection percentage (i.e., percent of eels entering the non-
illuminated compartment) was calculated to assess the deterrent effectiveness. The deflection
percentage was 45% at the lower illumination level and 86% at the higher level. The results
were statistically significant for both tests. It was concluded that strobe light had potential for
successful field application given deployment configurations and illumination levels that allowed
downstream migrants adequate time to respond before becoming entrained into an intake.
Laboratory Study – EPRI/University of Washington

Laboratory experiments were conducted at the University of Washington fish hatchery to
determine behavioral avoidance and attraction responses of hatchery-reared sub-yearling
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), Atlantic
salmon (Salmo salar) and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) to strobe and mercury vapor lights
(EPRI 1990). Experiments were performed in an 8.8 by 1.6 by 1.2 m (28.9 by 5.2 by 3.9 ft)
outdoor cement raceway. The tests were conducted under no flow conditions at a water depth of
0.65 m (2.1 ft) and ranging in temperature from 12 to 17.5oC (53.6 to 63.5oF). An EG&G model
SS-122 underwater strobe light was installed at both ends of the raceway. The strobe was
operated at 300 flashes per min. Video cameras were suspended above the raceway to monitor
and record behavioral responses.
Fifty fish of one species were used for each test. The fish were introduced into the raceway and
allowed to acclimate for 30 min. After the adaptation period had ended, light stimulus was
turned on and behavior was monitored. Testing was conducted by using a paired sampling
design. At any point in time, only one strobe or one mercury light was operating. The following
sequences were evaluated: upstream strobe on followed by downstream strobe on; downstream
strobe on followed by upstream strobe on; upstream mercury light on followed by downstream
mercury light on; and downstream mercury light on followed by upstream mercury light on.
13-50
A test involved illuminating one light for 30 min, then illuminating the other light of the same
type (i.e., strobe or mercury) on the opposite ends of the raceway for the same period of time.
To ensure that prior exposure to one type of light did not influence the behavioral response to the
second light, separate groups of test fish were used in each pair of experiments. Four “trials”
(the response of each fish group to a pair of lights) were completed per day. Five replicates of
each trial set were completed for each species under daytime (0900 to 1900 hr) and nighttime
(1800 to 0300 hr) conditions. Three types of information were obtained from the direct
observation data: qualitative observations, attraction and repulsion responses verses time, and the
equilibrium response to light.
All species, except for steelhead tested during the day, hid from or avoided the strobe light.
During strobe light tests, most fish sought shelter at the far end of the test tank for the duration of
each test. These results are consistent with the avoidance responses shown by other species to
strobe light both in the laboratory and in the field.
The strobe light avoidance demonstrated by Chinook and coho salmon during the daytime tests
was unexpected; it was anticipated that the reduced contrast between ambient day light and test
light would decrease avoidance. The very high contrast at night (due to the small test space and
the white walls of the tank) appeared to stun fish, and consequently, strobe light avoidance could
have been was impeded. In contrast, fish were not stunned during the day and swam
immediately away from the light. As a result, fish were better able to avoid strobe light during
the day than at night. This situation may not occur in the field since natural turbidity and open
space would allow fish to respond before they become stunned. Therefore, the authors
concluded that strobe lights could be effective in repelling these species under nighttime field
conditions. During the day, lack of contrast in the natural environment might render the lights
less effective than they were in laboratory tests.
Steelhead trout fry tested under nighttime conditions demonstrated the greatest attraction to
mercury lights. Approximately 80% of steelhead fry congregated at the end of the 9.1 m (29.9
ft) long test tank that had an active mercury light. Responses of Chinook and coho salmon to
mercury lights were variable.
In experiments conducted by Nemeth and Anderson (1992), fish were tested under four
experimental treatment conditions:
• Normal day: fish adapted to ambient daytime conditions (which ranged from full
sunlight to heavy cloud cover)
• Normal night: fish adapted to ambient nighttime lighting (which ranged from dusk to
complete darkness)
• Reversed day: daytime tests conducted with dark adapted fish
• Reversed night: nighttime tests conducted with fish adapted to an artificial light intensity
The fish were allowed to acclimate for 30 min to natural lighting (in normal day and normal
night tests), 30 min to artificial lighting of the reversed night tests, and 60 min to darkness in the
reversed day tests. Direct observations were made for the first 5 min and at 5-min intervals
thereafter till the end of the 30-min test period. A total of eight replicates were conducted for
each of the four experimental conditions with strobes lights for each species. Video monitoring
and direct observations were made during the test replicates. Fish behavioral responses were
13-51
categorized into primary or secondary behaviors. Primary behaviors occurred throughout a test
period, whereas secondary behaviors were sudden or infrequent responses. Both primary and
secondary behaviors were further broken down into sub-categories.
Strobe lights caused normal night-adapted coho salmon to hide. Under reversed conditions,
there was no clear response of coho to the strobes. In ambient daylight, there was a strong cover-
seeking reaction. Chinook salmon, adapted to darkness, showed little or no response to strobe
lights. In general, the introduction of strobe lights usually startled both species and occasionally
stunned fish, especially under dark conditions. Coho salmon kept a greater distance from the
strobe lights than did Chinook. Both species moved to the darkest areas after the initial response
and remained in areas away from the lights.
Laboratory Study – EPRI/University of Iowa

In laboratory studies conducted at the University of Iowa, behavioral responses to strobe lights
and mercury lights were examined with bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), channel catfish
(Ictalurus punctatus) (adults and juveniles), walleye (Sander vitreus), hybrid striped/white bass,
and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) (EPRI 1990). The equipment and experimental
design were similar to those described above for the University of Washington studies. Bluegill,
channel catfish, juvenile walleye, and hybrid bass avoided the strobe light. Juvenile catfish
avoided only the brightest sections of the test flume. Largemouth bass exhibited no distinct
response. With mercury light, largemouth bass, channel catfish, and walleye were repelled by
the light. Other species showed little or no response.
Laboratory Study, McIninch and Hocutt

Laboratory tests conducted by McIninch and Hocutt (1987) examined behavioral responses of
three estuarine species to strobe lights, an air bubble curtain, and a combination of the two
devices. Tests were conducted at three different turbidity levels (clear, low, and high). The three
species evaluated were Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus),
and white perch (Morone americana). Atlantic menhaden were not evaluated at the high
turbidity level due to unavailability of test specimens. The rectangular indoor test chamber was
designed to simulate a cooling water intake system, measuring 7.9 by 2.4 m (25.9 by 7.9 ft) with
a water depth of 45.7 cm (18.0 in.). The strobe light sources had a flash power of approximately
one watt, a flash duration of about 80 microseconds, and were operated at a flash rate of 300
flashes per min. Light intensity in the test chamber was measured at approximately 4 to 6
microeinsteins per 1 m²/sec during the low turbidity tests and 1 to 2 microeinsteins per 1 m²/sec
high turbidity tests. The strobe light and/or air bubble curtain were activated for 30-min test
periods for white perch and 60 min for spot and Atlantic menhaden. The distribution of fish in
the tank was recorded at 2.5-min intervals for white perch and 5-min intervals for spot and
menhaden. Fish were acclimated to the test chamber prior to behavioral device operation and
fish distribution during this period was used as the control condition. Avoidance was measured
as the percentage decrease in use of the area affected by a behavioral device.
All three species demonstrated a statistically significant avoidance of strobe light. Avoidance
varied among turbidity level and species and, unexpectedly, avoidance was greatest at the high
turbidity level for white perch and spot. Fish demonstrated greater avoidance of the strobe
light/air bubble barrier than for either barrier tested alone, except for spot tested with highly
13-52
turbid water. Because spot and white perch avoided strobe light at high turbidity levels, it was
suggested that near- and far-field fish reactions must be considered when deploying strobe lights
for fish protection purposes. Increased light scattering due to high turbidity levels may affect
near-field reactions and decreases in light transmission may influence far field reactions.

Low success rates directing fish into a Hidrostal pump prompted laboratory investigations of
behavioral devices to improve collection efficiencies (Rodgers 1983). Laboratory studies were
conducted to evaluate strobe lights, mercury vapor lights, electric fields, and a bubble curtain in
improving the efficiency of a Hidrostal pump for capturing smelt and alewife (Alosa
pseudoharengus). Tests involving strobe lights are discussed here. We examine other
behavioral devices later.
Tests were performed in a rectangular concrete pool 12 by 6 by 1 m (39.4 by 19.7 by 3.3 ft). The
Hidrostal pump (model H5) was mounted on a divider wall. Intake and discharge pipes of the
pump extended 2 m (6.6 ft) on either side of the divider wall. A 1 cm (0.4 in.) square mesh fence
extended from the side walls and angled to the pump intakes. Strobe lights were attached to the
angled walls of the mesh fence at approximately 1.5 m (4.9 ft) from the pump intake. The lights
were operated at a frequency of 200 flashes per min and at duration of less than 100 μs.
A batch of 25 smelt or alewife were used in each test. Fish were introduced to the intake side of
the pool 18 hrs before the pump was started. The pump was run at 600 rpm for 3 hrs. Fish that
were discharged into the receiving cage were counted and transferred to a holding cage for 24-
hour mortality observations. Strobe lights and other treatments were tested in conjunction with
mercury vapor lights over a 3-hour test interval. Treatments were applied for 3-min intervals and
repeated every 15 min throughout the test interval. A minimum of two replicates were
conducted for each treatment. Data were analyzed using the fixed-effects analysis of variance
(ANOVA) model.
The Hidrostal pump alone was ineffective at capturing smelt or alewife. Capture efficiency
improved significantly (p≤0.05) when the pump was used with the mercury light and other
treatments. Significant differences were not observed in tests using the mercury light alone. The
authors propose that the inability to discriminate between tests using different treatments could
have been caused by the high variability in capture efficiency among replicate trials. This may,
in turn, have been due to fish schooling behavior.
Laboratory Study - Simon Fraser University

While considerable research has been conducted on the use of strobe light as a behavioral barrier
at hydroelectric projects and cooling water intake structures, little research has been conducted
on how the light may affect the visual system of the species exposed to it. Therefore, laboratory
trials were conducted to evaluate both the behavioral and physical effects of strobe light on fish.
Kokanee were collected from a Kakawa Lake feeder creek in Hope, British Columbia, while
hatchery-reared sockeye were obtained from an aquaculture supplier (LSL Life Seafoods, Ltd.,
Langley, British Columbia). All fish were held a minimum of one day prior to testing
(Flamarique et al. 2006).
13-53
Eight replicate Kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka) were subjected to each treatment duration (1
min-exposure, 5 min-exposure, and controls). Between 8 and 11 replicate sockeye salmon were
subjected to each treatment duration (1 min-exposure, 3 hr-exposure, and controls). Kokanee
were between 231 g ± 10.7 g and 233 g ± 17.6 g in weight and between 28.5 cm ±1.51 cm (11.2
in. ±0.6 in.) and 29.0 cm ± 1.31 cm (11.4 in. ± 0.5 in.) in length with lens diameters between
5.10 ±0.25 mm and 5.15 mm ± 0.12 mm. Sockeye were between 226 g ± 42.9 g and 236 g ±
45.9 g in weight and between 30.2 cm ± 3.33 cm and 30.9 cm ± 3.04 cm in length with lens
diameters between 5.00 mm ± 0.27 mm and 5.11 mm ± 0.34 mm (Flamarique et al. 2006).
Fish receiving the 1-min and 5-min strobe light exposure were anesthetized and placed in an out-
of-water fish holding system. During treatment, fish were respirated with anesthetically-treated
water. Fish were positioned 1 m (3.3 ft) away from the light with the centers of both the fish eye
and light aligned. The 3-hr treatments were conducted in the water in a 100-L (26.4-gal) tank.
Fish were confined by netting to ensure exposure to the submerged light. For all treatments, the
strobe light (AGL-4100B, Flash Technologies, Franklin, Tennessee) was operated at a frequency
of 0.167 Hz. Radiance and dose were calculated through the use of a spectroradiometer
positioned 1 m (3.3 ft) from the light center (Table 13-8).
Table 13-8
Integrated power for various regions of the spectrum emitted by the strobe light. Also shown
is dosage in the UV-B range (300-320 nm). By comparison, the integrated power for the spectrum
reaching the gravel of a clear section of a salmonid nursery stream is in the range of 3.21 x
10-2 to 4.78 x 10-2 W/cm2/sr (Flamarique et al. 2006).
Strobe emission Treatment dosage
Wavelength Wavelength
W/cm2/sr Treatment J/cm2/sr
range (nm) range (nm)
300-320 2.67 x 10-5 300-320 1 min 1.65 x 10-3
300-400 8.99 x 10-4 300-320 5 min 8.27 x 10-3
300-700 4.25 x 10-3 300-320 3 hr 9.98 x 10-2
After recovery from the strobe treatments, response to a simulated predator shadow (cardboard
on a stick) was evaluated. For fish that had received the 1- or 3-min treatments, the shadow was
passed over the tank every 5 min; for fish that had received the 5 hr treatment, the shadow was
passed over the tank every 8 hr.
Subsequent histological examinations were conducted to determine the level of physical damage
to the retina and photoreceptors. Kokanee were euthanized 3-5 days after treatment and the
sockeye 90-92 days after treatment. Retinas were removed, flattened, cut into quadrants,
sectioned (tangentially and radially), and stained in order to quantify cone densities and areas. A
total of five eyes (left eye) were analyzed per treatment.
Results of the behavioral trials are presented in Figure 13-6. In the 1-min treatment, all of the
Kokanee displayed an avoidance response to the simulated predator shadow within 5 min post-
treatment, while all of the sockeye responded within 10 min. In the 5-min treatment group, all
Kokanee responded within 25 min post-treatment (one responded within 5 min). In the 3-hr
13-54
treatment group, three sockeye died within one week; while the remaining eight responded
within 88 hr post-treatment (controls responded immediately).
Figure 13-6
Percentage of Kokanee and sockeye salmon that responded to an overhead shadow after
strobe light exposure for various amounts of time as a function of time after exposure. Note
that 3 sockeye salmon in the 3-hr-exposure group died before any reaction was detected;
hence, the cumulative bar graph never attains 100% from this treatment (Flamarique et al.
2006).
No significant differences were noted between cone densities and areas of control or treatment
fish. Furthermore, no irregularities were noted in the lenses of any of the fish other than the
three sockeye that died after the 3-hr treatment. These fish displayed lens damage and internal
eye hemorrhages.
It was concluded that short-term exposure to strobe light (<5 min) does not cause retinal damage.
Therefore, intermittent exposure to strobe lights installed at hydro projects or cooling water
intake structures is not likely to cause retinal damage to Kokanee or sockeye salmon.
Case Studies – Mercury Light – Hydroelectric Field Tests
Weldon Dam, Mattaceunk Project

Mercury lights have been evaluated as part of integrated fish protection systems at two hydro
sites in New England. At the Mattaceunk Project (Weldon Dam), mercury lights were used in
attempts to improve bypass collection efficiency of outmigrating Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)
smolts (Great Northern Paper 1995, 1998). The Mattaceunk Project also has partial bar rack
overlays that reduce spacing to 2.5 cm (1 in.) clear to a depth of 5 m (16.4 ft), and strobe lights
have been evaluated at the intake as a deterrent device, as we previously discussed. The mercury
lights were marginally effective in increasing the passage of smolts into the bypass.
13-55
Various Dutch Stations and Water Bodies
In attempts to reduce entrainment of migrating European eels into water intakes, various light
devices were evaluated at the Bergum, Haandrik, Amer, and Dietfurt power stations located in
the Netherlands (Hadderingh and Smythe 1997). Bergum and Amer are cooling water intakes,
while Haandrik and Dietfurt are hydroelectic project intakes. Underwater incandescent and
overhead mercury lights were evaluated at the Bergum and Haandrik stations, while underwater
fluorescent lights were tested at the Amer and Dietfurt stations. Additionally, field studies were
conducted on the Vecht and Regge rivers at commercial fishery sites to evaluate the ability of
underwater incandescent lights to guide migrating eels to fyke nets located near one side of the
river. We provide a brief description of the light barriers, sampling design, and results from
studies at each site below.
At the Bergum thermal power station, a light barrier consisting of incandescent lights mounted
on the river bottom and mercury lights suspended 1 m (3.3 ft) above the water surface was
placed 5 m (16.4 ft) upstream of one of the station’s two CWISs. Entrainment at the two units
was compared to evaluate the ability of the lights to repel eels. Deflection percentages were
calculated based on the assumption that eel entrainment into each unit was the same in the
absence of lights. Tests were conducted on 10 nights in 1987. The estimated deflection rate was
51% for yellow eels and 25% for silver eels.
The light barrier evaluated at the Haandrik hydropower station consisted of underwater
incandescent and above-water mercury lights deployed 4 m (13.1 ft) in front of powerhouse
intake. Nine incandescent lights were mounted on the river bottom at a depth of about 2.6 m (8.5
ft), and two mercury lights were suspended 1.5 m (4.9 ft) above the water surface. A bypass
weir was located next to the intake. The effectiveness of the lights was determined by
comparing the number of turbine-entrained eels collected during nights with the lights on and
off. Sampling was conducted on nine nights during September and October in 1988. The
estimated deflection percentage of the Haandrik light barrier was 66%.
At the Amer thermal power station, a light barrier consisting of 30 fluorescent lamps was
deployed on the river bottom about 8 m (26.2 ft) upstream from the plant’s cooling water intake.
Sampling was conducted over 17 nights in September and October 1995. The estimated
deflection rates for yellow and silver eels were 62 and 74%, respectively.
An angled array of 79 fluorescent lights was evaluated at the Dietfurt hydropower station in
1996. The lights were deployed on the river bottom at an angle of 20 degrees to the flow about
80 m (262 ft) upstream of the turbine intake. Based on one night of sampling data, the deflection
rate of eels was estimated to be 8%.
Eel diversion studies with incandescent lights were conducted on the Vecht and Regge rivers
between 1988 and 1990. At the study sites on both rivers, a row of incandescent lights (200 W)
extending about two-thirds of the width of the channel were mounted on the river bottom. The
illumination level was 10 lux at a distance of 1.5 m (4.9 ft) upstream of the light barriers.
Deflection percentages were calculated using eel collection data from nets deployed behind the
barriers. At the River Regge site, sampling was conducted on 52 nights in 1988 and on 12 nights
in 1989. Sampling on the River Vecht was conducted on 126 nights in 1990. The deflection rate
for the River Regge barrier was 85% in 1988 and 76% in 1989. The deflection percentage of the
River Vecht barrier was 73%.
13-56
In addition to the strobe light studies described previously, mercury lights were evaluated to
determine whether they could improve the passage of juvenile American shad (Alosa
sapidissima) through the sluiceway bypass at the York Haven Hydroelectric Project (EPRI 1990,
1992b; Martin et al. 1991; Martin and Sullivan 1992). Mercury lights were evaluated to
determine their ability to guide juvenile shad into an existing trash sluiceway. Two 1,000 watt
mercury lights were positioned about 0.6 m (2 ft) below the water surface on opposite sides of an
ice/trash sluiceway. The lights were arranged to illuminate the area immediately in front of the
sluiceway gate. Poor results in the first tests prompted changes in the mercury light
arrangement. Only one light was used and was lowered to a depth of 1.5 m (5 ft). Later on, the
light was lowered again to a depth of 4.3 m (14 ft). In 1991, a lower-intensity mercury light was
evaluated. The 250 watt light was set 3.0 m (10 ft) in front of the sluiceway at a depth of 0.9 m
(3 ft).
The mercury lights were evaluated by using scanning sonar and a netting program. The scanning
sonar system (WESMAR Model SS390) was used to monitor fish response to the various test
devices. The mercury lights caused a reduction of fish in the immediate vicinity of the light,
however, fish acclimated to the light and the effect was not sustained. The 250 watt mercury
light did not strongly attract American shad. Gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), on the other
hand, were very strongly attracted to mercury light and were observed to rapidly pass through the
sluice gate when opened.
Poutès Dam
Studies were conducted in 1989 at Poutès dam on the Allier River to evaluate the effectiveness
of mercury lights in modifying behavioral responses of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts at a
fish bypass structure (Larinier and Boyer-Bernard 1992). Visual observations and video
recording of hourly and daily passage rates were used to evaluate mercury light effectiveness.
Mercury lights significantly increased passage rates of smolts. Three to eight times more fish
were bypassed with the lights on than with the lights off. The effect of the lights was not
immediate: Passage rates did not reach their maximum until more than a half an hour following
the activation of the lights. Illumination duration, light location, and light intensity, were
determined by visual observations to be important parameters in effective application of mercury
lights for attraction.
Wanapum Dam
Studies were conducted at Wanapum Dam to determine the potential effectiveness of mercury
lights in improving the passage of outmigrating salmon via the spillway gates (EPRI 1990). The
project is located on the Columbia River in Grant County, Washington and consists of 10
turbines, 12 bottom-spill tainter gates, and one top-spill sluice gate.
The mercury lights were installed on two adjacent pier noses on one spillway gate. Lights were
set at two depths: 3.0 m (10 ft) for the first half of the test period and 6.1 m (20 ft) for the second.
Hydroacoustic techniques were used to monitor fish passage. Monitoring the spill 7 days prior to
initiation of the mercury light treatment generated baseline data. The lights were tested in a
paired design within each day. An on/off (test/control) sequence was alternated from one night
13-57
to the next. The on and off periods were of equal lengths of time on a given night when fish
were actively migrating.
Results showed great variability in passage rates from day to day over the 29 days of sampling.
Statistical analysis indicated that the lights had no effect on fish passage rates. The authors
suggest that the results should be considered inconclusive due to a short outmigration period and
the fact that the light illuminated a relatively small area relative to the total spillway area.
Wapatox Canal Fish Screening Facility

Mercury lights were evaluated to assess their effectiveness at maximizing the number of juvenile
salmon and steelhead trout using the diversion system at the Wapatox Canal Fish Screening
Facility (EPRI 1990). The canal is located on the Naches River one-half mile from the
confluence of the Naches and Tieton River in Washington. Flow rate in the canal ranged from
8.5 to 14.2 m3/sec (300 to 500 cfs). Water from the diversion is used for irrigation and
hydroelectric power. The diversion system was made up of six drum screens oriented
perpendicular to the river flow (Figure 13-7).
13-58
Figure 13-7
Modified light orientation Wapatox — plan view (EPRI 1990)
Five of the six screens were covered with 0.64 cm (0.25 in.) mesh. The sixth was covered in
0.32 cm (0.13 in.) mesh. Vertical slot fish bypass entrances were located on the left and right
banks of the canal.
A fish return pipe transported the diverted fish to the river 366 m (1,200 ft) downstream of the
canal diversion. A 1,000 watt underwater mercury light was located on the left side of the canal
at the left bypass entrance. An additional mercury light was located inside the left bypass
entrance in order to illuminate the bypass slot.
13-59
Mercury light effectiveness was determined by comparing estimated fish passage rates for the
bypass during periods with the lights on and off. Paired testing strategy was employed. Fish
movement was monitored in several ways. Rate of passage was monitored by removing and
counting fish collected in the smolt trap every 10 to 15 min. Impingement on the drum screens
was also monitored occasionally, and observations of fish behavior were recorded.
During spring tests, overall fish bypass rates did not differ between light and dark conditions.
Based on increases in passage rates immediately after a light condition change, it was believed
that the fish were attracted to the mercury light but were avoiding the area of brightest
illumination at the bypass openings. Typically, when the mercury lights were turned on fish
were attracted to, but would not enter, the bypass. When the lights were turned off fish would
move into the bypass. Consequently, the mercury light orientation and operation scheme were
modified for fall tests. Test and control periods were alternated between the first and last half of
each night, and during the test periods the light was cycled off for 5 min each hour in order to
"pulse" fish into the bypass. A substantial increase in outmigrant (Chinook salmon
[Oncorhynchus tshawytscha] and Kokanee salmon [Oncorhynchus nerka]) passage rates was
observed during fall tests with the new array and operation scheme. Nearly twice as many fish
were bypassed with the lights on (863 fish) than with the lights off (451 fish).
The drum screens were eventually replaced with fixed-panel, angled wedgewire diversion
screens.

Studies were conducted examining the use of mercury light to modify behavioral responses of
American shad (Alosa sapidissima) and blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) at the Hadley Falls
Hydroelectric Project located on the Connecticut River in Holyoke, Massachusetts (LMS 1989).
A generating station and a power canal are located on the west side of the dam. Several
additional hydroelectric units operate within the canal system. Two units (1 and 2) are located
37 m (121.4 ft) downstream of the canal gatehouse. The combined power generating capacity of
units 1 and 2 is approximately 33 MW. Each unit has a maximum flow of 119 m3/sec (4,200 cfs).
The mercury light system was a 1,000-watt Hydro-Products model L2 underwater mercury light.
The output was 54,000 lumens, and it was rated to a 1,200 m (3,937 ft) depth. Two lights were
mounted on the west side of the bascule exit, and two were located on the east. Both were set at
a depth of approximately 1 m (3.2 ft) below the water. The lights were turned on or off for each
90-min sampling period. The turbine tailrace and bascule gate discharges were netted
simultaneously, and catches were compared. ANOVA statistical analysis was used to compare
the bascule passage rates between lighted and unlighted conditions.
There was no significant difference in passage rates of American shad and blueback herring
under either the lighted or unlighted condition. A total of 11,943 fish were collected. The
majority of the catch (97%) was comprised of American shad (7,140 fish) and blueback herring
(4,457 fish). An analysis of lights-on versus lights-off within a night resulted in 63.4% of shad
and 58.6% of blueback herring passing during the unlighted periods. An analysis of lights-on
versus lights-off across nights revealed the passage of 65.0% of shad and 59.5% of blueback
herring during unlighted periods.
13-60
Annapolis Tidal Generating Station
Mercury lights, a fishdrone, and a fishpulser (hammer) were evaluated as fish protection devices
at the Annapolis Tidal Generating Station (McKinley and Kowalyk 1989). The fishdrone and
mercury lights were tested as fish attractants, and the fishpulser was tested as a deterrent. The
tests performed with only the sound devices are discussed in later sections. Mercury light was
evaluated for its ability as an attractant for alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), blueback herring
(Alosa aestivalis), and American shad (Alosa sapidissima). The station is located on the
Annapolis River estuary near Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia. The station houses a STRAFLO
turbine that generates 20 MW during ebb tide.
A two–phase study was conducted at the Annapolis Project to examine the behavioral responses
of adult (Phase 1) and juvenile fish (Phase 2) to the three devices (alosids appeared to be the
dominant fish species occurring at the project). Each protection device was tested alone, and
mercury lights also were tested with each sound device. Several filtered mercury vapor lights
were used in the experiments conducted at Annapolis. The filter was employed to obtain light in
the blue-green wavelengths. Mercury lights were used to attract fish toward a Hidrostal pump.
The lights were estimated to penetrate the water approximately 3 m (9.8 ft). All tests were
conducted at night between the hours of 1700–0600. Replicates were conducted several times,
and each had a duration of at least 5 min. Three fixed acoustical transducers were used to
monitor fish distribution at the fish bypass, turbine, and sluiceway areas. Surface gill netting was
also employed to supplement hydro acoustic data.
The results from Phase 1 tests indicated that adult fish were slightly attracted to the mercury
lights. Hydro acoustics data indicated that fish activity increased slightly in the area in front of
the fish bypass when the mercury lights were turned on. Visual observations revealed only a few
fish entered the higher light intensity zones created by the mercury lights. Few fish were
observed during Phase 2 tests. Tests conducted with juvenile fish were similar to the previous
tests with adult fish, showing only a slight attraction to mercury lights.
Bellows Falls Hydroelectric Project

Mercury lights (overhead and underwater) were deployed at the Bellows Falls Hydroelectric
Project in attempts to guide Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts to a sluiceway for downstream
passage (Saunders and Mudre 1988). The mercury lights were placed on two sections of a log
boom in the powerhouse forebay (overhead configuration) and at the sluiceway entrance
(underwater configuration). Several flow scenarios also were evaluated as means to increase
smolt passage through the sluiceway.
The primary method of evaluation involved radio telemetry techniques; netting was conducted
and evaluated as an alternative sluiceway sampling method. Hydroacoustic techniques also were
used to monitor fish movement through the sluiceway. Radio tagged smolts were released into
the power canal, and downstream movement of fish was assessed for passage route use (i.e.,
sluiceway, turbines, or a fish bypass pipe). Controlled smolt releases were used to evaluate the
efficiency of sluiceway netting.
Data collected from four radio telemetry experiments and from ambient netting indicated that the
use of mercury lights did not increase smolt passage through the sluiceway. In contrast, the
results of from the controlled release sampling indicated that the lights improved smolt use of the
13-61
sluiceway. Also, sluiceway flow regimes apparently did not influence the effectiveness of the
mercury lights. It was concluded that the mercury lights at Bellow Falls were not an effective
fish attractant or guidance system. Subsequently, an angled barrier wall was installed to guide
fish to the sluiceway.
Priest Rapids Dam

An investigation was conducted at Priest Rapids Dam to evaluate the effectiveness of mercury
vapor lights in facilitating shad passage (Pock 1988). The effect of the mercury light on the
upstream migration of salmonids was also evaluated. Ten Hydro Products Model L2, 130 degree
beam angle, 1,000 watt mercury vapor lamps were installed above the submerged openings of
the five control weirs.
Passage of shad above the control structures was based on visual observations of shad moving
through the Denil fishway and on counts of incidental collection of shad in Coded Wire Tag
(CWT) traps. The light system was operated from June 9 to July 27, 1988. Light configurations,
with respect to timing, duration, orientation, and intensity were varied based on observations.
For the first 6 days, the lights were operated from 0900 to 1900 at 100% intensity. Intensity of
the lights was lowered to 50% because no movement of shad was observed in the ladder sections
or through the Denil. The lights were kept at 50% for the next 7 days with some variations in
timing and duration. Lights were then operated from 2100 to 1000 at variable intensities: 50%
for 5 days, 25% for 4 days, 100% for 6 days, 75% for 2 days, and 12.5% for the last 12 days of
operation. The light beam pattern was rotated 90 degrees in order to direct more light into the
entrances of the fishways. The lights were operated at 50% intensity for 5 days and at 100%
intensity for 2 days from 2100 to 0900 hrs in this configuration. The CWT began operation on
April 19, 1988, and ran through August 27 from 0900–1900 hrs.
Mercury lights did not promote or enhance shad passage through the ladder control structures.
The only shad that were observed in the upper control structures were proposed to have passed as
a result of sheer numbers and not voluntary passage.
Cabot Station
The feasibility of using filtered and unfiltered underwater mercury vapor lights for attracting
American shad and blueback herring juveniles to a bypass facility was examined at Cabot Station
(NUSCO 1986). Cabot Station is part of the Turners Falls Hydroelectric Project located on the
Connecticut River in Massachusetts. Experiments were conducted in an enclosed section of a
fish ladder that is adjacent to Cabot Station.
Two 250-watt underwater mercury lights were installed on movable fixtures, one each at the
upstream and downstream ends of the test enclosure. The amount of color tint provided by blue
filters (Roscolux #80 and #69) and distance between the two lights were varied among tests.
After 1 or 2 hrs during each of the tests, the position of the fish relative to the light was recorded.
Each test was recorded on video tape to document behavioral responses. Control tests (no lights)
were performed to determine fish behavior in the absence of mercury light and to determine if
fish exhibited a diurnal behavior pattern.
Juvenile American shad (Alosa sapidissima) and blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) (n = 60)
were introduced into the test flume and allowed to acclimate for a 2-hour period prior to testing.
13-62
Positions of fish were recorded on an hourly basis while a single light was operating. The light
was on for 1 to 2 hrs then turned off; the opposite light was then turned on. The alternation of
the on/off scheme continued for the duration of the test.
Preliminary study results indicated that juveniles of both alosid species were attracted to the
mercury lights only during periods of darkness. This response was attributed to the level of
background illumination (13,000 lux) during daylight, compared with the maximum light
intensity (4,355 lux) created by the mercury lights. Fish response was considerably stronger
when the lights were placed about 3 m (10 ft) apart than when they were about 4.9 m (16 ft)
apart. Attraction to unfiltered lights appeared to be at least as strong, if not stronger, than
attraction to the blue-filtered lights.
An overhead mercury light was used to illuminate a new type of bypass weir (NU-Alden weir) at
the Turners Falls Hydroelectric Project (Cabot Station; NUSCO 1997). An evaluation of the
weir and light system at Cabot station was conducted to determine the bypass efficiency of
Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts. To encourage fish movement toward the weir, overlays
are placed over the existing bar racks to reduce the spacing during the migratory period. The
overhead mercury light appeared to contribute to increased passage of smolts through a
sluiceway. The positioning of the light was important to improving bypass efficiency. The
positioning of the light was important to improving bypass efficiency.
Case Studies – Mercury Lights – Cage Studies
Kingsford Hydroelectric Station

Cage tests were conducted at the Kingsford Hydroelectric Project in Wisconsin to evaluate the
response of potamodromous fish species to several behavioral devices, including mercury light
(Winchell et al. 1997; EPRI 1998a, b; Michaud and Taft 2000). A detailed description of study
methods was provided previously in the discussion of strobe light experimental evaluations.
Species evaluated during the mercury light cage tests included bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus)
and pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), walleye (Sander vitreus), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) and smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu).
Testing involved exposing groups of fish to mercury light from sources located at either end of
the cage. Each light source was operated for 5 min during 10-min exposure periods. None of the
fish that were tested exhibited any discernible response to mercury light. Based on the results, it
was concluded that mercury light was not a viable fish protection technology for use with the
species that were evaluated.
Case Studies – Mercury Lights – Laboratory Studies

Laboratory experiments were conducted at the University of Washington fish hatchery to
determine behavioral avoidance and attraction responses of hatchery-reared subyearling Chinook
salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), and Atlantic salmon
(Salmo salar) and steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) to strobe and mercury vapor lights
(EPRI 1990; Puckett and Anderson 1988). Tests were performed using both light and dark
13-63
adapted juvenile Chinook, coho, and Atlantic salmon and steelhead trout. The facility used was
the same as that described previously for the strobe light studies conducted at this site.
Fifty fish of one species were used for each test. The fish were introduced into the raceway and
allowed to acclimate for 30 min. After the adaptation period had ended, light stimulus was
turned on and behavior was monitored. Testing was conducted by using the paired sampling
design described previously for strobe light studies. The greatest attraction to mercury lights was
demonstrated by steelhead trout fry tested under nighttime conditions. Approximately 80% of
steelhead fry congregated at the end of the 9.1 m (30 ft) test tank that had an active mercury
light. Responses of Chinook and coho salmon to mercury lights were variable. Steelhead were
attracted to the light, but all other species failed to respond. The number of steelhead within 2.7
m (9 ft) of the light increased with time for the first 15 min, and they swam relatively quickly
toward the second test light when activated. The attraction appeared to be a function of exposure
time. Chinook and coho tended to swim up and down the length of the raceway during the
mercury light tests, indicating a complex behavioral response to the lights.
In additional experiments conducted by Nemeth and Anderson (1992), fish were tested under
four experimental treatment conditions:
1. Normal day: fish adapted to ambient daytime conditions (which ranged from full
sunlight to heavy cloud cover)
2. Normal night: fish adapted to ambient nighttime lighting (which ranged from dusk to
complete darkness)
3. Reversed day: daytime tests conducted with dark adapted fish
4. Reversed night: nighttime tests conducted with fish adapted to an artificial light intensity
The fish were allowed to adapt for 30 min to natural lighting (in normal day and normal night
tests), 30 min to artificial lighting of the reversed night tests, and 60 min to darkness in the
reversed day tests. Direct observations were made for the first 5 min and at 5-min intervals
thereafter till the end of the 30-min test period. A total of eight replicates were conducted for
each of the four experimental conditions with mercury light for each species. Video monitoring
and direct observations were made during the test replicates. Fish behavioral responses were
categorized into primary or secondary behaviors. Primary behaviors occurred throughout a test
period, whereas secondary behaviors were sudden or infrequent responses. Both primary and
secondary behaviors were further broken down into sub-categories.
The greatest and most consistent changes observed in coho salmon were from exposure to
mercury light at night. No clear response was noted under reverse conditions. Chinook salmon
increased their activity when exposed to mercury light. Under normal conditions during daylight
hours, however, Chinook salmon were relatively inactive. Little or no changes in response were
observed during reversed treatments.

Low success rates in directing fish into a Hidrostal pump prompted laboratory investigations in
the use of behavioral devices to improve collection efficiencies (Rodgers 1983). Laboratory
studies were conducted to evaluate strobe lights (as we discussed previously), mercury vapor
13-64
lights, electric fields, and a bubble curtain in improving the efficiency of a Hidrostal pump for
capturing smelt and alewife.
Tests were performed in a rectangular concrete pool measuring 12 by 6 by 1 m (39.3 by 19.7 by
3.2 ft). The Hidrostal pump (model H5) was mounted on a divider wall. Intake and discharge
pipes of the pump extended 2 m (6.6 ft) on either side of the divider wall. A 1 cm (0.4 in.)
square mesh fence extended from the sidewalls, then angle to the pump intakes. A filtered
mercury vapor light was placed directly behind the pump intake.
A batch of 25 smelt or alewife was used in each test. Fish were introduced to the intake side of
the pool 18 hrs before the pump was started. The pump was run at 600 rpm for 3 hrs. Fish that
were discharged into the receiving cage were counted and transferred to a holding cage for 24-
hour mortality observations. All of the treatments were tested in conjunction with mercury vapor
lights over a 3-hour test interval. Treatments were applied for 3-min intervals and repeated every
15 min throughout the test interval. Two replicates were conducted for each treatment. Data
were analyzed using the fixed-effects analysis of variance model.
The Hidrostal pump alone was ineffective at capturing smelt or alewife. Capture efficiency
improved significantly (p≤0.05) when the pump was used with the mercury light. Significant
differences were not observed between tests using the mercury light alone or in combination with
other devices.
Case Studies – Other Light – Hydroelectric Field Tests
Richard B. Russell Pumped Storage Project

Overhead, high-pressure sodium lights have been evaluated as part of an integrated fish
protection system employed at the Richard B. Russell Pumped Storage Project located on the
Savannah River between South Carolina and Georgia (Pickens 1992; Ploskey et al. 1995; Nestler
et al. 1995b, 1998). The sodium lights were evaluated mainly for their ability to attract blueback
herring to low-velocity tailrace areas where they would be less likely to become entrained during
pumpback operations. The effectiveness of the lights was determined by comparing densities of
fish in lit and unlit tailrace areas using hydroacoustic sampling techniques. In tests using fixed-
aspect hydroacoustics, mean densities of fish under a single sodium light were shown to be
significantly higher than densities in an adjacent unlit area with a similar depth. Data collected
from transects sampled with mobile hydroacoustics also demonstrated that mean densities of fish
were significantly greater in tailrace areas illuminated with sodium lights. Based on these
results, the use of overhead sodium lights has been incorporated into the final design of the
integrated fish protection system that has been proposed for use at this site.
Halsou Hydroelectric Plant

Exploratory tests were conducted with halogen and mercury lights during the evaluation of a
downstream bypass for Atlantic salmon smolts at Halsou Hydroelectric Plant, on the Nive River
in southwest France (Larinier and Boyer-Bernard 1992). Daily, diurnal, and hourly passage was
determined by video recording and trapping. Tests with marked fish indicated that between 42
and 95% of the smolts used the surface bypass. Passage rates increased significantly when the
bypass discharge was increased. Visual observations also revealed that fish were attracted to the
13-65
lights, but avoided the point source. When the bypass lights were shut off, the rate of passage
through the bypass increased.
Various Hydroelectric Projects in the Northeast – Weldon Dam, Mattaceunk

Hydroelectric Project, Rolfe Canal, Pejepscot Hydroelectric Project, Cabot Station
Overhead and/or underwater lights (i.e., other than mercury or strobe lights) have been evaluated
during field studies as means to attract fish to surface bypasses at several hydro projects in the
Northeast. Most of the bypasses where lights were installed were part of downstream passage
facilities designed for anadromous outmigrants (e.g., Atlantic salmon [Salmo salar] smolts and
juvenile American shad [Alosa sapidissima] and river herring). Overhead lights usually were
located above and/or immediately downstream of bypass weirs to backlight the entrance.
Evaluations of passage facilities that included overhead lights had produced mixed results.
Marginal increases in bypass efficiency were demonstrated in some studies, whereas others
showed no increase in passage rates. Many of these studies, however, were not subjected to
rigorous analyses that might have quantified the actual effect of overhead lighting (i.e., the use of
bypasses with and without overhead lights was not statistically compared during most studies).
Other parameters that affect bypass efficiency (e.g., hydraulic conditions, project operation,
bypass configuration and location) may have overriden the ability of overhead lights to increase
passage. In some cases, fish may have been attracted by the lights, but would not enter the
bypass due to unfavorable hydraulic conditions. Even if increases in bypass efficiency are
relatively low (e.g., 5 to 10%), the use of overhead lights may be justified at some sites because
the costs of installation, operation, and maintenance are low.
Rosa Diversion Dam

The response of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) smolts to a drop light was
evaluated during cage tests conducted at the Roza Diversion Dam located on the Yakima River
in Washington (Amaral 1998). During this study, several behavioral devices were examined for
their potential to guide outmigrating smolts to the screening facilities at Roza. A detailed
description of the study methods and test facilities was described in the section on strobe lights.
The drop light was evaluated during 12 separate tests, nine of which were conducted with a 1-
min exposure period and three with a 2-min exposure period. The 1-min tests were conducted
during daytime, dusk, and nighttime hours (three tests per time of day), and the 2 min tests were
all conducted at night. A new group of fish (between 12 and 25 fish) was used for each test.
Fish were exposed to drop light stimuli that included continuous light operation and turning the
light on and off at one and 15 second intervals. Responses to the drop light were assessed by
comparing fish school positions during control and treatment periods. Although some movement
of fish away from the light source was noted during several of the drop light tests, the distance
moved was minimal (less than 1.0 m [3.3 ft]) and speed of movement was slow. Also, there was
no indication that time of day affected fish response to the drop light. Based on the lack of
response exhibited by Chinook salmon during most tests, it was concluded that drop lights
should not be considered for application at Roza.
13-66
Case Studies – Other Light – Cage Tests

Cage tests were conducted at the Kingsford Hydroelectric Project in Wisconsin to evaluate the
response of potomodromous fish species to several behavioral devices, including overhead high-
pressure sodium lights. A detailed description of study methods was provided previously in the
discussion of strobe light experimental evaluations. Species evaluated during the sodium light
cage tests included bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), walleye
(Sander vitreus), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and smallmouth bass (Micropterus
dolomieu). Testing involved exposing groups of fish to light from sources located above either
end of the cage. Each light source was operated for 5 min during 10-min exposure periods.
None of the fish that were tested exhibited any discernible response (attraction or repulsion) to
the illumination from the sodium lights. Based on the results, it was concluded that high-
pressure sodium lights do not have potential for use as a fish protection technology with the
species that were evaluated.
Case Studies – Other Light – Laboratory Studies
Laboratory Study – University of Maryland

Laboratory tests were conducted at the University of Maryland to determine behavioral
responses of white perch (Morone americana), Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), and
spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) to different light wavelengths, strobe lights (discussed previously),
and a strobe light/air bubble curtain combination (Stauffer et al. 1983 and Sager et al. 1999).
The test facility was a rectangular chamber that could deliver water at regulated flow rates
(diffusers and baffles were used to maximize flow evenness). It was 1.8 by 1.2 m (6 by 4 ft),
with a barrier running down the middle of the chamber to within 25.4-cm (10-in.) of the
upstream fish barrier. Eleven Kodak 600H Carousel projectors, with quartz-halogen dichroic
reflector lamps, were focused into a series of eleven baffle chambers in the test trough. The
halogen lights could be controlled individually and could operate at various intensities.
Electromagnetic band widths were separated using narrow band interference filters. Wavelength
transmissions of 460, 480, 500, 520, 560, 580, 600, 620, 640, and 660 nm were used in the
experiments. The water flow rates used for the experiments averaged either 0.5 m/sec (1.5
ft/sec) or 0.2 m/sec (0.6 ft/sec). Specimens were kept in one of two acclimation rooms on a
12:12 hour day:night cycle, 12 hrs out of synchronization from each other.
Five new (previously untested) specimens were used for each experiment. The fish were
allowed to acclimate for 20 min after being introduced into the test tank. After 20 min, the video
camera was turned on and the water velocity was initiated. Fish were kept in the chamber with
the flow on for one hour without test light stimulus. Test specimens could be introduced into the
test trough at either end of the spectrum. All the species were tested at three light intensities, but
the number of test replicates varied. Ten spot and white perch were tested under all conditions
for a total 60 tests. Twenty menhaden were also tested under all conditions for a total of 120
tests. The light wavelength preference data were statistically analyzed using a Chi-square
analysis.
13-67
White perch exhibited an escape rather than the expected preference behavior. They did not
exhibit a preference for any wavelength of light used in the tests. Spot exhibited great variability
in light wavelength preference between individual specimens. In general, spot tended to prefer
shorter wavelengths. No preference was clearly indicated by spot.
Laboratory Study - Marine Biology Unit, Fawley, UK

Laboratory tests with various light devices were conducted to assess their ability to repel or
deflect European eels (Anguilla anguilla) from water intakes (Hadderingh and Smythe 1997).
The light sources that were evaluated included incandescent lights (200 W, continuous
spectrum), fluorescent lights (36 W with spectrum peaks at 440, 550, and 610 nm), and strobe
lights (30 W, 600 flashes per min). Evaluations of eel responses to each light were conducted in
a variable speed flume with an experimental area that was 1.4 by 6.3 m (4.6 by 20.7 ft) long with
a water depth of 2.6 m (8.5 ft). Two compartments were located at the downstream end of the
test area; one compartment was illuminated from above, the other was not. Infrared cameras and
lights were used to observe response of eel to each light device. Illuminations that were
evaluated for each light type included 1.4 and 10.4 lux for incandescent light, 7.1-3 and 1.5 lux
for fluorescent light, and 3.1-3 and 80.1-3 lux for strobe light. Flume water velocity ranged from
0.1 to 0.44 m/sec (0.3 to 1.4 ft/sec) during testing, depending on the light type being evaluated.
Between 19 and 70 silver eels (320 to 720 mm [12.6 to 28.3 in.] in length) were used for each
combination of light source, illumination level, and velocity evaluated. A deflection percentage
(i.e., percent of eels entering the non-illuminated compartment) was calculated for each test to
assess the effectiveness of the light types.
Deflection percentages ranged from 27% to 80% for incandescent light (six tests), 28 to 82
percent for fluorescent light (five tests), and 45% to 86% for strobe light (two tests). The results
were statistically significant for all tests, with the exception of two incandescent light tests.
Deflection rates for each light type typically were lower at the higher velocities evaluated. Also,
the highest deflection rates observed for each light occurred at the highest illumination level.
There were no statistical differences in deflection percentages among the three light types. It
was concluded that the each of the light devices had potential for successful field application
given deployment configurations and illumination levels that allowed downstream migrants
adequate time to respond before becoming entrained into an intake.

When juvenile salmon encounter a sudden decrease in ambient light intensity, they may become
attracted to light. This response was investigated in a laboratory study by adapting age 0
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) to a constant ambient light intensity followed by
simultaneously reducing ambient light and producing a small spot of light at the center of the test
tank (Puckett and Anderson 1988; EPRI 1990). The tests were based on the assumption that
attraction to light would be proportional to the difference between perceived intensity of the
stimulus light and the perceived intensity of the adaptation light.
Two-month-old juvenile Chinook salmon were used in the incandescent light tests. Fish were
raised under artificial and natural light at the University of Washington hatchery and had an
average length of 53 mm (2.0 in.). Experiments were conducted in and experimental tank, 2.4 by
0.9 m (8.0 by 3.0 ft). The tank was enclosed with black plastic to reduce outside light
13-68
interference. The tank was filled with 10°C (50°F) water, approximately 0.2 m (0.7 ft) deep.
The lights used over the tank for adapting fish were two, 100-W incandescent bulbs, controlled
by a rheostat. Stimulus light was a 200-, 40-, or 15-W incandescent bulb located inside a 0.18-m
(0.6-ft) diameter, 0.6-m (2.0-ft) long, black stove pipe. The pipe created a cylinder of light
through the water and a 0.27-m (0.9-ft) diameter spot of light at the bottom of the tank.
Fifteen salmon were placed in the experimental tank for 20 min to acclimate to the specified light
intensity. The adaptation lights were then turned off and the stimulus light was turned on at the
desired intensity. Fish behavior was recorded by a video camera for 2 min. Six replicates were
completed for each of the light combinations. Video tapes were reviewed at slower speeds to
determine specific behavior, and counts of salmon entering the light stimulus affected area. The
tests examined the ratio of ambient light intensity (Ia) to physical stimulus light intensity (Is).
Maximum attraction to the stimulus light, as evidenced by the number of fish above the light
spot, was observed when Is = Ia. It was determined that fish responded to the ratio of Ia and Is,
not to the individual light intensities. Chinook actively avoided the light spot when Is was 100
times Ia and attraction was greatest when Ia/Is = 1. The study indicates that ambient light levels
must be considered when attempting to guide fish with lights.
Laboratory Study – San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station

Laboratory tests were conducted with overhead incandescent flood lights and strobe lights
(described previously) to determine the potential for future application at the San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station (SONGS) in increasing the proportion of fish that enter a fish bypass and
salvage system (Jahn and Herbinson 2000; see Chapter 12, Louvers). The laboratory tests were
conducted in three phases from June to December 1995 using methods identical to those
previously described for the strobe light tests. The steady light tests employed a 60-watt
tungsten bulb used with a light blue filter (Kodak #80) to correct for the red spectrum.
Summer tests with steady light indicated no preference reaction by light-adapted anchovy. Dark-
adapted fish, however, showed a statistically significant bias (p=0.013) toward the north side of
the apparatus. Compared to controls, dark-adapted fish showed an even greater attraction
(p=0.018) to the north side when the steady light stimulus was operating. The authors report that
fish size, as well as day length and season, may have accounted for the difference in behavior in
the summer and fall batches of fish.
Phase II tests used a simpler apparatus consisting of a round tank 3.7 m (12 ft) in diameter and
1.2 m (4 ft) deep. Water depth was approximately 0.9 m (3 ft). The tank was divided by two
plastic curtains (46 cm [18 in.] apart). The curtains formed a 2.4-m (8-ft) long corridor. Fish
were introduced into the tank at least 4 hrs before testing and were acclimated to relative
darkness. For Phase II tests, topsmelt, kelp bass, California sheepshead, and walleye surfperch
were tested in addition to anchovy. The tests involved switching on the light and video
recording the number of fish on the lighted side. Tests lasted approximately 20 min, and fish
counts were made at 5 min intervals for the duration of each test. After each test, fish were
allowed to acclimate to relative darkness for at least one hour, then the light on the opposite side
of the tank was switched on and the testing procedure continued.
The 141 responses displayed by the 109 Phase II multiple-species tests included: 67 attraction
responses, 50 neutral responses, and 24 repulsion responses. Northern anchovy (Engraulis
mordax), topsmelt (Atherinops affinis), Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax), and white croaker
13-69
(Genyonemus lineatus) all showed a tendency to move toward the light. California sheephead
(Semicossyphus pulcher) and kelp bass (Paralabrax clathratus) remained in the corridor.
Walleye surfperch tended to move toward the dark side.
Phase III tests used the same apparatus and testing procedure as Phase II experiments, except that
the light source used was three tungsten bulbs (with a total rating of 630 lumens). Only Pacific
sardine, acquired in two batches, were used as test fish for Phase III. Equal numbers of fish were
tested under each of the three light conditions. A voltage controller was used to obtain data at
lower light levels. Nine to sixteen fish were used in each of the 66 test runs. Attraction to the
lighted side was exhibited by 64 of the 66 fish (no change in the remaining 2).
Laboratory Study – South Dakota State University

A laboratory test was conducted to evaluate the effects of strobe lights on plasma cortisol
concentrations and avoidance behavior at South Dakota State University (Richard et al. 2007).
Plasma cortisol concentrations were measured to determine stress levels, giving a better
understanding of sensitivity to strobe lights. A broad range of fish taxa were used in this study
including Centrarchidae (largemouth bass [Micropterus salmoides]), Cyprinidae (fathead
minnow [Pimephales promelas]), Ictaluridae (channel catfish [Ictalurus punctatus]), Percidae
(yellow perch [Perca flavescens]), and Salmonidae (Chinook salmon [Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha]).
Six, 900-L circular tanks were used during plasma cortisol experiments, three for control groups
and three for treatment groups. Treatment tanks were equipped with two cylindrical strobe lights
each with a flash rate of 86 flashes per min, submerged 0.3 m (1.0 ft) below the water surface.
Tanks were all covered with black polyethylene plastic to remove light transmission from the
tanks. Two trials per species were conducted, totaling six replicates per treatment. Healthy fish
were dip netted from holding tanks and randomly put into treatment or control tanks. For fathead
minnow tests, 18 fish were added to each of the six tanks while four fish were added to each tank
for the other species. Fish were allowed to acclimate to the test tanks for 24 hrs before the
experiment began. Experiments were conducted in the dark between 2000 and 0600 hrs. Strobe
lights ran for an hour, after which two to three individuals were randomly collected from the
control and treatment tanks, anesthetized, and had blood samples taken. Additional fish were
tested for an additional 6 hrs under control and treatment conditions. Blood samples were taken
from the secondary group, put into a centrifuge, and plasma separated was stored at -80°C (-
112°F) for analysis.
Avoidance behavior was evaluated in an experimental raceway under no flow conditions at a
water temperature of 17 to 24°C (62.6 to 75.2°). Four strobe lights were installed at one end of
the flume. Fish were introduced and allowed to acclimate to the raceway for 12 hrs in darkness.
Each trial consisted of either fathead minnow (n = 20), channel catfish (n = 10), yellow perch (n
= 10), largemouth bass (n = 10), or Chinook salmon (n = 6). Each trial consisted of paired
control (lights off) and treatment (lights on) groups. The test started by turning the overhead
lights on for 10 sec and determining where the fish were at the start of each trial. Then the over
head lights were turned off and fish were held for an additional 60 min. After the 60 min the
overhead lights were turned back on and fish location recorded again. Fish were allowed to
acclimate to the darkness for an additional 30 min and then the strobe lights were turned on for
test groups. Fish location was recorded after 2 and 60 min in the same fashion as initial location
13-70
was recorded. Measurements from the strobe lights were taken in the video recordings and
compared to species-specific plasma cortisol concentrations.
After 1-hr of strobe light exposure in test tanks, plasma cortisol levels were significantly higher
in channel catfish, yellow perch and Chinook salmon compared to the control groups, while there
was no significant differences between groups for fathead minnow and largemouth bass. Plasma
cortisol concentrations were similar between treatment and control groups after 7-hrs of
exposure.
During behavioral tests conducted in the raceway, treatment Chinook salmon, largemouth bass,
and yellow perch displayed significant avoidance responses to strobe lights, moving a significant
distance from them after 2 min compared to the control groups. After 60 min, treatment
largemouth bass, channel catfish, yellow perch and Chinook salmon all exhibited avoidance
responses to the strobe lights, moving a significant distance from the strobe lights compared to
the control groups. The strobe lights had little influence on fathead minnows during either
duration of time.
13-71
14
SOUND
Introduction
The focus of fish protection studies involving underwater sound technologies has been on the use
of various types of low and high-frequency acoustic systems that have not previously been
available for commercial use. High-frequency sound (>100 kHz; also referred to as ultrasound)
has been shown to effectively repel members of the genus Alosa (American shad, alewife, and
blueback herring) at several sites in the US (Ploskey et al. 1995; Dunning 1997; Consolidated
Edison 1994). Other studies have not shown low-frequency sound (100 Hz to 20 kHz) to be
consistently effective in repelling species such as largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides),
smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), walleye (Sander
vitreus), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), Atlantic
herring (Clupea harengus), and bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) (EPRI 1998b; Consolidated
Edison 1994). Given the species-specific responses to different frequencies that have been
evaluated and the variable results that often have been produced, additional research may be
warranted at any sites where there is little or no data to indicate that a species of concern may
respond to sound.
In the first practical application of infrasound (frequencies below 100 Hz) for repelling fish,
Knudsen and colleagues (Knudsen et al. 1992, 1994) found a piston-type particle motion
generator operating at 10 Hz to be effective in repelling Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts in
a tank and in a small diversion channel. Following this success, there was a general belief in the
scientific community that infrasound could represent an effective fish repellent since there was a
physiological basis for understanding the response of fish to particle motion. The potential for
currently available infrasound sources to effectively repel fish has been brought into question by
the results of more recent studies. Given these results, it appears that infrasound sources need to
be further developed and evaluated before they can be considered an available technology for
application at cooling water intake structures (CWISs).
Sound
The use of underwater sound to repel (and in some cases attract) fish has been investigated for
over 50 years (Table 14-1). Over the last 20 years, the focus of fish passage and protection
studies involving underwater sound has shifted from evaluations of low-frequency, mechanical
sound generators (e.g., poppers, hammers, and fish drones) to evaluations of acoustic transducer
systems that cover a wide range of frequencies and signal types.
Declassification of US Navy technologies has led to the commercial availability of underwater
sound "projectors” with features that facilitate their use as fish deterrent technologies (e.g., size,
cost, operating specifications, and reliability). Transducer-based systems are capable of
producing a variety of sound signals with different waveforms over a wide range of frequencies
and amplitudes.
14-1
Mechanical sound generators of various types have been developed or adapted from other uses.
The hammer (also referred to as a fishpulser) is an impact device. It uses a spring-driven mass to
excite the resonant modes of a structure that is in direct coupling with the water. It produces a
high-energy low frequency sound, the duration of which is approximately 200 ms. The hammer
can be easily modified (i.e., changing the end plate) to vary its output frequency. Impact sound
generators have been evaluated for fish protection purposes in recent years. Earlier research had
shown some promise for effective use of these devices, but impact sound generators generally
have not been shown to effectively and consistently repel any species in actual field applications.
At this time, it does not appear that impact sound generators have the potential for effective
application at CWISs.
Poppers are pneumatic devices that produce sound energy through the explosive release of air
from a pressurized chamber. Poppers were developed for underwater exploration purposes. The
fishdrone is a device that uses sonic vibrations to excite metallic structures. Frequencies ranging
from 20 to 1,000 Hz can be generated without modifications to this device. The fishdrone can be
operated continuously or intermittently and can produce regular or irregular pulses. Similar to
impact sound generators, the effectiveness of poppers and fishdrones in repelling fish has been
variable and these devices currently are not considered as viable technologies for reducing
entrainment of fish at water intakes.
The effectiveness of transducer-based sound systems in eliciting avoidance behaviors from fish
has also been variable. Low frequency systems (100 Hz to 20 kHz) have elicited responses from
a wide range of species during cage tests and some pilot-scale field evaluations, but limited
success has been achieved in field trials at water intakes. Based on the results of studies
conducted with several freshwater fish species (Winchell et al. 1997; EPRI 1998b) and with
juvenile salmonids (Ploskey et al. 1998b; Goetz et al. 1998), the use of low frequency sound
systems does not appear to be a viable alternative for protecting fish at water intakes unless
future research demonstrates otherwise. In contrast to low-frequency systems, high-frequency
systems (>100 kHz) have been effective in eliciting avoidance responses from several clupeid
species (shad and herring) during both cage test and field trials. Field studies conducted at the
James A. Fitzpatrick Plant clearly demonstrated that when site-specific biological,
environmental, and hydraulic characteristics were considered, a high-frequency sound system
effectively repelled alewife near plant’s cooling water intake (Dunning et al. 1992; Ross et al.
1993, 1996; Dunning 1997). A similar development process produced a high-frequency sound
system for deterring blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) at the Richard B. Russell Project.
14-2
Table 14-1
Summary of tests conducted with sound devices during field, cage, and laboratory studies
Target /
Frequencies
Site and Reference Abundant Sound Device Tested General Study Conclusions
Evaluated
Species
herring, sprat,
white bream,
Doel Nuclear Power Plant rainbow smelt,
20 FGS Mk II 30-600 Authors attribute greater avoidance
(Belgium) common sole, 20 to 600 Hz
sound projectors behavior to species with swim bladders
Maes et al. 2004 European
flounder, and
gobies
James A. Fitzpatrick Power Plant
Alewife impingement reduced by 85%
Dunning et al. 1992; 110 and 125
Alewife electric fish startle system while plant was in operation mode and
Ross et al. 1993, 1996; kHz
88% in non-operation mode.
Dunning 1997
striped bass,
spot, Atlantic
croaker, bay
No signal consistently elicited avoidance
Salem Generating Station anchovy,
0.1 to 145 responses. Deployment of a hybrid
Taft et al. 1996; American shad, hammer device
kHz signal demonstrated some reduction in
Taft and Brown 1997 blueback
impingement.
herring, alewife,
white perch,
weakfish
bay anchovy,
bay anchovy,
alewife,
Arthur Kill Generating Station Strong deterrence in blueback herring
blueback narrow- and wide-beam 18 and 198
Consolidated Edison Company and alewife; ineffective for gizzard shad,
herring, Atlantic transducers Hz
1994 Atlantic herring, and bay anchovy
herring, gizzard
shad, and
American shad
14-3
Target /
Frequencies
Evaluated
Species
Cresent and Visher Ferry
Hydroelectric Project
Ross 1999; 122 and 128 Considerable number of fish were not
blueback herring ultrasonic system
Ross 2002; kHz deterred by the barrier
FERC 2005;
Dunning and Gurshin 2012)
rainbow trout,
walleye, yellow
Kingsford Hydroelectric Project perch, golden 283, 600,
Winchell et al. 1997; shiner, bullhead, 673, 2,000, Avoidance responses were species- and
acoustic sound system
EPRI 1998a,b; black crappie, 2,500, 2,990, size-specific
Michaud and Taft 2000 sunfishes, and 5,500 Hz
largemouth,
smallmouth bass
rainbow trout,
walleye, yellow
White Rapids Hydroelectric Project perch, golden 283, 600,
Winchell et al. 1997; shiner, bullhead, 673, 2,000, Avoidance responses were species- and
acoustic sound system
EPRI 1998a, b; black crappie, 2,500, 2,990, size-specific
Michaud and Taft 2000 sunfishes, and 5,500 Hz
largemouth,
smallmouth bass
Hiram M. Chittendon coho salmon,

300 to 400
LocksPloskey et al. 1998b Goetz Chinook salmon, Model 220 transducers Barriers showed to be ineffective
Hz
et al. 1998 Goetz et al 2001 sockeye salmon
Richard B. Russell Pumped

Storage Project
Pickens 1992; The results of these tests demonstrated
high-frequency sound 118 to 130
Ploskey et al. 1995; Blueback herring a substantial reduction in blueback
system kHz
Nestler et al. 1992, herring entrainment
1995a,1995b, 1998;
Schilt and Ploskey 1997
Pejepscot Hydroelectric Project The sound system was ineffective at
alewife 120 kHz
NDT et al. 1997 increasing bypass
14-4
Target /
Frequencies
Evaluated
Species
Paired sound on/sound off experiments,

66% warmwater fish, 70% all other fish
Racine Hydroelectric Plant 120, 240,
basses, other than gizzard shad (Dorosoma
Loeffelman et al. 1991a, 1991b; projectors 360, and 720
catfishes, shad cepedianum) , and approximately 55% of
Klinect et al. 1992 Hz
the shad in the forebay approaching the
sound field were repelled from the area.
Berrien Springs Hydroelectric

Project and Buchanan Hydro steelhead trout 120, 240, 94% fewer steelhead and 81% fewer
Project and Chinook projectors 360, and 720 Chinook smolts were caught when the
Loeffelman et al. 1991a, 1991b; salmon Hz sound system was on
Klinect et al. 1992
Georgiana Slough Chinook salmon,
Hanson Environmental, Inc., , juvenile striped
10 to 12 Argotec Model 300 to 400 Overall effectiveness varied with testing
1993; bass,
215 or 220 Hz Phase.
SLDMWA and Hanson 1996; Sacramento
Hanson et al. 1997 splittail
Fyke net catches of fish naturally
entering the forebay and fish monitoring
Wilkins Slough Pumping Station 10 to 12 Argotec Model 300 to 400 data close to the sound barrier with
Chinook salmon
Cramer et al 1993 215 or 220 Hz sound on and off are reported to
corroborate the results from the marked
fish tests.
Institute of Freshwater Ecology’s
Visual observations in 1996 indicated
River Laboratories, Frome River,
Atlantic salmon 100 to 500 that nearly 100% of the smolts were
Dorset, UK and Blantyre Bioacoustic Fish Fence
and sea trout Hz diverted into the mill leat versus the main
Hydroelectric Station
river channel
Nedwell and Turnpenny 1997
Chinook salmon,
coho
Bonneville Dam 300 to 400
salmon, sockeye 25 Argotec Model 215 The sound array should to be ineffective
Ploskey et al. 1996 Hz
salmon, and
steelhead trout
14-5
Target /
Frequencies
Evaluated
Species
Fort Halifax Hydroelectric Project 1)underwater alert

Atlantic salmon, 1)no discernible response from alewife
Environmental Consulting system; 2)Fishfinder/ 4 kHz; 192
American shad, was observed ;2)device produced a
Services and Lakeside depthsounder kHz
and alewife startle reaction in alewife
Engineering 1994 hydroacoustic system
Exhibited avoidance responses but were

York Haven Hydroelectric 100 and 150
American shad FishStartle not strong and did not displace fish a
ProjectSWETS 1994 kHz
great distance away from the source
Appeared to effectively move shad back

Vernon Hydroelectric Project 100 and 150
American shad FishStartle and forth along the station intake
RMC and Sonalysts 1993 kHz
structure
Radio-tagged fish appeared to be initially

Hadley Falls Hydroelectric Project Wesmar SS-165 scanning
American shad 161.9 kHz repelled by the acoustic field, but would
Kynard and O'Leary 1990, 1993 sonar
eventually pass through the barrier
alewife, yellow
perch,
pumpkinseed, Results of testing with the fishdrone in
black crappie, 27, 64, 99, the Lennox forebay indicated very little
Lennox Generating Station fishdrone
rock bass, and 153 Hz directional movement of fish away from
rainbow trout, the device
and golden
shiner
Sockeye salmon smolt catches in the

Seton Hydroelectric Station
sockeye salmon hammer device 52 Hz Seton forebay were significantly reduced
McKinley & Patrick 1988a
by the hammer device
Allegheny Reservoir 200 to 3,000 The G34 transducer found to be

G34 transducer
Smith and Anderson 1984 Hz ineffective for test fish.
Arthur Kill Generating Station 18 to 198
bay anchovy low and high-frequency Both species demonstrated avoidance
Consolidated Edison Company kHz;
alewife sound systems responses
1994 75 to 500 Hz
14-6
Target /
Frequencies
Evaluated
Species
alewife, striped
bass, white
Cage Tests – NYPA and
perch, Atlantic hydroacoustics HLF-6; <200Hz; 100 Avoidance responses were species- and
ESEERCO
tomcod, golden HX-29 transducers to 1000 Hz size-specific
NYPA et al. 1991
shiner, and
spottail shiner
Pickering Nuclear Generating Results indicated a consistent negative
Station alewife hammer device response from adult alewife to the
Patrick et al. 1988a hammer
Estimated to be approximately 70%
300 and 900 effective; was difficult to assess because
Manimota Bay, Japan speaker system
Hz of low fish densities during the testing
period.
Results of the sound attraction trials
reveal that both juvenile and adult eels
Laboratory Study - Kinectrics American eels sound generator < 1,000 Hz
were attracted toward the sound
projector
Atlantic silver
side, Atlantic
The results demonstrated that the sound
herring, Northern
Annapolis Tidal Generation Station 122 and 128 barrier was partially effective for Alosa
pipefish, model 3406 transducers
Gibson and Myers 2002 kHz spp. At deterring fish from the tailrace,
blackspotted
but was ineffective for all other species
stickleback,
blueback herring
14-7
Infrasound
Research with sound deterrent systems generally has involved devices that transmit frequencies
above 100 Hz. Several recent studies have focused on the ability of infrasound (frequencies less
than 100 Hz) to repel fish based on the results of studies conducted with Atlantic salmon smolts
(Knudsen et al. 1992, 1994). Extensive basic research on fish sensory systems has demonstrated
that fish response to sound stimuli in the near field is probably more related to particle motion
than acoustic pressure. Designs of infrasound sources have varied, but most have used some
type of oscillating piston driven at frequencies less than 50 Hz. An alternative design, which has
been evaluated with potamodromous fish and anadromous salmonids, generates frequencies
between 10 and 60 Hz by driving water through a rotating valve with openings in it. The speed
of rotation controls the frequency being emitted, and the flow rate controls the amplitude of the
signal.
Until recently, research with sound deterrent systems generally has concentrated on frequencies
above 100 Hz based on the assumption that observed fish responses were a result of stimulation
of sensory organs to the acoustic pressure generated by sound sources. There is extensive
literature on fish hearing. Various authors have presented models for fish audition that address
the relative importance of the sensory receptors believed to be most important in "hearing" (e.g.,
the otolith organs, the lateral line and the air bladder), the importance of vectorial components
(particle velocity, acceleration, and displacement) versus scalar components (acoustic pressure)
in "sound perception” and behavioral response, and the ability of fish to determine the phase of
the pressure signal relative to the particle displacement signal and thereby determine the
direction of "sound" movement. It is becoming clear that, in the near field, fish response to
"sound" is more related to particle motion than acoustic pressure.
Following the success of Knudsen et al. (1992, 1994), there was a general belief in the scientific
community that infrasound could represent an effective fish repellent since there was a
physiological basis for understanding the response of fish to particle motion. The potential for
currently available infrasound sources to effectively repel fish has been brought into question by
the results of more recent studies. Given these results, it appears that infrasound sources need to
be further developed and evaluated before they can be considered for full-scale application.
Information on laboratory, cage, and field studies conducted with infrasound is presented in
Table 14-2.
14-8
Table 14-2
Summary of tests conducted with infrasound devices during field, cage, and laboratory studies
Target /
Infrasound Device Frequencies
Tested Evaluated
Species
McNary Dam Inconclusive results due to limited

Pacific salmon Piston; PMG <20 Hz
Johnson and Ploskey (1998) visibility
10 Hz revealed potential effectiveness as

Sandvikselven River (Norway) 10 Hz and
Atlantic salmon Piston a deterrent, 150 Hz had no repelling
Knudsen et al. (1994) 150 Hz
affect
Roza
Chinook salmon PMG 10–50 Hz No response detected
Amaral et al. 1998
10 Hz Piston caused mild avoidance in sub-

Hiram M. Chittenden Locks (piston) yearling chinook salmon, PMG was
Pacific salmon Piston; PMG
Ploskey et al. 1998b 10-50 Hz ineffective at eliciting an avoidance
(PMG) response
Kingsford
Winchell et al. (1997) Mild initial avoidance response for some
freshewater spp PMG 5–60 Hz
EPRI (1990) species, ineffective in all others tested
7 infrasound generators
Rolfe Canal
Atlantic salmon (air-driven pneumatic 15 Hz Mild avoidance behavior was observed
Lakeside Engineering (1996)
oscillators)
Low-frequency transducer
Sommaroyhamn Initial deterrent effect, reduced over time
cod (details on model or ~30 Hz
Holand and Walso (1988) and exposure
design were not reported)
rainbow trout
PNNL Initial avoidance response, significant
Chinook salmon VDS opposable piston 10 Hz
Mueller et al. (1999) habituation after fifth exposure
brook trout
PNNL rainbow trout Opposable piston 10-14 Hz Ineffective at eliciting a continuous flight
Mueller et al. (1998) Chinook salmon (Simrad); piston (EESCO (Simrad and avoidance response, some initial
14-9
Target /
Infrasound Device Frequencies
Tested Evaluated
Species
prototype) piston) responses were observed
7 Hz
(EESCO
piston)
Oregon State University Chinook salmon Initial flight response decreasing to

Piston 10 Hz
Knudsen et al. (1997) rainbow trout steady avoidance after repetition
University of Oslo
Atlantic salmon Piston 10 Hz Initial avoidance response
Knudsen et al. (1992)
14-10
Case Studies – Sound – CWIS Field Trials
Doel Nuclear Power Plant, Scheldt Estuary, Belgium

The Doel nuclear power plant is located in the brackish water portion of the Scheldt Estuary in
Belgium, an important nursery area for young-of-the-year marine and fresh water fish species.
The plant has an offshore intake that withdraws 25.1 m3/sec (886.4 cfs) for cooling. Water
travels to an onshore screenwell through a 540-m (1,771.7-ft) long pipe. Vertical traveling water
screens with 4-mm (0.2-in.) square mesh collect fish and debris.
In 1997, an acoustic fish deterrent (AFD) system was installed to study its efficacy in reducing
the number of fish entering the intake (Maes et al. 2004). A total of 20 FGS Mk II 30-600 sound
projectors (Fish Guidance Systems LTD, Southampton, UK) were installed near the five 4.0 by
2.4 m2 (43 by 25.8 ft2) intake openings. A signal generator was used to produce eight different
sound signals in the 20 to 600 Hz range at a nominal output of 174 dB re: 1μPa. The signals
were repeated once every 0.2 seconds.
Previous residence time studies with goldfish (Carassius auratis) using release/recapture
techniques demonstrated that fish pass from the offshore intake to the onshore screenwell
quickly (88% recaptured after 1 hour). Therefore, a day on/day off sampling strategy was
employed to determine the efficacy of the AFD system. Preliminary results in 1997-98 indicated
no significant reductions in fish passage. Therefore, the sound projectors were relocated and
installed directly in the intake openings. Efficacy sampling occurred between October 1998 and
October 2001.
Data were analyzed using a t-test of the log10-transformed data to identify statistically significant
differences (P<0.05) in total numbers of fish caught during test (sound ON) and control (sound
OFF) days. The minimum sample size used for analysis was a total of 50 individuals over each
48-hour on/off evaluation period. The reduction rate, R, was expressed as a percentage: R = 100
– 100 non noff-1, where noff is the total catch of the control sample and non is the total catch of the
test samples. In addition, the effects of salinity and temperature on species-specific efficacy
were analyzed.
A total of 350,000 fish representing 24 families and 41 species was collected over the 3-year
evaluation period. Total fish impingement decreased by 59.6% with the ADF in operation. The
predominant fish collected represented several species of marine gobies; these species comprised
78% of the total catch. The differences in impingement between test and control was significant
for nine species/taxa: herring, sprat, white bream (Abramis bjoerkna), rainbow smelt (Osmerus
eperlansus), European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax), yellow perch (Perca fluviatilis), common
sole (Solea solea), European flounder (Platichthys flesus), and gobies of the genus
Pomatoschistus. The AFD was particularly successful in reducing the number of herring
impinged, with a total average reduction of 94.7%. The reduction of sprat averaged 87.9%,
while that of Percidae averaged 51.2%. Reductions of Stizostedion lucioperca, Limanda
limanda, pipefishes, sticklebacks, and mullets were not statistically significant. Multiple
regression analyses of temperature and salinity showed no significant effect of these parameters
on the percentage reduction in impingement in the nine species that reacted in a significant
manner to the AFD.
14-11
The authors attribute species-specific differences in response to the AFD system, in part, to
differences in hearing capabilities. Species with swim bladders showed clear avoidance of the
system. Small movements of the swim bladder can be transmitted to the inner ear directly and
via anatomical structures such as ducts. Such connections increase the fish’s ability to detect
sound. The authors also attribute AFD efficiency to fish size and associated swimming
performance. The intake velocity at Doel is 0.52 m/sec (1.7 ft/sec), while ambient currents are
0.65 m/sec (2.1 ft/sec). It is logically suggested that larger fish can avoid the intake better than
smaller ones. They offer examples of higher impingement of small-sized herring and sprat than
other larger species when the AFD system was operating.
James A. Fitzpatrick Power Plant

A multi-phase study approach was used to evaluate the use of a sound projection system to deter
fish from the offshore intake of the James A. Fitzpatrick Power Plant (JAF) located on Lake
Ontario near Oswego, New York (Dunning et al. 1992; Ross et al. 1993, 1996; Dunning 1997).
Cooling water for JAF is withdrawn from Lake Ontario through a single submerged intake
structure located about 300 m (980 ft) offshore. A series of traveling water screens are located
onshore in a forebay to remove fish and debris that enter the intake. About 80% of the fish that
are impinged annually at JAF are alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus). The estimated annual
impingement of alewife has ranged from 66,124 to 522,672 fish. A phased approach was
employed to develop a sonic deterrent system for reducing alewife entrainment. This approach
included cage tests, a demonstration field evaluation, and full-scale system tests.
Results from cage tests demonstrated that alewife consistently avoided several high-frequency
sounds at higher sound pressure levels. A strong avoidance response was observed during
daytime hours with pulsed tones of 110 and 125 kHz at sound pressure levels of 175 and 180 dB,
respectively, and with pulsed broadband sounds of 117 to 133 kHz at 157 dB. Following cage
tests, a full-scale high-frequency system was developed and installed at the JAF intake. The
system was evaluated during a short-term (10-day) demonstration test. The sound system
encompassed (i.e., ensonified) the entire JAF intake at a minimum sound pressure level of 190
dB in a frequency band from 122 to 128 kHz. An 87% decrease in alewife impingement was
observed with the plant at full power and the sound system operating. However, with the
circulating water system in operation and the plant in a non-operating mode, impingement with
the sound system operating decreased by only 27%. Lowered efficiency of the deterrent system
during plant shutdown appeared to be caused by fish approaching from the non-ensonified
backside of the intake due to changes in water temperatures between the shore and the intake.
Based on the results of the demonstration study, five additional transducers were placed on the
backside of the intake structure to expand the area of coverage. An evaluation of the modified
system indicated that it was effective, both when the plant was operating at full power and when
the plant was shut down. Alewife impingement was reduced by about 85% during periods of full
power and full cooling water flow and by about 88% when the plant was in a non-operating
mode with only two intake pumps operating. Following the completion of the field studies, New
York Power Authority recently installed and evaluated a permanent sound system at the JAF
intake for minimizing alewife entrainment. The permanent system includes nine wide-beam
transducers and no narrow-beam transducers. The final design of the sound system has been
accepted by the New York State Department of Environmental Protection as the best technology
14-12
available (BTA) for reducing mortality of alewife and it has been incorporated into the project's
NPDES permit.
Salem Generating Station

Public Service Electric and Gas Company conducted a sound deterrent study at the Salem
Generating Station located on Delaware Bay (Taft et al. 1996; Taft and Brown 1997). Salem has
a flow capacity 140 m3/sec (4,956 cfs). Modified traveling screens and a fish return system are
used to collect entrained fish and transfer them back to the river. The evaluation of the sound
deterrent system was part of the station’s permitting program and was being considered as a
means to reduce impingement of selected target species on the traveling screens by repelling
them from the intake. The Salem studies included both cage and intake testing. Response data
collected from the cage tests were used to select sound signal parameters (frequencies,
waveforms, pulse rates) for evaluation at the intake.
Species that were evaluated during cage tests in 1994 and 1998 included weakfish (Cynoscion
regalis), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulates), bay anchovy
(Anchoa mitchilli), American shad (Alosa sapidissima), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis),
alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), white perch (Morone americana), and striped bass (Morone
saxatilis). A wide-range of 1/2 octave sound signals that varied in frequency, amplitude, pulse
duration, and duty cycle were evaluated during cage tests. The 1994 cage tests evaluated a wide
range of frequencies extending from 0.1 to 145 kHz. The 1998 cage tests focused on a narrower
range of frequencies (0.2 to 5.0 kHz) with the goal of refining a signal to deter fish other than the
three Alosa species. Responses were evaluated by placing a group of fish in the test cage and
exposing them to sound signals for a minimum of 30 seconds and up to 20 minutes. Fish
behavior during ambient and sound exposure periods was observed using an underwater video
system. Real-time observations of fish behavior were recorded during a test, and a secondary
review of videotapes from each test was performed. Species-specific responses were produced
over the frequency range evaluated. In general, weakfish, Atlantic croaker, and bay anchovy
demonstrated various types of weak or moderate agitation or avoidance responses to at least one
1/2 octave frequency band, whereas spot, striped bass, and white perch exhibited weaker and less
consistent responses. The Alosa species demonstrated repeated and strong avoidance to the 1/2
octave band centered at 121.8 kHz. These observations are consistent with results from previous
studies that have evaluated the response of Alosa species with similar sound signals in the range
of 120 to 130 kHz.
None of the signals evaluated during the 1994 or 1998 cage tests were found to consistently elicit
avoidance responses from the other finfish RIS. While no sounds were very effective in
changing behavior of non-Alosa species, it was hypothesized that there may be very different
responses to sounds by fish in the cage tests versus fish tested at the CWIS where there is an
open water environment in which fish are not handled. The lack of response in cage tests could
potentially be attributed to factors such as stress due to handling, changes in behavior due to
confinement in the test channel, or irregularities in the sound field caused by reflections.
Since no single signal showed a substantial degree of promise for deterring all of the non-Alosa
species in cage tests, a hybrid signal was developed that included short segments of three low
frequency signals. Two of the sounds were selected based on fish responses observed during the
1994 cage tests, and the third sound was developed in 1998 based on the logical argument that
14-13
fish are most likely to respond to sounds that are biologically meaningful to them. The selected
signal consisted of 0.25-second periods of the 0.476 kHz 1/2 octave FM chirp, the 2.7 kHz 1/2
octave FM chirp, and another signal that was simulated to mimic sounds produced by Atlantic
croaker. These three signals were played back-to-back (total pulse length of 0.75 seconds) with
a 1.5 second sound-free interval between pulses.
ITC Model 3406 transducers were used to produce the ultrasonic signal during in situ testing at
the Salem CWIS. The ITC-3406 transducer has a 45 degree beam width. Five of these
transducers were deployed in an array designed to ensonify the area in front of the Unit 1 side of
the CWIS. The transducers were mounted on three poles attached to every other pier at an
elevation 11 ft (3.4 m) below mean tide. The axis of each transducer was oriented horizontally.
On each pole, one transducer was mounted at 90 degrees relative to the face of the CWIS. On the
Northernmost pole, a second transducer was mounted facing upstream at an angle of 22.5
degrees relative to the CWIS. A matching transducer was mounted on the southernmost pier
oriented at the same angle in the downriver direction. This configuration was designed to
achieve a minimum SPL of 154 dB // μPa across the face of the intake based on acoustic
modeling. Cage test results from 1994 indicated that an SPL of 154 dB (measured in the center
of the cage) elicited strong avoidance responses in Alosa species.
Three G34 transducers were used to transmit the hybrid low-frequency signal at the CWIS.
These omni-directional transducers were placed in the same three locations as the ultrasonic
transducers, but only one transducer was mounted on each pole. All three transducers were
mounted at an elevation 10 ft (3.0 m) below mean tide. This configuration was designed to
achieve a minimum SPL of 165 dB across the face of the intake based on acoustic modeling.
This sound pressure level appeared to elicit avoidance responses for most species during some of
the 1994 cage tests. The 1998 cage tests found few responses for weakfish or bay anchovy even
though SPLs were comparable to those that were tested in 1994.
Testing was conducted during the period from July 16 through August 23. During this period, 84
paired test/control experiments were conducted. Each of these sound-off and sound-on pairs is
referred to as a block. Each block consisted of one 3-hour “on” period and one 3-hour “off”
period. Therefore, the total test block was 6 hours in duration. During a single 24-hr period, up
to four paired experiments could be conducted. The four daily blocks were scheduled such that
tests were conducted at dawn, day, dusk, and night.
The study design called for testing only low frequency sound throughout the summer. High
frequency sounds were thought to be effective primarily for Alosa, and they were not expected to
be present in adequate numbers until the fall. By August 15, 1998, it was apparent that the
effectiveness of the low frequency sound was far less than the targeted 50%. Under this
circumstance, demonstrating statistical significance was not possible under the current study
design. Given this limitation, it was decided that subsequent summer testing would explore
combined operation of the high frequency and low frequency deterrent systems.
Testing was also conducted during the period October 10 through December 2. During this
period, 120 paired test/control experiments were conducted. Both low and high frequency
sounds were tested throughout the period. The same basic experimental design was used in the
fall as during the summer, i.e., randomized 3-hour “on” and 3-hour “off.”
14-14
During the summer test periods, 22,960 fish representing 33 taxa were collected. Of these,
12,117 were collected in sound-off tests while 10,843 were collected during sound-on tests. The
eight most abundant species — weakfish, blue crab, hogchoker (Trinectes marculatus), Atlantic
croaker, striped bass, striped cusk-eel (Ophidion marginatum), bay anchovy, and Atlantic
silverside (Menidia menidia) — accounted for 22,708 individuals or 98.9% of the total collected.
Remaining species were not collected in sufficient numbers to calculate meaningful
Effectiveness Indices.
During the fall control and test periods, 23,113 fish representing 48 taxa were collected. Of
these, 11,198 were collected in sound-off tests while 11,915 were collected during sound-on
tests. Blue crab, Atlantic croaker, blueback herring, hogchoker, striped cusk-eel, bay anchovy,
Atlantic silverside, alewife, white perch, weakfish, and striped bass accounted for 22,481
individuals or 96.9% of the total collected. All other species were not collected in sufficient
numbers to calculate meaningful Effectiveness Indices.
Sound deterrents were found to reduce bay anchovy impingement by approximately 30 to 35%
during the summer low frequency sound period and during the fall. Of these two test periods,
only the fall test period (when both low and ultrasonic frequencies were used) was statistically
significant. While results for the later summer test period indicated even higher effectiveness
levels (and marginal statistical significance), the wide bootstrap confidence intervals suggest that
the results are not significantly different than those obtained during the earlier summer and fall
test periods.
A statistically significant reduction in the impingement of Atlantic silverside was observed
during the fall. During sound-on periods, the impingement rate of Atlantic silverside was
approximately 20% lower than it was during sound-off periods. A statistically significant
increase in the impingement of blue crab was observed during the fall. During sound-on periods,
the impingement rate of blue crab was approximately 20 to 25% higher than it was during sound-
off periods. Results for the Alosa species were equivocal. Alewife demonstrated a positive, but
non-significant, repulsion. Blueback herring results were also positive, with one of the three
analyses indicating a statistically significant effect (i.e., reduced entrainment with sound on).
There was no evidence of residual (carry-over) effects within the sampling design, i.e., the effect
of one test did not influence subsequent tests.
Arthur Kill Generating Station

High-frequency sound was examined as a fish deterrent during studies conducted at the Arthur
Kill Station located on Staten Island in New York (Consolidated Edison Company 1994). Cage
tests examining the responses of bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) to high- and low-frequency
sound also were conducted during this study, and are discuss in the section on controlled
experiments with sound. The Arthur Kill Station has two fossil fuel units (Units 20 and 30).
Unit 20 is rated at 335 and Unit at 491 MW. Both units are serviced by a once-through cooling
water system with a flow capacity of 15.4 m3/sec (544 cfs) for Unit 20 and 13.2 m3/sec (468 cfs)
for Unit 30. Cooling water passes through eight intake bays, each equipped with dual-flow
traveling screens. High-frequency sound transducers were mounted on four of the station’s eight
intake bays. The sound system comprised both narrow- and wide-beam transducers. The sound
system was evaluated for its ability to repel bay anchovy, alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus),
blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus), gizzard shad (Dorosoma
14-15
cepedianum), and (Alosa sapidissima). Based on the seasonal abundance of each species, tests
were conducted during November and December in 1993 and during April and May in 1994.
The effectiveness of the sound system was evaluated by comparing the number of fish impinged
on the traveling screens of the intakes on which the transducers were installed during sound-off
and sound-on periods. Treatment and control periods were 24 hours in duration for tests
targeting each species except alewife. Because some alewife were capable of residing within the
intake for several hours, treatment and control periods were extended to 48 hours for tests with
this species to minimize bias associated with delayed impingement. Fish collections from the
intake screens generally were conducted every 2 hours during each treatment and control period.
Impingement rates from sound-on and -off periods indicated strong deterrence of blueback
herring. The impingement rate of blueback herring over the course of the study was more than
20 times higher during control periods than it was during treatment periods. Impingement rates
declined immediately when the sound was activated, and there were rapid increases when it was
de-activated. Alewife impingement rates demonstrated a similar but less distinct pattern of
reduced and increased impingement when the sound system was activated and de-activated.
American shad were excluded less effectively than blueback or alewife but showed an overall
impingement rate three times higher when the system was off than when it was on. The sound
system was ineffective in reducing impingement of gizzard shad, Atlantic herring, and bay
anchovy.
Case Studies – Sound – Other Applications
Cresent and Visher Ferry Hydroelectric Project

High-frequency sound was evaluated as a means to guide outmigrating blueback herring (Alosa
aestivalis) (juveniles and adults) away from turbine intakes and toward bypasses at the Crescent
and Visher Ferry Hydroelectric Projects located on the Mohawk River in New York (Ross 1999).
Field studies were conducted at each site during 1997 and 1998, with additional testing
conducted in 2001, 2002, and 2008 at Crescent (Dunning and Gurshin 2012). The Crescent
Project is the lower most project on the Mohawk River, located 4.8 km (3 mi) upstream from the
Mohawk's confluence with the Hudson River. The Crescent project has two dams that are
separated by a rock island and that have total length of 438 m (1,436 ft). The Crescent
powerhouse has two Kaplan and two Francis turbines that each generate about 3 MW. The
operating head for the project is about 8.4 m (27.5 ft) and the maximum flow at rated output is
about (42.5 m3/sec [1,500 cfs]) per unit. The Visher Ferry Project is located about 16 km (10 mi)
upstream of the Crescent Project. The Visher Ferry Project has a 585 m (1,919 ft) long dam and
a powerhouse with four turbines that are identical to the units at Crescent.
The high-frequency sound systems (described below) that were evaluated at each project were
designed to deflect downstream-migrating fish away from the headraces of each powerhouse and
toward bypasses located on the dams. The bypasses were created by removing a small section of
flashboards from each dam at the periphery of effective sound field. Hydroacoustic techniques
were used to monitor the distributions of blueback herring schools as they approached each
project. Fish movement was evaluated with sound on and off with the bypasses open and closed
(i.e., with and without the flashboard sections in place). Preliminary assessment of the
hydroacoustic data indicate that the high-frequency sound systems employed at both projects
14-16
were effective in deflecting fish toward the bypasses. Additionally, preliminary observations
suggested that the behavior of adult and juvenile blueback herring differed, with adults traveling
deeper in the water column. This observation has implications with respect to the location and
depth of a bypass. Also, it was determined that preventing outmigrants from entering the
entraining flow to a powerhouse (i.e., deflecting them away from a path that would take them
toward an intake) was important to successful guidance.
An additional field study was conducted in 2008 to determine the effectiveness of ultrasonic
barriers on deterring juvenile blueback herring from entering the turbine channel of the Crescent
Project (Dunning and Gurshin 2012).
The ultrasonic system installed at Crescent was designed to create an avoidance barrier, diverting
fish to the main channel. To accomplish this, the system was designed to output a band-limited
ultrasound pressure level between 122 and 128 kHz at an ambient sound pressure level of at least
163 dB from surface to bottom and across the entrance of the turbine channel. An array of eight
projectors was placed in the turbine channel, 487 m (1,597.8 ft) from the tailrace (Figure 14-1).
This location was selected to avoid higher velocity flows, assuming higher flows would make it
difficult for juvenile blueback herring to avoid entrainment.
Figure 14-1
Locations of eight ultrasonic (122–128 kHz) projectors, a horizontally aimed, 500-kHz acoustic
Doppler current profilers (ADCPs), 420-kHz, horizontally-aimed single-beam transducers and
vertically-aimed split-beam transducers (mounted from the river bottom), and mobile
hydroacoustic survey transects used for the 2008 evaluation of high-frequency sound at the
Crescent Project (Dunning and Gurshin 2012).
14-17
The ultrasonic barrier was on during the entire of the entire 2008 study period (i.e., sound-off
periods were not incorporated into the experimental design). This was done because:
• there was only limited information on the temporal pattern of downriver migration by
juvenile blueback herring in the Mohawk River;
• state and federal regulatory agencies wanted confirmation that most juvenile blueback
herring migrated downriver through the main channel rather than through the turbine
channel, regardless of the reason for this behavior; and
• it seemed unlikely that most juvenile blueback herring would migrate downriver through
the main channel under existing conditions because more water generally flows through
the turbine channel than through the main channel due to power generation.
Hydroacoustic sampling techniques were used to monitor movements of blueback herring
through the main channel. Fixed-monitoring stations, located upstream and downstream of the
ultrasonic array, continuously tracking movement passed the array. Mobile hydroacoustics
supplemented fixed stations, providing spatial distribution of fish in the study area and helped to
confirm the presence and the relative abundance of juvenile blueback herring that were seen in
and near the Crescent headrace.
Fish sampling of pelagic habitats was conducted using a 4.8-m (15.75-ft) diameter 12-mm (0.5-
in.) mesh cast net to monitor species presence in the testing area. The fish sampling effort was
dominated by blueback herring, accounting for 98% of the sample. The average length was 73
mm (2.9 in.) ranging from 53 to 88 mm (2.1 to 3.5 in.). Mobile hydroacoustics indicated that a
considerable number of fish were using the turbine channel (i.e., they were not deterred by the
ultrasonic barrier). Fixed hydroacoustic results demonstrated an increase in the proportion of
fish at the downstream section of the main channel from 11.5 to 31.1%. This corresponds to a
decrease in the proportion of fish entering the turbine channel from 88.5 to 68.7%, resulting in a
diversion rate of 23%.

An acoustic sound system was evaluated for its ability to repel potamodromous fishes during
cage tests conducted at the Kingsford Hydroelectric Project located on the Menominee River
(Winchell et al. 1997; EPRI 1998a, b; Michaud and Taft 2000). Several light devices and an
infrasound generator also were evaluated during this study. A description of the study design
and methods was provided previously in the section on strobe lights. Behavioral stimuli that
elicited avoidance responses during cage tests were considered for evaluation during field studies
conducted at the White Rapid Hydroelectric Project (discussed previously). Species that were
evaluated for response to acoustic signals included rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss),
walleye (Sander viterus), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), golden shiner (Notemigonus
crysoleucas), bullhead (Ameiurus spp.), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), sunfishes
(Lepomis spp.), and largemouth (Micropterus salmoides) and smallmouth bass (Micropterus
dolomieu).
With the exception of golden shiner and black crappie, each species demonstrated some level of
avoidance to various acoustic signals. Avoidance reactions of bullhead, sunfish, and smallmouth
bass were classified as weak. Avoidance behaviors exhibited by rainbow trout, walleye, yellow
perch, and largemouth bass were classified as moderate. The center frequency of signals that
14-18
produced avoidance reactions from rainbow trout was 6,000 Hz. Center frequencies for signals
that elicited avoidance from walleye included 566, 673, 1,350, and 2,990 Hz. Effective signals
for yellow perch were centered at 673, 953, 1,000, and 2,000 Hz. Largemouth bass
demonstrated avoidance to signals with center frequencies of 283, 600, 673, 2,000, 2,500, 2,990,
and 5,500 Hz. Based on these results, sound signals with center frequencies of 673, 2,000,
2,990, and 5,000 Hz were selected for evaluation during field studies at the White Rapids
Project.

An acoustic sound system was evaluated as a fish deterrent during field tests at the White Rapids
Hydroelectric Project located on the Menominee River, bordering Wisconsin and the upper
peninsula of Michigan (Winchell et al. 1997; EPRI 1998a, b; Michaud and Taft 2000). Strobe
lights and an air bubble curtain also were evaluated during this study and are discussed in their
respective sections. A description of sampling design and methods is provided in the strobe light
section. Acoustic transducers and strobe lights were deployed on the trash racks of Unit 1 in
attempts to repel fish from the intake. The number of fish collected in full-flow tailrace nets that
sampled the entire discharge of Unit 1 was used to estimate fish entrainment during periods
when sound and either lights or the air curtain were operated together or alone and during control
periods (i.e., no devices operating). Tests were conducted during sampling periods in July,
September, and October. Statistical analysis of entrainment data from treatment and control
periods showed that the signals tested, whether transmitted alone or in combination with strobe
light or an air bubble curtain, did not produce a significant reduction in total fish entrainment
through Unit 1. Similarly, significant reductions in entrainment were not detected when data
were analyzed by species, family, and size class.
Hiram M. Chittendon Locks

The response of Pacific salmon smolts to underwater sound was evaluated during cage tests
conducted at the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks located in Seattle, Washington (Ploskey et al.
1998b). Strobe lights and infrasound generators also were evaluated during this study. Tests
with each of these devices is discussed in their respective sections. The evaluation of behavioral
devices conducted at the Chittenden locks was designed to identify stimuli that have potential for
guiding fish to bypasses or collection systems at hydropower projects. Sound tests were
conducted with an EESCO model 215 transducer emitting 300 and 400 Hz blended signals
(crescendos). Test fish included sub-yearling Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho
(Oncorhynchus kisutch), and sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). The transducer was placed
0.3 m (1 ft) from the end of the net pen, which was 4 m (13 ft) long with a diameter of 1.5 m (4.9
ft). The net pen was oriented horizontally in the water column. Groups of 10 to 25 fish were
placed in the net pen 30 to 60 minutes before a test was conducted. Fish exposed to sound
signals during 30 to 60 second stimulation periods and during a prolonged period of 5 to 10
minutes. Control periods were conducted in a similar manner as treatment periods. Fish
behavior was monitored using four underwater cameras mounted on the net pen at 1-m (3.3-ft)
intervals. Based on the results of a rigorous statistical analysis, none of the species demonstrated
any discernible responses to the 300 and 400 Hz crescendos.
A study was conducted in the spring of 1997 at Hiram M. Chittenden Locks to evaluate the
efficacy of a low-frequency sound array to guide juvenile salmonids away from a lock and
14-19
navigation channel (Goetz et al. 1998). The entrance to the lock chamber is 45.7 m (149.9 ft)
long and 24.4 m (80.0 ft) wide and averages 11.6 m (38.1 ft) in depth. The chamber itself is
243.9 m (800.2 ft) long, 24.4 m (80.0 ft) wide, and 15.2 m (50.0 ft) deep. It is divided into two
half-chambers (upper and lower) by an intermediate gate. The intake to the system is a pair of
4.3 m (14.1 ft) by 4.9 m (16.1 ft) culverts located upstream of the miter gates. The culverts
connect to 4.3 m (14.1 ft) by 4.9 m (16.1 ft) conduits that run longitudinally along each side of
the lock. Flow through each conduit is gravity fed and controlled by three independently
operating stony gate valves. A surface overflow weir located on a spillway adjacent to the locks
was installed to provide passage for salmon smolts.
The sound system that was evaluated consisted of EESCO Model 220 transducers that generated
300 and 400 Hz crescendo sounds. Two transducers were installed at the entrance to the large
lock chamber. Four daily treatments (4-hour periods) of sound-on sound-off were determined by
a randomized block design. The performance of the EESCO sound array was evaluated in two
ways. First, smolt passage into the lock during sound on treatments was compared to smolt
passage during sound-off treatments. Second, passage rates of smolts over the spillway overflow
weir surface collector during sound-on treatments and sound-off treatments were collected by
above water video cameras. Additionally, testing was conducted in a net pen installed in Salmon
Bay adjacent to the locks. Smolt density in the lock chamber was estimated using a splitbeam
mobile hydroacoustics with species verification using a deep-draft purse seine. Surveys were
conducted once per treatment.
The results of the two sample t-test concluded that there was no significant difference in the
mean density of smolts between sound treatments. The acoustic average smolt density varied by
period and day. Species composition was verified by purse seine two to three times per week. A
total of 340 fill events (lockages) were performed during the 29 days of the study. Mobile
hydroacoustic surveys were performed during 106 of the 116 planned surveys (58 sound-on 58
sound-off). The number of hours of videotaped overflow weir counts ranged from 8 to 17 hours
per day. Density of smolts with the transducers on was 0.046 smolts/m3 and was 0.057
smolts/m3 with the transducers switched off. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to
evaluate other factors that may have confounded the analysis of treatment effects. The ANOVA
failed to detect a significant difference among additional factors, including survey periods (time
of day), periods of spill, and periods of varying up-lockages. The final week of sound-on sound-
off treatments also was analyzed separately because of an apparent change in signal frequency
which may have influenced density estimates. No evidence of a change in frequency to the
sound array was discovered. The sound treatment did not impact the density of salmonids
measured within the lock chamber. Also, testing of the EESCO transducer in the net pen
produced similar results to the field studies. The 300 and 400 Hz sounds failed to elicit startle
responses or directional avoidance by hatchery sub-yearling coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) or by wild yearling sockeye salmon
(Oncorhynchus nerka).
An open water study evaluated the response of Chinook and sockeye salmon smolts to a low
frequency underwater sound transducer (Goetz et al 2001). The objective of the study was to
determine the efficacy of the sound transducers at guiding the smolts away from the lock and
navigation channel. The sound system deployed consisted of two 104.5-kg traducers that were
anchored at the bottom of the channel at the entrance of the large lock chamber 24.4 m apart.
These tranducers emitted 300 and 400 Hz blended signals (crescendos) with maximum source
14-20
levels at 170-180 dB//1 μPa at 1 m (3.3 ft). Testing lasted 29 days with four daily treatments of
sound/on and sound/off from 0530 to 2130. Smolt densities in the lock chamber were estimated
using acoustic data collected by a spilt-beam echo sounder. Species composition was verified by
purse seining. As with cage tests, the sound system proved to be ineffective at guiding salmon
smolts, not impacting the density of salmoids in the lock chamber.
Richard B. Russell Pumped Storage Project

High-frequency sound was evaluated as a fish protection measure for reducing blueback herring
(Alosa aestivalis) entrainment during pumpback operation at the Richard B. Russell Pumped
Storage Project (RBR) located on the Savannah River between South Carolina and Georgia
(Pickens 1992; Ploskey et al. 1995; Nestler et al. 1992, 1995a, 1995b, 1998; Schilt and Ploskey
1997). The RBR project has four reversible turbines and four conventional turbines with a
combined generating capacity of 640 MW and total discharge of 1,700 m3/sec (60,000 cfs). The
combined pumpback flow capacity is about 850 m3/sec (30,000 cfs). A series of studies was
conducted at RBR to develop an effective sound deterrent. Initial studies examined blueback
herring response to low- and high-frequency sound signals during net pen tests (Nestler et al.
1992). Follow-up studies with a high-frequency sound system were conducted in the project
tailrace using hydroacoustic techniques to assess fish densities during sound-on and -off periods
(Pickens 1992). The most recent studies evaluated entrainment rates of blueback herring during
pumpback operations with the sound on and off (Ploskey et al. 1995; Nestler 1995a, 1995b,
1998).
Net pen tests with blueback were conducted in a cove of RBR Lake. The effect of low-and high-
frequency sound signals on fish distribution in the pens was used to determine the potential for a
particular frequency to deter fish. Blueback herring did not demonstrate a considerable or
consistent response to low-frequency sound (<1,000 Hz). Avoidance responses were greatest to
signals with frequencies between 110 to 140 kHz at sound pressure levels greater than 190 dB //
μPa. Subsequently, sounds in this frequency range were evaluated during tailrace tests. The
tailrace study assessed sound deterrent effectiveness by comparing hydroacoustic surveys along
twelve transects during sound-on and -off sampling periods. Results indicated that high-
frequency sound reduced fish densities near the RBR tailwater. Hydroacoustic surveys showed a
maximum distance of effectiveness from about 24 to 50 m (80 to 165 ft) from the dam at a
source level of 187 dB // μPa and a maximum effectiveness distance between 50 and 75 m (165
and 250 ft) at a source level of 200 dB // μPa.
Following net pen and tailrace studies, tests with an improved system configuration were
conducted during pumpback operations. The transducers produced signal bursts (118 to 130
kHz) of 5 ms every 50 ms at a sound pressure of 200 to 212 dB. They were fired sequentially and
signal frequency was automatically changed by 10% every 15 minutes to minimize acclimation.
Netting of entrained fish was performed during random periods with the sound system operating
and not operating. A 55 m (180.5 ft) long net in the forebay was used to sample the entire
volume of the pumpback jet. Additionally, acoustic counts of fish passage into all afterbay draft
tubes during pumpback operation were made using fixed-aspect hydroacoustic techniques.
Pumpback net catches were regressed upon acoustic counts from afterbay draft tubes of the same
unit to derive an equation for predicting passage through unnetted units from the acoustic counts.
14-21
The results of these tests demonstrated a substantial reduction in blueback herring entrainment
into the units during pumpback when the sound system was operating; approximately 56% fewer
fish were entrained with the sound system on. Based on the results from the extensive testing
program, the high-frequency sound system has been installed at the RBR project as a part of an
integrated fish protection system, which also includes the use of bar rack overlays and high-
pressure sodium lights.
Pejepscot Hydroelectric Project

A high-frequency sound deterrent system was evaluated as part of the downstream fish passage
facilities employed at the Pejepscot Hydroelectric Project located on the Androscoggin River in
Maine (NDT et al. 1997). The passage facilities at Pejepscot were installed to pass alewife
(Alosa pseudoharengus) during periods of outmigration. The project has two adjacent
powerhouses identified as A and B. Powerhouse A has a vertical Kaplan turbine rated at 12.5
MW, and Powerhouse B has three horizontal Francis turbines, two rated at 500 kW and one rated
at 600 kW. The Kaplan unit has a flow capacity of 201 m3/sec (7,100 cfs) and the three Francis
units have a combined capacity of about 28 m3/sec (1,000 cfs). The Kaplan turbine operates near
continuously because of its large flow capacity. The three Francis units usually are operated
during periods of spring run-off when the capacity of the Kaplan unit is exceeded. The
downstream fish passage facilities comprise two bypasses with adjustable weirs (referred to as
north and south bypasses) located on either side of the Powerhouse A trash rack. Steel pipes
transport fish from the bypass to the project’s tailrace. The sound deterrent system was installed
as a means to reduce alewife entrainment into the turbine intake and increase the use of the
bypasses. The system included three transducers operated at a frequency of 120 kHz.
The sound system was evaluated as a secondary component of the project’s downstream passage
facilities and its effectiveness was assessed relative to bypass efficiencies that were calculated
from mark-recapture studies conducted in 1996. One to three high-frequency transducers were
operated during bypass efficiency tests. Releases of marked fish were conducted with one
transducer located near one of the bypasses. During these tests the recapture rates of marked fish
were compared between the two bypasses (i.e., one without sound and one with sound). Tests
also were conducted with the three transducers placed at the center of intake trash rack. During
these tests either one or all three transducers were operating. When a transducer was located and
operated near one of the bypasses, more fish were collected in the bypass on the opposite side of
the intake. During these tests, the number of fish collected in the bypass without sound was
between 50 and 90% lower than the bypass with sound. The bypass efficiency of marked fish
ranged from 14.9 to 19.0%, with three transducers operating at the center of the intake and
between 13.0 and 40.9% with one transducer operating. During a test without sound, the bypass
efficiency of marked fish was 23.9%. These results indicate that the sound system was
ineffective at increasing bypass use in the configuration that it was tested. Conversely, the
results from tests with the transducers located near one of the bypasses demonstrated that the
high-frequency system did repel alewife.
Racine Hydroelectric Plant

Studies conducted by American Electric Power (AEP) at its Racine Hydroelectric Plant on the
Ohio River, near Pomeroy, Ohio, indicated that fish were repelled by a low frequency (<1 kHz),
high amplitude (approximately 150 dB // μPa) sound produced by a submerged generator in the
14-22
intake to the project's horizontal Kaplan units (Loeffelman et al. 1991a, 1991b; Klinect et al.
1992). Coincident side-scan sonar observations of forebay fish distributions and sound
measurements suggested that the sound was influencing fish distribution and limiting
entrainment of fish into the turbine. Sound frequencies that were measured when the units were
operating were predominantly in the 120, 240, 360, and 720 Hz frequencies, with harmonics of
60 Hz. Based on the findings, a sound system was developed and tested at Racine in fall of
1987.
Guidance signals used in the fall testing period were created from characteristics of sounds
produced by fish. Frequencies used by fish were determined by creating a listening chamber.
The chamber consisted of a large plastic bag suspended from a cross-arm. Water and fish were
introduced into the bag, and recordings were made using a hydrophone. The fish were also
monitored by video to ensure that the sounds being recorded were sounds generated by fish and
not made by incidental bumps or splashes. The fishes' sounds were recorded in a portable
recording studio (that can be transported to a test site) and technically analyzed for such features
as frequency content, duration, and amplitude. The most sensitive portion of the fishes' hearing
was determined, and a new signal was synthesized that duplicated these frequencies. Recorded
frequencies were then analyzed and synthesized using a wave form generator. Two Argotech
sound projector models were used to produce the sound pressure for the field tests. The model
219 had a sound pressure level rating of 160 dB // μPa at a frequency of 100 Hz. The model 220
was rated at 180 dB // μPa at a frequency of 100 Hz. In paired sound on/sound off experiments,
66% of all the warmwater fish, 70% of the fish other than gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum)
(e.g., basses and catfish), and approximately 55% of the shad in the forebay approaching the
sound field were repelled from the area.
Berrien Springs Hydroelectric Project and Buchanan Hydro Project

Using sound systems similar to the one evaluated at Racine, testing was conducted at Berrien
Springs Hydroelectric Project on the St. Joseph River in southwestern Michigan and Buchanan
Hydro Plant (located 19.3 km [12 mi] from Berrien Springs). Tests conducted at each facility
were designed to target specific fish communities. Studies at Racine had focused on warm water
game fish,whereas cold water game fish, like steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), were the target at Berrien Springs and Buchanan.
Initial studies conducted at the Berrien Springs Hydroelectric Project showed that adult steelhead
trout were reluctant to pass up a fish ladder when sounds "tuned" from that species were
projected into the second pool of the ladder (Loeffelman et al. 1991a, 1991b; Klinect et al. 1992).
Seventy-two percent fewer adult steelhead ascended the ladder when the sound was on compared
to when the sound was off. Counts of adult Chinook salmon and total fish were not statistically
influenced by the sound when counts of fish with sound on and off were compared. However,
the authors concluded that the effect on Chinook salmon might have been greater if a higher
sound pressure had been used, particularly because of the masking effect of the noise inside the
concrete fish ladder. The trials did show, however, that customizing the signal for Chinook was
important to overcome the natural stimuli for their movement. Statistical analyses of the data
showed that salmon were influenced (p < 0.1) by water temperature when the steelhead trout
signal was on but not when the new signal developed for the Chinook salmon was on.
14-23
In 1990, the tuning process was tested as a method to divert steelhead trout and Chinook salmon
smolts from the headrace of the Buchanan Hydroelectric Project (Loeffelman et al. 1991a,
1991b; Klinect et al. 1992). Several signals were synthesized based on sounds recorded from the
two species of smolts. The response of fish to these signals was assessed in an observation
chamber to determine which signal was most effective in repelling each species. Signals were
customized to best fit the hearing abilities of the fish, and other signals were designed to be less
precisely tuned to the fish to evaluate AEP's theory on signal development. Signals believed to
be the best customized to their hearing abilities were most effective in changing the fishes'
swimming behavior. Prior to outplanting of smolts upstream of the project, sound projectors
were deployed at the headrace in an angled configuration to prevent fish from entering the power
canal. Two trap nets were set downstream of the projectors to monitor movement of fish into the
canal. The sound system was activated for the first or last half of each night on an alternating
basis over a 2–month period. Although few fish were caught in each net, the number of smolts
caught was significantly lower (p=0.0042) when the sound system was activated. Overall, 94%
fewer steelhead and 81% fewer Chinook smolts were caught when the sound system was on.
The highest diversion rate achieved was 100% for steelhead and 83% for Chinook in these trials.
Georgiana Slough
A sound deterrent system was deployed at the mouth of the Georgiana Slough to evaluate its
ability to prevent outmigrating Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) from entering
either waterway, both of which divert water from the Sacramento River for irrigation purposes
(Hanson Environmental, Inc., 1993; SLDMWA and Hanson 1996; Hanson et al. 1997). The
deployment of the sound system at the Georgiana Slough consisted of a 243.8 m (800 ft) long
linear array of acoustic transducers suspended from buoys that were located beginning about
304.8 m (1,000 ft) upstream of the slough entrance. The acoustic signals used to repel migrating
Chinook salmon were customized to the fish and site conditions using the concepts developed
from the research conducted at the Racine, Berrien Springs and Buchanan Hydroelectric Projects
Sacramento River (see case study descriptions for Loeffelman et al. 1991a, 1991b; Klinect et al.
1992).
Biological evaluations of the effectiveness of the acoustic barrier were designed to determine
changes in ratio of juvenile fall-run Chinook salmon capture within Georgiana Slough and the
Sacramento River during both test (barrier on) and control (barrier off) periods, expressed as
catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE). Sampling was performed 10 to 24 hours per day. The CPUE was
based on the number of salmon captured per minute and the number of salmon per 1,000 m3
(35,315 ft3) of water sampled. The study was conducted in four phases from spring of 1993
through spring 1996.
The objectives for Phase I, which was conducted in the spring of 1993, were to test the feasibility
of installing and operating the underwater acoustical guidance system, measure the sound
parameters to optimize array frequencies, and generate CPUE ratios to develop an index of
guidance efficiency (Hanson Environmental, Inc., 1993; Hanson et al. 1997). The acoustical
barrier array was composed of 10 to 12 Argotec Model 215 or 220 transducers at 300 to 400 Hz,
each suspended (1.8 m [6 ft]) below the surface. The deterrent system was tested above the
confluence of the Georgiana Slough and the Sacramento River. Its ability to repel Chinook
salmon smolts was evaluated, and the array configuration was adjusted to achieve the maximum
level of repulsion. A guidance efficiency index, calculated using the change in the relative
14-24
number of salmon entering the Georgiana Slough when the barrier was in service. The indices
were lower if the barrier was effective at repulsing fish, demonstrating less fish were collected in
the Georgiana Slough than the Sacramento River. The Kodiak trawls were found to be effective
at generating CPUE estimates, however, floating fyke nets proved to be ineffective. Frequent
Kodiak trawl catches over approximately two months with sound on and sound off showed the
barrier to be increasingly effective as the angle and length was adjusted. Guidance efficiency
indices ranged from -156 to +74 through the five weekly test periods. Results from tests
conducted in 1993 have indicated that the signal sound system was greater than 50% effective in
preventing Chinook salmon smolts from entering the slough.
Guidance efficiency evaluated in 1993 was primarily determined by comparing the catch rate of
17,000 marked fish (released 0.8 km [0.5 mi] upstream) in three fyke nets deployed behind the
diversion pumps. Based on preliminary results from sound on/sound off tests conducted over
four months in 1993, the consultants performing the evaluation studies reported that the signal
sound system had a guidance efficiency of 83% (Cramer et al 1993). Fyke net catches of fish
naturally entering the forebay and fish monitoring data close to the sound barrier with sound on
and off were reported to corroborate the results from the marked fish tests.
Phase II of the sound barrier tests was conducted in the spring and fall of 1994 and involved a
more rigorous evalaution of the sound system’s guidance efficiency, as well as an evaluation of
blockage or delay of the upstream migration of adult Chinook salmon (SLDMWA and Hanson
1996; Hanson et al. 1997). Delayed effects of acoustic exposure on fish was also investigated.
The barrier was operated on a randomized 2-day-on/2-day-off schedule. Efficiency of the
acoustic barrier averaged 57.2%. The guidance efficiency varied significantly with the tide,
weekly test period, and on a diel basis. Fish moved freely up and downstream when the barrier
was operating. Some delay in migration appeared to be associated with the sound system.
However, it was suggested that more data was needed to fully support this observation. No
evidence of acute or delayed mortality due to exposure to the sound system was determined.
In Phase III, which was conducted in the fall of 1995, test objectives were reduced due to flood
flows and equipment problems (Hanson et al. 1997). The objectives of Phase III testing
included: evaluation of the sound system on delta smelt and Sacramento splittail egg
development and hatching success; evaluation of the potential of increased susceptibility of
juvenile fall-run Chinook salmon, juvenile striped bass (Morone saxatilis), and other fish to
predation due to exposure to the sound system; the evaluation of acute and delayed mortality of
fish as a result of exposure to the acoustic signal; and a more thorough evaluation of potential
blockages or delays in the migratory passage of fish. Twenty-one transducers were included in
the sound system array for the Phase III evaluation. Tests were conducted in a randomized 3-
day-on/3-day-off cycle. Delayed and acute mortality in fish did not increase with exposure to the
sound system. No meaningful delay or blockage in passage due to the sound system was
indicated. Studies of increased predation after exposure to the sound system were unsuccessful.
In Phase IV tests, which were conducted in the spring of 1996, guidance efficiency was
evaluated under higher flows and potential delays in fish passage due to the acoustic barrier were
re-evaluated (Hanson et al. 1997). Originally, 21 transducers were to be used for the Phase IV
studies. However, only 18 transducers were functional after a submerged tree struck the array in
late May. Studies were conducted in a 2-day-on/5-day-off cycle. Guidance efficiency for Phase
IV was 15% (not significantly less than zero). Two mark-recapture studies were conducted with
14-25
salmon to evaluate 24 hour guidance efficiency and to determine if the acoustic barrier delayed
downstream passage. Guidance efficiency from data on a single marked fish was -8; it was -1
for unmarked fish collected during a 24-hour period. Movements of marked salmon did not
indicate there were any delays in passage due to the sound system.
Wilkins Slough Pumping Station

Sound projectors were tested as a possible means to prevent outmigrating Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) from entering the forebay of the Wilkins Slough Pumping Station
(maximum capacity 25.5 m3/sec [900 cfs]). The acoustic guidance system, consisting of eight
advanced sonar speakers, was deployed in a 76.2 m (250 ft ) linear array in the river in front of
the entrance to the forebay, roughly parallel to the main flow of the Sacramento River.
Guidance efficiency was evaluated primarily by comparing the catch rate of 17,000 marked fish
(released 0.8 km [0.5 mi] upstream) in three fyke nets deployed behind the diversion pumps.
Based on results from sound on/sound off tests conducted over 4 months in 1993, the consultants
performing the evaluation studies report that the signal sound system has a guidance efficiency
of 83% (Cramer et al 1993). Fyke net catches of fish naturally entering the forebay and fish
monitoring data close to the sound barrier with sound on and off are reported to corroborate the
results from the marked fish tests. However, these results were considered to be preliminary, as
the fisheries agencies reviewing the draft report have questioned some of the assumptions used to
estimate the effectiveness of the sound system. Additional testing and verification of the
system's guidance efficiency was not performed.
Institute of Freshwater Ecology’s River Laboratories, Frome River, Dorset, UK

and Blantyre Hydroelectric Station
A Bioacoustic Fish Fence (BAFF) was tested at the Institute of Freshwater Ecology’s River
Laboratories on the Frome River, in Dorset, UK, and at the Blantyre Hydroelectric Station on the
Clyde River, Scotland (Nedwell and Turnpenny 1997). The BAFF system uses a curtain of air
bubbles to slow the speed of sound though water, in effect creating a barrier where generated
sounds can be “contained” (i.e., a wall of sound). Sound is generated by transducers located at
the base of the bubble plume and travels to the surface of the water where it is reflected back.
Experiments conducted at the Institute of Freshwater Ecology’s River Laboratories employed the
BAFF in attempt to divert outmigrating Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts and sea trout
(Salmo trutta) into a mill leat that was fitted with a glass-sided fluvarium and counting facility.
The system was comprised of a 24 m BAFF barrier angled 12 degrees to the river flow. In 1995,
88% of the smolts were counted passing into the mill leat Visual observations in 1996 indicated
that nearly 100% of the smolts were diverted into the mill leat versus the main river channel.
Similar tests were conducted at the 575 kW Blantyre Hydroelectric Station. At this site, a 24 m
(78.7 ft) BAFF array was created. The barrier was angled 18 degrees to the river bank and was
intended to guide fish into a bypass adjacent to the turbine powerhouse. Hatchery-reared smolts
were marked and released upstream of the project. Nets and traps were used to determine the
percentage of fish passing the station via the bypass and the turbines. Results indicated that
75.2% fewer smolts passed through the turbines while the BAFF was operating.
14-26
Bonneville Dam
The ability of sound stimuli to guide outmigrating juvenile salmonids away from turbine intakes
was evaluated at the Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River (Ploskey et al. 1996). The
Bonneville Dam hydro facility consists of two powerhouses, a spillway, and a navigation lock, as
well as two islands which separate some of these structures. Sound system tests were conducted
at the north end of Powerhouse I, where an array of 25 Argotec Model 215 sound transducers
were installed in front of Units 9 and 10. The array was 122 m (400 ft) in length and angled
from an upstream anchor point downstream to a pier separating Units 8 and 9. The depth of
transducers ranged from 1.5 m to 6.0 m (4.9 ft to 19.7 ft) in the upstream half of the array and
alternated between 6 m and 12 m (19.7 ft and 39.4 ft) in the downstream half. Sound signals that
were evaluated comprised 300 Hz and 400 Hz crescendos that were developed from recordings
of noises produced by hatchery-reared Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) smolts.
Fish targeted for diversion included sub-yearling and yearling Chinook salmon and yearling coho
salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), and steelhead trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss).
Testing of the sound deterrent system involved two series of tests conducted in June 1995. In the
first series of tests, response of fish was monitored during single sound-on and -off periods that
were 4 hours in duration. These tests were conducted over a 20-day period. The sequence of
treatment and control periods was alternated daily. Hourly fish counts from hydroacoustic
sampling were used to evaluate fish movement past the sound array. The second series of tests
extended 10 days at the end of June and consisted of 24-hour treatment and control periods. The
extended sample periods were intended to determine if treatment duration had an effect on the
estimated effectiveness of the sound array. Mean hourly counts from treatment and control
periods were compared to assess the ability of the sound system to repel juvenile salmonids
during the 24-hour periods.
No significant difference was detected between fish counts collected during the 4-hour sound-on
and sound-off periods. Fish counts collected during the 24-hour tests, which were separated into
daytime and nighttime counts due to diel differences in passage rates, also demonstrated no
significant differences between sound-on and sound-off periods. Several experimental and
biological factors were examined for effects on the lack of response exhibited by smolts to the
sound stimuli. These included: (1) lack of statistical power to detect differences; (2) other fish
species that do not respond to sound were counted and biased the results; (3) smolts could not
avoid the sound array due high water velocities (about 1.1 m/sec [3.6 ft/sec] ); and (4) smolts did
not respond to the sound field. Based on an assessment of each of these considerations, it was
concluded that the data analysis was statistically adequate, bias in counts by inclusion of non-
smolts was unlikely, and flow velocities probably would not prevent an avoidance response from
the target species and size classes. Consequently, the ineffectiveness of the sound array was
attributed to a lack of innate behavioral response combined with an inability of salmonids to
adequately detect the signals that were evaluated.
Fort Halifax Hydroelectric Project

Two sound systems were evaluated as part of the downstream fish passage facilities at the Fort
Halifax Hydroelectric Project (Environmental Consulting Services and Lakeside Engineering
1994). Strobe lights also were examined during this study, and we discussed results from their
14-27
evaluation previously. A description of the project and associated bypass facilities was provided
in the description of strobe light tests. The downstream passage facilities are designed for use by
Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), American shad (Alosa sapidissima), and alewife (Alosa
pseudoharengus). Mark-recapture techniques were used to evaluate the ability the two sound
devices to repel or guide juvenile alewife away from the turbine intakes and toward the bypass
entrance. The first sound device that was evaluated was an underwater alert system which
emitted 4 kHz sounds at an amplitude of 110 dB. During several tests conducted under daylight
conditions, no discernible response from alewife was observed based on estimated bypass
efficiencies. The second sound device tested was a standard fishfinder/depthsounder
hydroacoustic system, which operated at 192 kHz. This device produced a startle reaction in
alewife and repelled them to a radius of about 1.8 to 2.4 m (6 to 8 ft) around the source.

Limited testing of two sound projection systems was performed at the York Haven Hydroelectric
Project in 1993 (SWETS 1994). The project is located on the Susquehanna River, 24.1 km (15
mi) south of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. It consists of a 2,438 m (8,000 ft) dam and powerhouse
containing six Kaplan turbines and 14 Francis turbines each with a capacity of approximately
22.7 m3/sec (800 cfs). The sound devices were tested as potential means for repelling juvenile
American shad (Alosa sapidissima) away from turbine intakes and guiding them into a trash
sluiceway for downstream passage.
A FishStartle system was used to produce high-frequency sound to repel shad at York Haven.
Sound spectra, both pure and pulsed tones, from various fish noises were projected from
speakers located on a raft in the forebay. Two narrow-beam and one wide-beam transducers
were mounted on the raft. An additional wide-beam and two additional narrow-beam
transducers were mounted on light floats or against the powerhouse. The position of the sound
raft in front of the trash rack could be manipulated for different configurations. Distances,
locations, type, and number of transducers were varied for the sound system tests. Large
congregations of fish present at the time of testing allowed fish response to be assessed visually
as well as hydroacoustically. A scanning sonar system (WESMAR Model SS390) was used to
monitor fish response to the various test configurations. Tailrace nets were used to quantify the
passage of fish through turbines adjacent to the sluiceway and through the sluiceway. Sampling
was conducted at dusk on each sample day. Test conditions and control conditions lasted 1 hr.
Twelve hydroacoustic samples were collected during the 1-hr treatment period. A total of 17
high-frequency sound tests were conducted over 11 days of sampling using nine different sound
configurations.
Results from the sound tests revealed that aggregations of milling fish exhibited a startle
response and avoidance to several of the sounds that were projected. However, the avoidance
responses were not strong and did not displace fish a great distance away from the source.
Furthermore, the displacements were not sustained: Fish rapidly acclimated to the condition and
were observed moving back into the area.
Vernon Hydroelectric Project

A FishStartle sound system was evaluated as a means to repel juvenile American shad (Alosa
sapidissima) away from turbine intakes at the Vernon Hydroelectric Project (RMC and Sonalysts
14-28
1993). The project is located on the Connecticut River in the towns of Hinsdale, NH, and
Vernon, VT. The facility consists of a concrete gravity-type dam, six tainter gates, and a log/ice
boom. The ice/log boom diverts trash and ice into a sluice at the eastern end of the powerhouse.
Flow varies from 1.2 to 78.4 m3/sec (43 to 2,770 cfs). The plant is a run-of-the-river type and
has ten Francis turbines with a total generating capacity of 27 MW.
Two series of tests were conducted with the FishStartle system. The response of juvenile shad to
sound with frequencies between 100 and 150 kHz was observed in a floating cage (set in the
station forebay) to determine the optimal sound characteristics for repelling shad. A 1.5 by 2.1
by 3.0 m (5 by 7 by 10 ft) cage was constructed from PVC and plastic mesh, supported by a raft.
Transducers were mounted on a metal frame attached to the raft approximately 3 m (10 ft) from
the cage. Approximately 50 juvenile shad were introduced into the cage for testing. Video
cameras and visual observations were used to determine the responses of fish during cage
testing. Based on the results of the cage tests, a sound system was developed for testing in open
water at Vernon.
The original study plan called for outmigrating shad to be repelled from entering the powerhouse
forebay and guided to a sluiceway for downstream passage. Initial tests were inconclusive
because the skimmer gate that regulates flow through the sluiceway malfunctioned and remained
stationary at a level that was not conducive to downstream fish passage. Consequently,
additional testing of the FishStartle system was conducted in the station forebay where the sound
system was evaluated for its ability to repel juvenile shad from the turbine intakes and into a fish
bypass pipe.
During field tests, several combinations of transducer types (i.e., wide beam and narrow beam)
and locations were evaluated. At first, one wide beam and one narrow beam transducer were
placed at each end of the station intake structure. The next array that was tested included
additional transducers along the intake structure. The final scenario that was evaluated had
transducers mounted on the log boom in addition to the locations mentioned previously. Besides
the different deployment arrays, several operating modes were also tested (i.e., alternating sound
emissions from opposing wide-beam transducers or modifying signal levels with narrow beam
transducers). An underwater video system and scanning sonar were used to monitor fish
movements during the testing of each sound system configuration. Fish movements in the
forebay and fish exiting the bypass pipe were observed during test (sound on) and control (sound
off) periods.
During field tests at Vernon, the FishStartle system appeared to effectively move shad back and
forth along the station intake structure. As water temperatures decreased, visual observations
indicated that increasing numbers of shad used the bypass pipe during sound on periods.
However, few shad were observed using the bypass pipe during sound off periods. A total of 15
tests were conducted between October 5 and 26. Although the results of this study were limited
to visual and scanning sonar observations in the forebay and visual observations at the bypass
pipe exit, they supported the conclusion that the FishStartle system has potential for diverting
juvenile American shad at hydropower stations.

A high-frequency acoustic field was evaluated as a fish barrier in the Holyoke canal system
(Hadley Falls Hydroelectric Project) located on the Connecticut River (Kynard and O'Leary
14-29
1990, 1993). Outmigrating American shad (Alosa sapidissima) enter the canal system through a
gatehouse directly upstream of the Hadley Falls powerhouse. A fish bypass is located
downstream of the gatehouse at Boatlock Station.
The sound system was deployed in a side canal located between Boatlock Station and the
gatehouse. The acoustic field was produced by a sonic transducer (Wesmar SS-165 scanning
sonar) with a transmission of 161.9 kHz. The sound system was evaluated by monitoring the
movement of adult shad that had been radio-tagged and released into the canal. Spent American
shad were captured and transported 27 m (88.6 ft) below the gatehouse, where they were tagged
with radio transmitters and released. Fish were located about every hour by stationary receivers.
As fish approached the bypass they were monitored more closely. The number of American
shad that passed through the facility was estimated by visual counts or by an electronic counter.
Radio-tagged fish appeared to be initially repelled by the acoustic field, but would eventually
pass through it. Visual observations revealed a similar behavior pattern exhibited by adult shad
schools in the area of the acoustic field. Also, it was observed that the acoustic field was
effective in concentrating fish in the canal, often restricting movement of shad schools. Based
on the observed movements of adult shad schools and radio-tagged fish, the authors concluded
that high-frequency acoustic fields may be useful for preventing turbine entrainment or
concentrating fish at fishway entrances.
Lennox Generating Station

Controlled field studies using the fishdrone and hammer were conducted at Lennox Generating
Station on the north shore of Lake Ontario, in eastern Ontario, Canada (2,100 MW). Tests were
conducted in the forebay while the station was not in operation. The forebay was separated from
the lake by 1.0 cm (0.4 in.) mesh netting. Fish species, including alewife, yellow perch,
pumpkinseed, black crappie, rock bass, rainbow trout, and golden shiner, were collected nearby
and transported to the forebay for testing. Hydroacoustics were used to determine fish
distribution in front of each device at distances of 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, and 28 m (16.4, 29.5, 42.7,
55.8, 69, and 91.9 ft). Fish responses to the fishdrone were recorded at four frequencies: 27, 64,
99, and 153 Hz. The fishdrone was operated using a pulsed signal of 3 sec on, 1 sec off. The
hammer was evaluated while operating at a frequency of 28 Hz and using a firing rate of 15–20
pops per minute.
Results of testing with the fishdrone in the Lennox forebay indicated very little directional
movement of fish away from the device at frequencies of 27, 64, and 99 Hz. At 153 Hz,
however, fish movement away from the walls was more noticeable and occurred in all replicates.
Responses were not instantaneous; fish did not begin to move until the device was operating for
a few minutes. The hammer elicited a negative response from alewife. No marked response was
observed from the other fish species.

The evaluation of a hammer device in a riverine environment was conducted in the forebay of
the Seton Hydroelectric Station, Lillooet, British Columbia, Canada. The Seton facility is
comprised of two major dams and four powerhouses for a total generating capacity of 470 MW.
The principal species evaluated for their responses to the hammer stimulus were sockeye and
pink salmon. Fish were sampled using a modified fyke net with a floating collection box at the
14-30
cod end. The nets were positioned below the surface on opposite ends of the forebay. The
hammer was deployed in front of the fyke net on the south side of the forebay. It was operated
20 times per minute at a frequency of 52 Hz. Paired control and experimental tests were
replicated and had a duration of 0.5 hours. Experimental tests were conducted during the peak
daily migration period (between 1800 and 0400 hours). Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka)
smolt catches in the Seton forebay were significantly reduced by the hammer device, which
averaged 75.5% effectiveness (McKinley & Patrick 1988a).
Allegheny Reservoir
Studies were conducted at the Allegheny Reservoir to evaluate the effectiveness of a low
frequency sound system in reducing fish losses through the bottom sluices of the dam (Smith and
Anderson 1984). The Allegheny Reservoir is located on the western border of Pennsylvania and
New York. The project is managed for flood control, pumped storage power generation,
downstream water quality control, downstream water augmentation, and recreation. During
generation the turbines can discharge up to 113.3 m3/sec (4,000 cfs) each.
The sound system employed a G34 transducer to generate sound in frequencies from 200 to
3,000 Hz. Preliminary tests at the dam site and at the Tionesta State Fish Hatchery used a J11
transducer that operated at 20 to 12,000 Hz. The J11 transducer was deployed beginning on
April 23, 1980, 18.3 m (60 ft) below the water surface in the Allegheny Reservoir. Pure tone
with a frequency of 500 Hz was used. In August of 1980, laboratory tests were conducted to
determine the reaction of walleyes to pure tones. Tests were conducted in a 9.1 m (30 ft) long
concrete raceway divided into two 4.6 m (15 ft) long sections. The transducer was submerged at
the outflow end of the raceway. Frequency levels of 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800,
900, and 1,000 Hz were used. Fish behavior was recorded at each test interval by a video
camera.
Ambient background noises at the reservoir were recorded and analyzed. The J11 and the use of
pure tones were abandoned because they failed to elicit the desired avoidance responses from
test fish under laboratory conditions. A modified sound delivery system was tested in December
1981, using the G34 transducer and recorded sound effects. The G34 was positioned 4.6 m (15
ft) above the top of sluice number 5. The output was evenly dispersed above the bottom of the
six bottom sluices. An automatic timer was set to deliver sounds to the transducer for 5-minute
intervals on the hour during the first 11 weeks of testing. In the 12th week of testing, the 5-
minute operational sequences were randomized. Underwater sound broadcasts were found to be
ineffective in reducing fish mortality at Allegheny Reservoir. The pure tones used in laboratory
tests and the playback of recorded sound in the reservoir did not elicit the avoidance responses
need to effectively deter fish from entering the intake structure. The authors suggest that a low
frequency (500 to 600 Hz) background noise generated by water passing through the sluice may
have been attracting fish toward the dam.
Arthur Kill Generating Station

High- and low-frequency sound were evaluated during cage tests as part of a study that assessed
the ability of a sound system to reduce impingement of bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) and
several herring and shad species at the Arthur Kill Station (Consolidated Edison Company 1994).
The cage tests were conducted with young-of-the-year bay anchovy (less than 60 mm [2.4 in.]
14-31
TL) and alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus). High frequency signals that were evaluated ranged
from 18 to 198 kHz, and low frequency signals ranged from 75 to 500 Hz. Bay anchovy were
collected from the Hudson River using beach seines and a mid-water trawl and alewife were
obtained from a local bait dealer. The test cage (2.4 by 1.0 by 1.2 m [8 by 3 by 4 ft]) had an
aluminum frame that supported a vinyl pool cover and was suspended from a floating work
platform. The transducers (directional high-frequency and omni-directional low-frequency units)
were located as close to the cage as possible to maximize sound levels. Both transducers were
oriented toward open water to reduce reflection of signals. A video system was used to record
fish response to each signal that was evaluated.
During 66 tests conducted under daylight and nighttime conditions, the high-frequency signals
did not elicit any discernible responses from bay anchovy. Alewife also were evaluated with bay
anchovy during 38 of these tests and demonstrated consistent avoidance responses to signals
with frequencies greater 120 kHz. In 10 tests conducted during daylight hours and three under
nighttime conditions, the initial pulses of low-frequency signals produced startle responses from
bay anchovy, but these reactions diminished with time and were not directional (i.e., no
avoidance demonstrated by movement away from the sound source). Alewife were not
evaluated for response to low-frequency signals.
Cage Tests – NYPA and ESEERCO

Cage tests were conducted in a flooded rock quarry to determine avoidance responses of alewife
(Alosa pseudoharengus), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), white perch (Morone americana),
Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), and spottail
shiner (Notropis hudsonius) to low and high frequency sound (NYPA et al. 1991). The study
goal was to develop an acoustic system to deter fish from entering the cooling water intake
structures (CWISs) of power plants. The quarry is located near the east shore of the Hudson
River near Verplanck, New York. It has a surface area of approximately 14 hectares (34.6 acres)
and a maximum depth of over 60 m (197 ft). Testing took place where the depth was 6 to18 m
(19.7 to 59.1 ft).
The fish used in testing were all young-of-the-year and yearling stock acquired from various
sources (wild and commercial). The cage was a 1.5 by 1.5 by 3.9 m (5 by 5 by 12.8 ft)
perforated PVC pipe structure. Behavior was monitored by two underwater cameras mounted
2.1 m (6.9 ft) from the side of the experimental fish enclosure. A hydroacoustics HLF-6
transducer was used to generate the sound stimulus in the experiments. The transducer was
capable of producing sounds at sound pressure levels over 200 dB // μPa at 1 m (3.3 ft) below
200 Hz. An HX-29 transducer was also used to produce sounds up to 160 dB // μPa at 1 m (3.3
ft) between 100 and 1,000 Hz.
Fish were exposed to low and high frequency sounds under both day and night conditions.
Sounds above 100 kHz were defined as high frequency, and low frequency sounds were those
below 1,000 Hz. Immediate responses of fish were determined by reaction tests. Exclusion tests
were also conducted to determine if fish could be kept out of an ensonified portion of the test
cage for an extended period. Reaction tests involved a single pulse of sound over a wide range
of frequencies. Based on the results of the reaction tests, potentially effective frequencies were
then employed in the exclusion tests. Exclusion tests used a minimum of 900 pulses for interval
durations of 15 minutes.
14-32
Responses of fish to high frequency sounds were determined by direct observation through
underwater video cameras and evaluation of underwater video recordings. Exclusion tests with
high frequency sound were conducted with alewife only (the most reactive species). Fifteen-
minute exclusion test were conducted day and night. During daytime tests, the cage was divided
into four quadrants. Quadrants 3 and 4 were fully ensonified, and quadrants 1 and 2 were
ensonified to a lesser degree.
Results of reaction tests indicated that alewives showed the strongest avoidance response to
frequencies of 110 and 125 kHz during daylight testing. Exclusion tests indicated that alewife
were effectively excluded in low light conditions using pulsed broadband sound between 117
and 133 kHz at 157 dB // μPa due to some experimentation done with the playback of recorded
sound. Extended exclusion results revealed that a strong avoidance response was not exhibited
at these frequencies during the daytime. Nighttime ensonification effectively reduced the use of
ensonified quadrants (a reduction of up to 52% compared to control). However, it did not
produce exclusion.
Separate groups of white perch had variable responses to the different frequency ranges of
sound. Group D white perch responded strongly to broadband sound between 100 and 500 Hz.
Group D did not respond to single tones between 110 and 150 kHz. White perch from Group I
responded strongly during the day to a single tone of 25 Hz and the recorded sound of a rock
entering the water (163 to 183 dB // μPa).
Striped bass were also exposed to the recorded sound of a rock entering the water (164 dB) and a
broadband sound between 110 and 150 kHz. They did not respond to single tones at these
frequencies or to a single tone of 200 kHz. Striped bass were not exposed to nighttime trials at
frequencies less than 1,000 Hz due to poor condition of test fish.
Spottail shiners did not respond to tones at frequencies of 110 and 150 kHz during daytime tests.
They were not exposed to these frequencies at night. Broadband sound at frequencies between
117 and 133 kHz did not elicit a response from spottail shiners. In general, spottail shiners
exhibited weak avoidance responses and few startle responses to the high frequency sound tests.
Spottail shiners did, however, exhibit active avoidance to frequencies between 20 and 200 Hz at
night and mild avoidance to recorded sound of thunder (191 dB // μPa).
Golden shiners did not respond to single tones between 110 and 200 kHz in daytime tests. At
tones of 110 kHz weak lateral and sounding responses were observed, but no active avoidance
response was observed to single tones between 120 and 150 kHz.
Atlantic tomcod elicited no response to single tones between 110 and 150 kHz or to broadband
sound between 117 to 133 kHz. Six daytime and six nighttime tests were conducted with the
recorded rock sound. No avoidance response occurred during the day, and only moderate active
avoidance response was exhibited during nighttime tests.
Pickering Nuclear Generating Station

Open lake tests were conducted at an experimental open water test facility (Pickering Diversion
System) to evaluate the biological effectiveness of a hammer device (Patrick et al. 1988b). Two
hammers were positioned on either end of the middle pilings at a depth of 3 m (9.9 ft). The
hammer’s effectiveness was evaluated by comparing the number of adult alewife (Alosa
pseudoharengus) caught at both structures with no hammers operating and those caught during
14-33
the operation of two hammers per structure. Experiments were conducted between 2200 and
0200 hours, when fish movement was greatest. The duration of each experimental interval was
two hours. Percent reduction of a particular deterrent was defined as the difference in the
number of alewife caught between test and control periods. Results from the Pickering study
indicated a consistent negative response from adult alewife to the hammer. Eighty-five percent
of adult alewife exhibited a significant reduction in inshore movement.
Manimota Bay, Japan

A speaker system was the subject of a large-scale study of sonic deterrents in Manimota Bay,
Japan. A large net blocked the opening of the bay with the exception of a 220 m (722 ft) section
for shipping. A total of six speaker assemblies were installed at the bottom, 36 m (118 ft) from
the surface, on both sides of the shipping entrance. Previously taped sound stimulus of killer
whales and dolphins (range of frequencies between 300 and 900 Hz) was played over the speaker
system. Fish were monitored before and after the speakers operation with a laser beam. The
speaker system was also used at a large power plant in Japan to prevent the movement of
anchovy into the power plant intakes. It was installed at the inlet of a large bay, 100 m (328 ft)
in width. The dolphin and killer whale sounds were played continuously at a sound pressure
level of less than 0.5 kPa. The speaker system was estimated to be approximately 70% effective
at repelling fish in Manimota Bay. According to the authors, the effectiveness of the speaker
system at the power plant was difficult to assess because of low fish densities during the testing
period.
Laboratory Study - Kinectrics

The effect of strobe lights and sound on the behavior of American eels (Anguilla rostrata) was
evaluated at the Kinectrics laboratory in Ontario (formerly Ontario Hydro). American eel test
fish for these studies were obtained from the R.H. Saunders Dam and the St Lawrence River.
The testing facility consisted of a 5.5 m (18.0 ft) diameter tank in which sound was evaluated as
both an attractant and as a conditioning agent for adult and juvenile American eels. The sound
generator used was capable of creating complex resonant frequencies (< 1,000 Hz) up to 190 µPa
at 1 m (3.3 ft) from the source. For each sound signal evaluated, five replicates and five controls
were conducted. Each trial included 10 eels and lasted approximately 15 min. Conditioning
trials were also conducted with walleye (Sander vitreus) and lake sturgeon (Acipenser
fulvescens) fingerlings. Test fish were stocked in 1,000 L (264 gal) circular holding tanks at
densities of 100 to 500 per tank and conditioned to feed upon the application of the sound
stimulus. Food was delivered at 30 minute intervals during each day. Test fish were assumed to
be effectively conditioned when the majority of the fish in the tanks approached the feeding
mechanism when the sound stimulus was applied but before the food was delivered.
Results of the sound attraction trials reveal that both juvenile and adult eels were attracted
toward the sound projector, with an average of 3.7 eels showing a clear orientation to the
projector (Figure 14-2) and an additional three eels orienting toward the projector within 2 m
(6.6 ft). In total, approximately 70% of the eels displayed an attraction toward the sound source.
Control trials revealed a maximum of one eel within 1 m (3.3 ft) of the projector throughout the
trial, with most test fish orienting away from the sound source.
14-34
Figure 14-2
Mean number of adult eels within 1 m of the experimental sound projector during attraction
tests (Patrick et al. 2001)
Results of the sound conditioning trials reveal that walleye and lake sturgeon were conditioned to
feed within 10 days. Conditioned fish showed significant increases in growth (21 to 29%) and
survival (3 to 50%) over controls. Additional studies of retention of the conditioned response
reveal that the conditioning could last up to 3 weeks. The authors suggest that his conditioning
technique could be applied at hatcheries that release reared fish as part of fisheries enhancement
programs. Sound conditioning could therefore be used to increase the passage efficiencies of
other technologies that may be performing poorly. The authors were careful to point out the
preliminary nature of their results.
Case Studies – Infrasound – CWIS Application
Lake Borrevann, Norway; Tihange Nuclear Power Plant, River Muese, Belgium
The avoidance response of various European fish species to intense infrasound was studied in a
Norwegian lake and a Belgian power plant intake (Sonny et al. 2006). The infrasound source
consisted of two symmetrical pistons in an air-filled chamber. The cylinder fronts are fitted with
25-cm (9.8-in.) diameter flexible rubber membranes that have a peak-to-peak amplitude of 5 cm
(2.0 in.). In these tests, the driver motor was run at 960 rpm, resulting in a sound frequency of
14-35
16 Hz. At a distance of 4 m (13.1 ft), the particle acceleration was about 0.03 m/sec (0.1 ft.sec)
(rms) (Sonny et al. 2006).
The effectiveness of the infrasound generator in repelling fish was monitored with a Simrad EY
60 echosounder (7 deg. split beam, 200 kHz). In Lake Borrevann tests, the infrasound generator
was suspended 1 m (3.3 ft) below a raft in a water depth of 3 to 4 m (9.8 to 13.1 ft). Fishes
showed a pronounced vertical diurnal migration at this location, with densities peaking after
dusk. To study repulsion and possible habituation to the infrasound source, three different
procedures were used: (1) 30-second sound repeated every 2 to 4 minutes during periods of peak
fish activity; (2) sound not started until fish had redistributed after previous stimulus during
period of low fish activity; and (3) sound source either running continuously or turned off for
whole nights between 1600 and 0800 hours.
Strong avoidance responses were noted every time the infrasound source was activated. Fish
rapidly returned to the area when the sound was turned off. Maximum reaction range was 10 m
(32.8 ft). Late at night when fish were less active, similar acute avoidance was noted; however,
fish did not redistribute around the sound source until after 5 to 10 min. The sustained avoidance
indicates that habituation to the infrasound does not occur.
At the Tihange Power Plant, two infrasound units were placed in the center of one of twelve
inlets that comprise the 72- by 5.2-m (236- by 17-ft) water intake structure. Mean water velocity
ranged from 0.17 to 0.28 m/sec (0.6 to 0.9 ft/sec). The Simrad echosounder beam was aimed
across the downstream side of the intake structure, with maximum coverage occurring at and
around the ensonified inlet. The sound was turned on and off for 20 minute periods from 1 hour
before dusk to 2 hours after sunset. Sixteen on-off test sequences were run in late January 2004.
The number of fish entering the intake during sound-on periods was significantly lower than
during sound-off periods; reductions of 44 to 86% were observed in the ensonified and adjacent
inlets. The mean reduction across all units monitored (8 of 12 inlets for a total width of 54 m
[177.2 ft]) was 47.9% (P<0.001).
The authors conclude from these two studies that infrasound is an effective deterrent for
cyprinids and that habituation is not an issue.
Annapolis Tidal Generation Station

The effectiveness of a high-frequency sound diversion system was evaluated at the Annapolis
Tidal Generation Station (Annapolis). Annapolis is located in the Annapolis River estuary in
southwestern Nova Scotia, Canada. The one unit station uses a low-head propeller StraFlo
turbine with an output of 17.8 MW at a 5.5 m (18 ft) head with a discharge of 408 m3/sec
(14,408 cfs). Two fishways, located 12.0 m (39.4 ft) and 300 m (984.3 ft) from the forebay,
were installed to facilitate fish passage.
The model 3406 transducers (4 International Transducer Corporation) were mounted across the
top of the turbine intake, angled downward at 15 degrees and sideways at 30 degrees. The
transducers projected band-limited, random-noise signals between 122 and 128 kHz.
Between September 7 and October 22, 1999 fish passage was monitored. Nets were deployed in
the two fishways and at two locations in the tailrace before the turbine to monitor fish deterrence
and diversion from the turbine intake. The barrier was tested on or off during a full generating
period for 48 generating cycles.
14-36
A total of 53,000 fish representing 27 taxa were collected during the study (Table 14-3). Nine
species made up 99% of the sample, Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia) accounting for 90%.
The results demonstrated that the sound barrier was partially effective for Alosa spp. At deterring
fish from the tailrace, but was ineffective for all other species. Effects of environmental
variables were consistent with past studies (Ross et al. 1993; Nestler et al. 1992; Popper and
Carlson 1998).
14-37
Table 14-3
Number of fish collected by species at the four collection sites.
Tailrace (north Tailrace (south Number

New Fishway Old Fishway
Species side) side) Total of
Cycles
On Off On Off On Off On Off
Atlantic silver side 479 304 464 115 17,214 18,706 4,183 6,534 47,999 47
Atlantic herring 232 387 107 165 317 561 50 38 1,857 42
Northern pipefish 55 75 27 55 89 343 57 346 1,047 41
blackspotted stickleback 18 28 19 11 260 341 78 95 850 44
blueback herring 70 68 42 28 43 50 10 0 311 33
mummichog 2 0 2 2 22 75 12 54 169 14
alewife 8 12 3 11 85 39 2 0 160 23
sea lamprey 10 8 2 0 18 18 52 50 158 4
hake 19 38 14 24 7 16 2 3 123 24
All Other Species 49 64 19 45 106 150 8 35 463 160
14-38
Case Studies – Infrasound – Other Applications

An infrasound generator was evaluated for its ability to repel potamodromous fishes during cage
tests conducted at the Kingsford Hydroelectric Project, which is located on the Menominee River
between Wisconsin and the upper peninsula of Michigan (Winchell et al. 1997; EPRI 1998a, b;
Michaud and Taft 2000). Several light devices and a transducer-based sound system also were
evaluated during this study, and tests with each of these devices were described previously in
their respective sections. Devices that produced effective stimuli during cage tests were selected
for a field evaluation at the White Rapids Hydroelectric Project. A description of the study
design and methods was provided in the section on strobe lights. The infrasound device
consisted of a rotating valve that had openings through which water was driven by a pump. The
frequency of infrasound signals (5 to 60 Hz) was determined by the speed of the rotating valve,
and the amplitude was determined by the flow rate supplied by the pump. Results from tests
showed little or no response by largemouth (Micropterus salmoides) and smallmouth bass
(Micropterus dolomieu), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), walleye (Sander vitreus) , and sunfish
(Lepomis spp.) species to the infrasound stimulus. Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
displayed agitation but no directional avoidance. Due to the limited response observed in cage
tests, the infrasound generator was not included in the subsequent field evaluation that was
conducted with strobe lights and higher frequency sounds at the White Rapids Project.
McNary Dam
Infrasound and strobe lights were evaluated for their potential in redistributing migrant yearling
and sub-yearling salmonids away from dewatering screens in the previously described McNary
Dam Juvenile Bypass System (Johnson and Ploskey 1998). Two devices were used to generate
the infrasound stimuli: a pump with a rotary valve and a reciprocating piston device. The pump
was operated at 20 Hz during hourly sound on and sound off treatments (n=20). The piston
device was operated at 8 Hz in summer near side dewatering screens during hourly sound on and
sound off treatments (n=9).
Sound surveys were conducted in a stationary smolt transport barge and in the McNary fish
separator to measure and characterize ambient infrasound. Sound fields were present in both
locations. Sound pressure levels were found to be strong enough to be detected by smolts.
Distributions and counts of smolts were monitored by underwater cameras. Factors including
limited visibility (due to high water and turbidity during the 1997 tests) and a skewed lateral
distribution of fish toward the east wall opposite side dewatering screens during both test and
control treatments, provided inconclusive results from underwater camera counts. Tracking of
radio-tagged smolts by the National Biological Service indicated that the behavioral devices
neither increased passage time of smolts through the channel nor caused significant holding of
smolts above the bypass.
Roza Dam
An infrasound generator was one of three behavioral barriers evaluated at the Roza Dam (Amaral
et al. 1998, 2001). The dam is located on the Yakima River in Washington. It is approximately
208 km upstream from the confluence of the Yakima and Columbia River. The facility consists
14-39
of an irrigation canal, a concrete dam, and a screening facility that diverts outmigrating salmon
into a bypass system. The bypass system returns fish to the mainstem river below the dam.
Tests were conducted to determine if behavioral devices could be effective increasing the
passage rate of wild Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) smolts into the Roza Dam
screening and collection facilities.
A single particle motion generator (PMG) was used to create the infrasound stimulus for the
study. The PMG is capable of producing frequencies ranging from 10 to 60 Hz (frequencies that
were evaluated were between 10 to 50 Hz) and was operated at full power to maximize the area
of coverage during the tests. The PMG consisted of a rotary valve, an air-filled expansion
chamber, and a submersible pump.
The test facility was comprised of a floating test platform (modified pontoon boat). A 3.7 by 0.9
by 0.9 m (12 by 3 by 3 ft) aluminum frame test cage was fitted with a vinyl exterior and
contained separate test channels for evaluation of behavioral responses. Fish behavior was
monitored by underwater cameras positioned in the cage outside of the test channel. Responses
to behavioral stimuli were assessed during treatment and control periods by introducing a group
of test fish into the test channel and observing their reactions and movements. Environmental
parameters were recorded throughout the test program, including ambient light, water
temperature, water velocity, turbidity, and weather conditions.
Infrasound frequencies of 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 Hz were evaluated during the PMG tests. The
tests consisted of 2-minute exposure periods for each frequency. A randomized order was used
for determining the emission of the five frequencies. A 13-minute period of ambient sound was
used between treatments. A total of six tests were conducted during daytime and two during
nighttime hours using chinook salmon. One test using pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis)
was conducted during the day. Real-time estimates of center of school movements were
recorded by an observer during the tests to determine the response of Chinook salmon and
pikeminnow to infrasound. Nighttime PMG tests employed the use of supplemental underwater
lighting, as there was no other means of determining fish position during these tests.
Results of the infrasound tests indicated that no avoidance or startle response was exhibited by
Chinook salmon to any of the five PMG test frequencies during day or nighttime tests. Three
pikeminnow demonstrated moderate to strong avoidance to all the test frequencies except 20 Hz
(no response was observed at 20 Hz). Only three pikeminnow were used for the test and no
replicates were conducted, therefore, the authors suggest that the results of daytime tests with
pikeminnow be viewed with caution.
Rolfe Canal Hydroelectric Project

The use of an infrasound deterrent system was evaluated as a means to increase downstream
bypass efficiency at the Rolfe Canal Hydroelectric Project (Lakeside Engineering, Inc. 1996).
The Rolfe Canal Project is the most upstream of three projects located on the Contocook River in
New Hampshire. The project consists of a concrete spillway, a 1,220 m (4,002.6 ft) long canal, a
293 m (961.3 ft) long penstock, a powerhouse, and a 366 m (1,200.8 ft) long tailrace canal.
There also is a spillway adjacent to the penstock intake structure. The penstock intake structure
has two 3.7 by 12.2 m (12 by 40 ft) bar racks with 8.9 cm (3.5 in.) clear spacing. A bar rack with
1.9 cm (0.75 in.) clear spacing is located upstream of the wider-spaced racks and extends to a
depth of 4.3 m (14 ft) at normal canal level. The project has a single horizontal Kaplan turbine
14-40
with a runner diameter of 3 m (9.8 ft) and a rotational speed of 150 rpm. The hydraulic capacity
of the unit is 58 m3/sec (2,052 cfs) at minimum net head 9.1 m (30 ft). Anadromous species
targeted for upstream and downstream passage include Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and
American shad (Alosa sapidissima). Downstream facilities at the Rolfe Canal Project consist of
narrow-spaced bar racks and a bypass with an entrance located next to the penstock intake.
In 1996, a sound deterrent system consisting of infrasound generators was installed at the
entrance to the power canal of the Rolfe Canal Project. The infrasound sources developed for
the canal entrance were composed of a float, a steel plate, an air-driven pneumatic oscillator (i.e.,
piston), and a plywood plate (the driven element). Each infrasound generator had an air
filter/regulator set at 16 kg/cm2 (90 psi) to provide a 57 kg (125 lb) force at 15 Hz. The canal
entrance generators were attached to 12.5 cm (0.5 in.) cable anchored at the two shorelines. An
evaluation of this system has not been conducted. However, cage tests were performed to assess
the avoidance responses of Atlantic salmon smolts to the sound stimuli produced by the
generators.
Cage tests were conducted by placing hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon smolts in a net pen and
exposing them to the infrasound stimuli. Three separate series of cage tests were conducted to
assess fish responses and to determine the effectiveness range of the infrasound generator. The
distance at which fish were repelled from the sound source was measured to determine the
effectiveness range. The net pen in which fish were observed was 0.9 m (3.0 ft) deep by 1.4 m
(4.5 ft) wide by 3.7 m (12.0 ft) deep. During the first series of tests, 24 smolts were exposed to
infrasound stimuli with the source located at distances ranging from 2 to 3 m (6.6 to 9.8 ft) from
the upstream end of the pen. Under ambient conditions, the smolts were randomly oriented at
the upstream end of the net pen (this area was shaded from sunlight). With the infrasound
generator located on the centerline of the pen, fish oriented to the flow but did not move away
from the source when it was activated. Similarly, fish remained in the upstream end of the cage
when the source was positioned off-axis, but they moved to the side of the cage away from the
generator when the infrasound was activated. To determine if smolts could be held at the far end
of the cage by the infrasound, the source was activated after the test fish were forcibly crowded
into the downstream end of the cage. When the sound was deactivated, 20 of the 24 fish moved
back to the upstream end of the cage.
During the second series of tests, the net pen was moved toward and away from the infrasound
generator to simulate movement of salmon smolts approaching the entrance of the power canal.
Fourteen smolts were used during these tests, and the pen was positioned upstream of the
infrasound source. All of the test fish remained about 7.6 m (25 ft) from the infrasound
generator as the net pen was moved toward it from a distance of 6.7 m (22 ft) to a distance of 4.9
(16 ft; i.e., distance from the downstream end of the pen to the source). At a distance of 2.4 m (8
ft), all but two fish were at the upstream end of the cage, which was about 20 ft from the
infrasound generator. These tests were repeated after the cage was rotated 180 degrees. With
the net pen positioned at distances of 6.1 and 4.9 m (20 and 16 ft) from the sound source, most
fish remained at a distance of more than 6.1 m (20 ft) from the source.
In the third series of tests, the net pen was located 8 ft downstream of the infrasound source and
fish position was observed before, during, and after a sound-on period. The 14 smolts that were
used in the second series of tests were also used for this series. Prior to sound activation, seven
fish were located at the upstream end of the net pen, and seven were located at the downstream
14-41
end. The fish in the upstream end of the pen moved downstream after the infrasound generator
was activated (10 smolts were located at the downstream end of the cage). All fish moved to the
upstream end of the pen when the infrasound was deactivated.
Small Hydroelectric Intake, Sandvikselven, Norway

An infrasound source was evaluated for its ability to repel Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts
from a small hydroelectric intake on a river in Norway (Knudsen et al. 1994). The device used
to generate infrasound was a piston that produced a 10 Hz pulsed stimuli (this is the same device
that was evaluated in laboratory experiments by Knudsen et al (1992)). Tests were conducted at
an intake located on a side channel of a small river. The intake was 4 by 0.7 m (13.1 by 2.7 ft).
The number of fish collected in a trap adjacent to the intake was compared between periods of
sound and no sound. Observations of fish movement demonstrated that smolts turned away and
moved upstream after encountering the 10 Hz stimuli. Additionally, during samples of equal
time duration, 338 fish were collected in the trap during sound-off periods versus six during
sound-on periods. It was concluded that infrasound generated at 10 Hz should be an effective
deterrent for repelling Atlantic salmon, but that the effective range was small (about 3 m [10 ft])
and related to the near-field distance of the stimulus.
Laboratory and Field Study, River Imsa, Norway

Laboratory studies were conducted to evaluate the physiological and behavioral response of
Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts to infrasound in the 5 to 150 Hz range (Sand et al. 2000,
2001). It was concluded that the lowest frequencies (5 to 10 Hz) elicited the strongest responses.
Additional laboratory testing was then conducted in a pool with an infrasound generator
constructed of a 19-cm (7.5-in.) diameter piston driven by an electric motor. The generator was
placed 20 cm (7.9 in.) deep in the pool. During the pool trials, juvenile salmon (Atlantic salmon
and Pacific species) displayed the strongest avoidance responses to 10 Hz signals while
displaying no avoidance response to 150 Hz signals. These laboratory evaluations revealed
habituation of the test fish to the stimulus, but the authors noted that in the field, habituation
becomes less likely with migratory species.
The results of laboratory testing led to the design of a fully submersible infrasound generator that
increased its usefulness. The new design had a cylinder diameter of 21 cm (8.27 in.) and a piston
amplitude of 5 cm (1.97 in.). The eccentrically coupled motor runs at 705 rpm and produces a
frequency of 11.8 Hz. Testing of this new submersible infrasound generator was conducted on
silver European eels (Anguilla anguilla) in the laboratory to establish the proof of concept.
Once strong responses were elicited in the lab to intense infrasound, the generator was evaluated
in the field in the River Imsa. The river discharge during the testing was 7 to 14 m3/sec (247 to
494 cfs) and the flow velocity was 0.9 to 1.3 m3/sec (32 to 46 cfs). An inclined trap screen with
10 mm (0.4 in.) spacings was constructed to filter all of the river flow. This screen incorporated
a fish collection trough that was divided into four equal quadrants (Figure 14-3). The infrasound
generator was positioned pointing downstream at an angle of 45 degrees to the trap screen at a
depth of 0.7 to 1.0 m (2.3 to 3.3 ft), 3 m (9.9 ft) from the right bank, and 4.5 m (14.8 ft) upstream
of the trap screen.
14-42
Figure 14-3
Sketch of the River Imsa at the site of the fish trap. (A) Horizontal view showing the position of
the infrasound source relative to the trap. The collecting trough of trap was separated into
four equal sections (I–IV). (B) Longitudinal section of the trap, which catches all of the
descending fish (Sand et al. 2000).
14-43
Sampling was conducted during the peak of the silver eel run. A total of 370 eels was collected
during periods of no stimulus (infrasound generator off). Of these, 28% were captured in section
I, which was closest to the generator, and 18% in section IV, which was furthest from the
generator. A total of 296 eels was collected during application of the stimulus (infrasound
generator on). Of these, only 12% were captured in section I (a 57% reduction from the control
numbers) and 26% were captured in section IV (a 44% increase from the control numbers). The
authors indicated that the shifts in distribution during the application of the infrasound stimulus
were highly significant and, therefore, represented a distinct avoidance response to the stimulus.

The ability of infrasound to repel juvenile salmonids was evaluated during cage tests at the
Hiram M. Chittenden Locks located in Seattle, Washington (Ploskey et al. 1998b). The purpose
of the infrasound evaluation was to evaluate promising behavioral devices that could potentially
guide juvenile salmonids toward existing fish bypass structures and collection systems at
Columbia River dams by driving them upward toward entrances. Strobe lights were also
evaluated during this study. Infrasound devices that were evaluated included a particle motion
generator (PMG) developed by Alden Research Laboratory, Inc., and a piston device supplied by
Argotec, Inc. The PMG consists of a pump that drives water through a rotary valve with three 5
cm (2 in.) by 10 cm (4 in.) openings. The valve speed determines the frequency of water particle
acceleration, and the amplitude is controlled by the flow rate supplied by the pump. The PMG
was located within 30 cm (11.8 in.) of the bottom of the test pen, which was vertically oriented.
Water particle accelerations were measured with a tri-axial accelerometer. The piston infrasound
device had 20.3-cm (8-in.) diameter pistons, each with a 6.4 cm (2.5 in.) stroke at a speed of 500
rpm. The piston device positioned at the distance from the net pen as the PMG. The piston
device was evaluated with the net pen in both vertical and horizontal positions.
Groups of 10 to 25 juvenile salmonids were placed in the net pen approximately 30 to 60
minutes before a test was initiated. Four video cameras mounted on the perimeter of the pen
were used to monitor fish behavior and position. To assess fish response, center of school
positions during treatment and control periods were calculated for specified time intervals. The
resulting temporal and spatial patterns in the center of school position were used to determine the
ability of each device to elicit avoidance reactions. Tests with juvenile salmonids produced no
distinguishable behavioral reactions to PMG signals between 10 and 30 Hz. Possible
explanations for the lack of responses to PMG stimuli included background noise and poor
sinuosity in the fundamental waveform. Piston tests with the pen positioned horizontally
produced mild avoidance from the sub-yearling Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and coho
salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Fish within 1.2 m (3.9 ft) of the piston often turned and moved
away from the source. Similarly, fish moving toward the device changed direction as they
approached within about 1.2 m (3.9 ft) of the source. Piston tests conducted with the pen in a
vertical orientation produced some upward avoidance when fish were within 1 m (3.3 ft) of the
net bottom. However, there were not considerable differences in swimming behavior during
treatment and control periods.
Sommaroyhamn, Norway
A low-frequency sound barrier was tested for its ability to repel cod. Experiments were
performed in a net pen at Sommaroyhamn, Norway, in 1988 (Holand and Walso 1988). The
14-44
tests were conducted in a 50,000 m2 (1,765,500 ft2) tidal pool with a narrow, shallow inlet. The
bottom is relatively flat and has a minimum depth of 0.5 to 1.0 m (1.6 to 3.3 ft) and a maximum
depth of 7 m (23 ft) at low tide.
The sound barrier generated low frequency sound (about 30 Hz) with large particle speed. It was
comprised of four pairs of transducers mounted on a float deployed across the middle of a net
pen. One transducer of each pair was placed at a depth of about 1.5 m (5 ft) and the other at a
depth of about 4.5 m (15 ft). The transducers created a quadraplex field with high particle speed
movement. Particle speed movement slowed a short distance from the transducer plane, creating
a barrier field that decreased with distance.
Two tests (Test I and Test II) were conducted during the study. For each test, attempts by fish to
pass through, and actual passage through, the barrier were recorded for observation periods with
the sound barrier activated and deactivated. Fish behavior was monitored by two systems: an
acoustical positioning system and an underwater video camera. During the two tests, cod
demonstrated an avoidance response to the sound barrier immediately after it was activated. In
the first test, no cod were recorded passing through the sound barrier while it was activated. Fish
were reported to turn away from the barrier when they reached a distance from the transducers
where the sound was audible. Of 12 passage attempts during no sound periods, six passages
across barrier location were recorded. The second test was conducted over an expanded time
period. Fish responses to the sound barrier during the first 24 hours of the second test were
similar to responses observed during the first test. However, during the second test, cod
avoidance decreased with exposure time. The reduced avoidance response was attributed to
either fish becoming conditioned to the sound or demagnetization of the transducers.
Laboratory Study – Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)

The response of juvenile salmonids to an infrasound source was evaluated during laboratory tests
conducted at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) (Mueller and Neitzel 1998;
Mueller et al. 1999). The infrasound device tested by PNNL was described as a volume
displacement source (VDS), and was similar to the piston device developed at the University of
Oslo that has demonstrated an ability to repel Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts and juvenile
Pacific salmon (Knudsen et al. 1992, 1994, 1997). The VDS consists of two pistons, each with a
diameter of 10 cm (4 in.) and a peak to peak displacement of 4.5 cm (1.8 in.) (Mueller and
Neitzel 1998). The pistons are located at opposite ends of the device and are driven within a
frequency range of 10 to 14 Hz. The major component of an infrasound signal produced by the
VDS, as well as by other infrasound generators, which is believed to elicit responses from fish, is
particle acceleration.
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), and wild and hatchery
fall Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytsha) were evaluated for avoidance responses to
infrasound during the PNNL study. The average size of each group of fish tested was less than
50 mm (2 in.), with the exception of larger brook trout that averaged between 80 and 100 mm
(3.2 and 4.0 in.). Testing was conducted in a large tank with test fish contained in a net pen (1.5
by 1 by 2 m [4.9 by 3.3 by 6.6 ft]) and the VDS located 0.8 m (2.6 ft) from one end of the pen.
Gridlines were included along the walls, floor, and ceiling to facilitate recording the fish
responses. Testing was run in three cycles each day: morning (0700 to 0900 hours), late morning
through early afternoon (1100 to 1300 hours), and late afternoon (1400 to 1600 hours). Test
14-45
groups of 20 fish were exposed to ten 3-minute sound-on events during a 1-hour period. Fish
behavior during 10 3-minute control periods also was monitored. The sound-on and control
periods during each 1-hour test were randomly selected. Fish behavior was monitored and
recorded on videotape using three underwater cameras. The strength of responses was
determined from the distances that fish moved during sound exposure periods. Responses were
classified as follows: (1) none, no movement; (2) slight, 0.15 to 0.3 m (0.5 to 1.0 ft); (3)
moderate, 0.3 to 0.8 m (1.0 to 2.6 ft); and (4) strong, 0.8 m (2.6 ft) or greater. Responses also
were classified based on type of reaction (startle, avoidance, and habituation).
Results from laboratory tests indicated that responses of fish to infrasound stimulus were
variable and depended upon species and age. Wild Chinook were more likely to respond to the
VDS than hatchery-reared fish. Test fish would habituate to the infrasound stimulus after
repeated exposure. Wild Chinook fry avoidance responses dropped off nearly 50% after the
fourth exposure. Hatchery Chinook salmon had a high initial response, but avoidance decreased
to near 20% after the fourth exposure. A startle response was observed in 16% of the first five
test exposures of rainbow trout to infrasound, however, no significant avoidance behavior was
exhibited by rainbow trout fry. Eastern brook trout showed the least response to infrasound.
Movement of brook trout was classified as slight or none for all test groups. No startle or
expansion behavior was observed.
Laboratory Study, Oregon State University

A laboratory evaluation was conducted to evaluate the use of a 10-Hz frequency piston device on
juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytsha) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
(Knudsen et al. 1997). Fish used in these experiments were raised and maintained at the Fish
Genetics and Performance Laboratory of Oregon State University, where the experiments also
were conducted. The fish were introduced into a circular tank with a diameter of 3 m (9.8 ft) and
a depth of 1.1 m (3.5 ft). Water temperature was maintained at 10ºC (50º F). The low frequency
sound source consisted of a 1 m (3.3 ft) long, 25-cm (9.8-in.) diameter aluminum tube with a
piston in the front. The piston was driven by eccentric coupling to an electric motor.
The experiments were conducted by turning on the sound source for 5 seconds and observing the
reaction (an underwater video camera also recorded this behavior) of the fish in the tank. The
sound source was positioned at 40 cm (15.7 in.) below the surface and behind a curtain (to avoid
visual detection of the piston’s movement). Two test series were conducted with eight groups.
Both species of fish reacted similarly to the sound stimuli. Chinook salmon and rainbow trout in
all eight groups exhibited a strong flight response during the first sound stimulation. Flight
response gradually changed to avoidance over the first five sound stimulations. Avoidance did
not seem to decrease, even after 20 trials. The second series of tests was conducted 1 hour after
the final trial of the first series. Flight responses were evoked during the first trials followed by a
change to avoidance responses in successive trials. Habituation was reached after 12 trials.
Laboratory Study, Norway

The response of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts to infrasound was evaluated during
laboratory and field tests conducted in Norway (Knudsen et al. 1992, 1994). Fish response to
150 Hz sounds also was evaluated during the laboratory study, which is discussed in a previous
section. Laboratory tests with infrasound involved evaluation of awareness retains elicited from
14-46
fish placed in an acoustic tube, and an evaluation avoidance reactions by fish placed in a
concrete pool. During both the laboratory and field tests infrasound was generated using a piston
device that operated at 10 Hz. The piston consisted of a 1.2 m (3.9 ft) long aluminum tube with
a 19 cm (7.5 in.) diameter piston that had a peak-to-peak movement of 4 cm (1.6 in.).
During the acoustic tube tests, frequencies of 5 to 10 Hz elicited the strongest awareness
reactions from test fish based on observations related to hearing thresholds, changes in heart rate,
and the degree of habituation. Signals of 150 Hz also elicited responses but to a lesser degree.
Based on these results, a 10 Hz signal produced by the piston device and 150 Hz signal generated
by a standard transducer were evaluated with hatchery-reared and wild Atlantic salmon during
tests conducted in the concrete pool. During all tests with the piston device, the 10 Hz signal
produced spontaneous avoidance response for fish within 2 m (6.6 ft) of the source. Avoidance
was observed even after 20 tests with the same fish during a 3- to 4-hour period. Sound signals
emitted at 150 Hz did not elicit any behavioral responses from test fish during the pool tests.
14-47
15
AIR BUBBLE CURTAINS
Introduction
Air bubble curtains are created simply by pumping air through a diffuser of specific design to
create a continuous, dense curtain of bubbles. The principle behind the air curtain is to elicit an
avoidance response in fish. This stimulus can be visual, tactile, or both depending on lighting
conditions and how close to the curtain the fish approaches. It is also possible that the noise
generated by the air curtain contributes to its capability for repelling the fish.
The most extensive investigations of air bubble curtains have been conducted at steam electric
stations to block the passage of fish into CWISs but could potentially be used to prevent the
passage of fish into turbines. For example, an air curtain was not effective in reducing
impingement of white perch (Morone americana), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), and clupeids
(Family Clupeidae) at the Indian Point Generating Station on the Hudson River (Vanderwalker
1967). After several years of operation, the air curtain was removed. In addition, air bubble
curtains have been evaluated for their ability to divert fish at hydropower turbine inlets. The
success of these devices at all water intakes has been variable but generally poor and appears to
be affected by such factors as species, temperature, light intensity, water velocity, and orientation
within the waterbody.
Similarly, at the Commonwealth Edison Company Quad-Cities Generating Station, located on
the Mississippi River, an air bubble curtain was not found to be effective in reducing fish
impingement [primarily gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum)] when placed across the entrance
to the intake canal (Latvaitis 1976). At the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant on the
Mississippi River, small decreases in impingement were achieved for crappie (Pomoxis spp.) and
freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens) when an air curtain was placed across the intake canal.
However, the number of individuals of other species [carp (Cyprinus carpio), silver chub
(Hybopsis storeriana) and white bass (Morone chrysops)] entering the canal actually increased
(Grotbeck 1975). The air curtain was therefore removed.
At the Monroe Power Plant, an air bubble curtain was installed across the mouth of the intake
canal in 1972. The curtain created a continuous stream of air bubbles from bottom to surface.
On the basis of daily fish counts made with the system either on or off during 7-day periods, it
was concluded that an air bubble curtain was not effective in preventing yellow perch (Perca
flavescens), walleye (Sander vitreus), gizzard shad, freshwater drum, alewife (Alosa
pseudoharengus), or smelt (Osmerus spp.) from entering the intake canal (Detroit Edison 1975).
Although not a power plant application, air bubble curtains have been used successfully in
diverting Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) to fish traps and in directing them to shallow areas
where they can be more easily seined by commercial fishermen. Experimental applications in
the United States and Canada from 1958–1960 led to the installation of permanent air curtain
systems by fishermen (Smith 1961) with effective results.
The use of an air bubble curtain to exclude alewife from the Milwaukee River was investigated
(Kupfer and Gordon 1966). An air bubble curtain was installed in the Milwaukee River just
15-1
north of its confluence with the Menomonee River. Data obtained from gill net samples and
observations of dead alewife above and below the curtain indicated that the air curtain was
somewhat successful in stopping the alewife from migrating up the Milwaukee River (Kupfer
and Gordon 1966). However, the effectiveness of the barrier could not be quantified.
Stewart (1982) was successful in confining roundfish in sea cages with the use of an air bubble
curtain. Studies in Canada have also shown that the effectiveness of the air bubble curtain in
excluding fish passage can be relatively high (70–98%) under artificial, low-level light
conditions (Patrick 1982b).
When used in conjunction with strobe lights, the device appears to have potential for reducing
fish passage under various conditions of turbidity. For example, when evaluated, the
combination of an air bubble curtain with sound was shown to hold potential for diverting
salmon smolts (Welton et al. 2002; see Case Study below).
The effectiveness of air bubble curtains may be highly species-specific, however, some species
have actually been attracted to the device. Variables which appear to influence performance of
the device include water velocity, turbidity, and illumination (illumination appears to be a key
factor influencing effectiveness).
Case Studies – CWIS Field Tests
Indian Point Generating Station

An experimental air bubble array was tested in front of an intake forebay at the Indian Point
nuclear generating station, which is located on the Hudson River in New York. Fixed, fine-mesh
screens had previously been installed that successfully reduced the impingement of larger fish.
However, large numbers of smaller fish such as young-of-the-year white perch (Morone
americana), Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod), and herrings (Alosa spp.) were still collected
on the fine-mesh screens. In an attempt to repel fish from the intakes, the air bubble array was
installed in 1972. The array was comprised of two vertical rows of horizontal bubblers, with the
bubblers spaced 1.2 m (4 ft) apart in each row as shown in Figure 15-1. The outer row of
bubblers was placed 91.4 cm (36 inches) in front of the screen, while the inner row was 45.7 cm
(18 inches) in front of the screen. Air bubbles were discharged from the bubblers through holes
that were 0.8 mm (1/32 in.) in diameter and spaced 12.7 mm (1/2 in.) apart (Alevras 1974).
15-2
Figure 15-1
Cross section of air bubbler array in front of intake bay 12 at Indian Point Unit 1. Side
extensions of bubblers not shown (Alevras 1974).
Initial tests were conducted in February 1972 in which 25.5 m3/min (900 ft3/min) of air were
released from the bubbler array. However, this volume of air distorted the flow pattern in front
of the screens causing hydraulic problems in the intake. A model test was conducted that
indicated an optimal flow rate of 11.3 m3/min (400 ft3/min) which was implemented in
subsequent testing. Tests were conducted at bay 12, which is one of four intake bays (bays 11
through 14) at Unit 1of Indian Point Station. The bubbler was operated over a 10-day period and
the number of fish collected from the screens in bay 12 was compared to the other three bays in
which a bubbler was not installed. During the periods before and after the bubbler was operated,
30% of all fish collected on the screens at Unit 1 were collected from bay 12. During the period
in which the bubbler was operated, the percentage of fish collected from bay 12 decreased to
5.7% (Table 15-1) (Alevras 1974). However, over the same period the percentage of fish
collected from bays 13 and 14 increased while the percentage of fish collected from bay 11
decreased. This suggested that the presence of the bubbler caused a significant change in the
distribution of fish collected at Unit 1.
15-3
Table 15-1
Total number of fish, average number per day and percent of total collected from the four intake
bays at Indian Point Unit 1 for three time intervals.
Time interval Bay 11 Bay 12 Bay 13 Bay 14 Total
2-5 Feb 72 (No air bubbler):
Total Number 2,044 1,908 1,013 1,385 6,350
Average / Day 511 477 253 346 1,588
Percent of Total 32.2 30.0 15.9 21.8
17-29 Feb 72* (air bubbler on Bay 12 only):
Total Number 3,779 1,440 8,403 11,679 25,301
Average / Day 378 144 840 1,170 2,530
Percent of Total 14.9 5.7 33.2 46.2
6-15 Mar 72 (No air bubbler):
Total Number 2,005 2,736 2,147 532 7,420
Average / Day 201 274 215 53 742
Percent of Total 27.1 36.9 29.0 7.1
*excluding days 21-23 Feb 72
During the test period, the average number of fish collected per day at Unit 1 was greater than
the average number collected per day before and after the test period. However, while it
appeared that this increase was attributable to the presence of the air bubbler affecting fish
behavior in front of the screens, it was also possible that it was due to an increase in the density
of fish near the intake during testing.
Additional testing took place with the air bubbler system installed at bay 12 during the summer
of 1972. However, during these tests the fixed screens at bays 11 and 12 were removed and
those at bays 13 and 14 were raised once daily for cleaning. This complicated the evaluation of
the bubbler system. Nonetheless, this testing tentatively showed that the air bubbler at bay 12
did not repel fish when the fixed screen was absent. Testing also showed that the number of fish
collected with the air bubbler operating significantly increased during nighttime, whereas the
number of fish collected during daylight hours was the same with the air bubbler operating as
without. The air bubbler did not appear to repel fish and may have actually attracted fish during
nighttime.
Testing in February and the summer of 1972 did not conclusively demonstrate the effectiveness
of the air bubbler system. Thus, by December 1972, a temporary air bubbler system had been
installed across all four intake bays at Unit 1. The bubbler system was operated continuously
during the month. Although this precluded a comparison between the numbers of fish collected
during periods of bubbler operation and not in operation, the daily counts of fish collected over
this period were less than expected based on previous fish collections during this time of year.
15-4
In June 1973, after Unit 1 was taken out of service, Unit 2 began operation with a complete air
bubbler system in place that incorporated the design of the original test system. Impingement
rates were low throughout the summer. During the early fall when impingement rates typically
increased dramatically, the number of fish collected remained at an all-time low for that time of
year. However, because comparisons of fish counts with and without the air bubbler system in
operation were not made, it was not possible to determine if the reduced impingement rates were
due to the air bubbler system or natural causes.

Field tests with strobe lights, poppers, and an air bubble curtain were conducted at the Roseton
Generating Station. The results demonstrated that certain combinations of the three barriers were
more effective at repelling fish than any of the devices tested alone (Matousek et al. 1988). At
Roseton, however, no single device or combination of devices was an effective behavioral
barrier for all fish species under all conditions. Strobe lights performed best when combined
with either of the other two devices, although the popper and the air bubble curtain were
ineffective when tested alone and together. In addition, the estimated effectiveness index for a
barrier system comprising all three devices indicated that fish were attracted, not repelled, by the
hybrid system. The results of the Roseton study may be considered inconclusive because
considerable variation existed between study years and among species. The variability in
effectiveness estimates may have been related to annual variations in species abundance and
environmental conditions or species-specific behavioral responses to the devices that were tested.
Pickering Nuclear Generating Station

Tests conducted at an offshore facility at the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station examined the
same devices that were evaluated at Roseton, and depending on the device or combination of
devices tested, produced either similar and contrasting results (Patrick et al. 1988a,b; Ontario
Hydro and LMS 1989; EPRI 1989). Poppers were the most effective device tested at Pickering
with effectiveness indices that exceeded 70% when they were tested alone and in combination
with either strobe lights or the air bubble curtain. The results from the studies that were
conducted at Roseton and Pickering were probably strongly influenced by local environmental
conditions (i.e., Pickering is located on Lake Ontario and Roseton on the Hudson River) and the
fish species that were exposed to the test devices. Subsequent differences between the Roseton
and Pickering results underscore the general conclusion that the effectiveness of behavioral fish
protection technologies can be highly site- and species-specific. However, different research
methodologies (e.g., fish capture techniques and equipment) can introduce varying levels of
sampling error and, consequently, results may differ as well. Also, the Pickering study, like the
Roseton study, experienced high variability in effectiveness estimates between study years and
among species.
Case Studies – Hydroelectric Field Tests

An air bubble curtain was evaluated as means to repel potamodromous fish species during field
studies at the White Rapids Hydroelectric Project (EPRI 1998b). Strobe lights and a sound
system also were evaluated during this study, and the effectiveness of these devices was
15-5
discussed previously. A description of the study design and methods and project design were
provided in the section on strobe lights. The air bubble curtain was evaluated alone and in
combination with each of the other two devices. During two weeks of sampling, the number of
fish entrained through Unit 1 was not significantly reduced when the air bubble curtain was
operated either alone or with one of the other devices. Based on these results, it was concluded
that air bubble curtains may not be appropriate for sites with potamodromous fish assemblages
similar to that of White Rapids.
Four Mile Hydroelectric Project

During a study conducted at the Four Mile Hydroelectric Project in Michigan, an air bubble
curtain was evaluated as a fish deterrent along with strobe lights (discussed previously; GLEC
1994; McCauley et al. 1996). Entrainment of bullhead (Ameiurus spp.) and shiner (Family
Cyprinidae) species was reduced from control levels by 43% and 81% when the air bubble
curtain was operated alone and in combination with strobe lights, respectively (McCauley et al.
1996). The results of this study indicate that air bubble curtains should be considered as a
potentially effective fish protection technology when used in combination with strobe lights.

Tests conducted at the Seton Hydroelectric Station examined strobe lights, a popper, a hammer,
and an air bubble curtain for their ability to repel outmigrating sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus
nerka) smolts (McKinley and Patrick 1988). Each device was evaluated alone, and strobe lights
were also paired with the popper and with the air bubble curtain. Individually, the popper
demonstrated greater effectiveness for repelling sockeye smolts than the strobe lights did. When
combined, the hybrid strobe light/popper system was more effective than the strobe lights alone,
but the hybrid effectiveness was only about 2% greater than the estimated effectiveness of the
popper alone. The combined strobe light/air bubble curtain barrier demonstrated low
effectiveness (about 11%), however, it was more effective than the air bubble curtain alone. The
Seton test results support the conclusion that air bubble curtains are not a viable behavioral
barrier and also indicate that air bubble curtains may not be appropriate as a hybrid system
component if salmonids are the targeted species. It was suggested that the greater effectiveness
of the sound devices compared to the strobe light resulted from larger areas of influence exerted
by the hammer and popper. High water velocities were identified as a factor that may prevent
the effective deployment of a hybrid behavioral system because fish reaction distances are
reduced in higher water flows rendering one or more of the devices ineffective. At Seton, high
water velocities may explain why effectiveness was not considerably greater for the strobe
light/popper combination than for the popper alone, i.e., fish had time to react to the popper but
not to the strobe light.
Heysham 1 and 2 Power Stations

Turnpenny (1993) evaluated the effectiveness of an air bubble curtain diverting fish away from
Cooling Water Intake Structures (CWIS) at Heysham 1 and 2 Power Stations on Port Heysham,
Liverpool, England. An air bubble curtain was installed in front of the Heysham 1 and 2 Power
Stations to divert organisms from their CWIS. The bubble curtain was 80 m (262.5 ft) long with
1-mm (0.04-in.) drilled air outlet holes. A testing program was conducted to evaluate the
effectiveness of the air bubble curtain.
15-6
Testing was conducted from February 4-27, 1993. Sampling was carried out every other day
where the air-bubble curtain was turned on or off on alternating days. Collections of impinged
fish and shrimp were made at 6-hr increments using 6-mm mesh bags placed into the screen
backwash gulleys. After collection, organisms were sorted by species and species of interest
were numerated and weighed. Daily totals were taken for other species.
Totals of 53,589 fish, weighing 352 kg (776 lbs) and representing 42 species and 16,000 shrimps
weighing 15 kg (33 lbs) were collected in the 24-day study. Clupeids dominated the collection,
comprising 87% of the total collection.
Overall reduction of impingement for all species when the air bubbler was in operation was 30%
(Table 15-2). Clupeids showed the greatest reduction in impingement while gadoids (cods and
hakes) demonstrated a slight increase in impingement. Data supports that the air bubble curtain
more effectively excludes fish at night. The results demonstrated that the air bubble curtain is
effective enough in its current configuration at the power station and any further improvements
would involve an addition of other behavioral stimuli.
Table 15-2
Heysham 2 bubble curtain percent impingement reduction
Species Percent Impingement Reduction
Flatfish 6.0%
Clupeids 31.0%
Gadoids -1.0%
Others 41.0%
Total Fish 30.0%
Shrimps 28.0%
River Frome, UK
The efficacy of sound coupled with bubble screens was tested for its ability to divert Atlantic
salmon (Salmo salar) smolts on the Frome River in Britain (Welton et al. 2002). Testing
facilities were installed on a millstream that leaves 25 m (82.0 ft) upstream of a gauging weir,
returns 2 km (1.2 mi) downstream, and carries one-third of the total drainage flow of the River
Frome. Experiments were conducted in two glass-sided channels built in a tank house.
Welton et al. used a Bio-Acoustic Fish Fence (BAFF) commercially available through Fish
Guidance Systems (FGS) Ltd, c/o Marine and Freshwater Biology Unit, Fawley, Southampton,
UK. This system generated sound pneumatically at a pressure level of 170 dB at 1 µ Pa and a
frequency of 200 Hz, which was selected based on earlier research by Hawkins and Johnstone
(1978) that determined that this was the optimal sensitivity of Atlantic salmon hearing.
Measured pressure levels decayed to a level of 20 dB at 5 m (16.4 ft) from the bubble sheet. The
bubble curtain used approximately 1 L/s per meter of barrier length.
Migrating smolts were counted using time-lapse video recording equipment operated at 6-frames
per second. Red lights provided illumination at night. Video images were taken against a white
15-7
background. Mechanical screens were used to guide fish to within 30 cm (11.8 in) of the glass
that allowed visualization in all but the most turbid conditions. Velocity measurements and
mean discharge levels were recorded throughout testing.
Tests were conducted in both 1995 and 1996. Prior to testing, the distribution of smolts between
the north and south channel was anticipated to be 1:1. As such, the facility was designed to
allow screening of the north channel only, and results were to be compared with the unprotected
south channel. However, smolts ran predominantly through the south channel (6:1 during the
day and 1.5:1 during the night). Air bubble alone, sound only, and the BAFF were tested.
Preliminary results of these tests (142, 4-hr replicates; n = 4,159 smolts) showed significant
deflections of smolts at night for all screens and only the BAFF at during daytime. Based on
these results, Welton et al. (2002) decided to focus their research in 1996 on the BAFF only.
In 1996, two BAFF were installed 10 m (32.8 ft) upstream of the entrance to the channels to
form a downstream pointing V that lined up with the central pillar that separated the two
channels. Mesh screening (5 mm [0.2 in.]) kept smolts from passing from one channel to the
other after passing the BAFF. Additional screens were used to guide fish toward the video
equipment. Each BAFF was 12 m (39.4 ft) long (4 units) and angled 12 degrees to the flow.
Both units were independent so that one of the following operating conditions could be run: 1)
North BAFF only on, 2) South BAFF only, or 3) neither BAFF operating. Testing was
conducted during both night and day with a total of 235 replicates run continuously during
April/May except during occasional breakdowns or adverse (flooding) conditions (Table 15-3).
During testing, dawn was approximately at 0500 hrs, and dusk was at 1900 hrs. Daylight hours
were considered to be between 0500 and 2100 hrs. Hours of darkness were considered to be
between 2100 and 0500 hrs. Screens were cleaned between replicates. Only a few seconds were
required to change between conditions. For analysis, the 4-hour replicates were divided at the
mid-way point.
Efficiency estimates were calculated as the proportion of smolts moving down one channel when
the BAFF is on relative to the portion of smolts going down the same channel when screens were
off. We give efficiencies with 95% confidence intervals in Table 15-4.
Table 15-3
Number of replicates at each time period for each operating system (Welton et al. 2002)
Deflection System
Time
North BAFF on South BAFF on Both off Total
0700–1100 13 14 14 41
1100–1500 10 14 13 37
1500–1900 10 13 12 35
1900–2300 11 12 14 37
2300–0300 14 15 15 44
0300–0700 10 17 14 41
Total 68 85 82 235
15-8
Table 15-4
Efficiencies of BAFFs with 95% CL during hours of daylight (0500–2100 hrs) and darkness
(2100–0500 hrs) (Welton et al. 2002)
Operating Efficiency Lower Upper

South North Pon z
Regimen (%) 95% CL 95% CL
Daylight
South
103 211 0.3280 43.8 37.1 48.5 6.66***
BAFF on
North
232 115 0.3314 20.3 10.7 34.4 2.35*
BAFF on
BAFFs off 213 152
Darkness
South
74 482 0.1331 73.8 67.0 79.1 13.07***
BAFF on
North
447 69 0.1337 72.9 65.6 78.6 12.32***
BAFF on
BAFFs off 248 241

Pon = Proportion through the screened channel; z – test statistic for difference in proportions (Pon vs. Poff).
*, *** Denote statistically significant differences at P < 0.05 and P < 0.001, respectively.
During testing, the mean discharge of the millstream was 1.68 m/sec (5.5 ft/sec) or ~30% of the
total Frome River flow. During testing, 2,587 smolts were identified via the video system. Of
these, a greater number migrated during the night than during the day (1,561 vs. 1,026). Nearly
equal numbers of fish were present regardless of BAFF mode of operation (i.e., north BAFF on,
south BAFF on, or both BAFFs off) or time of day and ranged from 314 to 365 in daylight and
489 to 556 in the dark. There was also a fairly uniform distribution of smolts in both the north
and south channel when both BAFFs were turned off with slightly greater numbers choosing the
south channel (1.4:1 in the daylight and 1.03:1 in darkness).
Estimates of effectiveness were greater for both the north and south BAFFs during darkness than
during daylight hours (Table 15-5). There were significant deflections of smolts for both BAFFs
during daylight and darkness. The values in Table 2 were calculated assuming that the efficiency
of the BAFFs did not change during the smolt migration period and that the fish responded
independently. The variations in the efficiencies of the BAFF during testing appear in Table
15-4 and Table 15-5. Only the south BAFF during daylight hours showed any statistically
significant variation in smolt passage. Data were corrected for temporal variation in average
efficiencies (using Mantel-Haenszel weighted averages), and the resulting values indicate no
statistically significant differences in the efficiency of the two BAFFs.
15-9
Table 15-5
Estimated efficiencies of the BAFFs over the smolt season during daylight and darkness hours
(Welton et al. 2002)
Proportion of Smolts (out of Total) Passing

Efficiency of BAFF (%)
Through the North Channel When
Period
North South BAFF Both BAFFs
North South
BAFF on on off
Daylight
4-1 to 4-27 0.175 (80) 0.571 (84) 0.271 (155) 35.4 41.2
4-28 to 5-3 0.184 (38) 0.821 (56) 0.324 (34) 43.1 73.6
5-4 to 5-10 0.450 (151) 0.626 (131) 0.529 (119) 14.9 20.5
5-11 to 5-31 0.333 (78) 0.814 (43) 0.632 (57) 47.2 49.5
Breslow-Day χ2 with 3 d.f. and test probability χ2 = 4.44 χ2 = 12.94

(P) for equality of deflection efficiencies P = 0.218 P = 0.005
Weighted average deflection efficiency using

29.7 (15.2 – 41.8) 40.5 (29.6 – 49.7)
Mantel-Haenszel estimation method (95% CL)
Darkness
4-1 to 4-27 0.114 (289) 0.840 (418) 0.455 (279) 74.9 70.6
4-28 to 5-3 0.108 (74) 0.971 (34) 0.505 (111) 78.6 94.1
5-4 to 5-10 0.256 (86) 0.936 (78) 0.646 (65) 60.4 81.9
5-11 to 5-31 0.090 (67) 0.962 (26) 0.471 (34) 81.0 92.7
Breslow-Day χ2 with 3 d.f. and test probability χ2 = 1.03 χ2 = 5.11

(P) for equality of deflection efficiencies P = 0.794 P = 0.164
Weighted average deflection efficiency using

73.3 (67.0 -78.3) 75.5 (69.8 – 80.2)
Mantel-Haenszel estimation method (95% CL)
The estimated efficiencies were much higher at night and may be indicative of smolts using
visual cues during daylight to locate gaps in the curtain. In addition, Welton et al. indicate that
silting of the perforated pipe was problematic during times when the BAFF was not operational.
Continuous operation may be necessary for such an installation to be effective especially in
waterbodies with mobile sediments. At this site, background noise levels were low and did not
interfere with projected signals. A bubble curtain may not maintain integrity in substantially
higher flow velocities.
Laboratory Studies, Various Locations

In laboratory studies, Patrick et al. (1985) demonstrated that a combined strobe light/air bubble
curtain barrier had a higher level of effectiveness for deterring alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus)
than an air bubble curtain used alone. Effectiveness of the combined barrier ranged from 90 to
15-10
98% depending on water velocity and turbidity level. The effectiveness of the air bubble curtain
alone ranged from 38 to 73%.
Similar results were obtained in another laboratory study that examined the behavioral responses
of spot, Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), and white perch (Morone americana) to
strobe light, an air bubble curtain, and a combined strobe light/air bubble curtain barrier under
three levels of turbidity (McIninch and Hocutt 1987). In this study, the combined barrier
demonstrated a greater ability to repel fish than did either barrier tested alone, except for spot
(Leiostomus xanthurus). The ability of an air bubble curtain alone to repel fish was considerably
different between these two laboratory studies. Patrick et al. (1985) found the air bubble curtain
to be highly effective (>90%) for gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) and smelt (Osmerus
spp.) and McIninch and Hocutt (1987) determined air bubble effectiveness to be less than 50%
for white perch, menhaden, and spot (Leiostomus xanthurus). The differences in study results
may have resulted from species-specific responses or dissimilar research methodologies and
subsequent effectiveness (avoidance) calculations. It should be noted that air bubble curtain
barriers generally have been discounted as a viable fish protection device because of poor fish
deterrent capabilities when used alone (EPRI 1986a). However, because air bubble curtains have
demonstrated an ability to improve the effectiveness of other behavioral devices, they continue to
be tested.
Laboratory Study – Alden

Model studies were conducted to determine the effectiveness of an air bubble curtain in reducing
fish entrainment (Stone and Webster 1976). Tests were conducted in a large basin model that
incorporated two identical intake segment structures. The air bubble curtain device consisted of
a 0.91 m (3 ft) long, 1.3-cm (0.5-in.) inside diameter stainless steel pipe, with eighteen 0.87 mm
(1/32 in.) holes drilled evenly along the pipe at 5.1-cm (2-in.) intervals. A compressor supplied
air to the pipe via flexible plastic tubing.
Tests were conducted with rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax) (6.3 to 10.2 cm [2.5 to 4.0 in.]) and
alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) (6.0 to 11.5 cm [2.4 to 4.5 in.]) at velocities of 0.15, 0.37, and
0.69 m/sec (0.5, 1.2, and 2.0 ft/sec). The air bubble curtain was effective in reducing fish
entrainment relative to the control. The mean number of fish entrained per test (200 fish tested at
a time), was 66 with the air bubble curtain and 151 for the control. In addition, there was no
relationship between entrainment and velocity (i.e., entrainment did not increase with increasing
velocity). Preliminary results did, in fact, suggest a decrease in entrainment at the higher
velocities (Stone and Webster 1976).
15-11
16
HYBRID BEHAVIORAL BARRIERS
Hybrid behavioral guidance and deterrent systems have been evaluated extensively during past
studies (EPRI 1999). Hybrid systems generally are designed to take advantage of two or more
effective devices in attempts to achieve a greater level of success than would occur with any of
the selected devices used alone. Also, because the effectiveness of behavioral devices can be
species- and size-specific, the use of multiple devices may afford protection to a wider range of
species and age classes. Often, devices that have been evaluated as an integrated fish protection
system take advantage of different behavioral responses to enhance effectiveness. Many systems
have been designed with behavioral deterrents (e.g., strobe lights, sound) and attractants
(underwater mercury lights, overhead lights). Deterrent devices typically are placed at a location
to repel or guide fish from an intake, and attractants are deployed near safe areas or at bypasses.
Behavioral technologies also may be used in combination with other types of fish protection
devices (e.g., screens, narrow-spaced bar racks).
The results of hybrid behavioral system evaluations have been equivocal: in some cases
efficiency is improved while in others efficiency is decreased. Generally, the gains in
effectiveness when two or more devices have been combined as a fish protection system have
not been substantial (EPRI 1999). Though some evaluations have illustrated the potential of
hybrid barriers, a study conducted with sound, strobe lights, and an air bubble curtain
demonstrated that these systems, used in combination or alone, did not reduce entrainment of
potamodromous fishes at a hydroelectric project (Winchell et al. 1997; EPRI 1999). Fish
protection systems that incorporate the use fish deterrent and attractant devices may be more
appropriate than systems with multiple deterrents. At the Richard B. Russell Project, the use of
high-frequency sound to repel blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) from pump back intakes and
overhead lights to attract them to low-velocity safe areas proved to be very effective.
Several case studies describing the evaluations of hybrid systems are presented in Chapters 13,
14, and 15. In many cases, while individual behavioral barriers have demonstrated limited
effectiveness on their own, when evaluated as part of a hybrid system, their contribution toward
the effectiveness of the collective system is unclear. Case studies highlighting recent studies on
hybrid systems are presented in this chapter.
Case Studies – Field Evaluations
Delaware Bay – PSEG/Alden Research Laboratory

Based on results obtained during laboratory testing of hybrid systems (see case study below), an
eight-month field evaluation of a proposed sound system was conducted as the second phase of a
three-phase study at the Salem Nuclear Generating Plant (Salem). During Phase 1 laboratory
testing at Alden Research Laboratory, it was concluded that sound had potential to elicit
avoidance responses from a number of commonly impinged species at the Salem intake. Both
strobe lights and air bubbles were eliminated for further consideration due to engineering
constraints and lower biological effectiveness. The objective of the Phase 2 field evaluation was
to determine the deterrence potential of a sound system installed at a shoreline location
16-1
approximately 1 km (0.6 mi) from the Salem intake. A discreet test area was ensonified for a
period of time and differences in catch data between sound-on and sound-off treatments were
compared (PSEG 2005).
The field site was a protected cove located downstream of the Salem intake on the Delaware
River. Collection of fish from within the test area was accomplished with a modified seine net
that was capable of being set, deployed, and retrieved from shore. The system was comprised of
a pontoon boat and two on-shore tripods that supported the net. The net was deployed and
retrieved via a system of pulleys and sliding clips. The rectangular sampling area measured 25.9
by 9.1 m (85 by 30 ft) (Figure 16-1) and the maximum water depth was approximately 2.7 m (9
ft) at normal high tide. The seine net measured 61.0 by 3.0 m (200 by 10 ft) and had round mesh
measuring 9.5 mm (3/8 in.) in diameter.
The sound system consisted of two sonic (low frequency) and four ultrasonic (high frequency)
transducers. The sonic transducers (U.S. Navy J-11 amplified by a QSC Model USA 1310
amplifier) were mounted on short tripods near the bow and stern of the pontoon boat at a high
tide-depth of 2.4 m (8 ft) and 0.3 m (1 ft) off of the river bottom. The ultrasonic transducers
(International Transducer Corporation Model 3406 amplified by an L6 amplifier, Instruments,
Inc.) were mounted in pairs on tripods positioned 12.2 m (40 ft) from the shore and 6.1 m (20 ft)
on either side of the sampling area. At high tide, the ultrasonic transducers were positioned
about 0.6 m (2 ft) off of the river bottom. A schematic of the sampling area and transducer
locations is provided in Figure 16-1 (PSEG 2005).
16-2
Figure 16-1
Plan view of the sampling equipment and test area (PSEG 2005)
16-3
The low frequency sound transducer delivered a signal with the following components:
• 100-400 Hz broadband sound
• 100-400 Hz sweep
• Synthetic croak
• Authentic Atlantic croaker croak
• 500-3,000 Hz broadband noise
• 500-3,000 Hz sweep
The high frequency transducer (International Transducer Corporation Model 3406 amplified by
an L6 amplifier, Instruments, Inc,) delivered a signal with the following components:
• 80 kHz
• 90 kHz
• 100 kHz
• 120 kHz
During both low and high frequency testing, each signal component was 300-ms long with a 40-
ms pause between signals. The entire signal sequences were repeated continuously with a 1-sec
pause between transmissions. The sound field was mapped before and after the testing was
conducted. Measurements were made along 5 transects with points inside and outside the
sampling area.
Sampling of fish during sound-on and sound-off treatments was conducted during daylight at
high tide (one hour before and one hour after) over a period of 8 months from April-November,
2004. Sampling followed a randomized block design with one control and one treatment per
block. Each block was completed in two days with one day for treatment collection and the
other for control collection. Two samples were collected per day one hour on either side of high
tide. Collected fish were sorted by species, enumerated, and measured for length. Post-
processed fish were released downstream of the sampling site. Analysis of deviance (ANODEV)
was used to statistically analyze the effects treatments as well as collection time (one hour before
or after high tide).
A total of 48,910 fish was collected representing 41 species and 23 families. Bay anchovy
(Anchoa mitchilli), Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), Atlantic silverside (Menidia
menidia), white perch (Morone americana), and blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) comprised
79.2, 12.2, 5.9, 0.5, and 0.5%, respectively, of the total catch. The biggest catches occurred
during October and November and the smallest in April. Most fish were less than 125 mm (4.9
in) in length.
Five of the eight species for which analyses were conducted displayed significant avoidance
responses to the sound system (Figure 16-2, Table 16-1). Statistical analysis revealed that
significantly fewer bay anchovy were collected during the sound-on treatment (avoidance
probability of -0.280); 28% fewer anchovy were collected during the sound-on treatments.
Extrapolation from the numbers of fish collected during this study estimates that impingement
16-4
numbers of bay anchovy could potentially be reduced by 20-30% at the Salem intake through the
use of this sound system.
Clupeids as a group (blueback herring, alewife, Atlantic herring [Clupea harengus], American
shad, gizzard shad [Dorosoma cepedianum], and Atlantic menhaden) displayed a strong
avoidance to the sound system. The overall avoidance probability for this family of fishes was -
0.587. Specifically, blueback herring, American shad, and Atlantic menhaden displayed
significant avoidance probabilities of -0.883, -0.957 (before high tide and -0.730 after), and -
0.562 respectively. Therefore potential impingement reductions of 50 to 90% could be realized
for clupeids.
Statistical analysis revealed a significant interaction between treatment condition and sample
time for Atlantic silverside with an avoidance probability of -0.219 before high tide and an
avoidance probability of 0.880 (attraction to sound) after high tide. After adjusting for the effect
of two large samples that may have confounded the results, the overall adjusted avoidance
probability was -0.283. Therefore, results of these field studies indicate that impingement of
Atlantic silversides could be reduced by 20 to 30%.
Though there was some apparent attraction to sound, no significant difference in avoidance was
seen with Moronidae species (striped bass and white perch). Similarly, bluefish (Pomatomus
saltatrix) did not display any significant avoidance during sound-on treatments.
16-5
Figure 16-2
Avoidance probabilities (with 95% confidence intervals) by species and family. Separate
probabilities are presented for each sample time if a significant interaction was detected
between test condition (sound on and off) and sample time (one hour before and after high
tide). Statistically significant avoidance probabilities are indicated with solid symbols.
Positive values indicate attraction and negative values indicate repulsion (PSEG 2005).
16-6
Table 16-1
Summary of avoidance probabilities (95% confidence limits in parentheses) for species and
families with sufficient data for conducting statistical analyses. For cases where a significant
interaction between test condition and sample time was detected, avoidance probabilities were
estimated separately for each sample time. Overall probability estimates represent combined
sample data (i.e. no interaction effect). Statistically significant probabilities (p,0.05) are indicated
by an asterisk.
Species/family Before high tide After high tide Overall
bay anchovy - - -0.280 (-0.464, -0.095) *
Family Clupeidae - - -0.587 (-0.686, -0.489) *
blueback herring - - -0.883 (-0.962, -0.804) *
American shad -0.957 (-1.04, -0.877) * -0/730 (-0.974, -0.485) -
Atlantic menhaden - - -0.562 (-0.684, -0.441)
Atlantic silverside 1
-0.219 (-0.475, 0.036) 0.880 (0.273, 1.488) -
Atlantic silverside 2
- - -0.283 (-0.435, -0.130)
Family Moronidae 0.560 (-0.029, 1.150) -0.256 (-0.666, 0.153) -
striped bass - - 0.160 (-0.591, 0.269)
white perch 0.807 (-0.101, 1.715) -0.364 (-0.832, 0.105) -
bluefish - - -0.062 (-0.410, 0.287)

1
Statistical analysis includes data from blocks during which large numbers of Atlantic silversides were
collected during sound-on periods (i.e. possible outliers).
2
Statistical analysis excluded data from blocks during which large numbers of Atlantic silversides were
collected during sound-on periods.
It was generally concluded that a sound deterrence system designed to deliver sonic (100 to
5,000 Hz) and ultrasonic (80 to 120 kHz) signals has the potential to reduce the impingement of
some of the representative important species (RIS) at the Salem intake. Specifically, sound may
successfully reduce impingement of bay anchovy, clupeids, and Atlantic silversides. However,
the cost of installation would need to be weighed relative to the potential benefits of
impingement reductions.
Lambton Generating Station

Past operational issues occurring with gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) impingement
prompted Lambton Generating Station to install and evaluate a hybrid barrier system at the
entrance of its cooling water intake channel (Patrick et al 2005, Cord et al 2007). Lambton
Station is located on the St. Clair River, 26 km (16.2 mi) south of Sarnia, Ontario, Canada. It is a
two unit thermal generating station capable of producing 950 MWe. A demonstration hybrid
barrier (Figure 16-3) consisting of 18 acoustic devices and nine strobe lights was evaluated for
effectiveness from November 2004 through April 2005 (Patrick et al 2005). Because of its
success (73% reduction relative to controls [Patrick 2005]), the system was put into full service
16-7
for the months of November through April, from November 2005 through April 2007 (Cord et
al. 2007).
Figure 16-3
Layout of the strobe light-acoustic hybrid system installed at Lambton (Cord et al 2007)
The hybrid barrier system was installed and operational by November 25, 2005. Prior to
installation, high numbers of fish were being impinged. Through December 2005 and early
January 2006, impingement numbers were 25 fish or less per day. However there was a spike in
impingement from the middle to the end of February 2006, where impingement was up to 200
fish per day. The majority of fish collected during the high impingement event were observed to
be young-of-year gizzard shad. The lack of effectiveness during this period was attributed to a 5
to 10 m (16.4 to 32.8 ft) gap in the barrier at the north end of the intake. Deterrents were not
installed at the north end because the barrier was designed to deter fish that were attracted to the
thermal discharge of the discharge plume (south of the CWIS) from entering the south end of the
intake. This was the first incident that fish were observed approaching the intake from the north.
After the event, consistent low impingement numbers were observed through April 2006.
The hybrid barrier was reinstalled and operational by November 10, 2006. It was fully operation
until December 4, 2006, when units were shut down due to ice damage. Lambton has assessed
various options to mitigate this issue, but there is no immediate cost justification at this time. On
February 26, 2007, the system was confirmed fully operational. Lowest impingement was
observed from November 2006 through February 2007, where average impingement was 0.14
fish per day and there was never more than five fish impinged in a day. The highest
impingement occurred during the month of March, but the highest impingement events observed
were 10 fish impinged on March 19 and March 26. No fish were observed entering the north end
of the intake as in February 2006.
16-8
Plant Barry Generating Station
A field evaluation was conducted to examination the effectiveness of an underwater hybrid (light
and sound) behavioral fish deterrent system for reducing impingement of freshwater fish at a
cooling water intake structure (CWIS) located at an Alabama Power Company (APC) Plant
Barry Generating Station (Mobile River, Mobile County, Alabama) (EPRI 2008; Baker 2008).
This field study evaluated the effectiveness of a hybrid (light and sound) and sonic (sound only)
deterrent system at APC’s Plant Barry Generating Station CWIS on the tidal freshwater section
of the Mobile River from the spring to the winter of 2006. The study compared impingement
rates when the deterrent systems were on (treatment) or off (control) at both CWIS 1-3 (spatial
control) and CWIS 4-5 (hybrid or sonic frequency pulse deterrent equipped). Only CWIS 4-5
was equipped with the deterrent systems. The types of sound signals and strobe light flash rates
were chosen based on the responses of representative fish species that exist in the literature along
with the advice of other researchers.
• The hybrid deterrent system combined strobe lights (300 flashes per min), sonic (0.4 –4.0
kHz), and ultrasonic sound frequencies (120 – 130 kHz).
• The sonic or low frequency sound burst deterrent consisted of random tones at 0.40,
0.63,1.00, 2.50, and 3.15 kHz.
Impingement sampling was used to determine the effectiveness of these deterrent systems. In
addition, split-beam (200 kHz, Biosonics DTX) and multi-beam (1.8 MHz, DIDSON)
hydroacoustics sonar allowed monitoring of fish abundance or density in the immediate vicinity
of the deterrent system. Various environmental parameters were also monitored to ensure that
these variables were not interfering with the evaluation of the deterrent systems.
Evaluation of the Hybrid Deterrent system began in May 2006 and ended November 2006 at the
Units 4-5 intakes. Evaluation of the low frequency sound burst deterrent began November 2006
and ended in December 2006. The sound (Figure 16-4) and light (Figure 16-5) were projected
into the forebay of the cooling water intake structure. For the sound component, deterrent sound
pressure and background noise levels were measured to ensure deterrent sound pressures were
sufficiently greater than background pressures to affect fish behavior.
16-9
Figure 16-4
Location of the strobe light frames within the stoplog slots of Units 4-5 CWIS
Figure 16-5
Locations of the 3 sonic and 5 ultrasonic sound frequency transducers inside the intake forebay
of the Units 4-5 CWIS. One sonic and two ultrasonic transducers are located on each side of the
intake structure (A and C). Location B is equipped with only one sonic and one ultrasonic
transducer.
The strobe light portion of the hybrid deterrent system was very problematic and required
intensive, unexpected maintenance on the strobe lights and on the power converters. Almost
biweekly repair or replacement of flash-heads and power converters was required. On average
88% (range of 73-100%) of the lights were operational throughout this evaluation. For the
hybrid deterrent, the sound pressure levels were approximately 160 dB for the sonic component
16-10
and 145 dB for the ultrasonic component. For the sonic deterrent, the sound pressure levels
ranged from 147 to 168 dB. Except for the sonic component of the hybrid deterrent, the deterrent
sound pressure levels were greater than 30 dB over background noise levels.
Over 12,000 fish and 9,000 non-fish organisms were collected during 268, 4-hour impingement
samples while evaluating the hybrid deterrent system. Over 29,000 fish and 800 non-fish
organisms were collected during 73, 4-hour impingement samples while evaluating the sonic
deterrent system. Twenty-six species of fish were collected throughout both evaluations.
Predominant species collected during each evaluation are presented in Table 16-2.
Table 16-2
Common name, scientific name and percent collected of the predominant fish species collected
during each evaluation type
Evaluation Common Name Scientific Name Percent

Type Collected
Hybrid Deterrent bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli 57.9
freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens 10.6
blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus 8.9
hogchoker Trinectes maculatus 7.3
channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus 4.2
silverside minnow Menidia sp.-- 3.2
threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense 2.6
skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris 1.9
Sonic Deterrent threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense 54.1
blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus 19.1
freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens 17.3
channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus 4.7
gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum 2.1
bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli 1.2
A split-plot analysis was performed on impingement data for total fish, individual, fish and non-
fish species with sufficient numbers. This analysis included the sequential treatment (deterrent
on) and control (deterrent off) sampling events within each weekly test period. Similar analyses
were performed on the hydroacoustic monitoring data set. Temporal and environmental
variables were considered and accounted for through paired evaluations during individual weeks.
Significant reductions in impingement were not shown by the split-plot analysis for both the
paired treatment evaluation of the total and the individual species while either deterrent system
was in operation (Table 16-3). Furthermore, hydroacoustic monitoring within the CWIS during
the hybrid deterrent evaluation confirmed that these behavioral stimuli had no effect on
movement of fish immediately upstream from CWIS trash racks or inside screen pits.
Environmental variables appeared to influence the overall impingement rates. Rates generally
increased with higher dissolved oxygen, lower temperatures, and night time hours, however no
analysis of impingement rates between these variables and the deterrent systems operation (on
and off treatment periods) was conducted.
The results of the hybrid and sonic fish deterrent testing demonstrated that none of the behavioral
stimuli evaluated (strobe lights, sonic sound, or ultrasonic sound) was capable of reducing the
impingement of freshwater organisms could not be used as an effective technology option for
reducing impingement at Plant Barry.
16-11
Table 16-3
Results of the MLE Split-Plot analyses of the transformed (natural log) impingement rates using
the SPSS mixed procedure.
Type III Tests of Fixed Effects
Deterrents Source Numerator Denominator F Sig.

df d1
Intercept 1 16.009 201.352 0.000
INTAKE 1 15.875 3.908 0.066
TREATMENT 1 30.733 1.186 0.285
Hybrid Sample 3 186.308 70.882 0.000

Deterrent
Evaluation INTAKE*TREATMENT 1 30.733 0.071 0.791
INTAKE*Sample 3 186.308 4.863 0.003
Sample*TREATMENT 3 186.321 0.148 0.931
INTAKE*Sample*TREATMENT 3 186.322 2.002 0.005
Intercept 1 4.035 132.885 0.000
INTAKE 1 4.143 13.083 0.021
TREATMENT 1 7.274 3.447 0.104
Sonic Sample 3 41.190 2.170 0.106

Deterrent
Evaluation INTAKE*TREATMENT 1 7.190 0.025 0.878
INTAKE*Sample 3 41.320 0.625 0.603
Sample*TREATMENT 3 41.165 4.185 0.011
INTAKE*Sample*TREATMENT 3 41.315 0.136 0.938
Laboratory Study – PSEG/Alden Research Laboratory

A comprehensive laboratory evaluation was conducted to investigate the effectiveness of
behavioral deterrent technologies on commonly impinged species from the Delaware Bay in the
vicinity of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem) (PSEG 2003). This laboratory study
was the first phase of a three-phase study proposed by Salem in fulfillment of an NPDES permit
requirement. Results of the Phase 2 field study are presented in a subsequent case study in this
section.
A literature review encompassing hearing and vision capabilities of fish and the deterrent
potential of strobe lights, sound, and air bubbles was conducted to aid in proper experimental
16-12
design. Based the results of this review and with input from experts in the field of sensory
biology, the specific variables were selected.
Testing was conducted at Alden Research Laboratory in 2002 and 2003. Trials were conducted
in a steel flume in flowing water (0.07 to 0.12 m/sec [0.25-0.40 ft/sec]). The test enclosure
measured 4.9 by 1.8 m (16 by 6 ft) with water depths of 1.8 to 2 m (6 to 6.5 ft) (Figure 16-6) and
was delineated by upstream and downstream isolation screens (500 µm nylon mesh). The test
enclosure was divided into four 1.2-m (4-ft) quadrants by painting lines on the floor and walls of
the flume. The air bubble curtain was mounted on the floor in the middle of the enclosure
between quadrants 2 and 3. The low frequency sound transducers were positioned outside of the
test enclosure 12.2 cm (4.8 in) from the upstream and downstream isolation screens and at mid-
depth in the water column. The high frequency sound transducers were positioned outside of the
test enclosure 0.8 m (2.6 ft) from the upstream and downstream isolation screens and at mid-
depth in the water column. The strobe lights were positioned 4.6 m (15 ft) from either isolation
screen at mid-depth. Locations of the equipment are presented in Figure 16-6.
16-13
Figure 16-6
Overhead schematic of the test facility (PSEG 2003)
16-14
The air bubble curtain was a Bio-Weave medium bubble diffuser with a pore size of 140 µm and
an operating range of 0.2 to 6.0 ft3 air/min. The low frequency sound transducer (U.S. Navy J-11
amplified by an L6 amplifier, Instruments, Inc.) delivered a signal to weakfish (Cynoscion
regalis), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulates), and bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) with
the following components:
• 100-400 Hz broadband sound
• 100-400 Hz sweep
• Synthetic croak
• Authentic Atlantic croaker croak
• 500-3,000 Hz broadband noise
• 500-3,000 Hz sweep
The high frequency transducer (International Transducer Corporation Model 3406 amplified by
an L6 amplifier, Instruments, Inc,) delivered a signal to blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) with
the following components:
• Dolphin click
• 80 kHz
• 90 kHz
• 100 kHz
• 120 kHz
During both low and high frequency testing, each signal component was 300 ms long with a 40-
ms pause between signals. The entire signal sequences were repeated continuously with a 1-sec
pause between transmissions.
The strobe lights (Flash Technology) were operated at a frequency of 300 flashes per min for all
species except weakfish which received 360, and 450 flashes per min-treatments as well.
All of the fish for these trials were collected from the wild in Delaware Bay, temporarily held in
tanks in Delaware, and transported to Alden Research Laboratory.
Groups of approximately 50 fish were allowed to acclimate to the test enclosure for 15 hrs before
trials were conducted. Each trial consisted of four consecutive periods: a 10-min pretest baseline
(without crowding), a 15-min pretest baseline (with crowding), a 15-min treatment, and a 10-min
post-treatment. A pre-trial assessment was made regarding a groups’ preferred location within
the test enclosure. Then fish were crowded away from their preferred location before application
of the treatment. The response to treatments was measured as the probability of a fish being
deterred by a treatment from returning to its preferred location within the test enclosure. Each
group of fish was exposed to a total of 8 treatments:
• Control
• Strobe light
16-15
• Sound
• Air bubble curtain
• Air and strobe
• Air and sound
• Air, strobe, and sound
Six replicates were conducted per treatment.
Fish positions were recorded in real time at 1-min intervals by counting numbers of fish in each
quadrant. Additionally, fish positions were recorded with underwater digital cameras onto a hard
drive for subsequent analysis. Video data were used to make counts of fish positions and
distributions during three general time intervals. Immediate, extended, and prolonged responses
were gleaned from counts made at 15 to 60 sec, 1 to 5 min, and 11 to 15 min, respectively.
Maximum likelihood estimations (MLE) were used to estimate the probability of fish avoidance
of each treatment condition.
Results with weakfish indicate that crowding may have had an effect on fish behavior in that fish
tended to stay on the side of the enclosure to which they were crowded. During the 15 to 60-sec
interval, weakfish displayed significant probabilities of avoidances (relative to control) to all
treatments except the air only and air/sound treatments. During the 1 to 5-min interval, weakfish
displayed significant probabilities of avoidance (relative to control) to air only and air/sound
treatments. During the 11 to 15-min interval, weakfish displayed significant probabilities of
avoidance (relative to control) to all treatments except strobe only. In fact, during the 1 to 5-min
and 11to 15-min intervals, weakfish displayed an attraction to the strobe light during strobe only
treatments. Throughout all time intervals, no significant differences were noted among
treatments. Rankings of the most effective treatments during each time interval are presented in
Table 16-4.
Blueback herring generally exhibited avoidance behavior in the presence of combined stimuli.
During the 15 to 60-sec interval, blueback herring displayed significant probabilities of
avoidance (relative to control) to sound only, air/sound, and air/sound/light. During the 1 to 5-
min interval, sound only, air/strobe, and air/sound/strobe treatments were significantly different
from the control. During the 11 to 15-min treatments, strobe only and air/sound/strobe
treatments were significantly different from the control. There were no significant differences
among treatments in each interval except during the 1 to 5-min interval in which strobe/sound
and air/sound/strobe treatments were significantly different from the four least effective
treatments. Rankings of the most effective treatments during each time interval are presented in
Table 16-4.
Atlantic croaker exhibited an avoidance behavior that did not diminish over time in the presence
of the air bubble curtain. During the 15 to 60-sec interval, probabilities of avoidance in all
treatments were significantly different from the control, but not significantly different from each
other. During the 1 to 5-min and the 11 to 15-min intervals, croaker displayed avoidance
probabilities significantly higher than the control for air only, strobe only, and sound/strobe
treatments. Again, there were no significant differences in avoidance among the treatments in
either of these time intervals. Rankings of the most effective treatments during each time
interval are presented in Table 16-4.
16-16
Results of trials with bay anchovy indicate that there was a crowding effect. No data were
recorded during the first 15 to 60-sec interval due to poor visibility. During the 1 to 5-min and
11 to 15-min intervals, anchovy displayed significant avoidance probabilities (relative to control)
to the four treatments that included air. The treatments that did not include air did not elicit
avoidance responses that were significantly different from the control. Data indicate that
anchovy may have been attracted to the strobe only and strobe/sound treatments. Rankings of
the most effective treatments during each time interval are presented in Table 16-4.
Additional tests were conducted to investigate the effect of strobe light intensity on the behavior
alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus). Low, high and mid-intensity levels were accomplished by
positioning the strobe lights as far as possible from the test enclosure, at the same location as the
previous testing (4.6 m [15 ft] from the enclosure), and at the midpoint between the low and high
positions, respectively. Alewife were initially disoriented by the strobe light and displayed a
non-directional startle response. Probabilities of avoidance did not exceed 0.3 for any of the
three intensity levels.
Table 16-4
Treatment effectiveness (i.e. ability to elicit avoidance) ranked from highest (1) to lowest (7) based
on avoidance probabilities estimated for the three time intervals. Asterisks indicate statistically
significant avoidance compared to the control probability of zero avoidance (P<0.05) (PSEG 2003).
15-60 1-5 11-15 15-60 1-5 11-15

Species Rank sec min min Species Rank sec min min
weakfish 1 S* ALS* AS* blueback herring 1 AS* ALS* S*
2 L* LS* LS* 2 L* LS* ALS*
3 LS* ALS* S* 3 ALS* AL* LS
4 AL* AS* A* 4 S* S* AL
5 ALS* ALS ALS* 5 AL* L L
6 AS S AL* 6 A* AS AS
7 A L L 7 LS* A A
Atlantic croaker 1 AS* AS* AS* bay anchovy 1 - AS* ALS*
2 L* ALS* ALS* 2 - ALS* AL*
3 ALS* AL* AL* 3 - AL* AS*
4 S* A* A* 4 - A* A*
5 AL* L* LS* 5 - S S
6 A* S S 6 - L LS
7 LS* LS L 7 - LS L
A = air; S = sound; L = strobe light; AS = air/sound; AL = air/strobe light; LS = strobe light/sound; and ALS
= air/strobe/sound
16-17
It was concluded that each of the technologies displayed at least some deterrent potential for at
least one of the species tested. Weakfish displayed the strongest avoidance response to air
bubbles and low frequency (sonic) sound. Blueback herring displayed the strongest avoidance
response to high frequency (ultrasonic) sound and strobe light. Atlantic croaker displayed the
strongest avoidance response to air bubbles (alone and in combination with strobe light and
sound) and strobe light. Bay anchovy displayed the strongest avoidance response to air bubbles
(alone and in combination with strobe light and sound), and low frequency (sonic) sound.
Efficacy of the particular technologies in the field, however, depends on a number of factors
including ambient environmental conditions, cost, operation and maintenance.
The feasibility and potential biological efficacy of full-scale installations at the Salem CWIS
were assessed. It was concluded, based on light transmissivity data, that high turbidity (<50
NTU) along with high approach velocities in the vicinity of the intakes would decrease the
efficacy of a strobe light system. The feasibility of the air bubble curtain was assessed through
the use of computational fluid dynamics (CFD). It was concluded that at high tidal velocities
(~0.6 m/sec [2 ft/sec]), the integrity of the curtain would be compromised and could potentially
allow the passage of fish. The design, installation, and operation of a sound system at the Salem
intake would not be limited by the site-specific environmental conditions. Additionally, the
sound system proved to be biologically effective, with all test fish displaying at least some
response to sound treatments in the laboratory. Therefore, based on the engineering feasibility
and potential biological effectiveness of each technology, the sound system was the only
technology further considered in the detailed engineering feasibility assessment for use at the
Salem intakes.
Proposed conceptual design for a sound system for the Salem intake would consist of 6 arrays
with two transducers on each (low frequency and high frequency) positioned 12.2 m (40 ft) apart
on every other intake pier (Figure 16-7). This sound system would not have any effect on the
operation of the plant and would present a negligible amount of additional head loss in the
system.
16-18
Figure 16-7
Section and overhead view of the proposed sound system at Salem (PSEG 2003)
Laboratory/Hatchery Facility, Illinois Department of Natural Resources

A pneumatic sound generator coupled with an air bubble curtain (BioAcoustic Fish Fence –
BAFF) was tested in outdoor raceway for its ability to prevent the passage of bighead carp
(Hypophthalmichthys nobilis), a non-indigenous species that is establishing populations in the
mid-western US. Tests were conducted in three concrete-sided raceways that were 24.7 by 2.4
by 1.8 m (81.0 by 7.9 by 5.9 ft). Each raceway contained one of the following: 1) a fully
functional BAFF centered in the middle of the raceway, 2) a non-functioning BAFF centered in
the middle of the raceway (to determine if any observed behavioral responses of the carp were a
16-19
result of the presence of sound and air bubble equipment), or 3) a control raceway lacking any
equipment.
Eleven bighead carp were introduced into each raceway and allowed to swim freely for 24-hrs
before the beginning of each trial. At the beginning of each trial, the fish were physically
contained at one end of the raceway. During the three-day trials, carp movements were observed
for 6 hrs daily and the number of attempts to pass the barrier was recorded. During the course of
the study, three replicates of each condition were tested. There was no flow in the raceways
during testing. The sound signals used during the trials were random bursts in the 20 to 2,000 Hz
range. Observed interactions with the barrier were classified as a repel (fish entered the array,
then turned around and exited) or as a pass-trough (fish entered the array, then crossing through
the barrier). In addition to the numbers of repels and pass-throughs observed, the total number of
fish on each side of the barrier was recorded every 15 min during the 6-hour observation period.
Fish remaining on the initial side of the barrier were considered “above” the barrier, while those
that passed through were considered “below” the barrier.
In the raceway with the functional array, 33 carp made 284 attempts to cross, but 95% were
repelled. The number of attempts to pass the barrier decreased on the second and third day of
testing as compared to the first day (Figure 16-8). The authors speculate that this reduction
could have been a result of a learned avoidance behavior among the carp. The mean number of
fish observed above the functional barrier was significantly greater than both the non-functioning
barrier and the control (p < 0.001), which were not significantly different from one another
(Figure 16-9).
Figure 16-8
Mean number (±SD) of bighead carp attempts and repels observed in the raceway with the
activated sound and air system averaged across the three trials (adapted from Figure 1 in
Taylor et al. 2005).
16-20
Figure 16-9
Mean number (±SD) of bighead carp found above the barrier. Different letters above the bars
indicate significant differences in the analysis of variance (adapted from Figure 1 in Taylor et
al. 2005).
Laboratory Study - Kinetrics

Laboratory experiments were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of an updated acoustic system
(FGS, UK) both alone and in combination with strobe lights (Flash Technology, US). Testing
was conducted in a 7 by 7 by 1.5 m (23 by 23 by 4.9 ft) test tank with a defined experimental
zone of 3 to 4 m (9.8 to 13.1 ft) in length. Deterrent technologies were evaluated at two different
flow rates, 0.1 and 0.5 m/sec. The flow was relied upon to bring fish into contact with the
deterrent technologies. All test fish were collected from Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, or the St. Clair
River. Fish were allowed to acclimate to the test tank for 48 hour before being released from an
enclosure to begin the trial. Five replicate trials were conducted for each of the three conditions
(sound alone, strobe alone, and sound and strobe together). Trials were 15 min in length and the
number of fish per trial ranged from 15 individuals for the larger fish, such as gizzard shad
(Dorosoma cepedianum), to 50 individuals for the smaller fish, such as minnows. Ambient light
levels were low (<0.01 µE/m2/sec). Deterrence was measured as the number of times fish
passed or avoided the deterrent equipment. Avoidance responses were also categorized based on
the distance over which the response was elicited (0.6 or 1.2 m [2.0 or 4.0 ft]) (Patrick et al.
2006b).
Results of these trials are presented in Figure 16-10. The deterrent technologies were found to
be species-specific with the pelagic species such as gizzard shad, alewife (Alosa
pseudoharengus), and minnows being more consistently deterred by the acoustic system (over
80% effective), while demersal species such as brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus) and white
sucker (Catostomus commersonii) were less well deterred (15 and 64%, respectively). Although
the strobe light system performed better than the sound system as a multi-species deterrent,
species-specific effectiveness was consistently lower for many of the commonly impinged
16-21
species such as alewife, gizzard shad, and catfish. The highest effectiveness was achieved with
the hybrid sound/strobe system in which combined species-effectiveness averaged 84%.
Additional data were gathered on the effective deterrence distance provided by each technology.
These data revealed that the hybrid system elicited a behavioral response that occurred over 1.2
m (3.9 ft) from the equipment 90% of the time (Figure 16-11) versus the shorter distance over
which either individual technology elicited a behavioral response.
Figure 16-10
Efficiency comparisons for deterrence devices for five species (Patrick et al. 2006b)
Figure 16-11
Comparison of fish (5 species) positions beyond 1.2 m-zone from deterrence devices (Patrick
et al. 2006b)
16-22
17
OTHER FISH PROTECTION TECHNOLOGIES
Introduction
There are other fish protection technologies that have had limited application at cooling water
intake structures (CWIS). These technologies may be relatively new or ones that have been
developed for other applications and have not yet been modified for installation at CWIS. The
potential for future development of these technologies is uncertain.
Inclined Plane Screen

The intent of the inclined plane screen is to divert fish upward in the water column and into
bypasses. Several types of inclined plane screens have been investigated for diverting fish
(primarily salmonids) upward to bypasses at hydroelectric facilities. In some cases, the screens
are used to “skim” downstream migrants from surface waters of power pools. Once
concentrated, the fish are transported to a release point. Their usefulness as part of a larger
surface bypass and collection system is clear. Inclined screens have been reasonably successful
in several applications at hydroelectric projects. However, this technology has not been used in a
large-scale application to date and has not been considered available for application at CWISs.
Filtrex Candles
The Filtrex Filter System (FFS) consists of filter elements approximately 12.7 cm (5 in.) long,
3.8 cm (1.5 in.) in diameter and made of plastic wafers stacked and fastened together with a
central spring. Groves between the stacked wafers provide filtration of 40 µm (0.04 mm) and the
flow capacity of each candle is approximately 18.9 lpm (5 gpm) at a headloss of 0.46 m (1.5 ft).
Filter elements are assembled on tube sheets 0.61 by 0.61 m (2 by 2 ft) and separated by 0.91 m
(3 ft) spacing rods. A total of 48 filter elements are arranged on each tube sheet and two tube
sheets with spacer rods is considered an intake module (IMOD). The FFS is a relatively new fish
protection technology that has not been applied to a CWIS. The biological efficacy of the FSS
has been evaluated in the laboratory and in the field for possible application at the Taunton River
desalination project in Dighton, MA.
Case Studies – Field Applications
Taunton River, Dighton, MA

A field evaluation of the Filtrex Filter System (FSS) was conducted at the site of the desalination
facility for which it is has been proposed. The site is located on a tidally-influenced section of
the Taunton River in Dighton, MA (Normandeau 2007).
The test facility was comprised a single intake module (IMOD) that contained 96 filter candles
(Figure 17-1). Each filter candle was 11.7 cm (4.6 in.) long and was comprised of stacked
plastic wafers with a pore size of 40 µm. The candles are designed to operate at a through-pore
velocity of 0.06 m/sec (0.2 ft/sec). The candles are also designed to be cleaned by either
17-1
stopping withdrawal or by backflushing. The proposed intake structure for the desalination
facility will require 30 IMODs of 96 candles each (a total of 2,880 candles) to provide the 79,494
lpm (21,000 gpm) necessary to operate the facility.
The IMOD used for this study included a top and bottom sheet, each with an array of 48 candles
installed. These sheets were inserted into an open receiver box such that they composed the top
and bottom of the IMOD and were lowered into the river at a depth of two feet below mean low
water. Entrainment samples were collected from the water drawn through the FSS in a 333-µm
plankton net. Impingement samples were collected by stopping flow through the filter array and
capping the top 48 candles of the IMOD with an enclosure box to prevent the escape of impinged
organisms (Figure 17-1). After being capped, the IMOD was raised out of the water and
impinged organisms were rinsed into a collection tray. The bottom 48 candles remained
uncapped during retrieval of the IMOD. Comparison between the number of organisms in the
top (capped) sample and the bottom (uncapped) sample allowed the determination of how many
impinged organisms are released when flow is stopped. Control samples were collected from an
open port adjacent to the IMOD.
Figure 17-1
Top candle array of IMOD shown with (left) and without (right) the impingement enclosure box
(Normandeau 2007).
17-2
Figure 17-2
Filtrex receiver box of IMOD (Normandeau 2007)
During entrainment sampling, a number of amphipods and five fish larvae were collected. The
authors state that these entrained organisms likely entered the filter system through either leaks
in the joints among various filter system components or by entering the common intake pipe
during the times when the IMOD was removed for impingement sampling.
During impingent sampling, a total of 17 fish larvae and many amphipods were collected. No
fish eggs were collected. The density of amphipods collected from the top and bottom candle
arrays were 47,901 and 8,259 per m3 (1,691,608 and 29,1664 per ft3) of withdrawn water. This
ratio of 5.8 to 1 in amphipod densities indicated that impinged, live invertebrates were released
when flow was stopped.
A total of 15 species of ichthyoplankton were collected in control sampling. Fish eggs were only
collected on two of the twenty-five sampling dates. The egg species were identified as river
herring (Alosa spp.), white perch (Morone americana), and labrids (cunner and tautog). Total
egg densities were 8.9 per m3 (314 per ft3) of withdrawn water. Total larval densities were 297
per m3 (10,489 per ft3) of withdrawn water. The most abundant larvae collected were seaboard
goby (Gobiosoma ginsburgi) (29%), hogchoker (Trinectes maculates) (20%), anchovy species
(18%), river herring species (16%), and Northern pipefish (Syngnathus fuscus) (4%).
Sampling of ambient ichthyoplankton in the Taunton River near the desalination site was
conducted in 2006. River herring and white perch accounted for 91% of the eggs and larvae
collected between March and June. Based on ambient sampling data and impingement rates
generated in a concurrent laboratory evaluation (see Alden 2007), a total of 7,271 herring eggs,
28,515 herring yolk-sac larvae, and 2,410 herring post yolk-sac larvae would potentially be lost
to impingement (Table 17-1). A total of zero white perch eggs, 18,225 white perch yolk-sac
larvae, and 471 post yolk-sac larvae would potentially be lost to impingement (Table 17-1).
17-3
Table 17-1
Impingement estimates for eggs, yolk-sac larvae (YSL), and post yolk-sac larvae (PYSL) of river
herring and white perch (Normandeau 2007).
Geometric Estimated Estimated

Season Mean Total Number Number Number
Life Period Duration Density per Encountering Impinged Impinged
Stage Observed (days) 100 m
3
Intake in 6 hrs (Daily) (Season)
River Herring
Egg 04/27 - 06/08 42 5.7 1,255 124 7,271
YSL 05/07 - 06/01 32 4.3 955 636 28,515
PYSL 05/09 - 06/13 35 0.4 79 49 2,410
White Perch
Egg NA -- 0 0 0 0
YSL 05/07 - 06/15 39 6 701 467 18,225
PYSL 05/07 - 06/15 39 0.1 19 12 471
The general conclusions from this field evaluation included:

• Biofouling did not decrease the filtering capacity of the IMOD
• The number of impinged larvae collected was approximately 4% of the number collected
in control samples
• The number of impinged amphipods collected was approximately 6% of the number
collected in control samples
• Amphipod data indicated that live organisms impinged during filter operation were likely
released when the filter flow was stopped
• It was calculated that the in-river filtering surface area encountered by eggs and larvae
was 2.8% of the cross sectional area of the river
• It was estimated that equivalent adult losses of four age-one river herring and less than
one age-one white perch would occur due to operation of the Filtrex Filter System
Case Studies – Laboratory
Alden Research Laboratory

A laboratory study was conducted by Inima/Aquaria to investigate the impingement and
subsequent survival of early life stages of fishes contacting Filtrex Filter Candles (FFS). This
evaluation was a step in determining whether the FFS was an appropriate intake technology for a
desalination facility. The FFS is composed of individual filter candles (Figure 17-3). The
candles are designed with a pore size of 40 µm, a through-pore velocity of 0.06 m/sec (0.2
ft/sec), and a flow rate of approximately 35 lpm (9.25 gpm) (Alden 2007).
17-4
Figure 17-3
Six individual Filtrex filter candles installed in the laboratory test facility.
The test facility was an acrylic flume measuring 20.3 cm (8 in.) wide, 40.6 cm (16 in.) deep, and
5.5 m (18 ft) long (Figure 17-4). An array of 6 Filtrex candles (two rows of three) was installed
towards the downstream end of the flume. Water was pumped from a sump to supply the test
flume. Channel velocity was set at 0.34 m/sec (1.1 ft/sec) for the majority of the trials. Flow
was withdrawn through the filter candles by a separate pump at a total intake rate of 210.1 lpm
(55.5 gpm). Eggs and larvae not impinging on filter candles were collected downstream in a
200-µm mesh plankton net. Impinged organisms were collected in a 200-µm collection box
immediately downstream of the filter candle array. Two separate collections of impinged eggs
and larvae were made. The first collection of impinged organisms was made after filter flow was
ceased and the second collection was made when candles were back flushed. Water withdrawn
by the filters was discharged through a 335-µm plankton net to sample for any entrained
organisms.
The species and life stages tested during this evaluation included blueback herring (Alosa
aestivalis) (eggs and post yolk-sac larvae), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) (yolk-sac larvae),
and American shad (Alosa sapidissima) (eggs and post yolk-sac larvae).
Trials were conducted by releasing 100 eggs or larvae upstream of the candle array and
collecting impinged and bypassed organisms downstream. All impinged organisms were held
for 48 hrs to assess latent impingement mortality. All treatment conditions were evaluated under
clear water conditions. Additional trials with blueback herring eggs and larvae were conducted
under turbid conditions (10 to 15 NTU) to determine the effects of debris and suspended solids
on the impingement and survival of organisms.
17-5
Figure 17-4
Schematic with approximate distances between system components and egg and larvae release and collection locations and
photograph of Filtrex Test Facility (Alden 2007)
17-6
American shad eggs measured 3.1 mm (0.12 in.) in diameter and post yolk-sac larvae averaged
10.2 mm (0.4 in.) in length (mean) with a mean head capsule depth of 1.0 mm (0.04 in.). The
mean impingement rate for shad eggs was 7.4% (includes fish not accounted for after trial),
indicating that 92.6% of eggs passed downstream without impinging. All impinged eggs were
recovered after filter flow was ceased, none after backflushing. Immediate survival of impinged
eggs was 100% (Table 17-2). Immediate survival of eggs collected downstream was 99.2%.
Forty eight-hour latent survival for impinged eggs and those collected downstream were 90.9 and
68.7%, respectively (Table 17-2). Survival of controls indicated that collection in the
downstream net was most likely responsible for the higher mortality observed.
Table 17-2
Survival rates for American shad eggs. Collection locations are downstream net (DSN) and
impingement collection screen (ICS) with no filter flow (NF). Trial types are impingement (I),
control (C), and handling control (HC). Downstream net controls were released between the
candles and the net and impingement collection screen controls were released between the
candles and the screen with the filter flow off. Survival rates include hatched larvae and live
eggs. Total survival is calculated by multiplying immediate survival by 48-hour survival.
Collection Immediate 48-hr Total

Location Trial Type Survival (%) Survival (%) Survival (%)
DSN I 99.2 68.7 68.1
DSN C 97 40.6 39.4
ICS - NF I 100 90.9 90.9
ICS C 100 99 99
-- HC -- 95 95
The mean impingement rate for post yolk-sac shad larvae was 10.1%, indicating that 89.9% of
larvae passed downstream without impinging. Of the impinged larvae, 64% were recovered after
the filter flow was ceased and 36% after backflushing. Immediate survival of post yolk-sac shad
larvae was 0% (Table 17-3). Immediate survival of larvae collected downstream and in the
impingement collection net were 0 and 77.8%, respectively. Forty eight-hour latent survival for
impinged larvae and those collected downstream were 13 and 0%. Total survival of impinged
larvae was 10.1% (Table 17-3).
17-7
Table 17-3
Survival rates for American shad larvae. Collection locations are downstream net (DSN) and
impingement collection screen (ICS) with no filter flow (NF). Trial types are impingement (I),
control (C), and handling control (HC). Downstream net controls were released between the
candles and the net; impingement collection screen controls were released between the candles
and the screen with the filter flow off. Total survival is calculated by multiplying immediate
survival by 48-hour survival.
Collection Immediate 48-hr Survival Total Survival

Location Trial Type Survival (%) (%) (%)
DSN I 11.4 3.2 0.4
DSN C -- -- 0
ICS - NF I 0 -- 0
ICS - BF I 0 -- 0
ICS C 77.8 13 10.1
-- HC -- 73 73
Blueback herring eggs used in this evaluation measured 1.1 mm (0.04 in.) in diameter. The
mean impingement rates for blueback herring eggs during clear and turbid water trials were 7.8
and 5.8%, respectively (includes fish not accounted for after trial). For clear water trials, 18% of
impinged eggs were recovered after the filter flow was ceased and 82% after backflushing.
Immediate survivals of bypassed and impinged fish were 95.1 and 100%, respectively during
clear water trials (Table 17-4). Immediate survivals of bypassed and impinged fish in turbid
water trials were lower than in clear water trials (Table 17-4). The impingement data indicated
that suspended solids and debris does not increase impingement rates.
17-8
Table 17-4
Survival rates for blueback herring eggs tested with clear and turbid water. Collection locations
are downstream net (DSN) and impingement collection screen (ICS) with no filter flow (NF). Trial
types are impingement (I), control (C), and handling control (HC). Downstream net controls were
released between the candles and the net; impingement collection screen controls were released
between the candles and the screen with the filter flow off. Total Survival is calculated by
multiplying immediate survival by 48-hour survival. Survival data was not recorded for
downstream net controls (i.e., only collection efficiency numbers were recorded).
Collection Trial Type Immediate 48-hr Total

Location Survival (%) Survival (%) Survival (%)
CLEAR WATER TRIALS
DSN I 95.1 98.8 93.9
DSN C -- -- --
ICS - NF I 100 0 0
ICS - BF I 100 77.8 77.8
ICS C 97 87.5 84.8
-- HC -- 87 87
TURBID WATER TRIALS
DSN I 94.4 96.6 91.2
DSN C -- -- --
ICS - NF I 50 100 50
ICS - BF I 88.9 87.5 77.8
ICS C 98.8 97.6 96.4
-- HC -- 87 87
Alewife larvae were only tested in clear water. These yolk-sac alewife larvae measured 3.9 mm
in length and had a head capsule depth of 0.6 mm. Collection efficiency trials indicated that a
large proportion of the yolk-sac alewife larvae were impinging on the candles during testing and
not dislodging effectively during backflushing. The resulting impingement rate was, therefore,
high (58.1%)
Blueback herring larvae were tested in both clear and turbid water. The post yolk-sac blueback
herring larvae averaged 5.6 and 6.7 mm in length (mean) during clear water trials and 6.9 mm
during turbid water trials. Head capsule depths were 0.5 and 0.6 mm for the larvae used in the
clear and turbid water trials, respectively. The mean impingement rates for blueback herring
larvae tested in clear water were 15.3 and 11.1%, respectively, for the 5.6-mm fish and the 6.7-
mm fish. For turbid water trials, the mean impingement rate was 13.1%. Considering the high
impingement rate for yolk-sac alewife (58.1%), these data indicated that larger post yolk-sac
17-9
river herring would likely be impinged at a substantially lower rate. In these trials with river
herring (blueback herring and alewife combined), 39% of impinged fish were recovered after
filter flow was ceased and 61% after backflushing. Immediate survival for bypassed fish did not
exceed 1.7% for either species (Table 17-5). Controls indicated that mortality of bypassed fish
was likely caused by collection in the downstream net. Total survival of impinged larvae was
0% for blueback herring larvae under all testing conditions and 33% for alewife larvae (Table
17-5). Controls indicated that alewife mortality was likely caused by impingement, while two-
thirds of blueback herring mortality was likely caused by the collection process. Testing under
both water conditions indicated that suspended solids and debris did not affect egg or larval
impingement rates.
17-10
Table 17-5
Survival rates for alewife and blueback herring larvae tested with clear and turbid water.
Collection locations are downstream net (DSN) and impingement collection screen (ICS) with no
filter flow (NF). Trial types are impingement (I), control (C), and handling control (HC). Downstream
net controls were released between the candles and the net; impingement collection screen
controls were released between the candles and the screen with the filter flow off. Total Survival
is calculated by multiplying immediate survival by 48-hr survival. A handling control trial was not
conducted for alewife larvae.
Collection Trial Type Immediate 48-hr Survival Total Survival (%)

Location Survival (%) (%)
ALEWIFE YOLK-SAC LARVAE - CLEAR WATER TRIALS
DSN I 1.7 0 0
DSN C 0 -- 0
ICS - NF I 33.3 100 33.3
ICS - BF I 0 -- 0
ICS C 100 99 99
BLUEBACK HERRING POST YOLK-SAC LARVAE (5.6 MM) - CLEAR WATER TRIALS
DSN I 0 -- 0
DSN C 0 -- 0
ICS - NF I 0 -- 0
ICS - BF I 0 -- 0
ICS C 32.9 14.8 4.9
-- HC -- 65 65
BLUEBACK HERRING POST YOLK-SAC LARVAE (6.7 MM) - CLEAR WATER TRIALS
DSN I 0 -- 0
DSN C 0 -- 0
ICS - NF I 0 -- 0
ICS - BF I 0 -- 0
ICS C 36.1 65.7 23.7
-- HC -- 84 84
BLUEBACK HERRING POST YOLK-SAC LARVAE (6.9 MM) - TURBID WATER TRIALS
DSN I 0 -- 0
DSN C 0 -- 0
ICS - NF I 0 -- 0
ICS - BF I 0 -- 0
ICS C 39.1 80.6 31.5
-- HC -- 89 89
17-11
The author suggested that the FSS performed well in this laboratory study. Low impingement
rates for most species/life stages may have resulted from a high channel velocity to through-pore
velocity ratio, which has been shown to increase the biological performance of other intake
screens such as cylindrical wedgewire screens. It was also noted that only a small portion of the
entire population of individuals will encounter the system and even a smaller portion will be
impinged, therefore, the overall impact of impingement mortality on fish populations should be
minimal.
Guidance Walls
Guidance walls are used as physical means to divert fish and usually consist of concrete
structures that are partially submerged and angled toward a bypass. The concept generally is
designed for anadromous out-migrants that travel in the upper portions of the water column in
hydroelectric project forebays.
The use of guidance wall structures can be an effective means to divert anadromous out-migrants
to bypasses. Diversion effectiveness will be dependent on fish behavior and local hydraulic
conditions. A guidance wall installed at the Vernon Project on the Connecticut River has been
shown to be very effective in diverting Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts to a surface bypass
(i.e., log/ice sluice). A similar guidance wall at the Bellows Falls Project on the Connecticut
River achieved a guidance efficiency of 94.4% for a group of 144 radio-tagged fish
(Normandeau 1996a, b). Guidance walls have only been used at hydroelectric projects.
Additional research associated with fish behavior and hydraulic conditions in relation to the
ability of guidance walls to successfully divert fish may increase the use of such structures at
both hydroelectric projects and potentially cooling water intake structure (CWIS).
Turbulence
A relatively new development in behavioral barrier guidance is the potential use of turbulent
attraction flows to guide fish. The concept, though designed primarily for use in guiding out-
migrating salmon smolts in hydroelectric project forebays, has implications for application at any
water intake where the protection of fish has become a concern (i.e., CWISs). The concept is
based upon the successful use of attraction flows to guide migrating fish to fishway entrances.
The reasoning then followed that turbulent flows could be induced and used to guide fish in other
situations. Coutant (2001) gives an overview account of the inception and theoretical
development of turbulence as a guidance device.
The induction of turbulent flows can be achieved either actively or passively. Active induction
involves the generation of turbulence through the use of technologies such as submerged water
jets or propellers. Passive induction makes use of natural velocities to generate turbulence by
placing structures (e.g., submerged vanes and berms, pilings, concrete cylinders) in strategic
locations in the existing flow field. The approach taken to induce flows would depend on the
site-specific flow characteristics of the waterbody being considered. If the flows maintain a
relatively high velocity, a passive turbulence induction device may be used, whereas if relatively
low velocity flows are present, an active induction device would be necessary.
Currently, this behavioral guidance technology is considered theoretical and has not undergone
extensive laboratory or field testing. The few studies that have been conducted have revealed the
potential for induced turbulence to effectively guide fish. An evaluation of the use of induced
17-12
turbulence to improve the bypass efficiency of a surface bypass collector at the Penacook
Hydroelectric Project on the Contoocook River was conducted in 1997 and 1998 (Truebe and
Truebe, 1997 and 1998). Low surface bypass efficiencies were caused by the absence of
adequate surface flow into the bypass entrance. Two 2 hp outboard motors with 1 m diameter
propellers were used to generate a turbulent flow that was directed toward the surface bypass
entrance. With the use of the induced turbulent flow, bypass efficiencies were calculated to be
80 and 93% (stated to be an improvement over past bypass efficiencies).
Another evaluation of induced turbulence in guiding Pacific salmon was conducted in 1999 at
the Cowlitz Falls Dam in Washington (Darland et al. 2001). Using a similar propeller setup,
juvenile salmon were successfully guided from the north to the south side of the project forebay.
Tracking with radio telemetry and split-beam hydroacoustics during propeller on/propeller off
testing supports this conclusion.
Initial reluctance to the use of induced turbulence for fish guidance was based on research
describing the damaging effects of intense turbulence (i.e., sheer stress) generated by high-
pressure water jets. However, research with angled bar racks and louver arrays indicate the
potential for turbulence to successfully guide fish to bypasses (EPRI 2001). Current theoretical
designs of turbulence guidance systems attempt to create a trail of turbulent flow along which
fish would guide. The use of current computer modeling programs such as computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) could facilitate the development and design of turbulent attraction flows for fish
guidance.
Electric Barriers
Electric barriers have been shown to effectively prevent the upstream passage of fish. However,
attempts to divert or deter the downstream movement of fish have met with limited success
(Bengeyfield 1990; Kynard and O’Leary 1990). Consequently, past evaluations have not lead to
permanent applications. Electric screens that use DC current have been used to prevent passage
of fish at relatively low flow intakes (e.g. irrigation canals) and to prevent upstream passage of
invasive fish species. The potential effectiveness of these barriers for application at cooling
water intake structures (CWISs) is unknown. Given their past ineffectiveness and hazard
potential, electric screens are not considered a viable technology for application at CWISs.
Case Studies – Field Evaluation
Chicago Sanitary and Shipyard Canal

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), authorized by the National Invasive Species Act
of 1996, conducted a feasibility investigation of an electric barrier at the Chicago Sanitary and
Shipyard Canal to determine its effectiveness in dispersing nuisance species (Sparks et al 2010;
Moy et al 2011; and Savino et al. 2001). Multiple barriers were screened by considering
installation constraints, cost-effectiveness, environmental impact, use of available technology,
and the need to operate continuously. Barrier approaches considered included filtration,
ultraviolet light, heating, electricity, electromagnetic field, bubble screens, acoustic arrays, low
dissolved oxygen, habitat alteration, and operation and flow changes. The electric barrier best
represented the criteria for this site. A demonstration barrier was created and evaluated for
effectiveness of deterring upstream movements of common carp (Cyprinus carpio).
17-13
Figure 17-5
Arrangement of antennas and hydrophones at the barrier (Sparks et al. 2010)
A total of 130 common carp were used in this study, all greater than 30 cm (11.8 in.) in total
length and 950 g (2.1 lbs) in weight. They were equipped with surgically implanted
radio/acoustic transmitters and released 20 m (65.6 ft) downstream of the electrical barrier.
Radio antennas at the site of the barrier were installed to detect the approach of the carp. To
detect acoustic signals, holes were drilled into the canal wall and fitted with hydrophones.
Of the 130 common carp released, only one was found crossing the barrier and 118 stayed well
downstream of the barrier and above the Lockport Lock and Dam. Although these results seem
favorable, the crossing occurred during the transitioning of a tow boat past the barrier, which
brings into question the effects of navigation on the integrity of the barrier.
Lake Seminole, Georgia
A monitoring program evaluating the effectiveness of two physical barriers and an electric
barrier was conducted at two embayments in the Seminlole River, Georgia (Maceina et al 1999).
Two V-shaped barriers were installed at the entrances of Fish Pond Drain and two gate barriers
were installed at the entrance of Cypress Pond. A total of 272 triploid grass carp
(Ctenopharyngodon idella) ranging from 362 to 915 mm (14.3 to 36 in.) were fitted with radio
tags and periodically released throughout the study of the physical barriers. Tests were
conducted from December 1995 through September 1997 to determine the effectiveness of these
physical barriers. A total of 119 and 64 fish were released at Fish Pond Drain and Cypress Pond,
respectively.
An electric barrier was installed in December 1997 at one of the V-shapped barriers in Fish Pond
Drain. It was designed by Smith-Root Company, set at a peak current output of 12 A at a 10-ms
pulse over a 500-ms duty cycle for an average current of 1.44 A. A total of 84 tagged fish were
released in December 1997. Movements were monitored for 13 months.
The average annual confirmed escape rate for the V-shaped funnel barriers and the gated barriers
were 9% and 23%, respectively. These percentages were based on the mean monthly fish
remaining alive and accounted for within the confined areas. Missing or dead fish and tag
17-14
malfunctions during physical barrier evaluations were high throughout, accounting for 46% of
fish released in Fish Pond Drain and 76% in Cypress Pond. During the evaluation of the electric
barrier, all but one fish was successfully monitored. There was no observed escapement by the
electrical barrier.
The authors concluded that the electric barrier was more effective than the physical barriers at
confining triploid grass carp in embayments of Lake Seminole. Although effective during this
application, the electric barrier may not be applicable at cooling water intake structures where
velocities are likely higher.
Jordan River, Michigan
A field study evaluating the effectiveness of a pulse-DC electrical barrier at blocking migration
of sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) was conducted in the Jordan River, Michigan (Swink
1999).
Mark and recapture methods were used to track movement passed the barrier. The settings of the
barrier was initially set to a 1-ms pulse width at a pulse rate of 10 pulses/sec, but was increased
to a 2-ms pulse width after the collection of a lamprey passing the barrier. Captured migrating
female sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) were tagged with a Dennison tag and a coded wire tag
in the dorsal musculature. Lamprey were then released at two locations, one 50 to 200 m (164 to
656.2 ft) upstream of the barrier and one at Rodger’s bridge, about 1.1 km (0.68 mi) downstream
of the barrier. A fyke net was deployed 3.2 km (2 mi) upstream of the barrier to capture any
upstream moving fish. Collections were recorded with the barrier on and the barrier off. Two
portable assessment traps were also set downstream of a dam on Deer Creek, a tributary of the
Jordan River, to capture lamprey blocked by the barrier looking downstream for a spawning
location, a behavior labeled “straying.”
There were a total of 14 releases of about 300 fish, seven releases at each site. Of the 2,093 fish
released at the upstream site, 446 were collected upstream while the barrier was on and two were
collected upstream with the barrier off. Of the 2,094 fish released at the downstream site, one
was collected upstream while the barrier was on at the lower power setting and eight were
collected while the barrier was off. Straying behavior was observed in 39 lamprey being
captured in the traps in Deer Creek.
The authors conclude that the electrical barrier successfully blocked the migration of spawning
phase sea lamprey. The pulse-DC barrier would be preferable to small, low-head barriers,
limiting impoundment.
Case Studies – Laboratory Evaluation

A laboratory study was conducted at the Eastern Michigan University Aquatic Research Facility
to evaluate the efficacy of electric and air bubble barriers on the movement of Eurasian ruffe
(Gymnocephalus cernuus). Experimental fish were collected by bottom trawling from Duluth
Harbor in Lake Superior, transported to the test facility, and held in 100-L (26.4 gal) tanks for
acclimation. Experimental fish for the electric barrier trials were 10 to 14 cm (4 to 5.5 in.) in
length, while those for the bubble barrier were 6.0 to 9.9 cm (2.4 to 3.9 in.) (Dawson et al. 2006).
Electric barrier trials were held in tanks measuring 244 cm (96 in.) long by 123 cm (48.4 in.)
wide by 61 cm (24 in.) deep with a water depth of 41 cm (16.1 in.). A caged acclimation area
17-15
was separated from the electric barrier by a plastic wall and was sufficiently sized to allow
acclimation of two fish at once. Water temperature and conductivity were 10 degree Celsius (50
degrees Fahrenheit) and 500 µS/cm, respectively. Pumps provided a circular flow through the
test tank. The electric barrier consisted of zinc-plated steel bars arranged in two 51 by 56 cm
(20.1 by 22 in.) crosshatch patterns that were covered with metal window screening (Figure
17-6). An electric pulsator (Smith-Root, Inc.) was used to deliver the charges. Computer
interface software allowed control of the pulse frequency, duration, and voltage (upper voltage
limit of 100 V).
Figure 17-6
Overhead schematic of electric barrier test facility (Dawson et al. 2006)
Initial trials were run to identify the most effective of four electrical settings. The four pulse
duration/pulse frequency settings evaluated were 3 ms/6 Hz, 5 ms/6 Hz, 10 ms/6 Hz, and 20
ms/4 Hz, all of which had an output of 100 V. Fish that had been acclimated to the test facility
for 24 hour were released from the cage and the barrier was energized. Trials ran for 90 min and
all interactions with the barrier were recorded as “pass”, “repel”, or “stun”. A minimum of 12
replicates were run for each barrier setting and for the control (electric barrier off).
Subsequent trials evaluated the efficacy of this barrier with fish motivated to migrate across the
barrier by the presence of food or shelter. Motivation with food was accomplished by presenting
a small amount of food (bloodworms and rainbow trout eggs [Oncorhynchus mykiss]) on the
opposite side of the barrier from the fish. Fish were starved for two weeks prior to this
experimental treatment. Motivation with shelter was accomplished by presenting a shaded area
on the side (approximately one quarter the ambient light intensity) of the barrier opposite the
fish. Each of these 90-min heightened motivation treatments was replicated 12 times; controls 4
times.
The efficacy of an air bubble barrier was also evaluated in a tank that was divided by screening
into three enclosures measuring 225 cm (88.6 in.) long by 30.5 cm (12 in.) wide by 61 cm (24
in.) deep with a water depth of 41 cm (16.1 in.). Air was pumped through 6.4 mm (0.25-in.)
diameter PVC pipe to supply 25 cm3/sec to produce the bubble barrier. Two hole sizes (0.4 and
17-16
1.0 mm [0.02 to 0.04 in.]) and two hole densities (15.9- and 31.8-cm spacing [6.25- and 12.5-in.
spacing]) were evaluated. Fish were acclimated for a minimum of 12 hour prior to testing.
Trials ran for 90 min and all interactions with the barrier were recorded as “pass” or “repel”.
Each experimental condition was replicated eight times; controls 4 times.
The initial trials revealed that the most effective electric barrier setting was 5 ms/6 Hz which
produced significantly more “repels” than the other settings or the control. Additionally, the
higher settings of 10 ms/6 Hz and 20 ms/4 Hz “stunned” significantly more fish than the lower
settings. It was therefore concluded that the 5 ms/6 Hz setting would be used for the heightened-
motivation trials. The inclusion of motivation (food or shelter) in the electric barrier trials did
not result in any significant differences in deterrence over the non-motivated fish. The bubble
barriers did not significantly repel fish over controls (no bubble treatments). Additionally, there
were no significant differences in the number of “repels” among the different hole size and
density combinations.
Based on the results of this study, it was concluded that neither the electric barrier nor the bubble
barriers evaluated in this study were effective in controlling the movement of European ruffe.
17-17
18
REFERENCES
Adams, C. 2006. Personal communication between C. Adams, Entergy and G. Allen, Alden
Research Laboratory, Inc.
AKRF, Inc. 2010. Assessment of the efficacy of a small-scale 2.0-mm cylindrical wedgewire
screen unit for reducing entrainment densities of fish larvae in Haverstraw Bay. Prepared for
United Water New York, Inc.
Alden Research Laboratory, Inc. (Alden). 1976. Hydraulics of Flow through Porous Gravel
Structures New England Power Service Company. Prepared for New England Power Service
Company.
Alden Research Laboratory, Inc. (Alden). 2000. Preliminary Study Results Improving the
Debris Handling Capabilities of the Salem Traveling Water Screens. Prepsared for Public
Service Electric and Gas Company.
Alden Research Laboratory, Inc. (Alden). 2006. Laboratory Evaluation of Hydrolox Screens.
Alden Research Laboratory, Inc. (Alden). 2007. Laboratory Evaluation of Filtrex Filter System
for Protecting Ichthyoplankton at a Desalination Facility intake.
Alden Research Laboratory and Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation. 1996. Evaluation
of the Modular Inclined Screen (MIS) at the Green Island Hydroelectric Project: 1996 Test
Results. Prepared for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation and New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority.
Alden Research Laboratory, Inc. 2010. Evaluation of the biological efficacy of 2.0-mm
wedgewire screens in the Hudson River. Prepared for AKRF, Inc.
Alden Research Laboratory, Inc. 2012a. Laboratory evaluation of the Beaudrey WIP screen for
protection of early life stages of fish at the Taunton River Desalination Plant. Prepared for
Aquaria Water, LLC.
Alden Research Laboratory, Inc. 2012b. Phase II laboratory evaluation of the Beaudrey WIP
screen for protection of early life stages of fish at the Taunton River Desalination Plant.
Prepared for Aquaria Water, LLC.
Alevras, R.A. 1974. Status of air bubble fish protection system at Indian Point Station on the
Hudson River. From: Second National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement, 1974.
Amaral, S. V., F. C. Winchell, B. J. McMahon and E. P. Taft. 1998. Evaluation of Behavioral
Guidance Technologies for Diverting Chinook Salmon Smolts at the Roza Dam Screening
Facility. Prepared for the Yakima/Klictikat Fisheries Project.
Amaral, S. V., E. P. Taft, F. C. Winchell, A. Plizga, E. Paolini, and C. W. Sullivan. 1999. Fish
Diversion Effectiveness of a Modular Inclined Screen. Pages 61-78 in M. Odeh, editor.
Innovations in Fish Passage Technologies. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
18-1
Amaral, S. V., F. C. Winchell, and T. N. Pearsons. 2001. Reaction of Chinook Salmon,
Northern Pike, and Smallmouth Bass to Behavioral Guidance Stimuli. Pages 125-144 in C.
Coutant, editor. Behavioral Technologies for Fish Guidance. American Fisheries Society,
Symposium 26, Bethesda, MD.
Amaral, S. V., J. L. Black, and D. A. Dixon. 2002a. Assessing Guidance Efficiency of Angled
Bar Racks and Louvers. Hydro Review, June 2002, HCI Publications, St. Louis, Missouri.
Amaral, S. V., J. L. Black, B. J. McMahon, and D. A. Dixon. 2002b. Evaluation of Angled Bar
Racks and Louvers for Guiding Lake and Shortnose Sturgeon. Pages 197-210 in W. Van
Winkle, P. J. Anders, D. H. Secor, and D. A. Dixon, editors. Biology, Management, and
Protection of North American Sturgeon. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 28, Bethesda,
Maryland.
Amaral, S. V., F. C. Winchell, B. J. McMahon, and D. A. Dixon. 2003. Pages 367-376 in D. A.
Dixon, editor. Biology, Management, and Protection of Catadromous Eels. American Fisheries
Society, Symposium 33, Bethesda, Maryland.
Ameren. 2011. Osage fish protection plan: annual report #2, Osage Project FERC No. 459.
20110329 FERC.
Anderson, J. J., K. J. Puckett, and R. S. Nemeth. 1988. Studies on the Effect of Behavior on
Fish Guidance Efficiency at Rocky Reach Dam: Avoidance to Strobe Light and Other Stimuli.
University of Washington, Fisheries Research Institute.FRI-UW-8801.
Applied Science Associates (ASA). 1999. Ichthyoplankton Monitoring Study Deployment of a
Gunderboom System at Lovett Generating Station Unit 3 1998. Orange and Rockland Utilities,
Inc.
Applied Science Associates (ASA). 2001. Ichthyoplankton Monitoring Study. Deployment of
the Gunderboom MLES™ at Lovett Generating Station Unit 3 2000. Final Report. Prepared for
Mirant, New York (In LMS 2001).
Applied Science Associates (ASA). 2004. Gunderboom MLES™ Evaluation Study at the
Lovett Generating Station. Results of 2004 Biological Monitoring. Final Report. Prepared for
Mirant Lovett, LLC.
Applied Science Associates (ASA). 2006a. Gunderboom MLES™ Evaluation Study at the
Lovett Generating Station. Results of 2005 Biological Monitoring. Final. Prepared for Mirant
Lovett, LLC.
Applied Science Associates (ASA). 2006b. Gunderboom MLES™ Evaluation Study at the
Lovett Generating Station. Results of 2006 Biological Monitoring. Final Report. Prepared for
Mirant Lovett, LLC.
ASA Analysis & Communication, Inc. 2008. Evaluation of impingement survival on the
hydrolox traveling water screen at the E. F. Barrett Generating Station October 2007 – June
2008. Prepared for National Grid Environmental Engineering Department and Intralox.
Applied Science Associates (ASA). 2011. Hudson generating station 316(b) study report
Prepared for PSEG Fossil LLC.
18-2
Ayres Associates. 2001. Elkhead Dam/Reservoir Fish Separation Preliminary Design Report.
Prepared for City of Craig. Ayres Project No. 35-0119.00.
Bailey, D. E. 2005. Effectiveness, Operation and Maintenance, and Costs of a Barrier Net
System for Impingement Reduction at the Chalk Point Generating Station. In: Proceedings of
Symposium on Technologies for Protecting Aquatic Organisms from Cooling Water Intake
Structures. May 6 - 7, 2003, Arlington, Virginia. Sponsored by the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Baker, J. K. 2008. The effects of strobe light and sound behavioral deterrent systems on
impingement of aquatic organisms at Plant Barry, Alabama. A thesis submitted to the Graduate
Facility of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master
of Science.
Basham, L. R., M. R. Delarm, J. B. Athern, and S. W. Pettit. 1982. Fish Transportation Oversight
Team Annual Report, FY 1981: Transport Operations on the Snake and Columbia Rivers.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/NNR-2. Environmental and Technical Services
Division, Northwest Regional Office, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, OR.
Beak Consultants, Inc. 1988. Dunkirk Station Biological Studies Final Report January -
December 1987. Prepared for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
Beak Consultants, Inc. 2000a. Post-Impingement Fish Survival Dunkirk Steam Station, Winter,
Spring, Summer, and Fall 1998–1999. Prepared for NRG Dunkirk Power L.L.C.
Beak Consultants, Inc. 2000b. Post-Impingement Fish Survival at Huntley Steam Station,
Winter and Fall 1999. Final Report. Prepared for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
Bell, M. C., R. E. Nece, and R. G. Porter. 1974. A Report on the Laboratory Examination of a
Permeable Dyke as a Fish Barrier. Prepared for Consumers Power Company.
Bengeyfield, W. 1992. Evaluation of a Temporary Screen to Divert Fish at Puntledge GS.
Prepared by Global Fisheries Consultants, Ltd. for B.C. Hydro, Vancouver, B.C.
Bengeyfield, W. 1993. Evaluation of a Temporary Screen to Divert Fish at Puntledge GS: Year
2 (1992). Prepared by Global Fisheries Consultants, Ltd. for B.C. Hydro, Vancouver, B.C.
Bengeyfield, W. 1990. Evaluation of electrical field to divert coho salmon smolts from the
penstock intake at Puntledge Generating Station. Prepared for B.C. Hydro Environmental
Resources, Vancouver B.C.
Bengeyfield, W. and H. A. Smith. 1989. Evaluation of Behavioral Devices to Divert Coho
Salmon Smolts from the Penstock Intake at Puntledge Generating Station. B.C. Hydro
Environmental Resources.
Bernier, K. 1995. 1995 Report on the Effectiveness of the Permanent Downstream Passage
System for Atlantic Salmon at Weldon Dam Mattaceunk Project FERC No. 2520.
Bestgen KR; JM Bundy; KA Zelasko. 2004. Effectiveness of high-velocity profile-bar fish
screens measured by exclusion and survival of early life stages of fathead minnow. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management. 24: 1228-1239.
18-3
Bigbee, D. L., R. G. King, K. M. Dixon, D. A. Dixon, and E. S. Perry. 2010. Survival of fish
impinged on a rotary disk screen. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 30: 1420-
1433.
Black, J.L., T.W. Hogan, G.S. Allen, E.S. Perry, and K.D. Zammit. 2008. "Laboratory
Evaluation of an Aquatic Filter Barrier (AFB) for Protecting Early Life Stages of Fish," Pages
217-230 in S.V. Amaral, D. Mathur, and E.P. Taft, III, editors. Advances in Fisheries
Bioengineering. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 61, Bethesda, MD.
Blanton, S. L., D. A. Neitzel, and C. S. Abernethy. 1998. Washington Phase II Fish Diversion
Screen Evaluations in the Yakima River Basin, 1997. U.S. Department of Energy Bonneville
Power Administration Environment Fish and Wildlife.
Bowen, M. D., S. M. Siegfried, C. Liston, L. Hess, and C. Karp. 1998. Tracy Fish Collection
Facility Studies, Volume 7: Fish Collections and Secondary Louver Efficiency at the Tracy Fish
Collection Facility: October 1993 to September 1995. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
Breitburg, D. L. & D. A. Reiher. 1988. Finfish and bluecrab impingement and survival at H. A.
Wagner Generating Station for Baltimore Gas and Electric Company final report. The Academy
of Natural Sciences Benedict Estuarine Research Laboratory. Report No. 88 – 7.
Brett, J.R. and D. McKinnon. 1953. Preliminary Experiments Using Lights and Bubbles to
Deflect Migrating Young Spring Salmon. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 10
(8): 548-556.
Brown, R. E. 1997. Utilization of Strobe Lighting as a Cost Effective Deterrent for Fish Turbine
Mortality. In: Fish Passage Workshop, Milwaukee, WI, May 6–8, 1997. Sponsored by Alden
Research Laboratory, Conte Anadromous Fish Research Laboratory, Electric Power Research
Institute, and Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
Brown, R. E. 1999. The Potential of Strobe Lighting as a Cost-Effective Means for Reducing
Impingement and Entrainment. Environmental Science and Policy 3: S405-S416.
Brown, R. E. and K. Bernier. 1997. The Use of Aquatic Guidance Strobe Lighting System to
Enhance the Safe Passage of Atlantic Salmon Smolts. In: American Fisheries Society Annual
Meeting, Monterey, CA, August 25, 1997. Sponsored by American Fisheries Society.
Browne, M. E. 1979. Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Evaluation of Fine-Mesh
Profile Wire as Powerplant Intake Screening. Pages 17–38. In: Passive Intake Screen
Workshop, Chicago, Illinois, December, 1979.
Browne, M. E., L. B. Glover, D. W. Moore, and D. W. Ballengee. 1981. In-situ biological and
engineering evaluation of fine-mesh profile-wire cyliders as powerplant intake screens.
Advanced Intake Technology for Power Plant Cooling Water System. Proceeding of the
Workshop on Advanced Intake Technology. April 22-24, 1981.
Brueggemeyer, V. D., D. Cowdrick, and K. Durell. 1988. Full-Scale Operational Demonstration
of Fine-Mesh Screens at Power Plant Intakes. In: Fish Protection at Steam and Hydroelectric
Power Plants, San Francisco, California, October 28–31, 1987. Sponsored by Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI). CS/EA/AP-5663-SR.
18-4
Bureau of Reclamation. 1976. Final Environmental Statement Anadromous Fish Passage
Improvements, Savage Rapids Dam. Grants Pass Diversion, Rogue River Basin Project, Oregon.
Prepared by Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, Boise, Idaho, Department of the
Interior.
Bureau of Reclamation. 1979. Formulation Working Document, Grants Pass Diversion, Rogue
River Basin Project, Oregon. Prepared by Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region,
Salem, Oregon, Department of the Interior.
Carolina Power & Light Company. 1985a. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 1984 Biological
Monitoring Report. Biology Unit Environmental Services Section.
Carolina Power & Light Company. 1985b. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Cape Fear Studies
Interpretive Report. Biology Unit Environmental Services Section.
Cassani, J. 1998. Personal Communication between J. Cassani, Lee County Hyacinth Control
District and Alden,27 July, 1998.
Christie, A.E. 1990. A Synopsis of Ontario Hydro Advances to Protect and Guide Fish.
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Fishways, Gifu, Japan, October 8–10, 1990.
Clark, D. E. 1981. The Wedge-wire Screen: A Part of the Sullivan Plant Downstream Migrant
Bypass System. Manuscript. Portland General Electric Company, Portland, Oregon.
Clark, D. E. and D. P. Cramer. 1993. Evaluation of the Downstream Migrant Bypass System -
T. W. Sullivan Plant, Willamette Falls. Portland General Electric, Portland, Oregon.
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. 1975. First Progress Report Indian Point
Flume Study. Prepared by Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation.
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. 1994. Evaluation of Underwater Sound to
Reduce Impingement at the Arthur Kill Station. Consolidated Edison Company of New York,
Inc.
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. 1996. Arthur Kill Generating Station
Diagnostic Study and Postimpingement Viability Substudy Report. Pursuant to December 23,
1993 Order of Consent. Report number R2-2985-90-04.
Consolidated Edison Corporation of New York, Inc. 1986. Biological Evaluation of a Ristroph
Screen at Indian Point Unit 2. Consolidated Edison Corporation of New York, Inc.
Consumers Energy Company and The Detroit Edison Company. 2005. Ludington Pumped
Storage Project: 2005 Annual Report of Barrier Net Operation. Project No. 2680.
Consumers Power Company (CPC). 1984. 1984 Report of Deterrent Net Performance, J. R.
Whiting Plant. Presented to the Michigan Water Resources Commission, June 1984.
Consumers Power Company (CPC). 1985. 1985 Report of Deterrent Net Performance, J. R.
Whiting Plant. Presented to the Michigan Water Resources Commission, June 1985.
Cord, I. and G. P. Arron. 2007. Operational fish deterrent system at Lambton November 2005-
April 2007. Prepared for Ontario Power Generation, Inc.
18-5
Coutant, C.C. 2001. Turbulent Attraction Flows for Guiding Juvenile Salmonids at Dams.
Pages 57–77 in C. Coutant, editor. Behavioral Technologies for Fish Guidance. American
Fisheries Society, Symposium 26, Bethesda, MD.
Craddock, D.R. 1956. A Review of Studies in Guiding Downstream Migrating Salmon with
Light. In: Progress Report on Fisheries Engineering Research Program. U.S. Army, North
Pacific Division, Corps of Engineers, Portland, Oregon, p. 1-13.
Cramer, D. P. 1997. Evaluation of a Louver Guidance System and Eicher Screen for Fish
Protection at the T.W. Sullivan Plant in Oregon. In: Fish Passage Workshop, Milwaukee, WI,
May 6-8, 1997. Sponsored by Alden Research Laboratory, Conte Anadromous Fish Research
Laboratory, Electric Power Research Institute, and Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
Cramer, S. P., D. Demko, and E. Van Dyke. 1993. Evaluation of the Latest Technology
Electrical and Acoustic Fish Guidance Systems at Reducing Entrainment of Down Migration
Juvenile Chinook Salmon at Reclamation District 108’s Main Pumping Station. Prepared by S.
P. Cramer & Associates. 300 S. E. Arrow Creek Land, Gresham, OR 97080.
Cumbie P. M. and J. B. Banks. 1997. Protection of Aquatic Life in Design and Operation of the
Cope Station Water Intake and Discharge Structures. The Environmental Professional 19: 178–
184.
Darland T.J., S.D. Evans, D.W. Rondorf, G.L. Rutz, D.H. Feil, N.S. Adams, C.F. Merrill, and
J.D. Serl. 2001. Test of Concept to Improve Fish Guidance Using Induced Water Currents at
Cowlitz Falls Dam, Washington. Annual Report for 1999. U.S. Geological Survey, Columbia
River Research Laboratory, Cook, Washington.
Davis, R. W., J. A. Matousek, M. J. Skelly, and M. R. Anderson. 1988. Biological Evaluation
of Brayton Point Station Unit 4 Angled Screen Intake. In Proceedings: Fish Protection at Steam
and Hydroelectric Power Plants, San Francisco, California, October 28–31, 1987. Sponsored by
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). CS/EA/AP-5663-SR.
Dawson, H.A., U.G. Rheinhardt, and J.F. Savino. 2006. Use of Electric or Bubble Barriers to
Limit the Movement of Eurasian Ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus). J. Great Lakes Res. 32:40-
49.
Decoto, R. J. 1978. 1974 Evaluation of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Fish Screen.
California Department of Fish and Game, Anadromous Fisheries Branch. Administrative Report
No. 78-20.
Detroit Edison Company. 1975. Progress Report on Best Available Technology for the Monroe
Power Plant. Prepared for submission to the Chief Engineer of the Michigan Water Resources
Commission, February 1975.
Dorratcague, D., W. Porter, and L. Swenson. 1996. White River Fish Screen Project-Hydraulic
Modeling . In: North American Water and Environmental Congress, New York, NY, 1996.
Sponsored by American Society of Civil Engineers.
Dunning, D. 1997. Ultrasound Deterrence: Alewife at a Nuclear Generating Station in New
York. In: Using Sound to Modify Fish Behavior at Power-Production and Water-Control
Facilities: A Workshop, 1997. Sponsored by U.S. Department of Energy and Bonneville Power
Administration, DOE/BP-62611-11.
18-6
Dunning, D. J. and C. W. D. Gurshin. 2012. Downriver passage of juvenile blueback herring
near an ultrasonic field in the Mohawk River. North American Journal of Fisheries Management
32 (2): 365-380.
Dunning, D. J., Q. E. Ross, P. G. Geoghegan, J. J. Reichle, J. K. Menezes, and J. K. Watson.
1992. Alewives Avoid High-Frequency Sound. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 12: 407–416.
Easterbrooks, J. 1998. Personal Communication between J. Easterbrooks, Dept. of Fish and
Wildlife, WA and Alden, 09 September, 1998.
EA Science and Technology. 1986. Results of entrainment and impingement monitoring studies
at the Westchester RESCO Facility, Peekskill, New York.
Ecological Analysts, Inc. 1977. Preliminary Investigations into the Use of a Continuously
Operating Fine Mesh Traveling Screen to Reduce Ichthyoplankton Entrainment at Indian Point
Generating Station. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
Ecological Analysts, Inc. 1979. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of a Continuously Operating
Fine Mesh Traveling Screen for Reducing Ichthyoplankton Entrainment at the Indian Point
Generating Station. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
Ecological Analysts, Inc. 1982. A Biological Evaluation of Modified Vertical Traveling
Screens. Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 2011. Geiger screen impingement monitoring
at the Fort Calhoun Station. Prepared for Omaha Public Power District.
Ehrler, C. and C. Raifsnider. 2000. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Intake Wedge Wire
Screens. Environmental Science and Policy 3
Eisele, P. J. and J. F. Malaric. 1977. A Conceptual Model of Causal Factors Regarding Gizzard
Shad Runs at Steam Electric Power Plants. In: Fourth National Workshop on Entrainment and
Impingement, Chicago, IL, December 5, 1977. Sponsored by Ecological Analysts, Inc.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1986a. Assessment of Downstream Migrant Fish
Protection Technologies for Hydroelectric Application. EPRI AP-4711
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1986b. Research Coordination for Field Testing of
Cooling Water Intake Systems - Annual Report. EPRI RP2214-4 1985.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1987. Hydraulic Model Evaluation of the Eicher
Passive Pressure Screen Bypass System. RP-1745-18.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1989. Field Testing of Behavioral Barriers for Fish
Exclusion at Cooling-Water Intake Systems, Ontario Hydro Pickering Nuclear Generating
Station. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA. GS-6246.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1990. Fish Protection Systems for Hydro Plants; Test
Results. EPRI GS-6712.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1991. Evaluation of the Eicher Screen at Elwha Dam:
Spring 1990 Test Results. GS/EN-7036.
18-7
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1992a. Evaluation of the Eicher Screen at Elwha
Dam: 1990 and 1991 Test Results.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1992b. Evaluation of Strobe Lights for Fish
Diversion at the York Haven Hydroelectric Project. EPRI TR-101703.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1994a. Research Update on Fish Protection
Technologies for Water Intakes. EPRI TR-104122.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1994b. Biological Evaluation of a Modular Inclined
Screen for Protecting Fish at Water Intakes. EPRI TR-104121.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1996. Evaluation of the Modular Inclined Screen
(MIS) at the Green Island Hydroelectric Project: 1995 Test Results. EPRI. TR-106498.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1998a. Review of Downstream Fish Passage and
Protection Technology Evaluations and Effectiveness. EPRI TR-111517.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1998b. Evaluation of Fish Behavioral Barriers. EPRI
TR-109483.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1999. Fish Protection at Cooling Water Intakes:
Status Report. EPRI TR-114013.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 2000. Technical Evaluation of the Utility of Intake
Approach Velocity as an Indicator of Potential Adverse Environmental Impact under Clean
Water Act Section 316(b). 1000731. Prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (C. Coutant,
M. Bevelhimer, and G. Cada).
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 2001. Evaluation of Angled Bar Racks and Louvers
for Guiding Fish at Water Intakes. EPRI TR-1005193.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 2003. Laboratory Evaluation of Wedge Wire Screens
for Protecting Early Life Stages of Fish at Cooling Water Intakes. EPRI 1005339.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 2004. Laboratory Evaluations of an Aquatic Filter
Barrier (AFB) for Protecting Early Life Stages of Fish. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA. 1005534.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 2005. Field Evaluation of Wedgewire Screens for
Protecting Early Life Stages of Fish at Cooling Water Intakes. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2005.
1010112.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 2006a. Laboratory Evaluation of Modified Ristroph
Traveling Screens for Protecting Fish at Cooling Water Intakes. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2006.
1013238.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 2006b. Field Evaluation of Wedgewire Screens for
Protecting Early Life Stages of Fish at Cooling Water Intake Structures: Chesapeake Bay
Studies. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2006. 1012542.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 2006c. Design Considerations and Specifications for
Fish Barrier Net Deployment at Cooling Water Intake Structures. 1013309.
18-8
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 2007. Latent Impingement Mortality Assessment of
the Geiger Multi-disc™ Screening System at the Potomac River Generating Station. EPRI
1013065.
Electric Power Research Institute. 2008. Evaluation of Strobe Light and Acoustic Fish
Deterrent System: Plant Barry: 316(b) Technology Option. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA and Alabama
Power Company, Brimingham, Alabama: 2008. 1014022.
Electric Power Research Institute. 2009. Beaudrey Water Intake Protection (WIP) screen pilot-
scale impingement survival study. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA and OPPD, Omaha, NE: 2009.
1018490.
Electric Power Research Institute. 2009. Laboratory Evaluation of Fine-mesh Traveling Water
Screens for Protecting Early Life Stages of Fish at Cooling Water Intakes: Research Progress
Update Through 2008. 1015578. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA.
Electric Power Research Institute. 2010. Laboratory Evaluation of Fine-mesh Traveling Water
Screens. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA. 2010, 1019027.
Electric Power Research Institute. 2010. Evaluation of factors affecting juvenile and larval fish
survival in fish return systems at cooling water intakes. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA. 2010, 1021372.
Electric Power Research Institute 2011a. Fine-mesh Traveling Screen and WIP Screen:
Supplemental Laboratory Studies, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA. 2012, Technical Update 1023769.
Electric Power Research Institute. 2011b. Laboratory Evaluation of Beaudrey WIP Screen for
Protecting Early Life Stages of Fish at Cooling Water Intake Structures. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA.
2011. 1019864.
Electric Power Research Institute. 2011c. Effects of fouling and debris on larval fish within a
fish return system. Electric Power Research Institute. 2011, 1024999.
EPRI 2012. Drum Screen Filtration of Cooling Water in Fossil-Fired and Nuclear Power
Plants: The Electricité de France (EDF) Experience. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2012. 1026715.
Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation (ESEERCO). 1981a. Laboratory
Evaluation of Fine-Mesh Screening for the Protection of Fish Larvae at Intakes. EP 8–6.
Prepared by Alden Research Laboratory and Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation.
Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation (ESEERCO). 1981b. Laboratory
Evaluation of Fish Protection Devices at Intakes. EP 8–6. Prepared by Alden Research
Laboratory and Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation.
Envirex, Inc. 1996. Fish Survival Enhancement with Envirex Non-Metallic Fish Baskets and
Improved Fish Spray Wash Design. Envirex, Inc., Waukesha, WI.
Environmental Consulting Services, Inc. (ECS) and Inc. Lakeside Engineering. 1994. 1993
Studies of Downstream Fish Passage at Fort Halifax Hydro-Electric Station Sebasticook River,
Maine. Kennebec Hydro Developers Group.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Federal Water Pollution Control Act (“Clean
Water Act”), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., November 27, 2002.
18-9
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1972. Federal Water Pollution Control Act, §316 (b),
33 U.S.C §1326(b).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. 40 CFR Parts 9, 122, et al., National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System: Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for
New Facilities; Final Rule; Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 243, 65256, December 18, 2001.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. 40 CFR Parts 9, 122 et al., National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System: Final Regulations To Establish Requirements for Cooling Water
Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities; Final Rule; Federal Register,Vol. 69, No. 131,
41576, July 9, 2004.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. 40 CFR Parts 122 and 125, National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System: Cooling Water Intake Structures at Existing Facilities and Phase
I Facilities; Proposed Rules; Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 76, 22174, April 20, 2011.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2012. 40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 124, and 125, National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System—Proposed Regulations to Establish Requirements for
Cooling Water Intake Structures at Existing Facilities; Notice of Data Availability Related to
Impingement Mortality Control Requirements, Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 112, 34315, June
11, 2012.
Environmental Resource Associates, Inc (ERA). 1984. Lake Erie Barrier Net, A Feasibility
Study. Technical Report 61, Report to Cleveland Electrical Illuminating Company.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 1997. Order Approving Downstream Fish
Passage. FERC Issuance dated August 21, 1997, 80 FERC 62,166.
Feist, B.A. and J.J. Anderson. 1991. Review of Fish Behavior Relevant to Fish Guidance
Systems. Fisheries Research Institute, FRI-UW-9102. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2001a. Order Approving Final Barrier Net
Effectiveness Report. Project No. 2431-050. FERC Issuance dated February 2, 2001.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2001b. Order Approving Barrier Net
Operating Protocol Pursuant to Article 405. Project No. 11402-038. FERC Issuance dated
March 16, 2001, FERC 62,222.
Flamarique, I.N.N., S. Hiebert, and J. Sechrist. 2006. Visual Performance and Ocular System
Structure of Kokanee and Sockeye Salmon Following Strobe Light Exposure. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 26: 453-459.
Fletcher, I. R. 1990. Flow Dynamics and Fish Recovery Experiments: Water Intake Systems.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 119: 393-415.
Freshwater Physicians, Inc. 1991. Belle River Power Plant Fish Entrainment and Impingement
Study, 1990-1991. Detroit Edison Company.
Frizell, K. W., C. R. Liston, and S. Atkinson. 1996. Engineering Features of the Red Bluff
Research Pumping Plant . In: North American Water and Environmental Congress, New York,
NY, 1996. Sponsored by American Society of Civil Engineers.
18-10
Georgia-Pacific Corporation. 1989. 1989 Report on Downstream Passage of Atlantic Salmon
Smolts and Kelts at Weldon Dam. Mattaceunk Project. FERC NO. 2520.
Georgia-Pacific Corporation. 1990. 1990 Report on Downstream Passage of Atlantic Salmon
Smolts and Kelts at Weldon Dam. Mattaceunk Project. FERC NO. 2520.
Gibson, A. J. F. and R. A. Myers. 2002. Effectiveness of a high-frequency-sound fish diversion
system at the Annapolis Tidal Hydroelectric Generating Station, Nova Scotia. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 22: 770-784.
Goetz, F. A., J. J. Dawson, T. Shaw, and J. Dillon. 1998. Evaluation of Low-Frequency
Underwater Sound Emitters for Guiding Salmon and Steelhead Smolts away from a Navigation
Lock at the Hiram Chittenden Locks, Seattle, Washington. Portland District, USACE and Lake
Washington Ecological Studies Group. SBC-96-6.
Goetz, F. A., J. J. Dawson, T. Shaw, and J. Dillon. 2001. Evaluation of low-frequency sound
transducers for guiding salmon smolts away from a navigation lock. American Fisheries Society
Symposium 26:91-104.
Great Lakes Environmental Center (GLEC). 1994. Report on Fish Diversion at Four Mile Dam
Using Strobe Lighting and Air Bubble Curtain Techniques.
Great Northern Paper Company. 1995. The Effectiveness of Permanent Downstream Passage
Facilities for Atlantic Salmon at Weldon Dam. Mattaceunk Project, FERC No. 2520.
Great Northern Paper Company. 1998. Report on Downstream Fish Passage Studies
Mattaceunk Hydroelectric Project. Great Northern Paper Company.
Grotbeck, L.B. 1975. Evaluation of an Air Curtain as a Fish Deterrent device at Prairie Island
Generating Plant Cooling Water Intake. Northern States Power (NSP), 1975 Annual Report,
Environmental Monitoring and Ecological Studies Program, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating
Plant, Vol II. P. 2.8-1 to 2.8-25.
Guilfoos, E. R., R. W. Williams, T. E. Rourke, P. B. Latvaitis, J. A. Gulvas, and R. H. Reider.
1995. Six Years of Monitoring the Effectiveness of a Barrier Net at the Ludington Pumped
Storage Plant on Lake Michigan. In: Waterpower '95, Proceedings of the International
Conference on Hydropower, San Francisco, California, July 25-28, 1997. Sponsored by
American Society of Civil Engineers.
Gulvas, J. A. and I. H. Zeitoun. 1979. Cylindrical Wedge Wire Screen Investigations in
Offshore Lake Michigan for the J. H. Campbell Plant, 1979. From: Passive Intake Screen
Workshop 1979.
Gunderboom, Incorporated. 2006. Lovett Generating Station Gunderboom® Marine Life
Exclusion System™ (MLES) 2004-2005 Comprehensive Report. Prepared for Mirant. February
2006.
Hadderingh, R. H., F. B. J. Koops and J. W. Van der Stoep. 1988. Research on fish protection
at dutch thermal and hydropower stations. Kema Scientific & Technical Reports 6(2): 57-68.
Hadderingh, R. H. and A. G. Smythe. 1997. Deflecting Eels from Power Stations with Light.
In: Fish Passage Workshop, Milwaukee, WI, May 6–8, 1997. Sponsored by Alden Research
18-11
Laboratory, Conte Anadromous Fish Research Laboratory, Electric Power Research Institute,
and Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
Haider, T.R. and P.H. Nelson. 1987. Protection of Juvenile Anadromous Fish. Waterpower '87,
Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower.
Hamel, M. J., M. L. Brown, and S. R. Chipps. 2008. Behavioral responces of rainbow smelt to
in situ strobe lights. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28: 394-401.
Hanson Environmental, Inc. 1993. Demonstration Project to Evaluate the Effectiveness of an
Acoustic (underwater sound) Behavioral Barrier in Guiding Juvenile Chinook Salmon at
Georgiana Slough: Results of 1993 Phase I Field Tests. San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water
Authority, State Water Contractors, California Department of Water Resources, and U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation.
Hanson, B. N., W. H. Bason, B. E. Beitz, and K. E. Charles. 1977. A Practical Intake Screen
which Substantially Reduces Entrainment and Impingement of Early Life Stages of Fish. In:
Fourth National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement, Chicago, IL, December 5, 1977.
Sponsored by Ecological Analysts.
Hanson, B. N., W. H. Bason, B. E. Beitz, and K. E. Charles. 1978. Practicality of Profile-Wire
Screen in Reducing Entrainment and Impingement. In: Larval Exclusion Systems for Power
Plant Cooling Water Intakes. Argonne National Laboratory Report. ANL/ES-66.
Hanson, C. H., D. Hayes, and K. A. F. Urquhart. 1997. Biological Evaluations of the
Georgiana Slough Experimental Acoustical Fish Barrier, Phases I-IV During 1993-1996. In:
Fish Passage Workshop, Milwaukee, WI, May 6–8, 1997. Sponsored by Alden Research
Laboratory, Conte Anadromous Fish Research Laboratory, Electric Power Research Institute,
and Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
Harza Engineering Company and Inc. RMC Environmental Services. 1992. Response of
Atlantic Salmon Smolts to Louvers in the Holyoke Canal, Spring 1992. New England Power
Company.
Harza Engineering Company and Inc. RMC Environmental Services. 1993. Response of
Juvenile Clupeids to Louvers in the Holyoke Canal, Fall 1992. New England Power Company.
Hawkins, A. D. and D. F. Johnstone. 1978. The Hearing of the Atlantic Salmon, Salmo salar.
Journal of Fish Biology. 13: 655-673.
Heimbuch, D. E. 1999. Biological Efficacy of Intake Structure Modifications. PSE&G Renewal
Application Salem Generating Station. Permit No. NJ0005622.
Helfrich, L.A., C.R. Liston, B. Mefford, and R. Bark. 2001. Survival and Injury of Splittail and
Chinook Salmon Passed Through a Large Hidrostal Pump. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management. 21:616-623.
Henderson, P.A., R.M. Seaby, C. Cailes, and J.R. Somes. 2001. Gunderboom Fouling Studies
in Bowline Pond. Prepared by Pisces Conservation, Ltd.
Holand, B. and O. Walso. 1988. Sound Barrier: Experiments with Cod at Sommaroyhamn.
SINTEF Rapport for Myre Havbruk.
18-12
Horwitz, R. J. 1987. Impingement Studies. In: Ecological Studies in the Middle Reach of the
Chesapeake Bay, Heck, Kenneth L. Jr., ed. Springer-Verlag, New York. 1987.
Hutchinson Jr. J.B., Matousek, J.A. 1988. Evaluation of a Barrier Net used to Mitigate Fish
Impingement at a Hudson Power Plant Intake. American Fisheries Society Monograph. p.
4:280-285.
Ichthyological Associates. 1994. An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Strobe Light
Deterrent System at Milliken Station Cayuga Lake, Tomkins County, New York. New York
State Electric and Gas Corporation.
Ichthyological Assoicates. 1997. An Evaluation of Fish Entrainment and Effectiveness of the
Strobe Light Deterrent System at Milliken Station Cayuga Lake, Tomkins County, New York.
New York State Electric and Gas Corporation.
Jahn, A.E. and K.T. Herbinson. 2000. Designing a Light-Mediated Behavioral Barrier to Fish
Impingement and a Monitoring Program to Test its Effectiveness at a Costal Power Station.
Environmental Science and Policy 3.
Jarrett, D. P. and F. C. Winchell. 1989. Hydraulic Evaluation of Traveling Belt Screens at
Weeks Falls. Presented at the 9th Annual meeting of the Northwest Hydroelectric Association,
Portland Oregon, October 1989.
Jasperson, S. 2005 and 2006. Personal email between S. Jasperson Minnesotta Power and Light
and N. Olken, Alden Research Lab, Inc.
Johnson, C. and R. Ettema. 1988. Passive Intake System for Shallow Sand-Bed River. Journal
of Hydraulic Engineering 114: 662–674.
Johnson, P.L. 1988. Hydraulic Design of Angled Drum Fish Screens. In: Electric Power
Research Institute, Conference on Fish Protection at Steam and Hydro Plants, San Francisco,
October 28-30, 1987, EPRI CS/EA/AP-5663-SR, March 1988.
Johnson, P. L. and G. R. Ploskey. 1998. Behavioral Technologies for Bypass Channels, Phase2:
Evaluation of Infrasound and Strobe Lights for Redistributing Migrant Salmon Smolts in the
McNary Juvenile Bypass.
Johnson, Peter N., K. Bouchard, and F.A. Goetz. 2004. Effectiveness of Strobe Lights for
Reducing Juvenile Salmonid Entrainment into a Navigation Lock. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 25: 491–501.
Johnson, P. N, F. A. Goetz, and G. R. Ploskey. 2001. Evaluation of strobelights for vertically
displacing juvenile salmon near a filling culvert intake at the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks,
Seattle, Washington.
Karp, C., L. Hess, and C. Liston. 1995. Tracy Fish Collection Facility Studies, Volume 3: Re-
evaluation of Louver Efficiencies for Juvenile Chinook Salmon and Striped Bass, 1993. U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation.
Kehring. K. 2006. Personal communication between K. Kehring, Exelon Corporation and G.
Allen, Alden Research Lab, Inc. February 10, 2006.
18-13
Ketschke, B. A. 1981. Field and Laboratory Evaluation of the Screening Ability of a Porous
Dike. In: P. B. Dorn and Johnson (eds.), Advanced Intake Technology for Power Plant Cooling
Water Systems, pg. 84-90.
King, L. R., J. B. Jr. Hutchinson, and T. G. Huggins. 1978. Impingement Survival Studies on
White Perch, Striped Bass, and Atlantic Tomcod at Three Hudson River Power Plants. In:
Fourth National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement, Chicago, IL, December 5, 1977.
Sponsored by Ecological Analysts, Inc.
Klinect, D. A., P. H. Loeffelman, and J. H. Van Hassel. 1992. A New Signal Development
Process and Sound System for Diverting Fish from Water Intakes. In: Proceedings of the
American Power Conference, Chicago, IL, April 13–15, 1992. 54: 427–432.
Knudsen, F. R., P. S. Enger, and O. Sand. 1992. Awareness Reactions and Avoidance
Responses to Sound in Juvenile Atlantic Salmon, Salmo salar L. Journal of Fish Biology. 40:
523–534.
Knudsen, F. R., P. S. Enger, and O. Sand. 1994. Avoidance Responses to Low Frequency
Sound in Downstream Migrating Atlantic Salmon Smolt, Salmo salar. Journal of Fish Biology.
45: 227–233.
Knudsen, F.R., C.B. Shreck, S.M. Knapp, P.S. Enger, and O. Sand. 1997. Infrasound Produces
Flight and Avoidance Responses in Pacific juvenile salmonids. Journal of Fish Biology 51, 824–
829.
Königson, S., A. Fjälling, and S. Lunneryd. 2002. Reactions in individual fish to strobe light.
Field and aquarium experiments performed on whitefish (Coregonus lavaretus). Hydrobiologia
483: 39-44.
Kuhl, G. H. and K. N. Mueller. 1988. Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Environmental
Monitoring Program 1988 Annual Report Fine Mesh Vertical Traveling Screens Impingement
Survival Study. Northern States Power Company.
Kupfer, G. A. and W. G. Gordon. 1966. An Evaluation of Air Bubble Curtain as a Barrier to
Alewives. Commercial Fisheries Review 28(9): 1-9.
Kynard, B. and C. Buerkett. 1997. Passage and Fish Behavior of Adult American Shad in an
Experimental Louver Bypass System. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 17:
734–742.
Kynard, B. and J. O'Leary. 1990. Behavioral Guidance of Adult American Shad Using
Underwater AC Electrical and Acoustic Fields. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium
on Fishways '90, Gifu, Japan, October 8–10, 1990.
Kynard, B. and J. O'Leary. 1993. Evaluation of a Bypass System for Spent American Shad at
Holyoke Dam, Massachusetts. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 13: 782–789.
Kynard, B. and M. Horgan. 2001. Guidance of yearling shortnose sturgeon and pallid sturgeon
using vertical bar rack and louver arrays. North American Journal of Fisheries Management
21:561-570.
Lakeside Engineering, Inc. 1996. Summary Report for Rolfe Canal Project. Essex Hydro.
18-14
Larinier, M. and S. Boyer-Bernard. 1992. La Devalaison des Smolts de Salmon Atlantique au
Barrage De Poutes sur L'allier (43): Utilisation de Lampes a Vapor De Mercure en vue
D'optimiser L'Efficacite de L'exutoire de Devalaison. Bull. Fr. Peche Piscic. 323: 129-148.
Latvaitis, R. W., H. F. Berhard, and D. B. McDonald. 1976. Impingement Studies at Quad-
Cities Station, Mississippi River. In: Jensen, L. D. (Ed.) Proceedings of the Third National
Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement, New York, NY, February 24, 1976.
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers (LMS). 1978. 1977 Hudson River Aquatic Ecology
Studies at The Bowline Point Generating Station. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities,
Inc., Pearl River, New York.
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers LLP (LMS). 1981. Southern California Edison Company
Larval Exclusion Study, Final Report February 1981. Prepared for Southern California Edison
Company.
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers LLP (LMS). 1984. Evaluation of the Angled Screen Fish
Diversion System at Oswego Steam Station Unit 6: Research Project No. EC104 April 1981-
March 1983. Prepared for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers LLP (LMS). 1985. Fish Protective Intake Test Facility:
Angled Screen Diversion Study. Prepared for Empire State Electric Energy Research
Corporation (ESEERCO).
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers LLP (LMS). 1987. Brayton Point Station Unit No. 4
Angled Screen Intake Biological Evaluation Program. Prepared for New England Power
Company, October 1987.
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers LLP (LMS). 1989. Exposure of Emigrating Juvenile Shad
(Alosa Sapidissima) to Turbine Passage at the Hadley Falls Project, 1988, Holyoke,
Massachusetts. Northeast Utilities Service Company and Holyoke Water Power Company.
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers LLP (LMS). 1991. Intake Debris Screen
Postimpingement Survival Evaluation Study Roseton Generating Station 1990. Central Hudson
Gas & Electric Corporation.
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers LLP (LMS). 1992. Intake Technology Review Oswego
Steam Station Units 1–-6. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. 191–115.
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers LLP (LMS). 1994. Effectiveness Evaluation of a Fine
Mesh Barrier Net Located at the Cooling Water Intake of the Bowline Point Generating Station.
Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers LLP (LMS). 1996a. Effectiveness Evaluation of a Fine
Mesh Barrier Net Located at the Cooling Water Intake of the Bowline Point Generating Station
1994 Barrier Net Evaluation Program Report. Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers LLP (LMS). 1996b. Lovett Generating Station
Gunderboom Evaluation Program 1995. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers LLP (LMS). 1997. Lovett Generating Station
Gunderboom Evaluation Program 1996. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.
18-15
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers LLP (LMS). 1998a. Lovett Generating Station
Gunderboom System Evaluation Program 1997. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities,
Inc.
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers LLP (LMS). 1998b. Lovett Generating Station
Gunderboom System Evaluation Program 1998. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities,
Inc.
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers LLP (LMS). 2001. Lovett Generating Station
Gunderboom Deployment Program 2000. Prepared for Mirant, New York, Inc.
Lee, D. 2011. A Porous Dike Structure for Reducing Fish Impingement at a Power Plant.
Presented at the 141st Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society, Washington State
Convention Center, Seattle, WA, September 4-8, 2011.
Lew, A. 2012. Pickering Barrier Net. EPRI Debris Management Workshop, July 2012.
Lifton, W. 1979. Biological Aspects of Screen Testing on the St. Johns River, Palatka, Florida.
Prepared for Passive Intake Screen Workshop, Chicago, IL, December, 1979.
Lindsay, B. P. 1991. Preliminary Dunkirk Steam Station post-impingement survival evaluation
information. Letter report prepared for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. March 25, 1991.
Loeffelman, P. H., D. A. Klinect, and J. H. Van Hassel. 1991a. Fish Protection at Water Intakes
Using a New Signal Development Process and Sound System. In: Proceedings of the
International Conference on Hydropower, Denver, Colorado, July 24–26, 1991. Sponsored by
Loeffelman, P. H. and K. M. Tamms. 1991b. Environmental Aspects and Compliance Costs of
Hydropower Regulation. In: Proceedings of the Specialty Conference on Energy in the 90's,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, March 10–13, 1991. Sponsored by American Society of Civil
Engineers.
Loos, J. L. 1986a. Evaluation of Benefits to PEPCO of Improvements in the Barrier Net and
Intake Screens at Chalk Point Station Between 1984 and 1985. Prepared for Environmental
Affairs Group Water and Land Use Department Potomac Electric Power Company Washington,
D. C.
Loos, J. L. 1986b. Evaluation of Benefits to PEPCO of Improvements in the Barrier Net and
Intake Screens at Chalk Point Station Between 1984 and 1985. Prepared for Environmental
Affairs Group Water and Land Use Department Potomac Electric Power Company Washington,
D. C.
Loos, J.L. 1987. Chalk Point Station Intake Liability Values Computed After Deployment of a
Second Barrier Net at the Mouth of the Intake Canal and After Discontinuation of Auxiliary
Tempering Pump Usuage. Prepared for Environmental Affairs Group Water and Land Use
Department Potomac Electric Power Company Washington, D. C.
Maceina, M. J., J. W. Slipke, J. M. Grizzle. 1999. Effectiveness of three barrier types for
confining grass carp in embayments of Lake Seminole, Georgia. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 19:968-976.
18-16
Maes, J., A. W. H. Turnpenny, D. R. Lambert, J. R. Nedwell, A. Parmentier, and F. Ollevier.
2004. Field Evaluation of a Sound System to Reduce Estuarine Fish Intake Rates at a Power
Plant Cooling Water Inlet. Journal of Fish Biology 64: 938-946.
Malolie, M. O., B. Harryman, and B. Ament. 2001. Response of Free-Ranging Kokanee to
Strobe Light. American Fisheries Society Symposium 26: 27-35.
Maiolie, M. 2004. Personal communication between M. Maiolie, Idaho Department of Fish and
Game (IDFG) and T.Hogan, Alden Research Laboratory, Inc. March 19, 2004.
Marine Research, Inc. 1997. Post-impingement survival study Machester Street Station January
1996-February 1997. Prepared for Narragansett Electric and New England Power Company.
Martin, P. and C. Sullivan. 1992. Guiding American Shad with Strobe Lights. Hydro Review
(July Issue).
Martin, P., J. Downing, E. P. Taft, and C. Sullivan. 1991. A Demonstration of Strobe Lights to
Repel Fish. In: Waterpower '91 Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower,
Denver, Colorado, July 24–26, 1991. Sponsored by American Society of Civil Engineers. TP
91-5.
Martin, P., E. P. Taft, and C. Sullivan. 1994. Reducing Entrainment of Juvenile American Shad
Using a Strobe Light Diversion System. In: Anadromous Alosa Symposium, Virginia Beach,
Virginia, January 14-15, 1993. Sponsored by American Fisheries Society.
Matousek, J. A., A. W. Wells, and P. M. McGroddy. 1988a. Field Testing of Behavioral
Barriers for Fish Exclusion at Cooling-Water Intake Systems Central Hudson Gas & Electric
Roseton Generating Station. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). RP 2214-6.
Matousek, J.A., A.W. Wells, P.M. McGroddy, M.W. Daley, and W.C. Micheletti. 1988b.
Biological Evaluation of Behavioral Barrier Devices at a Power Plant Intake Located on the
Hudson River. In: Proceedings: Fish Protection at Steam and Hydroelectric Power Plants, San
Francisco, CA, October 28–30, 1987. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). CS/EA/AP-
5663-SR.
McCauley, D. J., L. Montuori, J. E. Navarro, and A. R. Blystra. 1996. Using Strobe Lights, Air
Bubble Curtains for Cost-Effective Fish Diversion. Hydro Review (April 1996): 42–51.
McGroddy, P.M., J.E. Edwards, and P. Dorn. 1981. Diversion of marine fish larvae with angled
louvers and fine-mesh screens. In: Workshop on Advanced Intake Technology, San Diego,
California, April 22-24, 1981.
McIninch, S. P. and C. H. Hocutt. 1987. Effects of Turbidity on Estuarine Fish Response to
Strobe Lights. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 3: 97–105.
McKinley, R. S. and P. H. Patrick. 1988. Use of Behavioral Stimuli to Divert Sockeye Salmon
Smolts at the Seton Hydro-Electric Station, British Columbia. In: Proceedings: Fish Protection
at Steam and Hydroelectric Power Plants. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).
CS/EA/AP-5663-SR.
McKinley, R. S., P. H. Patrick, and Y. G. Mussalli. 1987. Influence of Three Sonic Devices on
Fish Behaviour. In: Waterpower '87, Proceedings of the International Conference on
18-17
Hydropower, Portland, Oregon, August 19–21, 1987. Sponsored by American Society of Civil
Engineers.
McKinley, R.S. and H. Kowalyk. 1989. Effectiveness of a Fish Protection Scheme in Repelling
or Diverting Fish in the Intake-Forebay of the Annapolis Tidal Power Station. Ontario Hydro
and Nova Scotia Power Corporation. Report number 89–110-P.
McLaren, J. B. and L. R. Tuttle Jr.. 2000. Fish Survival on Fine Mesh Traveling Screens.
Environmental Science and Policy 3: S369-S374.
McMahon, B., N. Olken, J. L. Black and D. Bailey. 2008. Potential alternative fish protection
options for the H. A. Wagner Power Plant with respect to §316(b) BPJ compliance. Prepared for
Constellation Energy.
McMillen, M. D. and C. W. Smith. 1996. Comparison of Water Backwash and Brush Cleaning
Systems for Vertical Panel Fish Screens. In: North American Water and Environmental
Congress, New York, NY, 1996. Sponsored by American Society of Civil Engineers.
McMillen, M. D. and W. Porter. 1996. White River Fish Screen Project Planning and Design .
In: North American Water and Environmental Congress, New York, NY, 1996. Sponsored by
McNabb, C. D., C. R. Liston, and S. M. Borthwick. 1998. In-Plant Biological Evaluation of the
Red Bluff Research Pumping Plant on the Sacramento River in Northern California: 1995 and
1996. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Red Bluff Fish Passage Program.
McNabb, C.D., C.R. Liston, and S.M. Borthwick. 2003. Passage of Juvenile Chinook Salmon
and Other Species Through Archimedes Lifts and a Hidrostal Pump at Red Bluff, California.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 132:326–334.
Mesa et al. 2012. Field-based evaluations of horizontal flat-plate fish screens, II: Testing of a
unique off-stream channel device - the Farmers Screen. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 32 (3) 604-612.
Michaud, D. T. 1981. Wisconsin Electric’s Experience with Porous Dike and Leaky Dam Intake
Structures on Lake Michigan. In: P. B. Dorn and J. T. Johnson (Eds.) Proceedings of the
Workshop of Advanced Intake Technology. San Diego, CA, April 22–24, 1981.
Michaud, D. T. 1999. Personal communication between D. Michaud, WEPCO and E. P. Taft,
Alden Research Laboratory, Inc. October 14, 1999.
Michaud, D. T. and E. P. Taft. 2000. Recent Evaluations of Physical and Behavioral Barriers
for Reducing Fish Entrainment at Hydroelectric Plants in the Upper Midwest. Environmental
Science and Policy 3.
Miller, E. F. 2007. Post-impingement survival and inferred maximum thermal tolerances for
common nearshore marine fish species of Southern California. Southern California Academy of
Sciences. 106(3): 193-207.
Moy, P. B., I. Polls and J. M. Dettmers. 2011. The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Cnal aquatic
nuisance species dispersal barrier. American Fisheries Society Symposium 74: 121-137.
18-18
Mueller, R. P. and D. A. Neitzel. 1998. Preliminary Findings: Evaluation of Infrasound and
Strobe Lights to Elicit Avoidance Behavior in Juvenile Salmon and Char. Aquatic Ecology.
Mueller, R. P., D. A. Neitzel, and B. G. Amidan. 1999. Evaluation of Infrasound and Strobe
Lights to Elicit Avoidance Behavior in Juvenile Salmon and Char. U.S. Department of Energy.
Murray, L. S. and T. S. Jinnette. 1978. Survival of Dominant Estuarine Organism Impinged on
Fine Mesh Traveling Screens at the Barney M. Davis Power Station. Central Power and Light
Company.
Mussalli, Y. G., E. P. Taft, and P. Hofmann. 1978. Engineering Implications of New Fish
Screening Concepts. In: Fourth National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement, Chicago,
IL, December 5, 1977. Sponsored by Ecological Analysts, Inc.
Nedwell, J, and A. Turnpenny. 1997. The Bioacoustic Fish Fence: Fish Guidance by
Evanescent Sound.
Neitzel, D. A., C. S. Abernethy, E. W. Lusty, and L. A. Prohammer. 1985. A Fisheries
Evaluation of the Sunnyside Canal Fish Screening Facility, Spring 1985: Annual Report. U.S.
Department of Energy Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830.
Neitzel, D. A., C. S. Abernethy, E. W. Lusty. 1986. A Fisheries Evaluation of the Richland and
Toppenish/Satus Canal Fish Screening Facilities, Spring 1986. Prepared for The Bonneville
Power Administration under a Related Services Agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy.
Neitzel, D.A., T.J. Clune, and C.S. Abernathy. 1990 Evaluation of Rotary Drum Screens Used
to Project Juvenile Salmonids in the Yakima River Basin, Washington, U.S.A. Proceedings of
the International Symposium on Fishways ’90 in Gifu, Japan, October 8-10, 1990.
Nemeth, R. S. and J. J. Anderson. 1992. Response of Juvenile Coho and Chinook Salmon to
Strobe and Mercury Vapor Lights. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12: 684–
692.
Nemeth, R. S. 1989. The Photobehavioral Responses of Juvenile Chinook and Coho Salmon to
Strobe and Mercury Lights. Thesis, University of Washington.
Nestler, J. M., G. R. Ploskey, J. Pickens, J. Menezes, and C. Schilt. 1992. Responses of
Blueback Herring to High-Frequency Sound and Implications for Reducing Entrainment at
Hydropower Dams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 12: 667–683.
Nestler, J. M., G. R. Ploskey, C. Schilt, and G. Weeks. 1995a. Evaluation of an Integrated Fish-
Protection System. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower, New York,
NY, 1995. Sponsored by American Society of Civil Engineers.
Nestler, J. M., G. R. Ploskey, L. T. Schneider, and G. Weeks. 1995b. Development of an
Operational, Full-Scale Fish Protection System at a Major Pumped-Storage Hydropower Dam.
In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower, New York, NY, 1995.
Sponsored by American Society of Civil Engineers.
Nestler, J. M., G. R. Ploskey, L. T. Schneider, and G. Weeks. 1998. Fish Protection at a Major
Pumped-Storage Hydropower Dam. HydroVision 98.
18-19
New York Power Authority, Inc. (NYPA), Normandeau Associates, and Sonalysts, Inc. 1991.
Responses of White Perch, Striped Bass, Alewives, Spottail Shiners, Golden Shiners, and
Atlantic Tomcod in a Cage to High and Low Frequency Underwater Sounds Generated by an
Electronic Fish Startle System. Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation.
New York State Electric and Gas Corporation (NYSEG), Stone & Webster Engineering
Corporation, and Auld Environmental Associates. 1990. Kintigh/Somerset Aquatic Monitoring
Program 1989 Annual Report. New York State Electric and Gas Corporation.
Normandeau Associates, Inc. 1996a. Efficiency of the Louver System to Facilitate Passage of
Emigrating Atlantic Salmon Smolts at Vernon Hydroelectric Station, Spring, 1995. New
England Power Company.
Normandeau Associates, Inc. 1996b. The Vernon Bypass Fishtube: Evaluation of Survival and
Injuries of Atlantic Salmon Smolts. New England Power Company.
Normandeau Associates, Inc.. 2000. Final Report Barrier Net Effectiveness Study at the Brule
Hydroelectric Project, Florence County, Wisconsin. FERC Project No. 2431. Prepared for
Wisconsin Electric Power Company. August 2000.
Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 2007. Filtrex Filter System, Taunton River Field
Test Program.
Normandeau Associates, Inc. and Applied Science Associates (ASA). 2011a. 2010 IPEC
wedgewire screen laboratory study. Prepared for Indian Point Energy Center.
Normandeau Associates, Inc. and Applied Science Associates (ASA). 2011b. 2011 IPEC
wedgewire screen laboratory study. Prepared for Indian Point Energy Center.
Northeast Utilities Service Company (NUSCO). 1986. The Evaluation of Filtered and
Unfiltered Underwater Mercury Vapor Lights to Attract Juvenile Alosids. Northeast Utilities
Service Company.
Northeast Utilities Service Company. 1987. The effectiveness of the Millstone Unit 3 fish
return. NPDES Permit No. CT003263.
Northeast Utilities Service Company Environmental Services (NUSCO). 1997. Downstream
Passage of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) Smolts at Cabot Station, Turners Falls, Massachusetts,
1997.
Northrup, D. & T. Inc. and Lakeside Engineering (NDT). 1995. Report of Results of the Third
Year Study of the Effectiveness of Fish Passage Facilities at the Rolfe Canal Hydroelectric
Project. Briar Hydro Associates.
Northrup, D. & T. Inc., Charles Ritzi Associates, Inc. Lakeside Engineering, and Aqua-Bio Tech.
1997. Evaluation of Downstream Fish Passage Facility for Juvenile Clupeids 1991 Through 1996
Final Report. Topsham Hydro Partners, Chrysler Corporation Utilco Group Inc. FERC Project
No. 4784-ME.
Odeh, M. and C. Orvis. 1997. Status of Downstream Fish Passage at Hydroelectric Projects in
the Northeast, USA. In: Waterpower '97, Proceedings of the International Conference on
Hydropower, Atlanta, Georgia, August 5-8, 1997. Sponsored by American Society of Civil
Engineers.
18-20
Odenweller, D. B. and R. L. Brown. 1982. Delta Fish Facilities Program Report. Through June
30, 1982. Interagency Ecological Study Program for the Sacramento San Joaquin Estuary.
Technical Report 6, 1982.
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). 1995. Fish Passage Technologies: Protection at
Hydropower Facilities. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., September 1995.
OTA-ENV-641.
Ontario Hydro and Lawler, Matusky, & Skelly Engineers, Inc. (LMS). 1989. Field testing of
behavioral barriers for fish exclusion at cooling water intake systems (Ontario Hydro Pickering
Nuclear Generating Station). EPRI GS-6246.
Oswald, R. 1999. Personal communication between R. Oswald, Wisconsin Public Service and
E. P. Taft, Alden Research Laboratory, Inc., September 16, 1999.
Ott, R. F., J. J. Strong, and H. E. Finch. 1988. Arbuckle Mountain Hydro Vertical-Axis Fish
Screens. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). CS/EA/AP-5663-SR.
Otto, R. G., T. I. Hiebert, and V. R. Kranz. 1981. The effectiveness of a remote profile-wire
screen intake module in reducing the entrainment of fish eggs and larvae. Advanced Intake
Technology for Power Plant Cooling Water System. Proceeding of the Workshop on Advanced
Intake Technology. April 22-24, 1981.
Page, T. L., D. A. Neitzel, and R. H. Gray. 1977. Comparative Fish Impingement at Two
Adjacent Water Intakes on the Mid-Columbia River. In: Fourth National Workshop on
Entrainment and Impingement, Chicago, Illinois, December 5, 1977. Sponsored by Ecological
Analysts, Inc.
Patrick, P. H. 1982a. Effectiveness of a Hidrostal Pump and Transport System in the Live
Transfer of Fish. Ontario Hydro Research Division, Report No. 82-295-K.
Patrick, P.H. 1982b. Responses of Fish to Air Bubble Barriers. Ontario Hydro Research
Division. Report number 82-362-K.
Patrick, P.H. and B. Sim. 1985. Effectiveness of a Hidrostal pump in the live transfer of
American eels. Hydrobiologia 128:57–60.
Patrick, P. H. and R. S. McKinley. 1987. Field Evaluation of a Hidrostal Pump for Live
Transfer of American Eels at a Hydroelectric Facility. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management. Vol 7.
Patrick, P. H., R. W. Sheehan, and B. Sim. 1982. Effectiveness of a Strobe Light Eel Exclusion
Scheme. Hydrobiologica. 94: 269–277.
Patrick, P.H., A.E. Christie, D. Sager, C. Hocutt, and J. Stauffer Jr. 1985. Responses of Fish to
a Strobe Light/Air- Bubble Barrier. Fisheries Research 3: 157–172.
Patrick, P. H., R. S. McKinley, and W. C. Micheletti. 1988a. Field Testing of Behavioral
Barriers for Cooling Water Intake Structures — Test Site I — Pickering Nuclear Generating
Station — 1985/86. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). CS/EA/AP-5663-SR.
Patrick, P. H., R. S. McKinley, A. E. Christie, and J. G. Holsapple. 1988b. Fish Protection:
Sonic Deterrents. In: Conference on Fish Protection at Steam and Hydro Plants, San Francisco,
18-21
CA, October 28–30, 1987. Sponsored by Electric Power Research Institute. EPRI. CS/EA/AP-
5663-SR.
Patrick, P.H., J.S. Poulton, and R. Brown. 2001. Responses of American Eels to Strobe Light
and Sound (Preliminary Data) and Introduction to Sound Conditioning as a Potential Fish
Passage Technology. Pages 1–11 in C. Coutant, editor. Behavioral Technologies for Fish
Guidance. American Fisheries Society Symposium 26, Bethesda, MD.
Patrick, P., S. Filopovic, I. Cord, R. Tsang, J. Jones. 2005. Fish Protection at Lambton
November 2004-April 2005. Kinectrics Report K-010438-001-RA-0001-R00 (2005) or more
recent biological data, if they are available.
Patrick, P.H., S. Filipovic, and H.J. Werksma. 2006a. Modified Porous Dike for Fish Exclusion.
Hydrovision Paper and Presentation, August, 2006.
Patrick, P.H., S. Filopovic, I. Cord, and C. Tasker-Shaw. 2006b. A Hybrid Acoustic/Strobe
System for Fish Exclusion. Hydrovision Paper and Presentation, August, 2006.
Pearce and Lee. 1991. Some Design Considerations for Approach Velocities at Juvenile
Salmonid Screening Facilities. In: Fisheries Bioengineering Symposium. American Fisheries
Society Symposium 10. J. Colt and R. J. White (eds.). Bethesda, MD.
Pickens, J. L. 1992. Instrumentation Services Division Effort to Develop Fish Barrier at Richard
B. Russell Dam, Georgia. U.S. Army Engineer District, Savannah, Georgia.
Plante, T., Feldhausen, M., Olsen, D. and Michaud, D. 1997. Maintenance Requirements of a
Fish Barrier Net System. In: Fish Passage Workshop, Milwaukee, WI, May 6-8, 1997.
Sponsored by Alden Research Laboratory Inc., Conte Anadromous Fish Research Laboratory,
Electric Power Research Institute, and Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
Ploskey, G. R. and P. N. Johnson. 1998. Effectiveness of Strobe Lights for Eliciting Vertical
Avoidance by Juvenile Salmon. Proceedings of Hydrovision 1998.
Ploskey, G. R. and P. N. Johnson. 2001. Effectiveness of Strobe Light and an Infrasound
Device for Eliciting Avoidance by Juvenile Salmon. American Fisheries Society Symposium
26: 37-56.
Ploskey, G. R., J. M. Nestler, G. Weeks, and C. Schilt. 1995. Evaluation of an Integrated Fish-
Protection System. Waterpower '95, Proceedings of the International Conference on
Hydropower.
Ploskey, G. R., P. N. Johnson, and T. J. Carlson. 1996. Evaluation of an Array of Low-
Frequency, Sound Pressure Transducers for Guiding Salmon Smolts Away from Turbines at
Bonneville Dam, Columbia River.
Ploskey, G. R., P. N. Johnson, M. G. Burczynski, J. M. Nestler, and T. J. Carlson. 1998a.
Effectiveness of Strobe Lights, Infrasound Devices, and A Sound Transducer for Eliciting
Avoidance by Juvenile Salmon. U.S. Army Engineer District, Portland Oregon.
Ploskey, G. R., P. N. Johnson, and T.J. Carlson. 1998b. Evaluation of a Low-Frequency Sound
–Pressure System for Guiding Juvenile Salmon away from Turbines at Bonneville Dam,
Columbia River. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 20: 951-967.
18-22
Pock, J. D. 1988. Efficacy of Using Submerged High Intensity Mercury Vapor Lights To
Improve Shad Passage at Priest Rapids Dam. Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant
County.14/B9.
Popper, A. N. 1995. Fish Sensory Responses: Prospects for Developing Behavioral Guidance
Technologies. In: Fish Passage Technologies: Protection of Hydropower Facilities, Office of
Technology Assesment, OTA-ENV-641 (Washington, D. C.), NTIS PB96107677.
Popper, A. N. and T. J. Carlson. 1998. Application of Sound and Other Stimuli to Control Fish
Behavior. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Vol. 127: 673-707.
Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG). 2003. Phase 1 Report Custom Requirement G.5
Multi-sensory Hybrid Intake Protection Technology Feasibility Study Section 316(b) Special
Condition. Prepared by Alden Research Laboratory and Skalski Statistical Services.
Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG). 2004. Special Study Report, Salem Generating
Station, Estimated Latent Impingement Mortality Rates: Updated Pooled Estimates Using Data
From 1995, 1997, 1998, 2000, and 2003. Prepared for PSEG by Allee, King, Rosen, and
Fleming, 7250 Parkway Drive, Suite 210, Hanover, MD 21076. June 18, 2004.
Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG). 2005. Phase 2 Report Custom Requirement G.5
Multi-sensory Hybrid Intake Protection Technology Feasibility Study Section 316(b) Special
Condition. Prepared by Alden Research Laboratory and Skalski Statistical Services.
Puckett, K. J. and J. J. Anderson. 1988. Behavioral Reponses of Juvenile Salmonids to Strobe
and Mercury Lights. Prepared for Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation. Report number
FRI-UW-8717.
Puget Sound Energy. 2002. Initial Consultation Document: Baker River Project, FERC No.
2150 2-6. March 2002.
Radle, E. W. 1999. Personal communication between E. W. Radle, New York Department of
Environmental Conservation and G. N. Garnett, Alden Research Laboratory, Inc. November 2,
1999.
Radle, E. 2001. Technical memorandum: experiments with exposure of American shad eggs and
larvae to the Gunderboom Marine Exclusion System. July 25:2001. New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation Gunderboom File.
Rainey, S. 1985. West Coast Fish Passage Technology Trends.
Reider, R. H., D. D. Johnson, P. B. Latvaitis, J. A. Gulvas, and E. R. Guilfoos. 1997. Operation
and Maintenance of the Ludington Pumped Storage Project Barrier Net. In: Fish Passage
Workshop, Milwaukee, WI, May 6–8, 1997. Sponsored by Alden Research Laboratory, Conte
Anadromous Fish Research Laboratory, Electric Power Research Institute, and Wisconsin
Electric Power Company.
Ringger, T. G. 2000. Investigations of Impingement of Aquatic Organisms at the Calvert Cliffs
Nuclear Power Plant, 1975–1995. Environmental Science and Policy 3.
Richards, N. S., S. R. Chipps, M. L. Brown. 2007. Stress response and avoidance behavior of
fishes as influenced by high-frequency strobe lights. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 27: 1310-1315.
18-23
RMC Environmental Services, Inc (RMC). and Sonalysts, Inc. 1993. Effect of Ensonification
on Juvenile American Shad Movement and Behavior at Vernon Hydroelectric Station, 1992.
Roarabaugh, D. B., J. L. Gill, and G. R. Finni. 1979. An evaluation of cylindrical wedge-wire
screens at cooling water intakes in Lake Michigan: Final report. Prepared for Consumers Power
Company.
Rodgers, D. W. 1983. Methods of Attracting Fish to a Hidrostal Pump. Ontario Hydro Research
Division.83–142-K.
Ronafalvy, J. P., R. R. Cheesman, and W. M. Matejek. 2000. Circulating Water Traveling Screen
Modification to Improve Impinged Fish Survival and Debris Handling at Salem Generating
Station. Environmental Science and Policy 3: S377-S382.
Ross, Q. E. 1999. Studies to Determine the Feasibility of Using High Frequency Sound in
Conjunction with Bypasses Located outside of the Sound Field to Provide Protection for Young-
of-the-Year and Adult Blueback Herring at the Crescent and Vischer Ferry Hydroelectric
Projects. Prepared for New York Power Authority.
Ross, Q. E., D. J. Dunning, R. Thorne, J. K. Menezes, G. W. Tiller, and J. K. Watson. 1993.
Response of Alewives to High-Frequency Sound at a Power Intake on Lake Ontario. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 13: 291–303.
Ross, Q.E., D.J. Dunning, J.K. Menezes, M.J. Kenna Jr., and G. Tiller. 1996. Reducing
Impingement of Alewives with High Frequency Sound at a Power Plant on Lake Ontario. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 16: 548–559.
Sager, D. R., C. H. Hocutt, and J. R. Jr. Stauffer. 2000. Avoidance Behavior of Morone
americana, Leiostomus xanthurus and Brevoortia tyrannus to Strobe Light as a Method of
Impingement Mitigation. Environmental Science and Policy 3.
San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority (SLDMWA) and C. H. Hanson. 1996. Georgiana
Slough Acoustic Barrier Applied Research Project: Results of 1994 Phase II Field Tests.
Department of Water Resources and Bureau of Reclamation.
Sand, O., P.S. Enger, H.E. Karlson, and F.R. Knudsen; T. Kvernstuen. 2000. Avoidance
Responses to Infrasound in Downstream Migrating European Silver Eels, Anguilla anguilla.
Environmental Biology of Fishes. 57: 327-336. 2000.
Sand, O., P.S. Enger, H.E. Karlson, and F.R. Knudsen. 2001. Detection of infrasound in fish
and behavioral responses to intense infrasound in juvenile salmonids and European silver eels: a
minireview. Pages 183–193 in C.C. Coutant, editor. Behavioral technologies for fish guidance.
American Fisheries Society, Symposium 26, Bethesda, MD.
Saunders, W. P. and J. M. Mudre. 1988. An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Fish Bypass
Modifications of the Log and Ice Sluiceway at Bellows Falls Station. Prepared by International
Science and Technology, Inc., for New England Power Service Company. December 1, 1988.
Savino, J. F., D. J. Jude, and M. J. Kostich. 2001. Use of electrical barrier to deter movement of
round goby. American Fisheries Society Symposium 26: 171-182.
Schilt, C. and G. Ploskey. 1997. Ultrasound deterrence: blueback herring at a pumped storage
facility in Georgia. In: Using Sound to Modify Fish Behavior at Power-Production and Water-
18-24
Control Facilities: A Workshop, 1997. Sponsored by U.S. Department of Energy and
Bonneville Power Administration, DOE/BP-62611-11.
Schimmoller, B. K. 2005. Power-Gen International Preview: The Worm Has Turned. Power
Engineering. October 2005. p. 62-66.
Schuler, V. J. 1973. Experimental Studies in Guiding Marine Fishes of Southern California with
Screens and Louvers. Prepared for Southern California Edison by Ichthyological Associates,
Inc.
Schuler, V. J. and L. E. Larson. 1975. Improved fish Protection at Intake Systems. Journal of
the Environmental Engineering Division: Proceedings of the American Society of Civil
Engineers 101 (EE6): 897–910.
Scruton, D.A., R.S. McKinley, N. Kouwen, W. Eddy, and R.K. Booth. 2003. Improvement and
optimization of fish guidance efficiency (FGE) at a behavioral fish protection system for
downstream migrating Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts. River Research and Applications.
19:605–617.
Simmons, M.A, C. A McKinstry, C.S. Simmons, R. LeCaire, R.L. Johnson, S.M. Angela, S.L.
Thorsten, S. Francis. Strobe light deterrent efficiency test and fish behavior determination at
Grand Coulee Dam third power plant forebay. Prepared for the Bonneville Power Association
U.S. Department of Energy. PNNL-13777.
Smith, K. A. 1961. Air-Curtain Fishing for Maine Sardines. Commercial Fisheries Review.
23:3, 1-14.
Smith, E. J. and J. K. Anderson. 1984. Attempts to Alleviate Fish Losses from Allegheny
Reservoir, Pennsylvania and New York, Using Acoustics. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management. 4: 300–307.
Smith, H. 1997. Operating History of the Puntledge River Eicher Screen Facility. In: Fish
Passage Workshop, Milwaukee, WI, May 6-8, 1997. Sponsored by Alden Research Laboratory,
Conte Anadromous Fish Research Laboratory, Electric Power Research Institute, and Wisconsin
Electric Power Company.
Sonny, D., F.R. Knudsen, P.S. Enger, T. Kvernstuen, and O. Sand. 2006. Reactions of Cyprinids
To Infrasound in a Lake at the Cooling Water Inlet of a Nuclear Power Plant. Journal of Fish
Biology 2006 (69): 735-748.
Sparks, R. E., T. L. Barkley, S. M. Creque, J. M. Dettmers and K. M. Stainbrook. 2010.
Evaluation of an electric fish dispersal barrier in the Chicago and Ship Canal. American
Fisheries Society Symposium 74: 139-161.
Springfield City, Water, Light and Power Company (SCWLP). 2004. Net Gains. SCWLP
website: http://www.cwlp.com accessed December 2004.
Stauffer, J. R. Jr., C. H. Hocutt, and D. R. Sager. 1983. Light as a Possible BAT for Reducing
Impingement of Estuarine Fishes at Water Intake Structures of Electric Generating Facilities.
Stewart, P.A.M. 1982. An Investigation into the Reactions of Fish to Electrified Barriers and
Bubble Currents. Fisheries Research 1: 3-22.
18-25
Stira, R. J. and D. A. Robinson. 1997. Effectiveness of a Louver Bypass System for
Downstream Passage of Atlantic Salmon Smolts and Juvenile Clupeids in the Holyoke Canal,
Connecticut River, Holyoke, Massachusetts. In: Fish Passage Workshop, Milwaukee, WI, May
6-8, 1997. Sponsored by Alden Research Laboratory, Conte Anadromous Fish Research
Laboratory, Electric Power Research Institute, and Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
Stober, Q. J., Tyler, R. W., Petrosky, C. E. 1983. Barrier Net to Reduce Entrainment Losses of
Adult Kokanee from Banks Lake, Washington. American Fisheries Society, North American
Journal of Fisheries Management, 1983, Volume 3, Number 4.
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC). 1976. Studies to Alleviate Fish
Entrapment at Power Plant Cooling Water Intakes, Final Report. Prepared for Niagara Mohawk
Power Corporation and Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation.
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC). 1977. Studies to Alleviate Potential Fish
Entrapment Problems –Final Report, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Power Station — Unit 2 .
Prepared for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (May 1977).
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC). 1979. Alternative Intake Designs for
Reducing Fish Losses, Mystic Station, Unit 7. Prepared for Boston Edison Company, 1979.
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC). 1980. Studies to Develop an Intake Design
for Reducing Entrainment Losses Unit No. 4 Big Bend Station. Prepared for Tampa Electric
Company.
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC). 1981. Final Report Biological Evaluation
of a Modified Traveling Screen Mystic Station — Unit No. 7. Prepared for Boston Edison
Company.
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC). 1996. Evaluation of the modular inclined
screen (MIS) at the Green Island Hydroelectric Project: 1996 results. Prepared for Niagara
Mohawk Power Corporation and New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.
Stone & Webster Environmental Services (SWES). 1991. Evaluation of a Barrier Net for
Preventing Turbine Passage at the Pine Hydroelectric Project. Prepared for Wisconsin Electric
Power Company.
Stone & Webster Environmental Technology & Services (SWETS). 1994. 1993 Evaluation of
Behavioral Fish Protection Technologies at the York Haven Hydroelectric Project. Prepared for
Metropolitan Edison Company.
Swanson, C., P. S. Young, and J. J. Cech Jr. 1998. Swimming performance, behavior, and
physiology of delta fishes in complex flows near a fish screen: biological studies using the fish
treadmill. Interagency Ecological Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary Newsletter
11:38–42.
Swink, W. D. 1999. Effectiveness of an Electrical Barrier in Blocking a Sea Lamprey Spawning
Migration on the Jordan River, Michigan. North American Journal of Fisheries Management
19:397–405
Taft, E. P. and Y. G. Mussalli. 1978. Angled Screens and Louvers for Diverting Fish at Power
Plants. Journal of the Hydraulics Division, May 1978. 13731: HY5.
18-26
Taft, E. P., T. J. Horst, and J. K. Downing. 1981a. Biological Evaluation of a Fine-Mesh
Traveling Screen for Protecting Organisms. In: Workshop on Advanced Intake Technology, San
Diego, California, April 22–24, 1981.
Taft, E. P., R. H. Berger, J. Larsen, J. G. Holsapple, and L. Eberley. 1981b. Laboratory
Evaluation of Larval Fish Impingement and Diversion Systems. In: Proceedings of the
Workshop of Advanced Intake Technology, San Diego, California, April 22–24, 1981.
Taft, E.P. and J.S. Isakson. 1983. Study of fish protection methods related to a potential
Alaskan hydropower development. Presented at the34th AAAS Conference, Whitehorse,
Yukon, Canada, Sept. 28–31, 1983.
Taft, E.P., Y. G. Mussalli, F. ASCE, J. K. Downing, and J. O’Neil. 1986. Use of a Modified
Traveling Screen for Improving Fish Survival. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 112.3: 239-
242.
Taft, E. P., F. C. Winchell, A. W. Plizga, E. M. Paolini, and C. W. Sullivan. 1995. Proceedings
of the International Conference of Hydropower (Waterpower '95). American Society of Civil
Engineers, J.J. Cassidy, (ed.), pp. 1742-1751.
Taft, E. P., T. C. Cook, N. A. Brown, J. P. Ronafalvy, and M. W. Haberland. 1996.
Developments in the Use of Infrasound for Protecting Fish at Water Intakes. In: North American
Water and Environmental Congress, Anaheim, CA, June 22–28, 1996.
Taft, E. P. and N. Brown. 1997. Sonic Fish Deterrence: EPRI/Alden Laboratory's Experience.
In: Using sound to modify fish behavior at power-production and water-control facilities: a
workshop (phase II), Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, December 12–13, 1995.
Sponsored by Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Empire
State Electric Energy Research Corporation.
Taft, E.P. 2000. Fish protection technologies: a status report. Environmental Science & Policy.
3: S349-359.
Taft, E.P., D.Dixon, and C. Sullivan. 2001. Electric Power Research Institute’s (EPRI)
Research on Behavioral Technologies. Pages 115–124 in C. Coutant, editor. Behavioral
technologies for fish guidance. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 26, Bethesda, MD.
Taft, E.P., F.C. Winchell, S.V. Amaral, T.C. Cook, A.W. Plizga, E.M. Paolini, and C.W.
Sullivan. 1997. Field Evaluations of the New Modular Inclined Fish Diversion Screen. Pages
665 – 671 in: Waterpower '97, Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower,
Atlanta,Georgia, August 5–8, 1997.
Tatham, T. R., D. L. Thomas, and G. J. Miller. 1978. Survival of Fishes and Macroinvertebrates
Impinged at Oyster Creek Generating Station. In: Fourth National Workshop on Entrainment
and Impingement, Chicago, IL, December 5, 1977. Sponsored by Ecological Analysts, Inc.
Taylor, R.M., M. A. Pegg, and J.H. Chick. 2005. Response of bighead carp to a bioacoustic
behavioural fish guidance system. Fisheries Management and Ecology 12: 283-286.
Tenera. 2007. Marin Municipal Water District Desalination Facility Intake Effects. Prepared
by Tenera. Appendix C of Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Marin.
18-27
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 1980. Evaluation of Two Concepts for Protection of Fish
Larvae at Cooling Water Intakes. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report.
No. EPA-600/7-80-094, May 1980.
Texas Instruments Incorporated (TI). 1978. Initial and Extended Survival of Fish Collected
from a Fine Mesh Continuously Operating Traveling Screen at the Indian Point Generating
Station. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
Thomas, D. L. and G. J. Miller. 1976. Impingement Studies at the Oyster Creek Generating
Station, Forked River, New Jersey, from September to December 1975. Pages 317-341 in Jensen,
L. D., editor. Proceedings of the Third National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement,
New York, NY, February 24, 1976.
Thompson, T. 2000. Intake Modifications to Reduce Entrainment and Impingement at Carolina
Power and Light Company’s Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Southport, North Carolina.
Environmental Science and Policy 3: S417-S424.
Thompson, A.M., J. Glasgow, T. Buehrens, and E.G. Drucker. 2011. Mortality in juvenile
Salmonids passed through an agricultural Hidrostal pump. Fisheries Management and Ecology
18(4): 333-338.
Tomljanovich, D. A., J. H. Heuer, and C. W. Voigtlander. 1977. Investigations on the
Protection of Fish Larvae at Water Intakes Using Fine-Mesh Screening. Division of Forestry,
Fisheries and Wildlife Development Tennessee Valley Authority. No. B22.
Toner, T. P. 1988. Fish Diversion Studies (1987) for Black River Hydro System. Nova Scotia
Power Corporation. Report No. 88-EP-5.
Truebe J.P. and E.P. Truebe. 1997. Current Inducer and Downstream Bypass System at Upper
Penacook Hydroelectric Plant, July 1997. Prepared by Lakeside Engineering, Inc. Mirror Lake,
New Hampshire, for Essex Hydro Associates, Boston.
Truebe J.P. and E.P. Treube. 1998. 1998 Fish Passage Report For Upper Penacook Falls.
Prepared by Lakeside Engineering, Inc. Mirror Lake, New Hampshire, for Essex Hydro
Associates, Boston.
Turnpenny, A. W. H. 1993. Bubble curtain fish exclusion trials at Heysham 2 Power Station
February 1993. Fawley Aquatic research Laboratories, Ltd. FCR 037/93.
Turnpenny, A. W. H, and C. J. L. Taylor. 2000. A assessment of the effct of the Sizewell power
stations of fish populations. Hydroecology Applications Tome 12 Vol. 1-2, 87-134.
Union Electric Company. 1982. Evaluation of the Sioux Power Plant Fish Return System.
Prepared by Union Electric Company, Environmental Services Department, St. Louis, Missouri.
Vanderwalker, J.G. 1967. Response of Salmonids to Low Frequency Sound. Bureau of
Commercial Fisheries Fish-Passage Research Program, Seattle, Washington.
Veneziale, E. J. 1991. Design of a Wedge Wire Screen Intake System to Replace Traveling
Intake Screens at Eddystone Generating Station. In: Proceedings of American Power
Conference.
18-28
Vogel, D.A., K.R. Marine, and J.G. Smith. 1990. A summary of evaluations of upstream and
downstream anadromous salmonid passage at Red Bluff Diversion Dam on the Sacramento
River, California, USA. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Fishways, Gifu,
Japan, October 8–10, 1990.
Wahl, T.L. 2001. Hydraulic performance of Coanda-effect screens. Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering 127(6):480-488.
Weber, E.D., S.M. Borthwick, and L.A. Helfrich. 2002. Plasma Cortisol Stress Response of
Juvenile Chinook Salmon to Passage Through Archimedes Lifts and a Hidrostal Pump. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management. 22:563–570.
Weisburg, S. B., W. H. Burton, F. Jacobs, and E. A. Ross. 1987. Reductions in Ichthyoplankton
Entrainment with Fine-Mesh, Wedge Wire Screens. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 7: 386–393.
Welton, J. S., W. R. C. Beaumont, and R. T. Clarke. 2002. The Efficacy of Air, Sound and
Acoustic Bubble Screens in Deflecting Atlantic Salmon, Salmo salar L., Smolts in the River
Frome, UK.
Wert, M. A. 1988. Hydraulic Model Evaluation of the Eicher Passive Pressure Screen Fish
Bypass System. In: Proceedings of the Electric Power Research Institute Conference on Fish
Protection at Steam and Hydro Plants, San Francisco, CA., Oct. 28–30, 1987. EPRI CS/EA/AP-
5663-SR.
W.F. Baird & Associates Ltd. 2012. Bailey Generating Station: Porous Dike Cooling Water
Intake Structure Fish Impingement and Entrainment Control Feasibility Study Summary.
Prepared for Northern Indiana Public Services Company (NIPSCO). 101815.202.
White, J. C. and M. C. Brehmer. 1977. Eighteen-Month Evaluation of the Ristroph Traveling
Fish Screens. Virginia Electric and Power Company.
Winchell, F. C., E. P. Taft, S. V. Amaral, L. Everhart, D. Michaud, and C. W. Sullivan. 1997.
Evaluation of Behavioral Devices for Attracting/ Repelling Fishes Commonly Entrained at Mid-
West Hydro Projects. In: Fish Passage Workshop, Milwaukee, WI, May 6-8, 1997. Sponsored
by Alden Research Laboratory, Conte Anadromous Fish Research Laboratory, Electric Power
Research Institute, and Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
Winchell, F., N. Taft, T. Cook and C. Sullivan. 1993. Research Update on the Eicher Screen at
Elwha Dam. Waterpower '93. p. 344-353.
Zeitoun, I. H., J. A. Gulvas, and D. B. Roarabaugh. 1981. Effectiveness of fine mesh cylindrical
wedge-wire screens in reducing entrainment of Lake Michigan ichthyoplankton. Canadian
journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38: 120-125.
Zydlewski, G.B. and J.R. Johnson. 2002. Response of Bull Trout Fry to Four Types of Water
Diversion Screens. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22: 1276-1282.
18-29
Export Control Restrictions The Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
(EPRI, www.epri.com) conducts research and
Access to and use of EPRI Intellectual Property is granted
development relating to the generation, delivery
with the specific understanding and requirement that
and use of electricity for the benefit of the public. An
responsibility for ensuring full compliance with all applicable
independent, nonprofit organization, EPRI brings
U.S. and foreign export laws and regulations is being
together its scientists and engineers as well as
undertaken by you and your company. This includes an
experts from academia and industry to help
obligation to ensure that any individual receiving access
address challenges in electricity, including
hereunder who is not a U.S. citizen or permanent U.S.
reliability, efficiency, affordability, health, safety and
resident is permitted access under applicable U.S. and
the environment. EPRI also provides technology,
foreign export laws and regulations. In the event you are
policy and economic analyses to drive long-range
uncertain whether you or your company may lawfully obtain
research and development planning, and supports
access to this EPRI Intellectual Property, you acknowledge
research in emerging technologies. EPRI's
that it is your obligation to consult with your company’s legal
members represent approximately 90 percent of the
counsel to determine whether this access is lawful.
electricity generated and delivered in the United
Although EPRI may make available on a case-by-case
States, and international participation extends to
basis an informal assessment of the applicable U.S. export
more than 30 countries. EPRI's principal offices and
classification for specific EPRI Intellectual Property, you and
laboratories are located in Palo Alto, Calif.;
your company acknowledge that this assessment is solely
Charlotte, N.C.; Knoxville, Tenn.; and Lenox, Mass.
for informational purposes and not for reliance purposes.
You and your company acknowledge that it is still the Together…Shaping the Future of Electricity
obligation of you and your company to make your own
assessment of the applicable U.S. export classification and
ensure compliance accordingly. You and your company
understand and acknowledge your obligations to make a
prompt report to EPRI and the appropriate authorities
regarding any access to or use of EPRI Intellectual Property
hereunder that may be in violation of applicable U.S. or
foreign export laws or regulations.
© 2013 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights reserved.
Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHER…SHAPING THE
FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY are registered service marks of the Electric
Power Research Institute, Inc.
3002000231

Fish Protection

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fish Protection

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fish Protection

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fish Protection at Cooling Water Intake Structures

A Technical Reference Manual – 2012 Update

EPRI Project Manager

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHER…SHAPING THE FUTURE OF

This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.

Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act

Purpose of Technology Review

Approach and Report Organization

Technology Category Mode of Action System/Technology

Physical Barriers Physically block fish passage Traveling screens

Diversion Systems Divert fish to a return system or safe Angled screens

Behavioral Guidance Alter or take advantage of natural Strobe light

Unmodified Traveling Screens

Modified Traveling Screens

Central 3.2 mm by blueback herring,

133 m3/sec; brackish

Danskammer Point, Hudson Gas blueback herring, Ecological.

Surry Station, James Electric menhaden, silversides, White and

Niagara rainbow smelt, alewife,

Orange and Flow not reported;

alewife, gizzard shad,

golden shiner, fathead

3.2 mm Dual-flow bass, white perch, Consultants, Inc.

striped bass, white

100-N Generating Chinook salmon,

Boston marine with seasonally rainbow smelt, Alosa

bay anchovy, black

gizzard shad, carp,

New England 16.4m3/sec; salt water Atlantic silverside, bay

Somerset (formerly NY State alewife, rainbow smelt, NYSEG et al.

croaker, spot, bay

gulf menhaden, bay

striped bass, winter

Electric & Gas Through-flow Atlantic silverside, red ASA 2011

Case Studies – CWIS Application

Dunkirk Steam Station

Initial Classification Final Classification

Initial 24 Hr Total Total

1987 1990–1991* 1998–1999

Huntley Steam Station

Fish Return Trough Fish Return and Debris Trough

Screen Spray Pressure (psi) Spray Pressure (psi)

1.5 5.0 8.0 10.0 1.5 5.0 8.0 10.0

#5 100% 100% 94% 92% 100% 100% 98% 98%

Fish Return Trough Fish Return and Debris Trough

Rainbow Smelt Rainbow Smelt

Emerald Shiner Juvenile Adult Emerald Shiner Juvenile Adult

Screen 70–100 mm 75–95 mm 130–140 mm 70–100 mm 75–95 mm 130–140 mm

#5 63% 98% 89% 100%

#6 37% 42% 86% 100% 96% 96%

emerald shiner 70–100 104 22 83%

rainbow smelt 75–140 995 95 91%

Initial 24-Hr 24-Hr Total Total

emerald shiner* 5 2 621 98.9% 9 1 611 98.4% 628 97.3%

spottail shiner 2 2 227 98.3% 1 0 226 99.6% 231 97.8%

alewife* 0 2 181 98.9% 139 1 41 22.7% 183 22.4%