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 -

, , jl - 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

iiiTable 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. iiir -

, ' 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 Studiesestimates 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 StudiesThe 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 StudiesINTRODUCTION 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 StudiesAdditionally, 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 StudiesHolyoke 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 Studiespowerhouse. 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 Studiespercent. 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 StudiesDetermine 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 StudiesSmol 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 Studiesmodif 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

---- were middle. The rest the upstream end and both sides 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 Studiesagain 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 StudiesReceiver 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 Studiesvicinity 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 StudiesMoni 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 Studiesvertical 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 Studiesnets 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

--- ---- Each of the three nets were identical and uvers (Figure 4). 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 Studiesupstream 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 Studies8 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 StudiesVeloci 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 StudiesOf 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 Studies90% (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 Studieswas 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 StudiesComparison 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 StudiesMortality 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 StudiesFigure 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 Studiesabout 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 StudiesGuidance 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 StudiesDuring 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 n 1 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 Studies5 ) 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 statistical difference was 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 StudiesLITERATURE 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 StudiesRuggles , 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 -

! -- Tables l - i - l .

; - l .Table 1. Results of the Spring 1992 Holyoke Canal Atlantic salmon smolt tests.- --Bypass UL1 **UL2UL3T1 ***in penbypassed14-May49920:0500:0514.3 inch41989%1 5-May50019:1000:1017.3 inch38690%1 6-May50018:4101 :4116.3 inch47095%20-May49820:1502:1516.1 foot42786%22-May50920:0002:4518.1 foot30463%23-May50019:0501:0519.1 foot42890%NumberReleaseEndWaterLouverRecapturesRemainedPercent* Number released includes radio-tagged fish.** UL1 = downstream under louver net.*** T1 = surface towernet.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 % R eco vered 10 10 10~k 10 9 900 10 900/0 4 440 780/0

CAUDAL PUNCHED Relea sed Re vered % Recovered 415 419 376 900 487 461 950/0 484 418 86O 475 300 630 465 421 91 oTable 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 1367Table 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 1452Table 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 2847Table 4. Results of radio-tagged Atlantic salmon smolt releases at HolyokeCanal during Spring 1992.Number ofNumbernon-transmittingRemainedBoatlockFirst LevelPercentDateof fishtagsin penBypassedStationCanal***Unknownbypassed14-May62%15-May100%16-May90%20-May90%22-May44%23-May4**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 18:55:10Table 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 --

, - Figures

l - l - i -CONNECTICUT RIVER.f.I..2!.-RELEASE SITEFLOWT ~ILR~CE CANALBYPASS OUTLET STRUCTURE(FISH SA~PLING)MONITORSTATION 1OHCRETE WALLMONITOR STATION 5MONITOR STATION 6MONITOR STATION 7MONITOR STATION 2FIGURE 1. PLAN VIEW OF HOLYOKE CANALAND LOUVER BYPASS SYSTEMr----..EI. 11 5EI. 11 0EI. 1 05EI. 1 00EI. 95EI. 90EI.EI. 80EI. 75610ft.550 ft.- GatehouseRange of gate openingsdian gate opening~~during test980 ft.Upstream extentof louvers98.25 ft.94.75 ft.89.75 ft.86.25 ft.Vertical distribution netsDownstream extentof louversBottom of louverEI. 92 ft.Figure 2.Schematic illustration of HolyokeCanal Gatehouse.Detachable Codend2 ft. X 2 ft. mouth w/tyke1/2 in. stretch mesh8 ft. longNet Body1/2~- ;:~~~gmeSh '..-'-----1 Metal Frame-"""'-""""""""'-"-Mouth5 ft. 4-1/2 in. wide3ft. 6 in. deep18 Inch space..... 1.75 ft.Plan of Holyoke CanalFlow........ 5.25 ft...... 10.25 ft.Fish BypassEntranceVertical DistributionNets..... 13.75 ft.Figure 3.Schematic diagram of fyke nets for sampling the verticaldistribution of Atlantic salmon smolts in Holyoke Canal during1992...... 20 ft.Sideview of net arrangementNet Body1/2 in. stretch mesh40 ft. longDetachable Cod end2 ft. X 2 ft. mouth w/fyke3/4 in. stretch mesh16 ft. longStyrofoam floatsWing (left side only)3/4 in. stretch mesh40 ft. long1 Mouth10ft. wide X 12 ft. deepPlan of Holyoke CanalUnder Louver NetsFlowFigure 4.Schematic diagram of tyke nets for sampling Atlantic salmon smolts passing under the louvers inHolyoke Canal during 1992.Louver PanelFish Bypass Entrance". . 0 ' 0 , - '

0 .

. - 0 . -

. :. ~: ~: : :::;, ~~' :-:' .-: , ::: ':. :tr - 0 . .

:: . : - ~ . ~ ..

. - - 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'f1G \.OU\l"-~ \,P'f\..O~~\~~ O~~?(25 FT)HOLYOKE CANALSTARTLOUVERSBYPASS................................................................................0. ... .....,.....3 4FULLDEPTHLOUVERS(40 FT)* DIAGRAM NOT TO SCALEBY-PASSFULL DEPTHFLOATING LOUVERSENDLOUVERSBLOCKLOCATIONDISTANCEFROM109127163199235295355433465BY-PASSINTAKE(FEET)Figure 6. Location of velocity measurements taken in Holyoke Canal during1992.May 23CJ)1.....::J......C....... 7C.;:::::J::JNumber of hours after releaseFigure 7. Cummulative percentage of Atlanticsalmon smolts recaptured over timein Holyoke Canal bypass sampler, Spring 1992.Naturally emigrating Atlantic salmon smolts that had no adipose fins-- --- ------ --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- --- - --- --------- -- -- --J!Jc: 7 nnC1Ic:(::JMean fork length= 217 mmStandard deviation= 16.4-- --- --- -- - - -- --------- -- -- -- ---149-- --- --- --- - -- --- - -- - -- -- - -- - ----- --- --- --- --- --------- --- -- - ------ --- --- -- - --- - - - ------ ----- ---- -- --- --- -- - --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - -- ---- -- --- --- ----- --- --- --------- --- --- --- --- ------ --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---. .-- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --. ----- --- --- --- --- --- ---17Upper limit of fork length interval(mm)Test Atlantic salmon smolts that had lower caudal fin punches-- --- --- ------ --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- - ---------J!Jc: 7 nnli!....C1Ic:(::JMean fork length: 217 mmStandard deviation= 13.N= 436- --- --- -- - --- --- --------- -- ----- --- --- -- ---- --- --------- -- ----- --- ------------ --- --- ------ ------- --- --- --- --- -- ---- - - -- -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ ------ --- --- ------ --- --- ------- --- ------ --- --- ------ --- ------- --- --- ------ --- --- --- ------1 I1724 2Upper limit of fork length interval(mm)Naturally emigrating Atlantic salmon smolts that had adipose fins- - - - - - - - -- - - - - ----- -- - --- --- - -- -- - --- -- - --- ------ --- --- ----Mean fork length= 170 mmStandard deviation= 15.319J!J8 -----c: 7li!....C1Ic:( 4_uun--n--_--::J- - - ------ --- --- --- --- --- --- ------- --- --- --- --- --- -- - --- --- ----- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---. -- --- --- ----- --- --- --- --- --- ---- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- - --- --- - -- - -- - - --- .-- --- --- --- --- --- - -- - -- --- ------ -- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - --- -- -- - --- -- --70 1Upper limit of fork length interval(mm)Test Atlantic salmon smolts that had upper caudal fin punches- --- --- --- --- --- --- --------- --- ---J!J~ 7 _m1jj....ffi::;:::JMean fork length= 216 mmStandard deviation = 12.N= 534- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ------------ --- --- -- - --.----- --- --- --- --- --- --- -.- ----------- ------ -- ---- ----- --- --- --- .-- --. ---------------- --- --- - -- --- --- --- ------ --- ---- --- --- --- --- --- --- ------ ----2123 2Upper limit of fork length interval(mm)Figure 8. Lengthfrequency distributions of test and non-test Atlantic salmon smolts captured in thebypass sampler at Holyoke Canal, Spring 1992.inch louver spacing12 inch louver spacing--------- -- - - --- --- --- ------ --- --- --- --- --- --- - -- --- --- - - - ------ --- --- --- --- - --- -- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ------ ------ --- --- --- --- -----BypassFloating louversLocation of measurement on louver arrayFigure 9. Velocity measurements along the length ofthe louvers in Holyoke Canal duringAtlantic salmon smolt releases, Spring 1992.- ~. r-..", r"".",--.' -. -, -"On - .",- '-... "" ,"' --,.. ~~ ", ", "' "(J)1:1(J)1:1):-F;; D.JJ -.BYPASS SAMPLER DATADate: May 13,1992Sample start time: 1535Sample stop time: 2245Louver efficiency test smolt mark: noneTest Smolts" Wild SmoltsWater Flow(efts)Collection periodUpper Caudal Lower CaudalAdiposeAdiposeHourBasculeHadleyCanalTotalBeginEndPunchPunchClipppedPresentEndingDischargeStationSystemDischarge1535164516003005900550018500164517451700300610055001800017451845180030061005500175001845194519003006100550017500194520452000300640055001750020452145210030061005500175002145224522003005900550017500TOTAL23003006100550017500BYPASS SAMPLER DATADate: May 14, 1992Start sample time: 1630Stop sample time: 0005Louver efficiency test smolt mark: Upper caudal punchTest Smolts" Wild SmoltsWater Flow (cf/s)Collection periodUpper Caudal Lower CaudalAdiposeAdiposeHourBasculeHadleyCanalTotalBeginEndPunchPunchClipppedPresentEndingDischargeStationSystemDischarge1630191519152000200030073003700137002000210535921003007000370013700210522052200300700037001370022052305230030070003700127002305000524003006700370012700TOTAL419Release time:Water temp (C):louver spacing:Placed in pen:Remained in pen:Recaptured UL1 (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 151992.(2) Downstream under-louver net.(3) Surface tower net.BVPASSSAMPLER DATADate: May 15,1992Start sample time: 1600Stop sample time: 2410Louver efficiency test smolt mark:Lower caudal punchTest Smolts" Wild SmoltsWater Flow (cf/s)Collection periodUpper Caudal Lower CaudalAdiposeAdiposeHourBasculeHadleyCanalTotalBeginEndPunchPunchClipppedPresentEndingDischargeStationSystemDischarge160019101900730037001520019102010219200076003700152002010211014021007000370015200211022102200700037001520022102310230070003700152002310241024007300370015200TOTAL386Release time:Water temp (C):louver spacing:Placed in pen:Remained in pen:Recaptured UL1 (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):19103 inches50064(1 )429386(1) Released in tailrace May 16,1992.(2) Downstream under-louver net.(3) Surface tower net.BVP ASSSAMPLER DATADate: May 16,1992Start sample time: 1500Stop sample time: 0141Louver efficiency test smolt mark:Upper caudal punchTest Smolts" Wild SmoltsWater Flow (cf/s)Collection periodUpper Caudal Lower CaudalAdiposeAdiposeHourBasculeHadleyCanalTotalBeginEndPunchPunchClipppedPresentEndingDischargeStationSystemDischarge15001841190030070003700152001841194129320003007000370015200194120411142100300700037001620020412141220030070003700162002141224123003007000370016700224123412400300700037001670023410041010030070003700172000041014101003007000370017200TOTAL470Release time:Water temp:Louver spacing:Placed in pen:Remained in pen:Recaptured UL1 (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):18413 inches5002(1 )497470(1) Released above headgates May 171992.(2) Downstream under-louver net.(3) Surface tower net.BVP ASS SAMPLER DATADate: May 19, 1992Start sample time: 1500Stop sample time: 2300Louver efficiency test smolt mane NoneTest Smolts" Wild SmoltsWater Flow (cf/s)Collection periodUpper Caudal Lower CaudalAdiposeAdiposeHourBasculeHadleyCanalTotalBeginEndPunchPunchClipppedPresentEndingDischargeStationSystemDischarge15001600160030083004000132001600170017003008300400013200170018001800300830040001320018001900190030083004000128001900200020003008300400012800200021002100300820040001300021002200220030079004000130002200230023003008500400013200TOTALBVP ASSSAMPLER DATADate: May 20, 1992Start sample time: 1445Stop sample time: 0215Louver efficiency test smolt mark: Lower caudal punchTest Smolts" Wild SmoltsWater Flow (cf/s)Collection periodUpper Caudal Lower CaudalAdiposeAdiposeHourBasculeHadleyCanalTotalBeginEndPunchPunchClipppedPresentEndingDischargeStationSystemDischarge14451555160020070003800122001555165017008006700380012200165017501800800700038001220017501850190080070003800122001850195020008007000380012200201521152762100800670037001220021152215100220080067003700122002215231523008007300370012200231500152400800670037001220000150115010080070003700122000115021502008007300370012200TOTALRelease time:Water temp:Louver spacing:Placed in pen:Remained in pen:Recaptured UL1 (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):4272301512 inches4984(1)494427(1) Released in tailrace May 21, 1991.(2) Downstream under-louver net.(3) Surface tower net.BYPASS SAMPLER DATADate: May 21, 1991Start sample time: 1530Stop sample time: 0210Louver efficiency test smolt mark:Upper caudal punchTest Smolts" Wild SmoltsWater Flow (cf/s)Collection periodUpper Caudal Lower CaudalAdiposeAdiposeHourBasculeHadleyCanalTotalBeginEndPunchPunchClipppedPresentEndingDischargeStationSystemDischarge15301640170080079003500129001640173018008007600350011100173018301900800200035007900183019301052000800390035009500193020302100300470035009300203021102200300590035001100021102210230030061003500110002210231024003006400350011000231000100100300610035001100000100110020030061003500110000110021003003006400350011000TOTAL166Release time:Water temp:Louver spacing:Placed in pen:Remained in pen:Recaptured UL1 (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):246211018.12 inches357101(1)25616665(1) Released in tailrace May 22, 1992.(2) Downstream under-louver net.(3) Surface tower net.BY? ASS SAMPLER DATADate: May 22, 1992Start sample time: 1300Stop sample time: 0245Louver efficiency test smolt mark: Lower caudal punchTest Smolts" Wild SmoltsWater Flow (cf/s)Collection periodUpper Caudal Lower CaudalAdiposeAdiposeHourBasculeHadleyCanalTotalBeginEndPunchPunchClipppedPresentEndingDischargeStationSystemDischarge13001600160030052003300113001600170017003005200330083001700180018003002300330066001800190019003002100380074001900200020003002300380083002000210015821003004700380010100210022001002200300640038001190022002300230030061003800116002300000024003006100380011600000001000100300610038001160001000200020030061003800116000200024503003007000380012200TOTALRelease time:Water temp(C):Louver spacing:Placed in pen:Remained in pen:Recaptured UL1 (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):304200018.12 inches50925(1 )484304(1) Released in tailrace May 23, 1992.(2) Downstream under-louver net.(3) Surface tower net.BYPASS SAMPLER DATADate: May 23,1992Start sample time: 1315Stop sample time: 0105Louver efficiency test smolt mark: Upper caudal punchTest Smolts" Wild SmoltsWater Flow (cf/s)Collection periodUpper Caudal Lower CaudalAdiposeAdiposeHourBasculeHadleyCanalTotalBeginEndPunchPunchClipppedPresentEndingDischargeStationSystemDischarge135015001500300590040009500150016001600300390040007400160017001700300230042007500170018001800300230042007500180019001900300230042007700190020051622000300230042007700200521051412100300230042007600210522052200300230042007600220523052300300330042008900230500052400300360042008900000501050100300300042008200TOTAL428Release time:Water temp(C):Louver spacing:Placed in pen:Remained in pen:Recaptured UL1 (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):125190519.12 inches50025(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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on--- -,...... ., -' -...- -, _- -....- -..." ~_._~ ~...,~ ~~ ~,~ .0..--: ~:.--: -; ~..--:c::::~ ))~-a):It::JJJ 11.m -.c;jHOLYOKE CANALENDBLOCK~fJ,o?-~~~\,:~~~~\..ouo~~\~GE.~& f1(25 FT)...STARTl"OUVERSBYPASS'" .................. ..... .... ... """"0"'0", .................................................1 23 4FULLDEPTHLOUVERS(40 FT)* DIAGRAM NOT TO SCALEBY-PASSFULL DEPTHFLOATING LOUVERSENDLOUVERSBLOCKLOCATIONDISTANCEFROM109127163199235295355433465BY-PASSINTAKE(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) 2.4Velocity 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 0.4Velocity 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) 0.4Velocity 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 1.6Velocity 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 1.4Velocity 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 2.4r '

( - 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 e nc1osed 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 ?:e Vice President 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

,.. lISMr. 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 PresidentMs. 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 01930Ms. 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 10014HOLYOKE 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 !IfOb.; 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 theAppend 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 Can a.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 I low conditions as well as louvel' depth and spacing conditions. The smolt releases slJozild be made at. low . high and typical canal I lows 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 efr ects 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 Wildli1 e 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 x ree 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 RizzoQOT-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!Ir r 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 pa8 Mge 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;!gesAppend i x 2 NOSCD ResDonse to Aqency CommentResponse 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 t\ rLI-.. . 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 EnforcementCaudal 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 downstreamThe 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 RizzoCONNECTICUT 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 8 RAR!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

~~. ~heodore F . xeye ;s~ Zxe~t1ve Assistant

t', lUooT-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'.; HampshireOCT-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. H owever , 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 - Ccmclus iou 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 fO B 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

~~'=' Bff if\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 'IgSOOT-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'. U4Response 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 ofBoatlock 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 andorient 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 TableResponse: 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.

# # #