rnm

NORTHEAST

UTiliTIES

SERVICE

COMP ANY

Hal yoke

Canal

Downstream

Fis-h Passage

Studi es

Response of

Atlantic Salmon

Smelts to Louvers

in the Holyoke Canal.

Spring 99a

October 1992 

Prepared by

Harza Engineering Company

with

RMC Environmental

Services, Inc.
f '

r ,

r -

l -

f -

, , j

l -

r -

t -

i -

r - Table of Contents

, .

l "

r .

l .
TABLE OF CONTENTS

LI ST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

Background

Description of Study site and Bypass System

Prior Studies

Current Study

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Experimental Design

Smol t Handling Tagging and Release

Radio Telemetry Equipment

Receiver and Antenna Locations

vertical Fyke Nets

Under the Louver Nets

Bypass Collection Facility

Veloci ty Measurements

RESULTS

Louver Array Guidance Eff iciency 

Three-inch louver spacings

Twelve- inch louver spacings

comparison of Guidance Efficiencies

Route Followed by Un-guided Radio-tagged smol ts 

Effectiveness of Bypass Sampler

Mortality of Bypassed Smolts 

Catch of Non-Test Smolts 

Veloci ty Measurements

DISCUSSION

CONCLUSIONS

LITERATURE CITED

APPENDIX A - Bypass Sampler Data

APPENDIX B - Holyoke Canal Flow Data

APPENDIX C - Velocity Measurements

ATTACHMENT 1 - Plan of study and Correspondence

iii
Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

LIST OF TABLES

Results of the spring 1992 Holyoke Canal Atlantic salmon

smolt tests.

Comparison of guidance efficiencies of radio-tagged and

caudal punched Atlantic salmon smol ts.

Chi-square tests for significant differences between

radio-tagged and marked smol recapture rates.

Results of radio-tagged Atlantic salmon smolt releases at

Holyoke Canal during Spring 1992.

Time of detection of radio-tagged Atlantic salmon smolts

released at Holyoke Canal during Spring 1992.

Non-test smol ts collected in the Holyoke Canal bypass

sampler Spring 1992.
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Plan view of Holyoke Canal and louver bypass system.

Figure 2. Schematic illustration of Holyoke Canal gatehouse.

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of fyke nets for sampling the vertical

distribution of Atlantic salmon smol ts in Holyoke Canal

during spring 1992.

Figure 4. Schematic diagram of fyke nets for sampling Atlantic

salmon smolts passing under the louvers in Holyoke Canal

during 1992.

Figure 5. Bypass collection facility.

Figure 6. Location of velocity measurements taken in Holyoke Canal

during 1992.

Figure 7. Cumulative percentage of Atlantic salmon smolt recaptures

over time in Holyoke Canal bypass sampler , Spring 1992.

Figure 8. Length frequency distributions of test and non-test

Atlantic salmon smol ts captured in the bypass sampler at

Holyoke Canal, spring 1992.

Figure 9. Velocity measurements along the length of the louvers in

Holyoke Canal during Atlantic salmon smol t releases

Spring 1992.

iii
r -

, 

r -

! ! .

r -

, 

Main Report

l "

l -

.. 
SUMMARY

The effectiveness of the Holyoke Canal louver array jbypass system

in bypassing Atlantic salmon smol ts from the Holyoke Canal to the

Hadley Falls tailrace was quantified by using a combination of

radiotelemetry and marked fish releases. Seven releases of marked

fish (radio-tagged and caudal punched) were conducted above the

Holyoke Canal gatehouse between May 14 , 1992 and May 23, 1992. six

of these release were included in the data analyses , three with the

louver slats spaced at 3- inches and three with the louver slats

spaced at 12 inches. Each of the releases was nominally comprised

of 490 caudal punched smolts and 10 radio-tagged smolts. Releases

were conducted at canal flows varying from 3700 cfs to 4200 cfs.

series seven radiotelemetry monitoring stations was

established at strategic locations in the Holyoke Canal. One each

was established just below the gatehouse, in the bypass pipe, at

the junction of the First Level canal and Boatlock Station Branch

Cana 1 and front Boatlock station. The three remaining

locations were established along the louver array, one at the upper

end , one in the middle and one at the downstream end.

The overall guidance efficiencies (radio-tagged plus caudal punched

smolts) for the three releases with three inch slat spacings were

89%, 90% and 95%, respectively with a mean of 91. 3%. All of these

Holyoke Canal

1992 Salmon Studies
estimates of guidance efficiency are underestimated because not

all of the smolts that left the release pen migrated through the

canal during our sampling period. When examined separately, the

guidance efficiencies of radio-tagged and caudal punched smolts

were not statistically different. For these three releases , all

fish collected in a vertical array of fyke nets were captured in

the top net, indicating that the smol ts were in the surface 3.

feet of the water column at that location in the canal. No smol 

were collected in the nets fished under the louvers.

For the three releases with the louver slats spaced at 12 inches

the total guidance efficiencies of salmon smol ts was 86% , 63% and

90%, respectively, with a mean of 79. 7%. When examined separately,

the guidance efficiencies of radio-tagged and caudal punched smol 

were not statistically different. During these three releases , one

smolt was captured in the surface most vertical fyke net and 7 were

collected in the three under louver nets. A paired sample t-test

indicated that there was no statistical difference in overall

guidance efficiency between the test conducted with 3- inch slat

spacings and those conducted with 12- inch slat spacings.

A preliminary estimate of mortality of bypassed smol ts caused by

the bypass sampler was approximately 2% . There was little

indication descaling test fish and non-test smolts

captured in the bypass.

Holyoke Canal

1992 Salmon Studies
The bypass collection facility was fished for a total of 89 hours

from May 13 through May 23. A total of 675 non-test smolts were

collected. Of these , 502 had an adipose fin , indicating that they

were stocked as fry.

The results of this study confirm that louvers are an effective

means of diverting Atlantic salmon smolts from the Holyoke Canal to

the Hadley Falls tailrace. Based on the available data it can

also be concluded that louvers with 12-inch slat spacings are as

effective at guiding smolts as louvers with 3-inch slat spacings.

Holyoke Canal

1992 Salmon Studies
INTRODUCTION

Backqround

A joint state and federal effort has been underway for more than 20

years to restore anadromous fishes , specifically Atlantic salmon

Salmo salar Amer ican shad Alosa sapidissima and blueback

herring, Alosa aesti valis , to the Connecticut River (NUSCO 1987).

Holyoke Water Power Company (HWP) began operating a fish lift for

upstream passage of these species at the Holyoke Project in 1955

11 years prior to the commencement of the restoration program

(NUSCO 1987). Most of the effort prior to 1990 had been to provide

upstream passage these species existing dams the

Connecticut River. The number of adult salmon returning to the

Connecticut River has fluctuated greatly since the initiation of

the Atlantic salmon restoration program. Downstream fish passage

facilities are currently being evaluated at numerous existing dams

the Connecticut Ri ver attempt facilitate the

restoration effort.

On February 26 1988 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

(FERC) added Articles 42 through 44 to the Holyoke Project License

(proj ect No. 2004) regarding downstream passage anadromous

fishes. Northeast utilities service Company (NUSCO) , filed a

compliance plan in response to the Articles on May 23 1988.

Holyoke Canal

1992 Salmon Studies
Additionally, NUSCO in 1990 signed a Memorandum of Agreement

(MOA) with the u. s. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Connecticut

River Atlantic Salmon Commission committing to construction of

downstream fish passage facilities for anadromous fishes at its

Connecticut River hydroelectric facilities.

Because of the low numbers of adults returning to the Connecticut

River and because nine out of ten adult salmon that use the fish

elevator the Holyoke proj ect are used for artificial

propagation most the smolts the river originate from

hatcheries. Atlantic salmon are stocked into the Connecticut River

and tributaries as fry and smol ts (U. S. Atlantic Salmon Assessment

Committee 1992) and emigrate at age one or two.

Emigration of Atlantic salmon smolts Salmo salar ) begins during

the spring when water temperature increases to approximately 500 

and is generally associated with elevated river flows (McCleave

1978 , Ruggles 1980). In the vicinity of the project site , these

conditions typically exist in the months of April and May.

Description of study site and Bypass System

The study was conducted at the Holyoke Project , which is located on

the Connecticut River, river mile 86, in the city of Holyoke

Massachusetts (F igure 1) . Emigrating fish that approach the

Holyoke Canal

1992 Salmon Studies
Holyoke Project must follow one of four possible paths to pass

downstream: 1) over the crest of the dam when river flows are high

enough that spilling is occurring; 2) over the Bascule gate , which

is opened during critical emigration periods for fish passage; 

through the Hadley Falls Station; or 4) through the Holyoke Canal

system. The Holyoke Canal system is comprised of a series of three

canals. The First Level Canal is at the same elevation (elevation

100 Holyoke datum) as the Crest of the Holyoke Dam , the Second and

Third Level canals are at El. 80 and El. 67. , respectively. The

flow into the First Level Canal is controlled by a gatehouse

located approximately 200-feet upstream and to the west of Holyoke

Dam. Flow through the gatehouse is regulated by 10 of 12 bottomopening gates (Figure 2). Two gates one at each end of the

gatehouse are kept closed. Typically, the remaining ten gates are

opened to approximately the same height , letting f low evenly into

the canal. Maximum flow through the First Level Canal

approximately 7 000 cfs. To divert fish from the canal system to

the river , a louver array leading to a bypass has been constructed

in the First Level Canal.

The louver array/bypass facility (Figure 1) was designed to pass

emigrating fish from the Holyoke Canal to the tailrace of Hadley

Falls Station a maximum vertical drop of 52 feet. The louver

array consists of a 40-ft section of full-depth louvers with clear

opening between louver slats of 2-3/8 inches and floating louvers

Holyoke Canal

1992 Salmon Studies
(8 feet deep with clear opening between louver slats of 2-5/8

inches) over the remaining length of 402 feet. The bypass facility

consists of three components , an intake structure , a pipeline and

bypass collection facility. The design flow of the bypass

.....

facility is approximately 150 cfs at the normal canal elevation of

_. 

100 (Holyoke datum) .

The intake structure is located on the left bank of the canal,

approximately 950 feet downstream of the canal gatehouse. The

bypass entrance is approximately 8 feet deep and feet wide

--~~'-__7~~

having a nominal entrance velocity o~ 3. 8 ft/sec , approximately 1.

times the velocity in the canal at the maximum canal flow of 7 000

cfs. The throat of the bypass intake is 18 feet long and has

provisions for the insertion of Venturi-like restrictors that

enable the bypass intake velocity to be increased. The transition

. .

to the pipeline is at the downstream end of the bypass intake.

The pipeline is 36 inches in diameter and is 550 feet long. At the

......

intake structure , the pipe makes a combination 300 vertical and

1200 horizontal bend. The pipeline is buried for the first 120

feet above ground for the next 320 feet and is buried for the

remaining 110 feet.

The bypass collection facility is located on the right bank of the

Hadley Falls tailrace, approximately 380 feet downstream of the

Holyoke Canal

1992 Salmon Studies
powerhouse. The structure has provisions for separating the fish

from the bypass flow and di verting them , OOO-gallon

collecting pool. The separation is accomplished using a guide vane

that can be lowered into the flow at the downstream end of the

pipeline. The fish and water are guided to a wedge-wire screen

wi th a porosity of 50%, through which most of the water is shed.

A small portion of the flow with the fish is passed over a weir at

the downstream end of the screen onto a sorting trough or into the

collecting pool. When there is no need to sample the fish , the

diversion vane is lifted and the flow and fish are discharged

directly into the tailrace.

Prior studies

In 1990 , the guidance efficiency of a prototype floating louver

array was evaluated the Holyoke Canal using radio-tagged

hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon smol ts (Ruggles et al. 1992). The

prototype louver array consisted of 86 6-ft wide by 8-ft deep

louver panels arranged side-by-side at a 14 degree angle across the

canal. There was bypass and the floating louver array

terminated approximately 15 feet from t ~ast side of the canal.

"___n_--

Groups of nine or ten radio-tagged smol ts were released above and

below the gatehouse , and monitored as they moved through the First

Level Canal. For three trials when the louver depth was eight

feet , the guidance efficiency varied between 80 percent and 100

Holyoke Canal

1992 Salmon Studies
percent. Given these results , the louver depth was reduced to six

feet and subsequently reduced four feet. The guidance

eff iciencies at these settings var ied from percent to 100

percent. Overall, 87% of the radio-tagged salmon smolts were

guided to the 15-ft wide gap at the end of the floating louver

array.

Current stud

The 1992 study was designed to evaluate the completed louver

array /bypass system releasing relati vely large numbers

hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon smol ts upstream of the gatehouse

and recapturing them in the bypass. There were five objectives to

the 1992 study as listed in the Plan of study submitted to FERC in

September 1991.

Conf irm that acceptable proportion of downstream

migrants are guided and passed

Determine the minimum effective depth of submergence and

maximum slat spacing.

Determine the route travelled by downstream migrants not

successfully guided.

Holyoke Canal

1992 Salmon Studies
Determine the survival of downstream migrants passing

through the bypass.

Develop subsampling methods for enumerating downstream

migrants in the bypass.

The plan of study and agency comments are included in Attachment 

METHODS AND MATERIALS

erimental Desi

The efficiency of the louver array/bypass system was quantif ied by

releasing known numbers of marked smolts (caudal punched or radio

tagged) upstream of the canal gatehouse and counting the number of

these smol ts collected in the bypass sampler. Guidance eff iciency

is then the ratio of the number of smol ts recaptured to the number

of smol ts released. Addi tionally, a series of seven antennas was

located at strategic locations along the First Level cana 1 

detect the radio-tagged smol ts. The smol ts were released upstream

of the Holyoke Canal gatehouse between May 15 1992 and May 23

1992.

Holyoke Canal

1992 Salmon Studies
Smol t Handlinq, Taqqinq and Release

Approx ima te 1 000 one-year-old Atlantic sa lmon smolts were

delivered from the USFWS White River National Salmon Hatchery to

the USFWS' Richard cronin Salmon Station Sunder land

Massachusetts by USFWS personnel. While at the Cronin Station

smolts were kept in a 24-foot diameter 4-foot deep concrete holding

tank supplied with well water (460 F) at a rate of approximately 45

gpm, under the supervision of the Sunderland Office of Fisheries

Assistance. Water depth of the holding tank was maintained at

approximately 8 inches. One to two 50-lb salt blocks were added to

the holding tanks each day.

Each release nominally consisted of 500 fish , 10 being radio-tagged

and 490 caudal punched. For radio tagging, smol ts were crowded and

dip netted from the holding tank , and immersed in an anesthesia

bath of 50 mg/L tricane methanesulfonate. After the smol ts were

anesthetized, a transmitter was inserted through the mouth into

each smol t' s stomach. Each smolt was then measured and fork

lengths were recorded. Smol ts were then placed in a 4 x 4 x 4 foot

wood framed 1/2-inch wire mesh holding pen and held for

approximately hours acclimate the transmi tters.

Typically, 10 fish were fitted with transmitters each day.

The following day, approximately 490 smolts were marked using a

Holyoke Canal

1992 Salmon Studies
modif ied paper hole puncher to make a hole in either the upper or

lower lobe of the caudal fin. The upper and lower lobes were

punched on alternate days. These fish were not anesthetized prior

to being marked. These smol ts and the radio-tagged smol ts from the

previous day, were transported from the Richard Cronin Salmon

station to the Holyoke Canal in an aerated fish transport tank.

For release the smolts were acclimated the river water

temperature at a rate of 30 to 50 F per hour by circulating river

water through the transport tank. The fish were then dip netted

from the transport tank to 30-gallon containers carried to and

poured into a floating holding pen secured to the trashboom located

just upstream of the gatehouse (Figure 1).

The release pen was constructed of wood and 1/2-inch mesh screen

and was 7. 8-ft long on top, 6. 25-ft long on bottom , 3-ft high and

r--

 

The downstream end consisted of a screen door and the

9-ft wide.

.

upstream end contained a 12-inch by 12-inch screened panel in the

middle. The rest the upstream end and both sides were

constructed plywood. baffle system was built into the

upstream portion of the pen to reduce the velocity through the pen.

The releases occurred dur ing the evening. After the smo ts were

held in the release pen for a minimum of one hour , the release pen

door was opened so as not to disturb the fish. The door was left

open for approximately two hours , after which the door was closed

Holyoke Canal

1992 Salmon Studies
again not disturbing the fish. Smol ts that did not leave the pen

during this time period were counted and subtracted from the sample

size.

Radio Telemetrv Equipment

Radio transmitters , manufactured and supplied by Advanced Telemetry

Systems , Inc. , Isanti, Minnesota , propagating signals on 12 unique

frequencies spaced at 10 Khz intervals between 40. 010 Mhz and

4 0 . 15 0 Mh z , were used to radio tag the smol ts. The expected

battery life of the tags is 14 to 21 days. Smi th-Root RF-40 radio

receivers and FDL-15p field data loggers were used to detect the

radio-tagged smol ts .

During the test period, data were stored in the receiver either as

a single event or a period of events. Data stored for each event

were date , arrival time , frequency, tag code , and departure time.

As a precaution against data logger failure , two biologists also

moni tored the recei vers dur ing the study per iod and manually

recorded the date , time , frequency and location of the smol ts as

they moved through the canal.

Holyoke Canal

1992 Salmon Studies
Receiver and Antenna Locations

Seven monitoring stations were established in the Holyoke Canal to

detect the movements of radio-tagged smolts (Figure 1). One each

was established at the entrance of the Holyoke Canal immediately

downstream of the gatehouse , at the junction of the First Level

Canal and Boatlock station Branch Canal, immediately in front of

Boatlock Station and one in the bypass pipe. The remaining

stations monitored three locations along the length of the louver

array.

Monitor station 1 consisted of a tuned loop antenna attached to the

downstream side of the gatehouse structure. This station monitored

radio-tagged smol ts as they entered the canal. Reception range of

the monitoring station was the entire width of the canal and

extended approximately 200 feet downstream of the gatehouse.

Monitor station 2 was installed to detect unguided smolts that did

not follow the branch canal to Boatlock station. Signals were

received through an underwater antenna array suspended along the

railroad bridge across the junction of the First Level Canal and

Boatlock Station Branch Canal. The antenna array consisted of

three stripped coaxial cable antennas , coupled through a splitter

box , suspended vertically in the water column. The reception area

of this receiver encompassed the entire width of the canal in the

Holyoke Canal

1992 Salmon Studies
vicinity of the railroad bridge.

Monitoring station 3 consisted of a receiver coupled to a tuned

loop antenna and was calibrated to detect smolts approaching

Boatlock Station. Smol ts could be detected over the entire width

of the canal from the Boatlock station trashracks to the pipeline

bridge located in the Boatlock station Branch Canal.

Monitor station 4 was designed to detect smolts that entered the

bypass pipe. signals were detected through a stripped coaxial

cable antenna suspended 70 feet down the bypass pipe and did not

detect signals outside of the pipe.

Monitor station 5 detected smolt movements along the upstream end

of the louver array. The antenna system included a series of three

stripped coaxial cable antennas located 406 364 and 322 feet

upstream of the bypass respectively, and coupled through a splitter

box. This antenna system monitored approximately 140 feet of the

louver array. Fish could be detected approximately 10 feet in

front of and behind the louver array.

Monitor station 6 detected smolts in the middle of the louver

array. The antenna system was the same as described under Monitor

station 5 and had antennas located 280, 238 and 196 feet upstream

of the bypass.

Holyoke Canal

1992 Salmon Studies
Moni tor station 7 detected smol ts at the downstream end of the

floating louver array. station 7 had stripped coaxial antennas

located 106 and 64 feet upstream of the bypass and a third antenna

on the canal wall 58 feet upstream of the bypass. The antennas

were coupled through a splitter box.

All shielded and unshielded sections the str ipped coaxial

underwater antennas were cut to the nearest 1/2 A (wavelength) and

1/8 A, respectively, to match the impedance of the antennas to the

receivers. This essentially tuned the antennas to provide better

signal reception.

Prior to release of smolts , receivers were calibrated through RF

gain. The RF gain setting for each receiver was established by

placing an activated tag at the maximum desired detection range and

adjusting the gain down to limit reception to this range.

Data from the monitor station receivers were retrieved at the

conclusion of each study period using a lap-top computer and stored

on diskettes. Data were then consolidated with manual observations

into a PC database. The manual observations were the primary

source data for the analyses because has been NUSCO'

experience that the automatic recorders are not suff iciently

reliable.

Holyoke Canal

1992 Salmon Studies
vertical Fyke Nets

The vertical distribution of the marked Atlantic salmon smol ts

approaching the louver array was determined using a vertical array

of four fyke nets (Figure 3) . Each of the four nets was identical

having a mouth 5. 4 feet wide and 3. 5 feet deep and a length of 15

feet with a 6-ft long detachable codend. The nets were constructed

of a 1. inch stretch mesh outerliner and a o. 5- inch stretch mesh

innerliner covering the entire length of the net. Each net was

attached to a steel frame. The nets were fished from a prefabricated tower located approximately 100 feet downstream

upstream end of the louvers and 50 feet from the right bank of the

canal. The nets were set by lowering them down guide slots on the

sides of the tower. As each net was lowered , the next frame was

attached to the previous net frame to ensure that the nets were in

the same position each time they were fished. An 18- inch spacer

was placed between the second and third nets to prevent any net

from fishing at a depth that encompassed an area both above and

below the louvers. Net 1, the top net, fished from the surface to

a depth of 3. 5 feet; net 2 fished depths from 3. 5 feet to 7 feet;

Net 3 fished depths from 8. 5 feet to 12 feet; and net 4 the

bottom most net , fished depths from 12 feet to 15. 5 feet (Figure

3) . wi th this arrangement , two nets sampled the portion of the

water column intercepted by the louvers and two nets sampled the

portion of the water column not intercepted by the louvers. The

Holyoke Canal

1992 Salmon Studies
nets were raised and lowered using a 12-volt DC-powered winch.

Approximately five minutes were required to raise and lower the

nets.

All fish collected the vertical distribution nets were

identified and enumerated , all smolts were measured. The sample

duration for these nets varied among the nights fished , however

each night the nets were put into fishing position before the

smolts were released and the nets were retrieved at approximately

the same time the bypass sampling was discontinued.

Under the Louver Nets

To determine if the marked smolts were passing underneath the

floating louvers , a series of three nets were fished underneath the

uvers (Figure 4). Each of the three nets were identical and

consisted of a 40-ft long net body with a 10-ft wide by 12-ft deep

mouth, and a 16-ft long detachable codend. These nets fished the

water column from a depth of 8 feet (just under the bottom of the

louvers) to 20 feet (essentially the bottom of the canal). The

body of the net was constructed of 1. 5-inch stretch mesh outerliner

and the codend was constructed 5-inch stretch mesh

outerliner and an o. 5-inch stretch mesh innerliner. A 40-ft long

by 12-ft deep lead , constructed of 3/4-inch stretch mesh with a

float line and lead line was attached to the net mouth. At the

Holyoke Canal

1992 Salmon Studies
upstream end of the lead and on each side of the net mouth , 6- inch

diameter rings were attached at 12- inch intervals. The nets were

fished by attaching these rings to 12-inch diameter hoops that slid

up and down 10- inch diameter columns anchored to the bottom of the

canal. The locations of the columns were such that the upstream

end of the lead was located directly underneath the louvers , the

downstream end of the lead was 10 feet behind the louvers , and the

other side of the net mouth was directly underneath the louvers.

The nets were raised and lowered by attaching the upstream end of

the lead and the two sides of the net mouth to the hoops and

lowering the bottom ring wi th series of ropes and pulleys

attached to the columns. To sample the nets the cod ends were

lifted to a boat , detached and taken to the shore where all fish

were identified and enumerated and all smolts were measured. The

sample duration for these nets varied among the nights fished

however , each night the nets were put into fishing position prior

to releasing the smolts and retrieved at approximately the same

time as the bypass sampling was discontinued.

Bvpass Collection Facili 

Fish that were guided by the louvers into the bypass during the

sampling periods were diverted over the wedgewire sampling screen

into the fish trough , through a 12- inch diameter pipe and into a

Holyoke Canal

1992 Salmon Studies
8 x 4 x 4-ft holding pen (Figure 5). Sampling was generally

conducted from approximately 1500 hours to 2400 hours (Appendix A) .

At the end of each sampling period, the old pen was removed and a

second pen was put into position. All fish collected were

identified , counted and released back into the Hadley Falls station

tailrace.

The effectiveness of the collection facility was determined by

releasing a known number of marked smol ts , into the bypass intake

and determining the number fish recaptured the bypass

collection pen.

Mortality of bypassed smolts (test fish) was determined by holding

the first 100 test smolts collected in the bypass holding pool for

approximately 24 hours after they were collected. One hundred

control fish, which experienced the same handling as bypassed fish

were also held for 24 hours. The handling procedure for the

control fish the same for the caudal punched fish

described above. Mortality attributable to the bypass facility was

the difference between test fish mortali ty and control fish

mortality.

Holyoke Canal

1992 Salmon Studies
Veloci ty Measurements

To determine the velocity profile along the louver array into the

bypass , a series of measurements were made along the louvers using

a Marsh Mcbirney mode 1 201 current meter. The measurements were

taken at a depth of approximately three feet directly in front of

the louvers and in the bypass intake (Figure 6). The ventur i -1 ike

constrictor was installed on east side of the intake during the

entire testing period.

RESULTS

Louver Array Guidance Efficiency

Seven releases of marked smolts were made between May 14 , 1992 and

May 23 , 1992. However , the release made on May 21 , 1992 was not

included in the data analyses because of the high mortality that

occurred during the acclimation process. On this date , more than

percent ( 143 fish) the 500 test fish died dur ing the

acclimation process. In addition , 101 of the surviving smelts did

not exit the release pen. This was the first very hot day (air

temperature greater than 900 and subsequent hot days

precautions (i. e. constant observation and aeration) were taken to

eliminate acclimation mortality.

Holyoke Canal

1992 Salmon Studies
Of the six releases that were used in the analyses , the first three

were conducted with louver slats spaced 3- inches on center and the

last three releases were made with the louver slats spaced 12-

inches on center (Table 1). All six of the releases were made at

canal flows of between 3 700 cfs and 4 200 cfs. A tabulation of

the flows available in the canal for April and May are presented in

Appendix B.

Three-inch louver spacings: For the three releases with the louver

slats spaced at three inches , the total guidance efficiency (radiotagged plus caudal punched smolts) was 89% , 90% and 95%

respecti vely (Table 1). The overall guidance efficiency, the

three releases pooled was 91.3%. All of these estimates of

guidance efficiencies are underestimated because not all of the

smolts that left the release pen migrated through the canal during

our sampling period. Of the smolts recaptured , 90% passed through

the canal in less than three hours (Figure 7). This was evidenced

by the recapture of low numbers (less than 10) of those f ish the

next day of sampling. These fish were not added to the recaptures

for the previous release , thus the estimate was conservative.

The guidance efficiencies for radio-tagged fish and caudal punched

fish were similar (Table 2). There was no statistical difference

in guidance efficiency between the two groups (P ~ 0. 05) (Table 3).

Of the 30 radio-tagged fish released at three inch louver spacings

Holyoke Canal

1992 Salmon Studies
90% (27) were detected in the canal or collected in the bypass.

The guidance efficiencies the radio-tagged Atlantic salmon

smolts varied from 62% to 100%, with a mean of 84% (Table 4).

These estimates include the smol ts that were classified as unknown

to make them directly comparable to the estimates derived for the

caudal punched fish. It is likely that the smol ts that were

classif ied as unknown did not enter the canal, therefore , these

estimates of guidance efficiency are also conservative.

Table 5 lists the monitoring stations that detected each of the

indi vidual radio-tagged smol ts. These data indicate that the

smolts approached the louver array from various points in the

canal. A few smolts followed along the entire length of the louver

array, however, most smol ts approached the louver array at the

downstream end or the bypass itself.

The three under louver nets did not catch any smolts during these

releases. However, a total of 13 smol ts were captured in the

vertical array of fyke nets (Table 1). All of these smolts were

captured in the upper most net. No wild smolts were collected in

any of the nets during the entire study period.

Twelve-inch louver spacings: For the three releases with the

louvers spaced at 12 - inches the total guidance eff iciency of

Atlantic salmon smolts (radio-tagged plus caudal punched smolts)

Holyoke Canal

1992 Salmon Studies
was 86%, 63% and 90%, respectively (Table 1). The overall guidance

efficiency, the three releases pooled , was 79. 7%. As explained

above , all of these guidance efficiencies are underestimated.

Guidance efficiencies for radio-tagged and caudal punched smolts

were similar (Table 2) . There was no statistical difference in the

guidance efficiencies between the two groups (P ~ 0. 05) (Table 3) .

Of the 28 radio-tagged smolts released, 79% (22) were detected in

the canal or collected in the bypass. The guidance efficiencies of

the radio-tagged smolts varied from 44% to 90%, wi th a mean of

70. (Table 4) . These eff iciencies include those smol ts

categorized as unknown. It is likely that the radio-tagged fish

that were classif ied unknown did not enter the canal and

therefore these guidance efficiencies are also conservative.

Table 5 lists the monitoring stations that detected each of the

individual radio-tagged smol ts. These data also indicate that the

smolts approached the louver array from various points in the canal

as stated above.

The three under louver nets captured a total of seven marked smol 

during these three releases , with 4 , 1 and 2 being captured in the

upstream, middle and downstream nets , respectively (Table 1). One

smolt was captured in the upper most vertically sampling fyke net.

Holyoke Canal

1992 Salmon Studies
Comparison of Guidance Efficiencies

The mean guidance efficiency when louver slats were spaced at 

inches was 91. 7% and was 79. 7% when the louver slats were spaced at

12 inches. A paired sample t-test using an arcsine transformation

indicated that these guidance efficiencies were not statistically

different (P ~ 0. 05).

Route Followed by Un-quided Radio-tagged smol 

Of the 58 radio-tagged smol ts that were released only two were

detected downstream of the louver array (Table 4). Both of these

f ish were detected at Boatlock station.

Effectiveness of Bypass Sampler

The effectiveness of the bypass sampler in collecting bypassed fish

was estimated on May 24 , May 25 and May 27. On each occasion , 100%

of the fish released at the upstream entrance of the bypass pipe

were recovered in the sampler.

Holyoke Canal

1992 Salmon Studies
Mortality of Bypassed Smolts

The first 100 test fish collected in the bypass sampler on May 

were held for 24 hours after capture to estimate mortality of

bypassed fish. One hundred control fish were also held during this

period. Zero control fish and two test fish died during the 

hour per iod yielding mortality rate 2% . High air

temperatures made it diff icul t to transport more than the 500 test

fish from the hatchery and the mortality test was not repeated.

However , on May 23 the first 100 test fish collected were held for

24 hours and only 5 of those died.

Catch of Non-Test Smol 

The bypass collection facility was fished for a total of 89 hours

over a nine day period from May 13 , 1992 to May 23 , 1992 (Table 6).

The non-test smolts that were collected were categorized as adipose

fin present (stocked as fry) and adipose fin clipped (stocked as

smol ts) A total of 502 smol ts with the adipose present and 173

smolts with a clipped adipose fin were collected for a total of 675

wild smolts. The largest catch occurred on May 21 when 278 smolts

were collected followed by May 23 and May 22 when 165 and 

smol ts were collected , respectively.

Holyoke Canal

1992 Salmon Studies
Figure 8 depicts the length frequency distributions of non-test and

test smolts captured in the bypass sampler during the study period.

The length frequency distributions of non-test smolts with no

adipose fins (i. e. stocked as smolts) were almost identical to the

test smolts. The non-test smol ts with adipose fin were

statistically (T-test , P ~ 0. 05) smaller (mean of 170 mm) than the

test smol ts (mean of 216 mm).

Because of various personnel requirements , the bypass collection

facility was not fished for exactly the same time periods each day.

However, some data relevant to time of migration were collected.

Most of the smol ts were collected between 4: 00 PM and 8: 00 PM

(Appendix A) Additionally, most of the smolts were captured when

water temperature exceeded 640 F.

Veloci ty Measurements

Velocity measurements were made six times during the study period

(Appendix C). There was a general increase in velocity from the

upstream to the downstream end of the louver array (Figure 9).

There was a lot of variability among the velocities at the same

locations on various days , although the canal flow only fluctuated

slightly. There is no noticeable difference the velocity

patterns between the 3-inch spaced louvers and the 12- inch spaced

louvers. In both cases there was a slight decrease in velocity

Holyoke Canal

1992 Salmon Studies
about 3/4 the distance down the louvers. The decrease was slightly

more evident when the louver slat spacing was at 3 inches.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study confirm that louvers are an effective

means of diverting Atlantic salmon smolts from the Holyoke Canal to

the Hadley Falls tailrace. The guidance eff iciency of the louvers

was not statistically different between tests that were conducted

wi th louver slats spaced 3 inches or louver slats spaced 12 inches.

However, the means of the trials were different , with the 3-inch

louver spacings having a higher mean guidance eff iciency. The

mean guidance efficiency of the louvers with 12- inch slat spacings

was 79. 7 % . Tests by Ducharme (1972) also indicated that 12- inch

louver slat spacings did not affect the ability of louvers to guide

Atlantic salmon smol ts. In order to rigorously test what is the

maximum slat spacing , more releases at test conf igurations with

greater than 12- inch slat spacings need to be conducted. Due to the

lack of test fish and inappropriate water temperatures , it was not

possible to conduct additional studies at larger slat spacings

during 1992. The study plan also indicated that tests would be

conducted with the louvers at depths shallower than 8-ft. These

test were also not conducted for the reasons mentioned above.

Holyoke Canal

1992 Salmon Studies
Guidance efficiency for radio-tagged smolts was the same as for

caudal-punched smolts. This fact is noteworthy from the standpoint

of radiotelemetry studies. In most radiotelemetry studies , it is

not possible to determine if radiotagging affects the behavior of

the fish , because there is nothing to compare them to. The results

from this study indicate that the behavior of hatchery reared

Atlantic salmon smolts not affected the radiotagg ing

procedure used for these and other radiotelemetry studies by NUSCO.

The preliminary estimate of mortality of Atlantic salmon smol 

(2 % to 5%) associated with the bypass facility is lower than that

estimated for juvenile clupeids (approximately 5%) (Harza and RMC

1992) . These data indicate that mortality associated with passing

through a pipe and over a wedgewire screen inflicts very little

damage and mortality, whether the test fish are salmon smolts or

juvenile clupeids. The non-test smol ts that were captured in the

bypass were also in good shape with little descaling or other

external injuries.

Prior to the completion of the bypass system , it was not possible

estimate the number non-test smol ts migrating down the

Connecticut River and into the Holyoke Canal. Now that the bypass

system is functional , it will be possible to estimate the number of

smolts migrating through the canal as well as the temporal aspects

of the migration.

Holyoke Canal

1992 Salmon Studies
During 1992 , the mean daily non-test smol t passage was 75 with a

standard deviation of 89. These summary statistics can be used

to estimate the number of samples required to attain any desired

sampling variance (or any desired standard deviation standard

error the mean conf idence interval about the passage

estimate) through the use of the following formula:

n=- (1+-

where n = total number of samples (days) to be collected

number samples collected dur ing prel iminary study,

l =

calculated variance of the n1 samples

prespecif ied variance.

and V = the des ired 

Sampling for five days per week for a period of five weeks (25

sampling days total, each of which will consist of 8 to 12 one-hour

periods , will provide a variance estimate of 400 and a standard

deviation of I 20%. Addi tional sampl ing effort on a larger number

of days will not appreciably improve the accuracy of the smol t

passage efforts. For example , 35 sampling days would be required

to improve the standard deviation of the passage estimate to I 15%.

Holyoke Canal

1992 Salmon Studies
5 )

6 )

CONCLUSIONS

1 ) The mean guidance efficiency was 91. 3% when the louver

slats were spaced at 3-inches and exceeded 79. 7% when

louver slats were spaced at 12- inches.

2 ) Guidance efficiency was not statistically different 

(p 

05) between tests with 3- inch louver slat spacings and

12-inch louver slat spacings.

3 ) There was statistical difference 05)

guidance efficiency between radio-tagged and caudalpunched hatchery reared Atlantic salmon smol ts.

4 ) Smolts approaching the louver array at the point of the

vertical sampling nets , were in the upper portion (top

5 feet) of the water column.

Preliminary estimates of mortality associated with the

bypass facility is 2% to 5%.

wild smol ts were successfully bypassed from the Holyoke

Canal to the Hadley Falls tailrace.

Holyoke Canal

1992 Salmon Studies
LITERATURE CITED

Ducharme , L. J. A. 1972. An application of louver deflectors for

guiding Atlantic salmon Salmo salar smol ts from power

turbines. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 29(20) :1397-1404.

Har z a and RMC 1992. Holyoke Canal downstream f ish passage

studies: Response of juvenile clupeids to louvers in the

Holyoke Canal Fall 1991. Report to Northeast utilities

service Company.

McCleave, J. 1978. Rhythmic aspects of estuarine migration of

hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon Salmo salar ) smol ts. J. Fish

Biology, 12 (6) : 559-570.

Northeast utili ties service Company. 1987. Downstream fish

passage status report. Holyoke Water Power Company. Hadley

Falls Project , FERC Project No. 2004.

Ruggles C. 1980. A review of the downstream migration of

Atlantic salmon. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. No. 952.

Holyoke Canal

1992 Salmon Studies
Ruggles , c. P. , D. A. Robinson, and R. J. Stira. In Press. The

use of floating louvers for guiding Atlantic salmon smol 

from hydroelectric turbine intakes. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish.

Aquat. Sci.

u. S. Atlantic Salmon Assessment Committee. 1992. Annual report of

the U. S. Atlantic Salmon Assessment Committee: Report No. 4 -

1991 Activities. Report to U. S. section to NASCO.

Holyoke Canal

1992 Salmon Studies
,

r '

. 

r '

i -

. 

i -

, 

r -

! 

l - Tables

i -

l .

l .
Table 1 . Results of the Spring 1992 Holyoke Canal Atlantic salmon smolt tests.

Bypass UL 1 ** UL2 UL3 T1 *** in pen bypassed

14-May 499 20:05 00:05 14. 3 inch 419 89%1 5-May 500 19:10 00:10 17. 3 inch 386 90%

1 6-May 500 18:41 01 :41 16. 3 inch 470 95%

20-May 498 20:15 02:15 16. 1 foot 427 86%

22-May 509 20:00 02:45 18. 1 foot 304 63%

23-May 500 19:05 01:05 19. 1 foot 428 90%

Number Release End Water Louver Recaptures Remained Percent

* Number released includes radio-tagged fish.** UL 1 = downstream under louver net.*** T1 = surface tower net.
Table 2. Comparison of guidance efficiencies of radio-tagged and caudal punched

Atlantic salmon smolts.

Date

ay15-May16-May20-May22-May23-MayRADIO-TAGGED

Released Recovered % Recovered

10 10 10~k 10 9 900 10 900/0

4 440

780/0

CAUDAL PUNCHED

Released Re vered % Recovered 415 

419 376 900

487 461 950/0

484 418 86O

475 300 630

465 421 91 o
Table 3. Chi-square tests for significant differences between radiotagged and marked smolt

recapture rates.

Date: May 14 Chi-square = 3.764 Not Significant 10 :::- P :::- 0.

Recovered Missed Total

Telemetry

Marked 415 461

Total 420 469

Date: May Chi-square = 0. 286, Not Significant 50 :::- P 

::: 

Recovered Missed Total

Telemetry

Marked 376 419

Total 386 429

Date: May 16 Chi-square = 004 Not Significant, P = 

Recovered Missed Total

Telemetry

Marked 461 487

Total 470 497

Date: May 14- 16 samples pooled Chi-square = 3.477 Not Significant 0.25 :::- P 

::: 

Recovered Missed Total

Telemetry

Marked 1252 115 1367

Total 1276 115 1367
Table 3. Continued.

Date: May 20 Chi-square = 0.018, Not Significant, 0. 90 ;:. P ;:. 0.

Recovered Missed Total

Telemetry

Marked 418 484

Total 427 494

Date: May 22 Chi-square = 0.644, Not Significant , 0.50 ;:. P ;:. 0.

Recovered Missed Total

Telemetry

Marked 300 175 475

Total 304 180 484

Date: May 23 Chi-square = 0.507, Not Significant, 0.50 ;:. P ;:. 0.25

Recovered Missed Total

Telemetry

Marked 421 465

Total 428 474

Date: May 20-23 samples pooled Chi-square = 0.395, Not Significant, 0. 90 ;:. P ;:. 0.

Recovered Missed Total

Telemetry

Marked 1139 285 1424

Total 1159 293 1452
Table 3. Concluded.

All six samples pooled Chi-square = 3. 526, Not Significant 75 ~ P ~ 0.

Recovered Missed Total

Telemetry

Marked 2391 400 2791

Total 2435 412 2847
Table 4. Results of radio-tagged Atlantic salmon smolt releases at Holyoke Canal during Spring 1992.

Number of

Number non-transmitting Remained Boatlock First Level Percent

Date of fish tags in pen Bypassed Station Canal*** Unknown bypassed

14-May 62%

15-May 100%16-May 90%

20-May 90%22-May 44%

23-May 4** 7** 77%

* Two non-transmitting tags removed from fish at bypass sampler.** Three non-transmitting tags removed from fish at bypass sampler.*** Downstream of Boatlock Station Branch.
Table 5. Time and location of detection of radio-tagged Atlantic salmon smolts released

at Holyoke Canal during Spring 1992.

May 14

Frequency Headgate

21 :Ob:UU

030 20:14:00 20:17:30 20:18:00 20:19:00 20:19:40

040 20:15:00 20:21 :30 20:21:45

050

070

080

110

120 20:29:00 20:36:00 20:36:30

130 20:29:00 21 :05:00

140 20:29:00 20:32:45 20:33:10 20:40:30

May 15

Frequency

omo

030

050

070

080

090

110

120

140

150

Headgate

20:30:00

19:19:00

20:32:00

19:48:00

20:14:00

19:26:00

19:54:00

19:21 :00

19:20:00

20:33:00

19:19:00

19:17:00

19:50:00

20:15:00

19:27:00

19:54:00

19:22:00

19:21 :00

20:34:00

19:20:00

19:18:00

19:51 :00

May 16

19:31 :00

19:37:00 19:57:35 19:58:30

18:52:00

18:47:00 19:21:45 19:22:05

19:19:00

19:02:00 19:31:40

18:55:00

18:46:00 18:54:00 18:54:00

. Non-transmitting tag recovered in bypass sampler.

.. Non-transmitting tag, not recovered.

... 

Downstream of Boatlock Station Branch.

19:38:40

19:59:40

19:39:00

20:00:00

19:23:02

19:31 :30

19:42:53

19:23:40

19:32:00

19:43:00

19:41:00

20:55:00

18:56:50

19:59:40

18:55:10
Table 5. Continued.

May 20

Frequency Headgate

030 20:29:00 20:35:35 20:36:10

040' 22:15:00

050 20:18:00 20:28:00 00:10:00

070 20:18:00 20:27:30 20:29:30

090 20:18:00 20:29:00 20:29:40 21 :00:00 21:01:15

120 20:22:00 20:29:30 20:29:40

130 20:55:00 21 :01 :01 21 :02:10 21 :17:00

140 20:54:00 21 :05:00 21 :05:30

150 20:31 :00 20:55:40 20:56:05

May 22

Antenna Location

upstream Middle Downstream First level t10atloCK Remalnea

Frequency Headgate louver louver louver Canal Station Bypass in pen

010

030

050 20:21 :00 20:58:30 20:59:00

080"

090 20:05:00 20:30:00 20:30:20

120

130

140 20:06:00 20:25:00 20:25:20

150 20:28:30 20:34:20 20:37:10

May 23

Frequency Headgate

030 19:08:45 19:12:45

040'

050'

070 19:24:30 19:28:00 19:29:10

090

O. 110

120 20:02:00 20:08:10

150"

19:13:20

22:05:00

21 :05:00

19:30:30

22:05:00

20:08:50

* Non-transmitting tag recovered in bypass sampler.

** Non-transmitting tag, not recovered.
Table 6. Non-test smolts collected in the Holyoke Canal bypass sampler, Spring 1992.

Water Adipose Adipose Begin End Hours Number

Date temp(C) clipped present Total sampling sampling fished(1) per hour

14-May 14. 16:30 00:05

15-May 16. 16:00 00:10

16-May 16. 15:00 01:41 10.

19-May 16. 15:00 23:00

20-May 16. 14:45 02:15 10.

21-May 18. 246 278 15:30 02:10 11. 24.

22-May 18. 13:00 02:45 14.

23-May 19. 125 165 13:15 01:05 12. 13.

TOT AL 173 502 675

(1) Estimated to the nearest 1/2 hour.
r ., . ! , ! .

r -

r -

! 

l --

, 

l - Figures

l -

i -
CONNECTICUT RIVER

.f.I..2!.-

RELEASE SITE

FLOW

T ~ILR~CE CANAL

BYPASS OUTLET STRUCTURE(FISH SA~PLING)

MONITORSTATION 1

OHCRETE WALL

MONITOR STATION 5

MONITOR STATION 6

MONITOR STATION 7

MONITOR STATION 2

FIGURE 1. PLAN VIEW OF HOLYOKE CANAL

AND LOUVER BYPASS SYSTEM r----..
EI. 11 5

EI. 11 0EI. 1 05EI. 1 00EI. 95EI. 90EI.EI. 80

EI. 75

610ft.

550 ft.

- Gatehouse

Range of gate openings

dian gate opening

during test

980 ft.

Upstream extent

of louvers

98.25 ft.94.75 ft.

89.75 ft.

86.25 ft.

Vertical distribution nets

Downstream extent

of louvers

Bottom of louver EI. 92 ft.

Figure 2. Schematic illustration of Holyoke Canal Gatehouse.
Detachable Codend

2 ft. X 2 ft. mouth w/tyke

1/2 in. stretch mesh

8 ft. long

Net Body

1/2 

;

g

meSh '

..

1 Metal Frame 

Mouth

5 ft. 4-1/2 in. wide

3ft. 6 in. deep

18 Inch space

..... 1.75 ft.

Plan of Holyoke Canal

Flow

...

..... 5.25 ft.

..... 10.25 ft.

Fish Bypass

Entrance

Vertical Distribution

Nets

..... 13.75 ft.

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of fyke nets for sampling the vertical

distribution of Atlantic salmon smolts in Holyoke Canal during 1992.

..... 20 ft.

Sideview of net arrangement
Net Body

1/2 in. stretch mesh

40 ft. long

Detachable Cod end

2 ft. X 2 ft. mouth w/fyke

3/4 in. stretch mesh

16 ft. long

Styrofoam floats

Wing (left side only)

3/4 in. stretch mesh

40 ft. long

1 Mouth 

10ft. wide X 12 ft. deep 

Plan of Holyoke Canal

Under Louver Nets

Flow

Figure 4. Schematic diagram of tyke nets for sampling Atlantic salmon smolts passing under the louvers in

Holyoke Canal during 1992.

Louver Panel

Fish Bypass Entrance
. .

0 ' 0 , - '

0 .

. - 0 . -

. :. :::;,::.: , ::: :. 

- 0 . . :tr 

. :: . ...

- 0

. , . ,

0 '

.

WEDGEWIRE SCREEN

F ISH TROUGH

FISH SAMPLING FACILITY

. , . . . :::

, o

. :, . . . :::;: :: :. 

o ..

I:-

.

12" 0 PIPE

, 

COLLECTING

POOL 

: ,

. 0 , TO TAILRACE

, . .

t:...

xS' HOLDING PEN

:: . , , :.,

;~~Lp~~

:, ,::

FIGURE 5

BYPASS COLLECTION FACILITY
~E-\.S ~40'l. f'f1

G \.OU\l"-~ \,P'

f\..O~~\~

~ O~~?

(25 FT)

HOLYOKE CANAL

START

LOUVERS

BYPASS

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

.0. ... .

....,.....

3 4 FULL

DEPTH

LOUVERS

(40 FT)

* DIAGRAM NOT TO SCALE

BY- PASS FULL DEPTH FLOATING LOUVERS END

LOUVERS BLOCK

LOCATION

DISTANCE

FROM 109 127 163 199 235 295 355 433 465

BY-PASS

INTAKE

(FEET)

Figure 6. Location of velocity measurements taken in Holyoke Canal during 1992.
May 23

CJ)

1.....

::J

...... ;:::

C. 

...... 7

C. ::J

::J

Number of hours after release

Figure 7. Cummulative percentage of Atlantic salmon smolts recaptured over time

in Holyoke Canal bypass sampler, Spring 1992.
Naturally emigrating Atlantic salmon smolts that had no adipose fins

J!J

c: 7 nnC1I

c:(

::J

Mean fork length= 217 mm

Standard deviation= 16.4 

149

. .

. 

17 

Upper limit of fork length interval(mm)

Test Atlantic salmon smolts that had lower caudal fin punches 

....

J!J

c: 7 nnli!C1I

c:(

::J

Mean fork length: 217 mm

Standard deviation= 13.

N= 436

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 I 17 24 2

Upper limit of fork length interval(mm)

Naturally emigrating Atlantic salmon smolts that had adipose fins

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mean fork length= 170 mm

Standard deviation= 15.

319

J!J 8 -----

c: 7

....

li!

C1I

c:( 4 _uun--n--_--

::J

. 

.

70 1 

Upper limit of fork length interval(mm)

Test Atlantic salmon smolts that had upper caudal fin punches

....J!J

~ 7 _m1jjffi

::;:

::J

Mean fork length= 216 mm

Standard deviation = 12.

N= 534

.

.

. 

21 23 2

Upper limit of fork length interval(mm)

Figure 8. Length frequency distributions of test and non-test Atlantic salmon smolts captured in the

bypass sampler at Holyoke Canal, Spring 1992.
inch louver spacing

12 inch louver spacing 

Bypass Floating louvers

Location of measurement on louver array

Figure 9. Velocity measurements along the length of the louvers in Holyoke Canal during

Atlantic salmon smolt releases, Spring 1992.
. r-

.. 

", r""

.

, 

. 

. 

, 

On - ." ,

.. . 

,

, .. 

, 

, 

(J) 1:1

(J) 1:1

):F;; D. JJ -.
BYPASS SAMPLER DATA

Date: May 13, 1992

Sample start time: 1535Sample stop time: 2245

Louver efficiency test smolt mark: none

Test Smolts " Wild Smolts Water Flow (efts)

Collection period Upper Caudal Lower Caudal Adipose Adipose Hour Bascule Hadley Canal Total

Begin End Punch Punch Clippped Present Ending Discharge Station System Discharge

1535 1645 1600 300 5900 5500 18500

1645 1745 1700 300 6100 5500 180001745 1845 1800 300 6100 5500 175001845 1945 1900 300 6100 5500 17500

1945 2045 2000 300 6400 5500 17500

2045 2145 2100 300 6100 5500 175002145 2245 2200 300 5900 5500 17500

TOTAL 2300 300 6100 5500 17500
BYPASS SAMPLER DATA

Date: May 14, 1992

Start sample time: 1630Stop sample time: 0005

Louver efficiency test smolt mark: Upper caudal punch

Test Smolts " Wild Smolts Water Flow (cf/s)

Collection period Upper Caudal Lower Caudal Adipose Adipose Hour Bascule Hadley Canal Total

Begin End Punch Punch Clippped Present Ending Discharge Station System Discharge

1630 19151915 2000 2000 300 7300 3700 13700

2000 2105 359 2100 300 7000 3700 137002105 2205 2200 300 7000 3700 137002205 2305 2300 300 7000 3700 127002305 0005 2400 300 6700 3700 12700

TOTAL 419

Release time:

Water temp (C):

louver spacing:

Placed in pen:Remained in pen:Recaptured UL 1 (2):Recaptured UL2:Recaptured UL3:Recaptured T1 (3):Recaptured T2:

Recaptured T3:Recaptured T 4:

Available for bypass recapture:

Recaptured at bypass:

Guidance efficiency (%):

Duration of test (hours):

20053 inches49925(1 )

469419 (1) Released above headgates May 15 1992.

(2) Downstream under-louver net.(3) Surface tower net.
BVPASSSAMPLER DATA

Date: May 15, 1992

Start sample time: 1600Stop sample time: 2410

Louver efficiency test smolt mark: Lower caudal punch

Test Smolts " Wild Smolts Water Flow (cf/s)

Collection period Upper Caudal Lower Caudal Adipose Adipose Hour Bascule Hadley Canal Total

Begin End Punch Punch Clippped Present Ending Discharge Station System Discharge

1600 1910 1900 7300 3700 152001910 2010 219 2000 7600 3700 15200

2010 2110 140 2100 7000 3700 15200

2110 2210 2200 7000 3700 15200

2210 2310 2300 7000 3700 15200

2310 2410 2400 7300 3700 15200

TOTAL 386

Release time:

Water temp (C):

louver spacing:

Placed in pen:Remained in pen:

Recaptured UL 1 (2):Recaptured UL2:

Recaptured UL3:Recaptured T1 (3):

Recaptured T2:Recaptured T3:

Recaptured T 4:

Available for bypass recapture:

Recaptured at bypass:

Guidance efficiency (%):

Duration ottest (hours):

1910

3 inches

50064(1 )

429

386 (1) Released in tailrace May 16, 1992.

(2) Downstream under-louver net.

(3) Surface tower net.
BVP ASS SAMPLER DATA

Date: May 16, 1992

Start sample time: 1500

Stop sample time: 0141

Louver efficiency test smolt mark: Upper caudal punch

Test Smolts " Wild Smolts Water Flow (cf/s)

Collection period Upper Caudal Lower Caudal Adipose Adipose Hour Bascule Hadley Canal Total

Begin End Punch Punch Clippped Present Ending Discharge Station System Discharge

1500 1841 1900 300 7000 3700 152001841 1941 293 2000 300 7000 3700 152001941 2041 114 2100 300 7000 3700 16200

2041 2141 2200 300 7000 3700 16200

2141 2241 2300 300 7000 3700 16700

2241 2341 2400 300 7000 3700 167002341 0041 0100 300 7000 3700 172000041 0141 0100 300 7000 3700 17200

TOTAL 470

Release time:

Water temp:

Louver spacing:Placed in pen:Remained in pen:Recaptured UL 1 (2):Recaptured Ul2:Recaptured UL3:Recaptured T1 (3):Recaptured T2:Recaptured T3:Recaptured T4:

Available for bypass recapture:

Recaptured at bypass:

Guidance efficiency (%):

Duration of test (hours):

1841

3 inches

5002(1 )497470 (1) Released above headgates May 17 1992.

(2) Downstream under-louver net.

(3) Surface tower net.
BVP ASS SAMPLER DATA

Date: May 19, 1992

Start sample time: 1500Stop sample time: 2300

Louver efficiency test smolt mane None

Test Smolts " Wild Smolts Water Flow (cf/s)

Collection period Upper Caudal Lower Caudal Adipose Adipose Hour Bascule Hadley Canal Total

Begin End Punch Punch Clippped Present Ending Discharge Station System Discharge

1500 1600 1600 300 8300 4000 132001600 1700 1700 300 8300 4000 132001700 1800 1800 300 8300 4000 132001800 1900 1900 300 8300 4000 128001900 2000 2000 300 8300 4000 12800

2000 2100 2100 300 8200 4000 130002100 2200 2200 300 7900 4000 130002200 2300 2300 300 8500 4000 13200

TOTAL
BVP ASS SAMPLER DATA

Date: May 20, 1992

Start sample time: 1445Stop sample time: 0215

Louver efficiency test smolt mark: Lower caudal punch

Test Smolts " Wild Smolts Water Flow (cf/s)

Collection period Upper Caudal Lower Caudal Adipose Adipose Hour Bascule Hadley Canal Total

Begin End Punch Punch Clippped Present Ending Discharge Station System Discharge

1445 1555 1600 200 7000 3800 122001555 1650 1700 800 6700 3800 122001650 1750 1800 800 7000 3800 12200

1750 1850 1900 800 7000 3800 122001850 1950 2000 800 7000 3800 12200

2015 2115 276 2100 800 6700 3700 12200

2115 2215 100 2200 800 6700 3700 12200

2215 2315 2300 800 7300 3700 12200

2315 0015 2400 800 6700 3700 12200

0015 0115 0100 800 7000 3700 12200

0115 0215 0200 800 7300 3700 12200

TOTAL

Release time:

Water temp:

Louver spacing:

Placed in pen:Remained in pen:Recaptured UL 1 (2):

Recaptured UL2:

Recaptured UL3:Recaptured T1 (3):

Recaptured T2:Recaptured T3:Recaptured T4:

Available for bypass recapture:

Recaptured at bypass:

Guidance efficiency (%):

Duration of test (hours):

427

23015

12 inches

4984(1)

494

427 (1) Released in tailrace May 21 , 1991.

(2) Downstream under-louver net.

(3) Surface tower net.
BYPASS SAMPLER DATA

Date: May 21 , 1991

Start sample time: 1530Stop sample time: 0210

Louver efficiency test smolt mark: Upper caudal punch

Test Smolts " Wild Smolts Water Flow (cf/s) Collection period Upper Caudal Lower Caudal Adipose Adipose Hour Bascule Hadley Canal Total

Begin End Punch Punch Clippped Present Ending Discharge Station System Discharge 1530 1640 1700 800 7900 3500 12900

1640 1730 1800 800 7600 3500 11100

1730 1830 1900 800 2000 3500 7900

1830 1930 105 2000 800 3900 3500 95001930 2030 2100 300 4700 3500 9300

2030 2110 2200 300 5900 3500 11000

2110 2210 2300 300 6100 3500 11000

2210 2310 2400 300 6400 3500 11000

2310 0010 0100 300 6100 3500 11000

0010 0110 0200 300 6100 3500 11000

0110 0210 0300 300 6400 3500 11000

TOTAL 166

Release time:

Water temp:

Louver spacing:

Placed in pen:Remained in pen:

Recaptured UL 1 (2):Recaptured UL2:Recaptured UL3:

Recaptured T1 (3):Recaptured T2:

Recaptured T3:

Recaptured T 4:

Available for bypass recapture:

Recaptured at bypass:

Guidance efficiency (%):

Duration of test (hours):

246

2110

18.

12 inches

357

101(1)

256

166

65 

(1) Released in tailrace May 22, 1992.

(2) Downstream under-louver net.

(3) Surface tower net.
BY? ASS SAMPLER DATA

Date: May 22, 1992

Start sample time: 1300Stop sample time: 0245

Louver efficiency test smolt mark: Lower caudal punch

Test Smolts " Wild Smolts Water Flow (cf/s)

Collection period Upper Caudal Lower Caudal Adipose Adipose Hour Bascule Hadley Canal Total

Begin End Punch Punch Clippped Present Ending Discharge Station System Discharge

1300 1600 1600 300 5200 3300 11300

1600 1700 1700 300 5200 3300 8300

1700 1800 1800 300 2300 3300 66001800 1900 1900 300 2100 3800 74001900 2000 2000 300 2300 3800 8300

2000 2100 158 2100 300 4700 3800 101002100 2200 100 2200 300 6400 3800 11900

2200 2300 2300 300 6100 3800 11600

2300 0000 2400 300 6100 3800 11600

0000 0100 0100 300 6100 3800 11600

0100 0200 0200 300 6100 3800 116000200 0245 0300 300 7000 3800 12200

TOTAL

Release time:

Water temp(C):

Louver spacing:Placed in pen:

Remained in pen:

Recaptured UL 1 (2):

Recaptured UL2:Recaptured UL3:Recaptured T1 (3):Recaptured T2:

Recaptured T3:Recaptured T4:

Available for bypass recapture:

Recaptured at bypass:

Guidance efficiency (%):

Duration of test (hours):

304

2000

18.

12 inches

50925(1 )

484

304 (1) Released in tailrace May 23, 1992.

(2) Downstream under-louver net.

(3) Surface tower net.
BYPASS SAMPLER DATA

Date: May 23, 1992

Start sample time: 1315Stop sample time: 0105

Louver efficiency test smolt mark: Upper caudal punch

Test Smolts " Wild Smolts Water Flow (cf/s)

Collection period Upper Caudal Lower Caudal Adipose Adipose Hour Bascule Hadley Canal Total

Begin End Punch Punch Clippped Present Ending Discharge Station System Discharge

1350 1500 1500 300 5900 4000 95001500 1600 1600 300 3900 4000 7400

1600 1700 1700 300 2300 4200 75001700 1800 1800 300 2300 4200 75001800 1900 1900 300 2300 4200 7700

1900 2005 162 2000 300 2300 4200 7700

2005 2105 141 2100 300 2300 4200 7600

2105 2205 2200 300 2300 4200 76002205 2305 2300 300 3300 4200 89002305 0005 2400 300 3600 4200 89000005 0105 0100 300 3000 4200 8200

TOTAL 428

Release time:

Water temp(C):

Louver spacing:

Placed in pen:Remained in pen:Recaptured UL 1 (2):

Recaptured UL2:Recaptured UL3:Recaptured T1 (3):Recaptured T2:

Recaptured T3:Recaptured T4:

Available for bypass recapture:

Recaptured at bypass:

Guidance efficiency (%):

Duration of test (hours):

125

190519.

12 inches

50025(1 )

474428 (1) Released in tailrace May 24, 1992.

(2) Downstream under-louver net.

(3) Surface tower net.
. 

, 

...

---.. no

..

. 

, 

.. 

))

:I:

~t1~t1

;I! ~

:E -.-t 
HOLYOKE HYDRO SYSTEM

WATER FLOW THROUGH CANAL SYSTEM (CFS)

APRIL 12, 1992 - APRIL 30, 1992

HOUR

ENDING

0100 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 2000 51000200 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 51000300 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 51000400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5100

0500 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 1300 51000600 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 1300 5100

0700 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 1300 5100

0800 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 1300 51000900 5400 5400 5400 5400 3000 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 2000 1300 5100

1000 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 2000 1300 51001100 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 2000 1300 5100

1200 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 2000 1300 5600

1300 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 2000 1300 56001400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 2000 1300 56001500 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 2000 1300 56001600 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 2000 1300 56001700 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 2000 3300 56001800 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 2000 3300 56001900 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 2000 5100 5600

2000 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 2000 5100 56002100 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 4900 5400 5400 5400 5400 2000 5100 5600

2200 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 4900 5400 5400 5400 5400 2000 5100 56002300 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 2000 5100 56002400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 2000 5100 5600
HOLYOKE HYDRO SYSTEM

WATER FLOW THROUGH CANAL SYSTEM (CFS)

MAY 1 , 1992 - MAY 16, 1992

HOUR

ENDING

0100 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 2300 5500 5500 5500 3700 3700

0200 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 2300 5500 5500 5500 3700 3700

0300 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 2300 5500 5500 5500 3700 37000400 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 2300 5500 5500 5500 3700 3700

0500 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 2300 5000 5500 4700 3700 37000600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 2300 5000 5500 4700 3700 37000700 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5000 2800 5000 5500 4700 3700 3700

0800 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 4500 5400 5500 5500 3700 3700 37000900 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 2800 5400 5500 5500 3000 3700 3700

1000 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 2800 5500 5500 5500 3000 3700 15001100 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 2800 5500 5500 5500 5200 2000

1200 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 2800 5500 5500 5500 52001300 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 2300 5500 5500 5500 20001400 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 2300 5500 5500 5500 20001500 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 2300 5500 5500 5500 20001600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 2300 5500 5500 5500 2000 3500

1700 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 2300 5500 5500 5500 3700 3700 35001800 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 2300 5500 5500 5500 3700 3700 3700

1900 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 2300 5500 5500 5500 3700 3700 3700

2000 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 2300 5500 5500 5500 3700 3700 37002100 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 2300 5500 5500 5500 3700 3700 37002200 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 2300 5500 5500 5500 3700 3700 3700

2300 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 2300 5500 5500 5500 3700 3700 3700

2400 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 5600 2300 5500 5500 5500 3700 3700 3700
HOLYOKE HYDRO SYSTEM

WATER FLOW THROUGH CANAL SYSTEM (CFS)

MAY 17, 1992 - MAY 31, 1992

HOUR

ENDING

0100 3700 2000 5600 3500 3700 3500 3800 4200 200

0200 3700 2000 5600 3500 3700 3500 3800 4200 2000300 3700 3300 5600 3500 3700 3500 3800 2800 200

0400 3700 3300 5600 3500 3700 3500 3800 1800 2000500 3700 3300 5600 3500 3700 3500 3800 1800 2000600 3700 3300 5100 3500 3700 3500 3800 1800 200

0700 3700 3600 5100 3500 3700 3500 3800 1800 2000800 3700 3600 5100 3500 3700 3500 3800 18000900 3700 3600 5100 3500 3700 3500 1800 200

1000 3600 5100 1200 5400 3500 2001100 3600 2000 800 3300 200 2001200 3600 2000 800 3300 200 200

1300 3600 2000 3500 200 200

1400 3600 2000 3500 200 2001500 5600 2000 3800 3500 3300 4000 2001600 5600 4000 3800 3500 3300 4000 200

1700 5600 4000 3800 3500 3300 4200 1001800 5600 4000 3800 3500 3300 4200 2001900 5600 4000 3800 3500 3800 4200 200

2000 5600 4000 3800 3500 3800 4200 200

2100 5600 4000 3700 3500 3800 42000 200

2200 5600 4000 3700 3500 3800 4200 2002300 5600 4000 3700 3500 3800 4200 200

2400 2000 5600 4000 3700 3500 3800 4200 200
. 

on 

,.. ... . . , 

... 

, _ 

. ...

... 

_._

.., 

, ~ .0.. 

. 

.. 

: 

))

c::::~-a

):It 

::J

JJ 11.

m -.

c;j 
HOLYOKE CANAL END

BLOCK

~fJ,o?- 

\,: 

\..ou

o~~\~G

E.~ 

& f1 

(25 FT)

...

START

l"OUVERS

BYPASS

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

"0" '0"

, .................................................

1 2 3 4 FULL

DEPTH

LOUVERS

(40 FT)

* DIAGRAM NOT TO SCALE

BY-PASS FULL DEPTH FLOATING LOUVERS END LOUVERS

BLOCK LOCATION

DISTANCE

FROM 109 127 163 199 235 295 355 433 465 BY-PASS

INTAKE

(FEET)
Velocity measurements along the length of the louvers in Holyoke

Canal, Spring 1992.

Date 5/14/92

Canal flow: 4000 cfs.

Location Description

Bypass

Bypass

Bypass

Bypass

Full depth louvers

Full depth louvers

Full depth louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Velocity (ft/sec)

2.4
Velocity measurements along the length of the louvers in Holyoke

Canal, Spring 1992.

Date 5/15/92

Canal flow: 3700 cfs.

Location Description

Bypass

Bypass

Bypass

Bypass

Full depth louvers

Full depth louvers

Full depth louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Velocity (ft/sec)

3.4

1.8

0.4
Velocity measurements along the length of the louvers in Holyoke

Canal, Spring 1992.

Date 5/16/92

Canal flow: 3700 cfs.

Location Description

Bypass

Bypass

Bypass

Bypass

Full depth louvers

Full depth louvers

Full depth louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Velocity (ft/sec)
Velocity measurements along the length of the louvers in Holyoke

Canal, Spring 1992.

Date 5/20/92

Canal flow: 3800 cfs.

Location Description

Bypass

Bypass

Bypass

Bypass

Full depth louvers

Full depth louvers

Full depth louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Velocity (ft/sec)

0.4
Velocity measurements along the length of the louvers in Holyoke

Canal, Spring 1992.

Date 5/21/92

Canal flow: 3500 cfs.

Location Description

Bypass

Bypass

Bypass

Bypass

Full depth louvers

Full depth louvers

Full depth louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Velocity (ft/sec)

2.4

2.4

1.9

1.6
Velocity measurements along the length of the louvers in Holyoke

Canal, Spring 1992.

Date 5/22/92

Canal flow: 3800 cfs.

Location Description

Bypass

Bypass

Bypass

Bypass

Full depth louvers

Full depth louvers

Full depth louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Velocity (ft/sec)

7.4

1.4
Velocity measurements along the length of the louvers in Holyoke

Canal, Spring 1992.

Date 5/23/92

Canal flow: 4200 cfs.

Location Description

Bypass

Bypass

Bypass

Bypass

Full depth louvers

Full depth louvers

Full depth louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Floating louvers

Velocity (ft/sec)

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4
r '( 

f '

.

i .

r -

( 

r -

f -

, .

Attachment 

PLAN OF STUDY,

AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE

AND NUSCO RESPONSES

. r 

l -

r -

. i 

r -

i .

, . , 
Attachment 1

Contents

Letter from NUSCO to Resource Agencies dated July 26 , 1991

transmi tting the Plan of Study.

Plan of study attached to July 26 transmittal letter.

Letter from NUSCO to FERC dated September 4, 1991 transmitting Plan

of Study and agency comments.

Plan of Study attached to September 4 transmittal letter.

Comments on Plan of Study from:

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife , dated August

, 1991.

U. S. Fish and wildlife Service, dated September 25 , 1991.

Response to Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and wildlife.

Comments on Draft Report from:

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and wildlife , dated August

31, 1992.

Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission , dated October 1,

1992.

New Hampshire Fish and Game Department , dated October 6 , 1992.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service , dated October 6 , 1992.

Response to Agency Comments of Draft Report.
NORTHEAST UTILITIES General Offices. Selden Street. Berlin. Connecticut

rnm

"* CQNN(CTICuT ,1(;00' ANI) oewt" 

...5'- UAS$ACHUS(TTS "ECTOrC~""

"""OK! ...U" oewt" CoY."'"

-'HE OS' ....,,11'. 5 SERIhCi 

....

NOII""AS1 ....cu;... ENE"" COWO"'"

O. BOX 270

HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06141-0270

(203) 665-5000

July 26, 1991

FERC Project No. 2004--Massachusetts

Holyoke

004800

Mr. Gordon E. Beckett, Supervisor

New Engl and Area

S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Ecological Services

400 Ralph Pill Marketplace

22 Bridge Street

Concord, NH 03301- 4901

Mr. Wayne MacCa 11 urn

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife

100 Cambridge Street, Floor 19

Boston, MA 02202

Mr. David F. Egan, Chairman

Connect i cut Ri ver At 1 anti c Salmon Commi ss i on

c/o U:S. Fi sh and Wi 1 d1 i fe Servi ce

One Migratory Way

Turners Falls, MA 01376

References: Order Approving and Modifying Functional Design Drawings and

Implementation Schedule (C04154) issued June 5, 1991.

Dear Messrs. Beckett, MacCallum

, and Egan:

Holyoke Project

Request for Comments

1992 Study Plan: Holyoke Canal Salmon Smo1ts

Northeast Utilities Service Company 

(NUSCO), on behalf. of Holyoke Water Power

Company, submits the enc1osed 1992 Study Plan: Holyoke Canal Salmon Smo1ts,

for your revi ew in accordance with the Federal Energy Regu1 atory Commi ssion

order approving the implementation schedule for downstream fish passage

facilities (reference). Please submit written comments to NUSCO within

30 days.

...

The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of new

downstream fish passage facilities in the Holyoke 

Canal relative to passage of

salmon smo1ts. This study will be performed using the floating 

louvers and

the new bypass facility.
Mr. Gordon E. Beckett

Mr. Wayne MacCa 11 um

Mr. David F. Egan

D04800/Page 2

July 26, 1991

Should you have any questions, please call Mr. Richard W. Thomas, NUSCO

Generat i on and Envi ronmenta 1 l i censi ng, at (203) 665-3719.

Very truly yours,

NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY

As Agent for Holyoke Water Power

Company

Vice President

?:e

Enclosure: 1992 Study Plan: Holyoke Canal Salmon Smolts

cc: Mr. Peter Minta, Chairman

Technical Committee for Fisheries Management

Marine Division, Fisheries

O. Box 248

Waterford, CT 06385

Mr. Theodore F. Meyers

Connect i cut Ri ver Coordi nator

S. Fish and Wildlife Service

One Mi gratory Way

O. Box 71

Turners Fall s, MA 01376

...

Mr. Donald Pugh

Massachusetts Cooperative Fisheries Unit

University of Massachusetts

Amherst, MA 01003

Mr. Daniel Kimball.

(FFA) U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

One Gateway Center

Newton Corner, MA 02158

Mr. Angelo Incerpi -

Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department

10 South, 2nd Floor

103 South Main Street

- Waterbury, VT 05676

6i.:.

;c.
Hr. Gordon E. Beckett

Hr. Wayne MacCa 11 urn

Mr. David F. Egan

D04800/Page 3

July 26, 1991

Hr. Ben Rizzo

S. Fish and Wildlife Service

One Gateway Center

Newton Corner, MA 02158

Hr. Charles Thoits

New Hampshi re Fi sh and Game Department

2 Hazen Dri ve

Concord, NH 03301

Hr. R. G. Seamens, Jr.

National Marine Fisheries Service

One Bl ackburn Dri ve

Gloucester, MA 01930- 3097

Mark S. Tisa, Ph.

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife

Field Headquarters

Westboro, MA 01581

Mr. John O' Leary

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife

Field Headquarters

Westboro, MA 01581

..t

Mr. Lawrence Bando 1 i n

S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Sunderland Office of Fisheries Assistance

51 East Pl umtree Road

Sunderl and, MA 01375

Mr. Kenneth Cox

Oi stri ct Fi sheri es Manager

Vermont Department of Fi sh and Wi 1 dl i 

Rura 1 Route 1, Box 33

North Springfield, VT 05150

Mr. John Mudre

Division of Project Compliance and Administration

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

825 North Capi tal Street, NE

Washi ngton, DC 20426

Henry Booke, Ph.

Conte Anadromous Fi sh Research Center

S. Fish and Wildlife Service

O. Box 796

Turners Falls, MA 01376

,..

lIS
Mr. Gordon E. Beckett

Mr. Wayne MacCa 11 um

Mr. David F. Egan

D04800/Attachment/Page 

July 26, 1991

EVALUATION OF DOWNSTREAM PASSAGE FACILITIES IN THE

HOL YOKE CANAL, HOLYOKE PROJECT (FERC PROJECT NO. 2004)

CONNECTICUT RIVER, HOLYOKE MASSACHUSETTS

ATlANTIC SALMON SMOLTS

SPRING 1992

On June 5, 1991, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an

Order Approving and Modifying Functional Design Drawings and Implementation

Schedu1 e for downstream fi sh passage faci 1 ities in the Holyoke Canal, Holyoke

Project (FERC Project No. 2004). The Order instructed Holyoke Water Power

Company (through its agent, Northeast Utilities (NU)) to file a study plan

with the Commission within 90 days of the Order describing studies of Atlantic

salmon ( Sa1mo sa1ar ) smo1ts to be conducted during spring 1992. The major

objective of the studies will be to assess the combined effectiveness of

foot- deep louvers and a bypass pipe, the designs for which were p.

roposed to

FERC by NU on November 20, 1990, and amended April 10, 1991, relative to

downstream smo1t passage. The following study plan was developed to satisfy

the FERC requirement. If required, this study plan will be updated following

the initial operation and evaluation of the louver/bypass system during the

juvenile clupeid emigration season, fall 1991.

Backoround

During the process of selecting a fish guidance/bypass system for the Holyoke

Canal, louvers were identified as the only behavior- based fish screening

techni que that has proven effective in prevent i ng fi sh from enteri ng turbi ne

intakes (Ruggles, 1989). However, the cost of full surface- to- bottom louvers

has deterred their more widespread use 

in North America and Europe. Hence,

NUSCO embarked on a. research and development project to design fl oat-i ng

louvers that woul d screen surface flow. Thi s concept was based on the observation that salmon smo1ts and emigrating anadromous c1upeids tend to migrate

near the surface. Not only would the cost of fish screenings be reduced, but

a floating louver array could be used in situation~ where site conditions

preclude a more conve~tiona1 installation.

In spring 1990, a floating louver structure was installed in , the Holyoke

Canal, and its ability to guide salmon smolts was tested using radiotelemetry

techniques and a relatively small number of hatchery-reared smolts 

(NUSCO,

1990). Although the tests were conducted without a 

bypass, they demonstrated

that the louvers were highly effective, guiding 80 to 100 percent of released

smo 1 ts at a louver slat depth of 8 feet. I t was also shown that the louvers

were effective at esser depths (as shallow as 4 feet). Thi s successful

result led NU to propose the design that is to be tested during this 1992

study.
Mr. Gordon E. Beckett

Mr. Wayne MacCa 11 um

Mr. Davi d F. Egan

D04800/Attachment/Page 2

July 26, 1991

The plan of study described below builds on the knowledge gained to date and

addresses the subject 

of the bypass and small sample size. If the efficiency

of the louver/bypass system is confi 

rmed to be hi gh (greater than 80 percent),

design parameters important to the wide-scale 

appl ication of floating louvers

will be examined; namely, the depth 

of submergence and louver slat spacing.

The release of relatively large numbers 

of marked hatchery smolts will provide

data sufficient to fully evaluate these parameters.

Obiectives

ill

The objectives of the 1992 evaluation are to:

Confirm that an acceptable proportion of downstream migrants are guided

and passed.

Determine the minimum effective depth of submergence and maximum slat

spacing.

Determine the route traveled by downstream migrants not successfully

guided.

Determine the survival 

of downstream migrants passing through the 

bypass.

Develop subsampl ing methods for enumerating downstream migrants in the

bypass.

Methods

Obiectives 1 and 2-- Louver/Bvoass Evaluation and Smolt Behavior

Objectives 1 and 2 will be fulfilled by releasing large numbers (at 

least

500 per trial) of marked hatchery-reared smolts at a point 

immediately

upstream of the canal gatehouse with the bypass collection facility 

the coll ect i ng mode. Three rel eases woul d be conducted wi th louver

submergence depth of 8 feet and slat spacing at 3 inches. Smolts successfully guided will be collected in they 

bypass' collection facility and

counted. Louver/bypass efficiency' will be calculated for each release as

follows:

Eff" 

Number of Smolts Collected 100 lclency - Number 

of Smolts Released

Passage under the louvers would be monitored using netting methods to be

developed for fall 1991 studies of emigrating juvenile clupeids or other

methods as appropriate. If passage efficiency is high (exceeds 80 percent), further tri a 1 releases wi 11 be made with louvers submerged to a

shallower depth and/or at wider slat spacings.
Mr. Gordon E. Beckett

Mr. Wayne MacCa 11 um

Mr. David F. Egan

D04800/Attachment/Page 3

July 26, 1991

Among the smolts in each of the 

first three releases, 12 to 18 smolts

would be radiotagged. Radio antennae will be placed 

imnediately down-

- stream of the gatehouse, on the louver structure, at 

Boatlock Station, at

the discharge of the Boatlock Station bypass, and in the branch 

canal.

The radiotagged fish will serve as a way to monitor the behavior of

smo 1 ts released.

Obiect ive 3-- Route of Downstream Miarants

If some radiotagged smolts pass through or under the louvers after

entering the canal, the approximate location along the 

length of the

louvers through or under which the smolts pass would be determined by the

antennae on the louvers. The path taken by these fish after passing the

louvers wi 11 be determi ned by the antennae at Boat lock Stati on and - i n the

branch canal. The bypass collection facility would also be monitored to

assure that as many of the radiotagged smolts as possible would be

accounted for.

Obiective 4-- Survival Assessment

Some of the smolts (a minimum of 100 in each of three 

trials) released

and recaptured as part of the 

louver/bypass evaluation will be retained

in the collection facility and observed for 24 

hours. A similar number

of smolts handled identically except for passage through the

louver/bypass system will be held as controls. Survival among bypassed

fish will then be compared to survival of control fish to determine

mortal i ty due to the bypass.

Obiect i ve 5-- Smol t Passaoe Estimate

.;,

The number of smolts migrating through the Holyoke Canal and using the

bypass will be estimated by diverting 

all bypassed smolts into the bypass

collection facility for 8 to 12 half- hour- to hour- long periods,

fi ve days a week duri ng Apri 1 and May. These fi sh woul d be counted and

released. Total passage would be estimated by extrapolating from the

actual counts. The accuracy of the extrapolation will be 

statistically

assessed and recommendations for future count 

i ng methods wi 11 be offered.

# # #
NORTHEAST UTILITIES

(lliJ

T H( ccNH€ CI CU1 uGH'! OHO.....-E A COW"-

wESt(... IoIA$SACMUS(TTS ELfCTlOlC COW"-

t4OO. TOolE ..UfA I'OW(A COW"-

NORTHEAST "'..""'-5 SfAYIC( COW"-

"""'.-AST 

... 

ENEAG't COW"-

General Offices. Selden Street. Berlin. Connecticut

O. BOX 270

HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06141-0270

(203) 665-5000

September 4, 1991

FERC Project No. 2004

Holyoke

D04891

Ms. Lois D. Cash ell , Secretary

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

825 North Cap i to 1 Street, N. 

Washington, D.C. 20426

References: Order Approving and Modifying Functional Design Drawings

and Implementation Schedule (C04154) issued June 5, 

1991.

Letter (D04800) , R. A. Reckert to G. E. Beckett, et. a1.,

dated July 26, 1991.

Letter (C04254), J. 0' Leary (MDFW) to R. A. Reckert, dated

August 21, 1991.

Dear Ms. Cas he 11 :

Holyoke Project

Holyoke Canal Downstream Fish Passage Facility

Submittal of 1992 Salmen Smelt Study Plan

Northeast Utilities Service Company (NUSCO) on behalf of Holyoke Water Power

Company (HWP) submi ts the enclosed Holyoke Canal Downstream Fi sh Passage

Facility 1992 Salmon Smolt Study Plan. This study plan is required by the

Order Approving and Modifying Functional Design Drawings and 

Implementation -

Schedu1 e, Reference 1.

A draft Study P1 an was submitted to agencies for comment on July 26, 1991,

Reference 2. One etter of comment was recei ved, Reference 3. Thi s comment

letter and NUSCO' s response is appended to the enclosed Final Study Plan.

I f you have any questi ons, please call Mr. Ri chard W. Thomas, NUSCO Generation

and Environmental Licensing, at (203) 665-3719.

Very truly yours,

NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY

As Agent for Holyoke Water Power

Company

C7 

R. A. Reckert

Vice President
Ms. Lois D. Cashell

D04891/Page 2

September 4, 1991

cc: Mr. David F. Egan, Chairman

Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission

c/o U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

One Migratory Way

O. Box 71

Turners Falls, MA 01376

Mr. Wayne MacCa 11 um

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildl ife

100 Cambridge Street, Floor 19

Boston, MA 02202

Hr. Robert A. Jones, Chief

Bureau of Fisheries and Wildlife

C~nnect i cut Department of Envi ronmenta 1 Protection

State Office Building

Hartford, CT 06115

Donald A. Normandeau, Ph.

Execut i ve Di rector

New Hampshi re Fi sh and Game Department

2 Hazen Dri ve

Concord, NH 03301

Mr. Timothy van landt, Commissioner

Vermont Fish and Wi 1 dl i fe Department

10 South, Second Floor

103 South Main Street

Waterbury, VT 05676

Hr. Ronald E. Lambertson

Regional Director

S. Fish and Wildlife Service

One Gateway Center

Newton Corner, MA 02158

Hr. Ri chard G. Seamans Jr.

Act i ng Management Di vi s i 

Chief for Regional Director

National Marine Fisheries Service

One B1 ackburn Dri v~

Gloucester, HA 01930
Ms. Lois D. Cashell

D04891/Page 3

September 4, 1991

Mr. Gordon E. Beckett, Supervi sor

New Engl and Area

S. Fish and Wildl ife Service

Ecological Services

400 Ralph Pill Marketplace, 4th Floor

22 Bridge Street

Concord, NH 03301-4901

Mr. Kenneth Cox

District Fisheries Manager

Vermont Department of'

Fish and Wildlife

Rura 1 Route 1, Box 33

North Springfield, VT 05150

Mr. Theodore F. Meyers

Connect i cut Ri ver Coordi nator

S. Fish and Wildlife Service

One Migratory Way

O. Box 71

Turners Falls, MA 01376

Mr. Donald Pugh

Massachusetts Cooperative Fisheries Unit

University of Massachusetts

Amherst, MA 01003

Mr. Angelo Incerpi

Vermont Fi sh and Wi 1 dl i fe Department

10 South, 2nd Floor

103 South Main Street

Waterbury, VT 05676

Mr. Peter Minta, Chairman

Technical Committee for

Fi sheri es Management

Marine Division, Fisheries

22 Bridge Street

O. Box 248 

Waterford, CT 06385

Mr. Ben Rizzo

S. Fish and Wildlife Service

One Gateway Center

Newton Corner, MA 02158

II!
Ms. Lois D. Cashe"

DO4891/Page 4

September 4, 1991

Mr. Charles Thoits III

New Hampshire Fish and Game Department

2 Hazen Dri ve

Concord, NH 03301

Henry Booke, Ph. 

Northeast Anadromous Fi sh Research Laboratory

S. Fish and Wildlife Service

O. Box 796

Turners Falls, MA 01376

Mr. John 0' Leary

Massachusetts Divi sion of Fi sheries and Wildl i fe

Fi e 1 d Headquarters

Westboro, MA 01581

Mr. J. Mark Robinson

Division of Project Compliance and Administration

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

825 North Capi tol Street, NE

Washington, DC 20426

Mr. John Mudre

Division of Project Compliance and Administration

Federa 1 Energy Regul atory Commi ss i on

825 North Capitol Street, NE

Washington, DC 20426

Mr. Anton Si dot i, Regi ona 1 Di rector

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

New York Regional Office

201 Vari ck Street, Room 664

New York, NY 10014
HOLYOKE CANAL DOWNSTREAM FISH PASSAGE FACILITIES

1992 ATLANTIC SALMON SMOlTS STUDY PLAN

FERC PROJECT NO. 2004

HOLYOKE PROJECT

HOLYOKE WATER POWER COMPANY

NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY

P . o. BOX 270, HARTFORD, CT 06141

SEPTEMBER 1991

.:J

i:;

;.0;;.;
EVALUATION OF DOWNSTREAM PASSAGE FACILITIES IN THE

HOLYOKE CANAL, HOLYOKE PROJECT (FERC PROJECT NO. 2004)

CONNECTICUT RIVER, HaL YOKE MASSACHUSETTS

ATlANTIC SALMON SMOL 

SPRING 1992 

On June 5, 1991, the Federal Energy Regulatory Conunission (FERC) issued an

Order Approving and Modifying Functional Design Drawings and Implementation

Schedule for downstream fish passage facil ities in the Holyoke Canal, Holyoke

Project (FERC Project No. 2004). The Order instructed Holyoke Water Power

Company (through its agent, Northeast Utilities (NU)) to file a study plan

with the Conunission within 90 days of the Order describing studies of Atlantic

salmon ( Salmo salar) smolts to be conducted during spring 1992. The major

objective of the studies will be to assess the combined effectiveness of

foot-deep louvers and a bypass pipe, the designs for which were proposed to

FERC by NU on November 20, 1990, and amended April 10, 1991., relative to

downstream smolt passage. The following study plan was developed to satisfy

the FERC requirement. If required, this study plan will be updated following

the initial operation and evaluation of the louver/bypass system during the

juvenile clupeid emigration season, fall 1991.

Back round

During the process of selecting a fish guidance/bypass system for the Holyoke

Canal, louvers were identified as the only behavior- based fish screening

technique that has proven effective in preventing fish from entering turbine

intakes (Ruggles, 1989). However, the cost of full surface- to-bottom louvers

has deterred thei r more wi despread use in North Ameri ca and Europe. Hence,

NUSCO embarked on a research and development project to design floating

louvers that would screen surface flow. This concept was based on the observation that salmon smolts and emigrating anadromous c1upeids tend to migrate

near the surface. Not only would the cost of fish screenings be reduced, but

a floating louver array could be .used in situations where site conditions

preclude a more conventional installation.

In spring 1990, a floating louver structure was installed in the Holyoke

Canal, and its abi1 ity to guide salmon smo1ts was tested using radiotelemetry

techni ques and a relatively small number of hatchery-reared smol ts (NUSCO,

1990). Although the tests were conducted without a bypass, they demonstrated

that the louvers were highly effective, guiding 80 to 100 percent of released

smo 1 ts at a louver slat depth of 8 feet. It was also shown that the louvers

were effective at lesser depths (as shallow as 4 feet). This successful

result led NU to propose the design that is to be tested during this 1992

study.

..,

The plan of study described below builds on the knowledge gained to date and

addresses the subject of the bypass and small sample size. If the effi ci ency

of the louver/bypass system is confirmed to be high design parameters

important to the wi de- sca 1 e app 1 i cat i on of floating louvers wi 11 be exami ned;

namely, the depth of submergence and louver slat spaci ng. The release of

relatively large numbers of marked hatchery smolts will provide data

sufficient to fully evaluate these parameters.

.Jj

!If
Ob.; ect i ve s

The objectives of the 1992 evaluation are to:

Confirm that an acceptable proportion of downstream migrants are guided

and passed.

Determine the minimum effective depth of submergence and maximum sl at 

...

spacing.

Determine the route traveled by downstream migrants not successfully

guided.

Determine the survival of downstream migrants passing through the bypass.

Deve lop subsamp 1 i ng methods for enumerating downstream mi grants i n the

bypass.

Methods

Objectives 1 and 2-- louver/Bvoass Evaluation and Smolt Behavior

Objectives 1 and 2 will be fulfilled by releasing large numbers (at least

500 per trial) of marked hatchery-reared smolts at a point immediately

upstream of the canal gatehouse with the bypass collection facility in

the collecting mode. Seasonal and diel migrational behavior of smolts

will be considered , when planning releases. Three releases would be

. conducted with louver submergence depth of 8 feet and slat spacing at

3 inches over a range of canal flows. Smolts successfully guided will be

collected in they bypass collection facility and counted. louver/bypass

efficiency will be calculated for each release as follows:

Number of Smo 1 ts Co 11 ected

Efflclency = Number of Smolts Released x 100

Passage under the louvers would be monitored using netting methods to be

developed for fall 1991 studies of emigrating juvenile clupeids or other

methods as appropriate. If passage efficiency is high further trial

releases will be made with louvers submerged to a shallower depth and/or

at wider sl at spacings.

Among the smo 1 ts in each of the fi rst three releases, 12 to 18 smo 1 ts

would be radiotagged. Radio antennae will be placed immediately downstream of the gatehouse, on the louver structure, at Boatlock Station, at

the discharge of the Boatlock Station bypass, and' in the 'branch canal.

The radiotagged fish will serve as a way to monitor the behavior of

smolts released.

Obiect ive 3-- Route of Downstream Miarants

If some radiotagged smolts pass through or under the louvers after

enteri ng the canal, the approx i mate ocat i on along the ength of the

louvers through or under which the smolts pass would be determined by the

antennae on the louvers. The path taken by these fi sh after passing the
Append i x 1

enc Comment

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and " Wildlife: August 21, 1991

;;.;;
Commonwealth of Massachusetts

BiwI_ion 01

fi~he..ie. & Wildlile

Wayne F. Ma~ Director

August 21. 1991

FERC ProJ ect No. 2004-frJA. Holyoke

Mr. R. A. Reckert

Vice President

Northeast Utili ties Service Company

P. O. Box 270

Hartford. Cl' 06141- 0270

r:: r~(": ;-.: 

I ~

;

r:D

Ave 3 1991

K., '1.

Dear I1r. Beckert:

1'hank you fOl' gi,'ing me the opportl1lJi ty to comment 011 the .lE92

tudv Plan: Holvoke Cana.1-.SaJ.1ll9ILSI1KJ..Lt.1L., This plan was 1 ozovlarded

to me in your ..7uly 26, 1991 transmi ttal1 am in . eneraJ agreement. wi th the scope of work outlined in the

plan. However. have the Iollowing comments 011 the specifics cd

the pl an.

111 the methods sectie:")n. you indicate tlJat -"OU will conduct

addi tional releases oI- SIJiDl ts to e~"aJ)jine tile effects of shallo~'er

lou,'er 0.1' wider slat spacings on1j, if the initial guidance results

exceed BO. - Addi ti oneil e,'al ua ti 011 of the louver array to determine

the effect 011 pass..::;ge efficiency caused by shallowel' setting of the

array or hJ' increasing the sla t spacing does not: have to be .rel ted

to a11 arlii tl'ary p..=tssage efIiciency. Jnforma ti 011 gained by re-leases

under various louver configl1.l'at,ioJJs will provide useI ul information

that may be applied at Hadley Falls Station 01' at Turners Falls

bypass facili ties.. Othel' releases 0.I- smol ts may be necessary to

evaluate the e.I1.""ects of the bypass entrance setl:ing on bypass

efficiency as well.

Lou,'er/BJ'pass e,'alvation should be made undel' 

.;1 range of canal Ilow

conditions as well as louvel' depth and spacing conditions. The

smolt releases slJozild be made at. low. high and typical canal Ilows

to determine t;he effect of canal flow (veloci tJ') on passage

elficiencj-' 

The effects of tempe.rature on smolt behavior as well as the efrects

of time of .t'elease (both daily and seasonal) are r~ell documented

in the literature and should he accounted for in the study design:

.;.J

Division of Fisheries & Wildlife

Field Headquarters, One Rabbit Hill Road, Westboro, MA 01581 (508) 366-4470

II n II ~nnr.. 

,.,

( .hn fk,.~~.........n' of t=i"hpnP': Wilrilif,. k Fnv;rnnm('ntal Law Enforcemt"nt
..;

.io

Radio tagged :t"ish sample sizes should be sufficiently large to 

detect statistical differences between treatments.

It may be possible t,o obtain some excess fall Atlantic salmon parI'

from the U. S. Fish and Wildli1e Service hatchery at Bet-hel Vermont

this year to test elements 01:" the bypass system prior to t.he actual

field season in 1992. Requests for pal'r and smol t.s 1 01' these

studies should be made thl'ough 't:he ColJnecticut li'i"er Restol'atioJ1

Coordina tor 

Thank J'ou fa.!' the opportuni tJ' to comment on this study plan and if

you ha,'e aJiJ' questions concerning my comments please feel xree to

contact me t my o.1:fi ce (508) 792- 7270.

Yours Tl'ul 17.

t/:.

AnadroEx-'lJS 1-1 sh .;"':?::Ofora ~:i on

Project Coordinator

JA(J/cmh

cc: Ted Meyers

Charles Thoits

John Warner

Ben Rizzo
QOT-1B-92 FRI 13:38 Gen. FiCi l. LioensinlJ fAK NO. 203 BB5 58aa

p. Ub

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

-tOO RALPH PIIJ, ftWtKHTPLACE

22 BRIDGE S11lIItT

CONCOI\D. NBW HAMPSHIRE 03301-4901

A~fQJ(

Psf: No. 2004

Ht'. R. :Recta't

vice Ens:1dlnt.

Otili ti- SEa:v1m CDI8l\Y'

o. BcIx 270

Harltam, Q~", 06141~O

"'1 -""W 2S, 3.991

DBa:' Mt'. 

'1hi8 in Z"eI!!IIpCDI8

t:o the -1993 SbJdy Plan; cmaJ. ~'1W'ft SlllQlts"

tranSDitted by ycur letter dateS iNJ:i 26, 1991.

YQQ )pr.C~ UIiIe gf ard ~4ot-~hz 'taI::i:Iniqw&s 

to 

  

.:fu.:: ~ .:s-!~l:'

 

Yau alGa IIL~ to detendlIB t.be rcmte t.a:IO!!t by I8DO1ts not bypIt1id I8Id t:be

surd val of t1Je .m t8 \8UrJ t21e 

We concur with tba study ~V18 IUd .-.xally QCft:m' with tb8 plq-csr

sggpe cf 

....~i_

, 

tile atfC tm tal1lM1n; 8geOif1c 

IJIAI'Ita an1

a:d~ives ..m12-

Hatd1sz:y mared lD)lts shca11d be r-'-~ UId8r tbe I:aDIJ8 of canal

rlicri'u:l1"gell that na'tUZ'aUy cx:cur dut'irIJ tbI P--i ~ s-- in 0td8r to

dstermine tbe eff8C!t8 o! c:ana1 'V8locity at pI888p. eU1cdency. 

!1b1s

WanDa1:Uln 18 111 c:R:d8I:' to fuUy 

.....

tbe 8ff1C1enCY of t:he 1ID1ydc:e

QD'Ia1 JSypiaU racility, an:l wcul4 pr:aY!de \aSeful. infarmaticn fer aseesSin;

the en"i~tia1 Of w.s tedmDlagy to ether ~ects.

'1he i.denttf1ed PU~'? figure of BOt effic!.ency is arb1tz:aty. TeStin:J

of various 1.a.zvez' dIpt:hB BId e1a't spacirIg ggnti;ut'atJ.a1s, .1nclud11T;J

aha lldwer In'1 CIe . Jf!Irr an! ard W148r, 18 t'eaSCII'I8b1e 

effloiency 1J\ CIL'd= to leam mre abaut rupange of smltls to tb1s type of

bJpass 

faOiJJ. ty . MUch altexN.ti.,. to teIIt tie tesed a1 bOth

effic1arq' mI bNviaral IIt\x1y reBQ3,ta. If efficiel1cies are pear, ta1l4

arrJ.f ar 8ft narrawly spaced lCt,lV81"S also be tested?

oJ:rl8C'ti 

IJbs release of anly 18 fi8h IIIN DOt p:avi4a sufficient

intomatian CIO route of 8IIIOlt pa8Mge viV81 tbe lJJIIIber ot "~ed canal flcM

ooncIit1Qn& ani rcute opticns (1st level amal, soat1.oc5c Staticln,

Boatlcdc 

, 

holdirg :In front at m:ny, 1eIi1V1n; oanal upstt'eaIII, etc.
ooT-18-92 FRI 13140 Gen. Fll:i1. Licensing FAX NO. 203 BS5 5886 P, DB

W-r'

Obiective

! 

SUrdval 

...

iD1d (Irleat.1:ve

JIIIgJ.t DIAl - 

bt:lm.'Ittt~

110 --1Iia'ls

:: 

~=1:

of tiUs 

1IIp1.GDantatic:ln. If you lave iV1)' questicns or: 

. ..,.....

6t.& pIS'" cmtact Hr.

Jci1n Warnar of tb1a ottic:e at (603) 225-'1411.

s:l.ncerely yaur&;

SUparYisar

., Rl;1m1 I'1aUI Qff;!ges
Append i x 2

NOSCD ResDonse to Aqency Comment
Response to Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife fMDFW)

NUSCO notes MDFW' s general agreement with the scope of work.

We also note the view that additional louver evaluation should not necessarily

be triggered by high passage efficiency. We will take this view into

consideration during the actual study. 

As suggested by MDFW it is our intent to undertake Louver Bypas s eva uat ion

under a range ,o~ canal flow conditions as indicated in the revised Study Plan.

Lastly, we are considering MDFW' s suggestion to utilize ~xcess fall Atlantic

salmon parr to test el ements of the bypass system; but, at thi s time, are

focusing more effort on the 1991 juvenile clupeid study.

\
Commonwealth of Massachusetts

p.~rFIVED

. 

Diwi.ion 

fi.hel'ies 

&. 

Wildlile

SEP it 1992

rLI-.. .

t\ 

Wayne F. MacCallum. Director

August 31, 1992

Mr. R. A. Reckert

Vice President

Northeast utilities service Company

o. Box 270

Hartford, CT 06141-0270

Dear Mr. Reckert:

Thank you for providing me with a copy of the Draft Re ort

Res onse of Atlantic Salmon Smolts to Louvers in the Hol

oke Canal

rin 1992 for my review. I offer the following comments for your

use in preparing the final report.

.

Obj ecti ve 1.

Confirm that the proportion of downstream migrants guided and

passed exceeds 80 percent.

Obj ecti ve 2.

Determine the minimum effective depth of submergence and

maximum slat spacing.

Achieving an eighty percent guiding efficiency at the project is

not an obj ecti ve in and of its self. Rather, the purpose of the

study was to confirm whatever guiding efficiency was 

achieved under

the various test conditions. This was the reasoning behind

committing large numbers of hatchery smolts for the experiment, to

insure that the tests would not be hampered by small sample sizes

leading to ambiguous results.

Results from the caudal punched smolts showed bypass rates of 

89,

, and 95 percent for the three inch spaced slats. 

Radio tagged

smolts released under at the same time were bypassed at 

similar

rates (62 to 100%, with a mean of 84%). You should explain why the

radio telemetry data collected from the monitors using the lap top

computer was not the primary source for the analyses.

Division of Fisheries & Wildlife

Field Headquarters, One Rabbit Hill Road, Westborq MA 01581 (508) 366-4470

1\ 1\ ~n-""" rof tl-o" T)pT'l"ttrnpnt ('If Fisheries. Wildlife & Environmental Law Enforcement
Caudal punched smolts released with the louver slat spacings at 12

inches showed bypass rates of 86, 63 and 90%. Radio tagged smolts

released under these conditions showed bypass rates of 40 to 90%

with a mean of 70. 3%. There was no statistical difference in

passage rate between the three and 12 inch spacing. 

However, it is

interesting to note that seven smolts were collected from the nets

set under the louver with the 12 inch spacing while none were

collected under the nets during the samples collected with the

three inch spacing.

The study plan also indicated that both of these objectives would

be examined over a wide range of flows. The range of flows that

were examined during the study was narrow, (3700-4200 cfs). You

should provide additional information which shows the average

hourly flows by weekday and weekend day during the smolt migration

period.

Obj ecti ve 3.

Determine the route traveled by downstream migrants

successfully guided.

not

The report concludes that two tags were detected downstream of the

array at Boatlock station, but does not explain how the four nontransmi tting tags were located downstream of Boatlock station

Branch. This should be clarified in the final report along with a

discussion of any movement patterns of radio tagged fish which

would indicate that smol ts may move upstream of the louver once

they have passed downstream of it.

Objective 4.

Determine the survival of downstream migrants passing through

the bypass.

It was determined through the release of known numbers of test fish

that the bypass sampler was 100% effective in collecting bypass

fish. Only one test using bypass and control fish was 

conducted.

The results from this experiment were encouraging, only two percent

mortality of bypass fish and zero mortality of control 

fish, when

held for 24 hours. One additional mortality experiment was

conducted without control fish which yielded five percent mortality

of bypass f ish when held for 24 hours.

While these results are encouraging the number of experiments was

less than the study plan indicated would be accomplished.

Objective 5.

Develop subsampling methods

migrants in the bypass.

for enumerating downstream
The methods section of the study plan called for 

8 to 12 half-hour

to hour-long sampling periods, five days per week during April and

May. These counts were to provide the base for recommendations for

future counting methods. This was obj ecti ve was not met. Resul ts

presented in the Draft Report show that samples were taken on nine

days in May.

Should you have any questions concerning my comments please feel

free to contact me at my office (508/792-7270).

t::(J 

50hn O' Lea

. Anadromous Fish Restoration

Project Coordinator

Jo/cmh

cc: Ted Meyers

John Warner

Ken Cox

Tom Savoy

Ben Rizzo
CONNECTICUT

MASSACHUSms

FA)( NO, 203 BS5 58gB

R1fr';F.tVED

OCT 5 1992

11&6

1-'. us

ooT-\8-92 FRI \3:4\ 

.. 

Gen, FiCil, licensinr

VERMONT

NEW HAMPSHIRE

NATIONAL MARINE fiSHERIES SERVla

One Ml8ratoty Way, P.O. 80x 11

hli (U3J In.nln

u.s. FISK AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

TllrNII'I Falls, M,asllchuSI!rts 01376

~one: 413166J.35S~

OO~8r 1, 1992

Hz-. R. A. Reckert

viae President

Nortbe..t ot.i.l1tl.. 8.~1o. COmp8.llf

o. Box 2710

Hartfo~, Connecti~ut 05141-0270

Dt!aa.r Kr. Reckert 

Reference is laade to t:he 3\111' 28, 1192 I 8\1J)aittal froa weCO

of a draft repgrt en~i'tler1 8RAR!UM".. If "'i:laft~lE! Salmon Smoli:.A

tp t.euvers in t.ht! H vt'lva ~anal, $I:triftcr 1112

mener

We are ;&nerally plaase4 wi tb the 8801 t 9Uiding etficieney

(mea.n of 90 percant) obtil1necl with 3" louver slat: sp&,c::1ng 

. canal tlows of 3700-4200 efa. This information 18 limited,

however, siMa 8 range of eaftal flows va. not ~ested 8.

pzoopose4 in the work plan. w. do not concur w1tb general

eoncl'U&1.cn that 1211 louver slat 8paCl1nq i. as e'ftective .s 

spacing in gu1dtng 8mol~..

CU~an~ R~u~

.. 

Paga~

. The 80 DA~aen1; bypass efficiency 11.ted undar 1;11. r1rs1:

~wo obj ectives was not incl\lded 11\ the .7uly 26, 199:1.,

clt'aft ,,"orkplaft Z'ev1ewe4 by our workgroup, nor in the final

S.Dt.~eZ' oi, 1991, ver.ion submitted to FDC:.

. Objective IS-Dolt srunplin; was ~o occur five daye peZ'

week during Ap.il and Kay, in aCCOrdance to the wor1Cplan. ~i8 vas not achieved.

RaBie Talsm t:rv Equ.\r;p1lsnt:

.. 

PA~ 

. The expected. 1Jattery lite of the tags lIhould be listed.

yelaei t:y Measur-"'-nt.a I)RqO 20

. Plow velocity fteasurements abould have bean taken .~ the

up5tream end of the vertical tyke net array loaated

upstream Of 'the lOuvClZ'S.
OCT-1B-B2 FR1 13=41

Gen. FactI, Licensinl FAX NO. 203 tUJb bttY~

, . 

Mort.:!l1 t~y Of ~.8;ad IIIIOlb - PRall 24

I .

. we are pleased with the low Bao1't teat aortalit.y (2

pcarcent) obtained on Hay 11. Ibe 

,.

.ortal1~y

obtained during 8 seconeS t.ut on Kay 23 is, haw.ver, high.

Acid:U:1onal verification of low lS1Dolt mortality anc! ext.ent

of 8molt d8.oaling ie recommended for 1993.

ca~ch of: tfan-Tvt: SmD1:t.1I!I - Page Ii

'l'be ~ypa.. V.1i .lmpled tor OI'tly nine Clays (Kay 13-23). It.

ia signifioant ~o no~e that. le5 (24 percent) o~ the total

number of non-test smol ts ~tu~d (675) vera captured on

the last day of sampling (Kay 33).

niseus.ion - page IS

. Tbe ftao per~ent guidance effioiency. threshold zeterencaa

in 'thi& and otber report Hc~;i.on. has navel' been appZ'ove4

~y our Downst~am 'ish pas_age workgroup and was DO~

ino1udec! in 'the waco II~Udy worJCplan.

Discussion - Page 

. w. too recaqnlze the po~.nti.l for use of the Holyoke

Canal bypass .y.~em ~o praY ide t8p0rtant Infg~tlon an

the timinq and extent of 1181.on Dolts .iqration tin"ough

the canal, !'h81ie data are of v'lue to botJl the \11:111 

companiA. and CRASC.

Conc1uBicna - Peal!!!! 29

. Since the louVArs were teate. OYet: a 11.11:e4 range of

canal flow. (3700-4200 ct.) and radio tagging indicated

bypass 8ffloienc:lY as lOW au 83 percent. for 3n louver

spac1n9 aDd tor 12 II spacing far 1 of t:J1o 3

runs, we zoeoO1ll2D8ncIia ClU&11fying the guidance eff1o.tenay

(91. 3 peraen~) 11.~ed in oonclu81on fl.

. We rGQommen4 turthe~ teat1n; be un~ertaken in 1993 with

"wild ..01 tan capt\l~ed in the sampling fac11it:y oz ~fP.8S

i.nt;.k.o .

Tables and "laurag

. A table or log of daily canal flaws during the April-June

.mol t em1fiZ'at1on per1olS _ouleS b. pov1ded.

T~le 6 1 We suggest listing' . p~A~ .Deely" c:apturec1 in

the fish sampler durin, the Kay 13-23 .88plinq period..

Pl~~~ '1'he II toR velocity ..uured at. 'the bfPilBS

(Location "4) on May 14 fteec18 explanation.

iDe.rely r

.

Zxe~t1ve Assistant

~heodore F . xeye;s~

t', lU
ooT-16-82 fRI 13: Gen, Faci I, ~i~en8inl FAX NO, 203 BBS 58ge

'RECEIVED

0 CT 9 1992

. 

i3 (K.

P, 07

State of New Hampshire .

Fish and Game Department

Z Hazen Drive, Concold, NH 03301

TDD kce&81 &lay NH 1-800..735-Z964

(603) 211..3411

Donald A. Ntannat\48au, Ph.D.

Execur:lvs D1ncaIr

October 6, 1992

Kr. It . A. Reckert

Vice President.

Jlto;r;theast atil! ties S&m.C!8 Company

o. B~ 270

Hartfoxd CT 0&141-0270

Dear 

. 

Reckert:

The New Hampshlre Fish and Game D.p.~~Dt has =ev!ewed ~he

draft .-.port anti "'led. 

II 

RespOnse of Atlant1c Salmon Smcl tc to

LoUvel:1i in. the Bolyck8 Canal, Spring 1992'1 and offer the follcnring

c::cmunen ts =

Genarale w& are genera.ll:r pleased with ime 811011: guiding

eff1~~en~ (meaD of 90t) obtained with 3n louver 8lat spaciDg at

canal flows Of 3700-4200 c:f8. UftfoRunately, a range of canal

flows were not. tested as propoaed. ;in the workplan. We do Dot

concur with general conclusion that 12" lo\1ve~ slat spacing is just

as efteet1v~ as 3M .pacing in gulding 8mclt~.

Page 9 - Study Objeaitves 

~e bypass efflcienay listed under the first two objeCl~ves was

not. included 1n 'the July 26, 1991 draf~ workplan raviewed by our

workgroup, no:" 1n the final September 4, 1991 veralon sulmlitted to

FEIRC.

'!'he objective *5 _molt sampling WAS to occur five days per week

during April and Kay, .In accordance ~O the wcrkplan. '!'his was: not.

achieved.

Page 2 - ~elemet1:y Bquipnel1t

The expected batte~ life of the tagg Ihou14 be listed.

Page 20 - velocd.~7 1Iea.~81D8Z1.t

FloW "eloCit:y meaS1U:8Dents should hay. been Ukel\ at the upltream

end of t.hCII vertical fyka net array located ups'tNam of 'the lOQve~&.

1\ fird

Dis~r Ne'.; Hampshire
OCT-16-92 FRI 13: 40 Gen. Flail. lh:ensiol AK NO. 203 895 589a P, DB

Xr:. R. A. Reckert: :lage 2 October 5, 1992

I'age 24 - JtoZUli 1:J'

We are plQaset1 with u.e low 81101 t t:88~ mort. Ii t;y ( 2' ) ob1;a1ned on

Kay 15. However, the S. mortali't,. obta1necl cSu:c'a9' II lieconc1 test. on

Kay 23 ;111 h1qh. Ac1d1,'tJ.oul verification of low 8i\\Olt lIortalLt!' 81'1d ~ent of smol ~ d8.ca11ng 18 ~ammended for 1993.

page 25 - c.pture of BOD-meat SIIO1 toe

wrhe bypams was sampled fo%: only 9 days (Kay 13 - 23). It J.a

81gnif1cant. 'to note that. 165 (24') of the total na:&mbeJ: of non-test

IJl'\O~ ts oap'tw;ed ( 675) were captured on the laat. day of samplJ.nq

(Kay 23).

Page 26 - D.i.8CW1I1:i.on.

The a80' guidance efficJ.ency" DB not approved by our workgroup

ai.nQe .it was not. .t~cluded. in the lCUSC:O WD1'kplan.

Page 29 - Ccmclusiou

Since the lQl1ve~1 wen tested. over . IbnJ. tees range of canal flows

(3100 - 4200 of a) and :r:ad1o t4;;inQ' indlcate4 bypass efficiency AS

low as ill feu: 3'1 louver .paoin9 and JJ.1 fo!: 12" spacing foZ' 1 of

the :& Z\lft8, we zecannenc1ec1 qualifying 'the qui-danae effio1ency

(911 3') listed in COnglU81ou '1.

We ~comtGend funher testing be undertaken in 1993 nth .wild molts" oapturBd. in ~he sampHJuJ fac1J.1ty =: ))ypass .intake.

ftbles and. 1'1gures

A table or log of daily cana1 !low8 during 'the April - JW19 8mol 

emigz:6t!on peri-cd. shOuld J,:)e pz:ov!4ecl.

Table 6: we suqq..~ 11Bting % acA ies M captured in the fish

s~pler d~1ng ~e Hay 13 - 23 sampling perio~s 

Table 9: Ilhe 8 fOB velocity me4E1uZ'ed Ili; the bypass (LO(!at:.ion ..)

on Kay 14 needs ezplanatJ.onl

I wish to ~ank you tor letting \1.1 CODUDent on the draft. :l:epD~. If

the~e are any questtons, please contact Charles ~o1t:s at (603)

271-1139.

DA1RICFml jel

ca. BI aL.zo, USFiWS

3. O'Lea~, MA F&W

TI Meyers, USFftWB

It. COX, V'l P&WS

T. Savoy, CT F&G

Donalei A I NOrman4eau, l'h. D .

Ezecutive Di~ecto~
OCT-t~-92 FRI 13~3B Gen. FiCi 1. lic:ensing FAK NO, 203 BSS saBB p, Ut!

~,~~1~~

,..;....:

:Gi:. fi""

United States Department of the Inte

~~EI

FISH AND WlLDID"& SERVICE 

400 RALPH PILL WARICBTPLAC& 0 C T 9 1992

II BRJDaB 8TRB1n'

CONCORD, NEW HAMP8HIU 0S301-4801 

. Jf. 

Ref: RK: Bo. 2004 oatabeE' 6, 1992

R. LA. v-'II'....-t

Vicz B::88id1mt

DtiUt1es S8rV1c8 0IIpItW

O. sax 270

JJ;;rEUczd, 06141-0270

DeB' Hr. 

'lb1s in to ycm" 3uly 28 r 2S92 18t:ter 0. -.. .-u em t!ae

1992 OlE rVl; 

alA CI\ _1~ ElllDlta tb1I Ifo.1.rckIe cam.1

fillb )'2- fae41i:ty. We haw the 

..

IIldluwe the

_.

We an pnsra1J.y p1r~ vitia th8 JEdiwn81 of the 1.cuV&"S and bypass

syst:8m in 

811d.te, t:mp 

Bffif\4~ am l!Ut'v:f:val of bypa 

smolt:8. We 8n\ i18o p1sI~ to 

.. 

tha~ 1IIIOl't :rele918N Em made 

:

'tha pt.ebcuI8 haS bien A.I~. We nata, to 

lauvar ta&t8 were at ama.1 f1CIW8 bItwe8n 700 cfs and 4,200 cfs.

By 1ett&r dated 

25, 1991, 'W8 bad. ident1f1s1 Ws as a flAw in tbe

sbdy plan. A CCIp'/ or th1s l8tt:8r was ngt ~il!l'lJ--1 CZ" 1D:311&:1A in tbB

:r~l 8I'd ana 18 att-.-hM far ycm refw,-ala 111 h8I ur;ed )U1 to 

i:8st8 .c a full nnp of canal f1Qn (up to ." ODD c:.f8) in order to tBIt the

full nnae at banIIl qm'a t1cn ot tm canal an1 1wv8r array .. 'D1R

 

'IR 1

aanal flCJte t:bat occurna fmI1 ,.11 tI1rcAIgh .1Une IIhca3ld be :Um1de4 in 

nport.

flow 12 tests! .in 1993.

'D1e wJ.aer 12-inch yQ1 t.estBl sm:pris1nq1y high 

the In:U tests ~ .ge4 111 veneBII an thMA

t'eSUlts we tQ.1Jd amtinue to 1':" "... .-.1 a 3"1nct1 1CIM!I:' Rlat spac1DJ.

IJhe 

  

facUity was V8y 

IaoICOIMfUl JD safely CIIpbJr:lDJ

em1g:r:;At1n; IIDOlts. DeIp1t8 cpeJ."8teC far Cft\y 89 hoUrs aver tbe

lligm,t.ian per:Lcd, sara 1nterest.iDa data. on tbe saalt cai.grat1cn was

gatbered. WIB z:e. - -.u, tbat the C!: t:nppiDJ 1d2r8 bA 

in 1993. ':DIe limbers of otD!r sp8aiM eapt:I.Jre4 .in th8 bftR!!I8 ~""'t" IiihcUlIS

also 18 t!IIJIIE!rBted.

at page 7 1:ha b'JpaBs entrance Wloaity ;Is D:Ittd to be 3.8 feet pe1" &ecxmr1 

II canal rlal of 7, 000 CfB. 1Ibat is tha mtranaa veloc1ty witts a 3 7~_t;g

200 ct. CBnBl naIII? 1Jhe,. ' fp8 w1oo1ty .10 the bypa88 IVJtecl CIft P.J.CJ'Z8 9

&hculd ce eNP' II 

of IWd.

abjegtiwe l1sta4 em page 9 1nc1Ja8 tb8 cbjeot1va to CXtJf.1m guidance eff~ oj! SOt. "" cd the Divisicn Of F1sher188 ancI

wild) 4 ~e aispsted tbe 'WoUdi\y of tb.1s cbjectJ.va let:t:.en; data! Septa1IIIIbR'

25 cd 23, 2n~, ~yeJ,

y. .. 

II3aa did !JOt the 8~

threshold to ~ustify iIWest!gatmil different slat 

~t!1 

'IgS
OOT-1B-92 FRI 13: 39 Gen, Faci I. licensing FAX NO, 203 aas 58BB P, Og

'!be capbD:e of no wild 8IIOl1:8 in the WIt't1oal an'81' af fyka nets 18 notecI en

page 22. !!WI CZIU1d that Wi14 8IIDlts are Mt Wln8r8bla to thi8

gear, ;ad 11:8 eff8at,i,,--- with bat.d8y 1IIt)J.'t8 -.y m ))b8afl1 :rlarIr

W1oa1ty 8MtJld !JaW bMn t.a1cIIft & t.b8 ~u.Mm rni af tba fJks

net:. an:IIIV.

Sinoa tb8 safely wiJd smolts, we 

 

111 1~.d. tl1e use of these

fish in 1taO3 :J.cuI8' 

'1Mnk: ~ b" tbi8 ~tun1-ta 

.  ..

IIIM!It. Plea8e III\Y 

ewu.\.1tD to)fr. .Tabn Wim'1Br Of tbi8 offkIa at (103) 225-1411.

S!ncIenly J'CN%'S,

~ Jt;- nJv.--r

pr. 

B8ckstt

Jbr ID;1md Fiel4 Qff~

AttBchaEnt

,
ooT-16-92 FRI 13139 Gen, Ficil. Llclnll",

cc: I'O/m - B. RiIBO

l"1!X: , rJICA 

Ten:y HaJ:t.in , OM.

1JD11W'I. P--"'hoq Pile

1WB=.:JWam&Ir: 1H-92: (603) 225-1411

-3-

FAK HO. 2D3 BB5 bH9B t'. U4
Response to Agency Comments on the Draft Report titled

HOLYOKE CANAL, DOWNSTREAM FISH PASSAGE STUDIES

RESPONSE OF ATLANTIC SALMON SMOLTS TO LOUVERS IN THE HOLYOKE CANAL,

SPRING 1992

Comments on the draft report were received from:

The Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & wildlife by letter

dated August 31, 1992.

The Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission by letter

dated October 1, 1992.

The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department by letter dated

October 6 , 1992 , and

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service by letter dated October 6

1992.

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and wildlife

August 31, 1992)

(letter dated

Comment No. MDFW-1

Achieving an eighty percent guiding efficiency at the project

is not an objective in and of its self. Rather , the purpose of

the study was to confirm whatever guiding efficiency was

achieved under the various test conditions. This was the

reasoning behind committing large numbers of hatchery smolts

for the experiment , to insure that the tests would not be

hampered by small sample sizes leading to ambiguous results.

Response:

NUSCO understands your comment. However we did want to

achieve a generally high guidance efficiency with 3- inch

spacing prior to testing 12- inch spacing. Because the 3-inch

spacing was effective "80 percent" was not factor.

Therefore , the final report has been changed to eliminate the

reference to 80 percent.
Comment No. MDFW-2

Results from the caudal punched smol ts showed bypass rates of

, 90 , and 95 percent for the three inch spaced slats. Radio

tagged smolts released under at the same time were bypassed at

similar rates (62 to 100%, with a mean of 84%). You should

explain why the radio telemetry data collected from the

monitors using the lap top computer was not the primary source

for the analyses.

Response:

NUSCO has experienced problems with the Smith-Root

radiotelemetry data loggers in earlier studies. As a result

we have relied more on observation of the receivers and manual

recording of the data than on the automatic equipment. For

this reason the computer-collected data are used only to back

up the manually recorded data.

Comment No. MDFW-3

The study plan indicated that both Objectives 1 and 2 would be

examined over a wide range of flows. The range of flows that

were examined during the study was narrow , (3700-4200 cfs).

Response:

NUSCO is aware that testing of louver guidance efficiencies

over a wider range of canal flow /veloci ty is needed. However

we felt it was important that the louvers first would be

adequately tested at flow/velocity levels that are typical for

the canal during the smolt migration season.

Comment No. MDFW-4

You should provide additional information which shows the

average hourly flows by weekday and weekend day during the

smolt migration period.

Response:

A table including the flow data

included in the final report.

for the canal has been

Comment No. MDFW-5

The report concludes that two tags were detected downstream

of the array at Boatlock Station , but does not explain how

the four non-transmitting tags were located downstream of
Boatlock station Branch. This should be clarified in the

final report.

Response:

The four tags in question were located in the bypass

collection facility, not downstream of Boatlock station.

Comment No. MDFW-6

Include a discussion of any movement patterns of radio

tagged fish which would indicate that smol ts may move

upstream of the louver once they have passed downstream of

it.

Response:

There is no indication that the smol ts passed downstream of

the louvers then back upstream again.

Comment No. MDFW-7

It was determined through the release of known numbers of

test fish that the bypass sampler was 100% effective in

collecting bypass fish. Only one test using bypass and

control fish was conducted. The results from this experiment

were encouraging, only two percent mortality of bypass fish

and zero mortality of control fish , when held for 24 hours.

One additional mortality experiment was conducted without

control fish which yielded five percent mortality of bypass

fish when held for 24 hours.

While these results are encouraging the number of

experiments was less than the study plan indicated would be

accomplished.

Response:

Due to the relatively high air temperatures , when these

tests were conducted , it was extremely difficult to

transport 100 additional fish for controls in the mortality

tests. One test was conducted with controls and a second

test was conducted without controls. The third test had to

be aborted because the majority of the water in the holding

pool inadvertently drained during the late night/early

morning hours causing extremely high (~50%) mortality rates.
Comment No. MDFW-8

The methods section of the study plan called for 8 to 

half-hour to hour-long sampling periods, five days per week

during April and May. These counts were to provide the base

for recommendations for future counting methods. This

obj ecti ve was not met. Results presented in the Draft Report

show that samples were taken on nine days in May.

Response:

The beginning of sampling was delayed because of the cold

water temperatures in April. It was planned to begin

testing when the water temperature reached 10 degrees

centigrade , which occurred early in May. However , testing

was further delayed due to turbid water conditions. The

study was terminated on the 23rd of May when the water

temperatures increased above 18 degrees centigrade.

The Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission (letter dated

October 1, 1992)

Comment No. CRASC-1

We are generally pleased with the smolt guiding efficiency

(mean of 90 percent) obtained with 3" louver slat spacing

at canal flown of 3700-4200 cfs. This information is

limited , however , since a range of canal flows was not

tested as proposed in the workplan.

Response:

Please refer to the response to Comment No. MDFW-3.

Comment No. CRASC-2

We do not concur with general conclusion that 12" louver

slat spacing is as effective as 3" spacing in guiding

smolts.

Response:

Although , on average , the guidance efficiency for louvers

spaced at three inches was higher than the guidance

efficiency for louvers spaced at 12 inches , there was no

statistical difference between the guidance eff iciencies.
Comment No. CRASC-3

The 80% bypass efficiency listed under the first two

objectives was not included in the July 26 , 1991 draft

workplan reviewed by our workgroup, nor in the final

September 4 , 1991 version submitted to FERC.

Response:

Please refer to the response to Comment No. MDFW-1.

Comment No. CRASC-4

Objective #5-smolt sampling was to occur five days per week

during April and May, in accordance to the workplan. This

was not achieved.

Response:

Please refer to the response to Comment No. MDFW-8.

Comment No. CRASC-5

The expected battery life of the tags should be listed.

Response:

The expected battery life of the tags is 14 to 21 days.

Comment No. CRASC-6

Flow velocity measurements should have been taken at the

upstream end of the vertical fyke net array located upstream

of the louvers.

Response:

Velocity measurements at the mouth of the upper fyke net

will be collected in subsequent studies of salmon smol ts.

Comment No. CRASC-7

We are pleased with the low smolt test mortality (2 percent)

obtained on May 16. The 5 percent mortality obtained during

a second test on May 23 is , however , high. Additional

verification of low smolt mortality and extent of smolt

descaling is recommended for 1993.
Response:

The comment is noted and will be considered in the 1993 Plan

of study.

Comment No. CRASC-8

The bypass was sampled for only nine days ( May 13-23). 

is significant to note that 165 (24 percent) of the total

number of non-test smolts captured (675) were captured on

the last day of sampling (May 23).

Response:

The comment is noted.

Comment No. CRASC-9

The 80 percent guidance efficiency threshold referenced in

this and other report sections has never been approved by

our Downstream Fish Passage Workgroup and was not included

in the NUSCO study workplan.

Response:

Please refer to the response to Comment No. MDFW-1.

Comment No. CRASC-10

We too recognize the potential for use of the Holyoke canal

bypass system to provide important information the timing

and extent of salmon smol ts migration through the canal.

These data are of value to both the utility companies and

CRAse.

Response:

Comment noted.

Comment No. CRASC-11

since the louvers were tested over a limited range of canal

flows (3700-4200 cfs) and radio tagging indicated bypass

efficiency as low as 63 percent for 3" louver spacing and 44

percent for 12 " spacing for 1 of the 3 runs , we recommend

qualifying the guidance efficiency (91. 3 percent) listed in

conclusion #1.
Response:

The conclusion has been changed to read " The mean guidance

eff iciency. . 

. .

Comment No. CRASC-12

We recommend further testing be undertaken in 1993 with

wild smolts " captured in the sampling facility or bypass

intake.

Response:

This recommendation will be considered when developing the

1993 study plan. One concern is the unpredictability of

having an adequate supply of wild smolts to meet the needs

of the study.

Comment No. CRASC-13

A table or log of daily canal flows during the April-June

smolt emigration period should be provided.

Response:

The information has been included in the final report.

Comment No. CRASC-14

We suggest listing " other species " captured in the fish

sampler during the May 13-23 sampling periods in Table 

Response:

This information is not available , however, the recording of

the information will be considered in subsequent studies.

Comment No. CRASC-15

Figure 9: The 9. 8 fps velocity measured at the bypass

(Location #4) on May 14 needs explanation.

Response:

The velocity in the bypass is variable over its length due

to the insertion of a Venturi-type restrictor. The

variation in measured values is attributed to the hydraulic

conditions in the intake , and the inability to locate and
orient the current meter in the same position for each

measurement.

The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (letter dated October

6, 1992

Comment No. NHFG-1

We are generally pleased with the smolt guiding efficiency

(mean of 90 percent) obtained with 3" louver slat spacing

at canal flown of 3700-4260 cfs. Unfortunately, a range of

canal flows were not tested as proposed in the workplan.

Response:

Please refer to the response to Comment No. MDFW-3.

Comment No. NHFG-2

We do not concur with general conclusion that 12" louver

slat spacing is just as effective as 3" spacing in guiding

smol ts.

Response:

Please refer to the response to Comment No. CRASC-2.

Comment No. NHFG-3

The 80% bypass efficiency listed under the first two

objectives was not included in the July 26 , 1991 draft

workplan reviewed by our workgroup, nor in the final

September 4 , 1991 version submitted to FERC.

Response:

Please refer to the response to Comment No. MDFW-1.

Comment No. NHFG-4

The objective #5 smolt sampling was to occur five days per

week during April and May, in accordance to the workplan.

This was not achieved.
Response:

Please refer to the response to Comment No. MDFW-8.

Comment No. NHFG-5

The expected battery life of the tags should be listed.

Response:

Please refer to the response to Comment No. CRASC-5.

Comment No. NHFG-6

Flow velocity measurements should have been taken at the

upstream end of the vertical fyke net array located upstream

of the louvers.

Response:

Please refer to the response to Comment No. CRASC-6.

Comment No. NHFG-7

We are pleased with the low smolt test mortality (2 percent)

obtained on May 16. However, the 5 percent mortality

obtained during a second test on May 23 is high. Additional

verification of low smolt mortality and extent of smol 

descaling is recommended for 1993.

Response:

The comment is noted.

Comment No. NHFG-8

The bypass was sampled for only nine days ( May 13-23). 

is significant to note that 165 (24 percent) of the total

number of non-test smolts captured (675) were captured on

the last day of sampling (May 23).

Response:

The comment is noted.
Comment No. NHFG-9

The 80 percent guidance eff iciency was not approved by our

workgroup since it was not included in the NUSCO workplan.

Response:

Please refer to the response to Comment No. MDFW-1.

Comment No. NHFG-10

since the louvers were tested over a limited range of canal

flows (3700-4200 cfs) and radio tagging indicated bypass

efficiency as low as 63 percent for 

II louver spacing and 44

percent for 12 " spacing for 1 of the 3 runs , we recommend

qualifying the guidance efficiency (91. 3 percent) listed in

conclusion #1.

Response:

The conclusion has been changed to read " The mean guidance

efficiency....

Comment No. NHFG-11

We recommend further testing be undertaken in 1993 with

wild smolts " captured in the sampling facility or bypass

intake.

Response:

Please refer to the response to Comment No. CRASC-12.

Comment No. NHFG-12

A table or log of daily canal flows during the April-June

smolt emigration period should be provided.

Response:

The information has been included in the final report.

Comment No. NHFG-13

We suggest listing " other species " captured in the fish

sampler during the May 13-23 sampling periods in Table 
Response:

Please refer to the response to Comment No. CRASC-13.

Comment No. NHFG-14

Figure 9: The 9. 8 fps velocity measured at the bypass

(Location #4) on May 14 needs explanation.

Response:

Please refer to the response to Comment No. CRASC-15.

u. S. Fish and wildlife Service (letter dated October 6, 1992)

Comment No. USFWS-1

We are generally pleased with the effectiveness of the

louvers and bypass system in guiding smol ts , trap capture

efficiency and survival of bypassed smolts. We are also

pleased to see that smol t releases were made upstream from

the gatehouse as had been recommended. We note , however

that all louver tests were conducted at canal flows between

700 cfs and 4 200 cfs. By letter dated September 25

1992, we had identified this as a flaw in the study plan.

copy of this letter was not discussed or included in the

report and one is attached for your reference.

Response:

The letter has been included in Attachment 1 of the final

report.

Comment No. USFWS-2

We had urged you to conduct tests at a full range of canal

flows (up to 7 000 cfs) in order to test the full range of

normal operation of the canal and louver array. An expanded

flow range should be tested in 1993.

Response:

Please refer to the response to Comment No. MDFW-3.
Comment No. USFWS-3

The actual canal flows that occurred from April through June

should be included in the report.

Response:

The information has been included in the final report.

Comment No. USFWS-4

The wider 12- inch spacing you tested provided surprisingly

high success , however the individual tests ranged in

effecti veness. Based on these results we would continue to

recommend 3- inch louver slat spacing.

Response:

The comment is noted.

Comment No. USFWS-5

The downstream trapping facility was very successful in

safely capturing emigrating smol ts. Despite being operated

for only 89 hours over the migration period , some

interesting data on the smol t emigration was gathered. 

recommend that the expansion of trapping hours be considered

in 1993. The numbers of other species captured in the

bypass sampler should also be enumerated.

Response:

The recommendations are noted.

Comment No. USFWS-6

On page 7 the bypass entrance velocity is noted to be 3.

feet per second at a canal flow of 7 000 cfs. What is the

entrance velocity with a 3, 700 to 4, 200 cfs canal flow?

Response:

The reported bypass entrance velocity is a nominal velocity

computed as a function of the flow through the bypass and

the area at the entrance to the bypass. Therefore , the

nominal bypass entrance velocity for canal flows of 3, 700

cfs and 4 200 cfs is the same.
Comment No. USFWS-7

The 9. 8 fps velocity at the bypass noted on Figure 9 should

be explained.

Response:

Please refer to the response to Comment No. CRASC-15.

Comment No. USFWS-8

The objectives listed on page 9 include the objective to

confirm guidance efficiency of 80%. We and the

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife disputed

the validity of this objective by letters dated September 25

and August 23 , 1991 respectively. We also did not accept

the 80 % threshhold to justify investigating different slat

spacings.

Response:

Please refer to the response to Comment No. MDFW-1.

Comment No. USFWS-9

The capture of no wild smol ts in the vertical array could

indicate that wild smol ts are not vulnerable to this gear

and its effectiveness with hatchery smol ts may be biased.

Response:

It is possible that the effectiveness of the vertical array

of fyke nets with hatchery smol ts may be biased; however

the guidance efficiency is not dependent on the capture rate

of these fyke nets.

Comment No. USFWS-10

Flow velocity measurements should have been taken at the

upstream end of the fyke net array.

Response:

Please refer to the response to Comment No. CRASC-6.
Comment No. USFWS-11

Since the bypass safely captures wild smol ts , we recommend

the use of these fish in 1993 louver tests.

Response:

Please refer to the response to Comment No. CRASC-12.
:,.

louvers will be determined by the antennae at Boatlock Station and in the

branch canal. The bypass collection facility would also be monitored to

assure that as many of the radiotagged smo1ts as possible would be

accounted for.

Objective 4-- Surviva1 Assessment

Some of the smo1ts (a minimum of 100 in each of three trials) released

and recaptured as part of the louver/bypass evaluation will be retained 

in the collection facility and observed for 24 hours. A similar number

of smo1ts handled identically except for passage through the

louver/bypass system wi 11 be held as control s. Survival among bypassed

fish will then be compared to survival of control fish to determine

mortal i ty due to the bypass.

Objective 5-- Smo t Passaqe Estimate

The number of smo1ts migrating through the Holyoke Canal and using the

bypass will be estimated by diverting all bypassed smolts into the bypass

collection facility for 8 to 12 half- hour- to hour~long periods,

five days a week during April and Hay. ' These fish would be counted and

released. Total passage would be estimated by extrapolating from the

actual counts. The accuracy of the extrapolation will be statistically

assessed and recommendations for future counting methods wi 11 be offered.

# # #