Post- Impingement Fish Survival at Huntley Steam Station Winter and Fall 1999 FINAL REPORT Prepared for: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard Syracuse , NY 13202 Prepared by: Beak Consultants Incorporated 140 Rotech Drive Lancaster , NY 14086 April , 2000~ , 1.0

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Background Huntley Station Description Methods 1 Low- Pressure Spray System Efficiency Testing Collection and Handling Mortality Testing Impingement Sampling Water Quality Monitoring Station Operating Conditions Analytical Procedures 2.4 Results and Discussion 1 Low- Pressure Spray System Efficiency Testing Collection and Handling Mortality Testing 3 Post- Impingement Survival January Survival October Survival Water Quality Monitoring and Station Operating Conditions Optimization Summary

Page . 3:- Figure

LIST OF FIGURES Collection apparatus as set up at Huntley StationTable 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8:

LIST OF TABLES Physical characteristics of the newly installed traveling screens at the Huntley Steam Station. Summary of collection efficiency results using centrarchids at the Huntley . Station , January 21 , 1999. Summary of collection efficiency results using emerald shiner and two sizes of rainbow smelt at the Huntley Station , January 23 and 26 , 1999. Numbers of naturally impinged fish collected in the fish and debris troughs at the Huntley Station , January 25- , 1999. Handling and holding mortality testing results at Huntley Station January 20- , 1999. Huntley Station impingement survival testing results , January 21- , 1999. Huntley Station impingement survival results for ' )uvenile " and " adult" rainbow smelt , January 21- , 1999. Huntley Station impingement , October 24- , 1999.1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Beak (NMPC) to evaluate the survival of fish impinged on newly installed through- flow Ristroph- type traveling screens at its Huntley manufactured by Brackett Green Incorporated. The screening system was designed to maximize the survival of , in Water Act available (BTA) for minimizing and results for October 1999 for NRG , LLC, who 1999. The study objectives were to: 1) pressure spray wash system for the removal of fish from the handling on impingement survival of commonly impinged species; and 4) determine ways to optimize post- impingement survival. 1.2 Huntley Station Description The Huntley Steam Station (Huntley) is located on the Niagara River in the Town New York. fired and has four units rated for a total of 760 Five new " Ristroph-type " through- flow traveling screens were installed in the screenhouse that services Units 67 and 68. , conventional traveling Physical characteristics of the new screening system are described in Table NRG Huntley L.L.C. April 10 , 2000

Beak Consultants Incorporated File: Huntley _ report fma1.docCirculating system water enters the plant perpendicular to the Niagara River structure located along a bulkheaded shoreline. Water travels under a common forebay before passing through five sets of bar racks. located 12 ft behind each set of bar racks. The traveling screens fit into slots wide and 20 ft deep. Each form an inch by ~- inch " smooth tex woven stainless steel cloth and has an attached hydraulically- designed fish bucket at the bottom to collect fish as the buckets screen , their contents are washed into a fish pressure spray wash headers. The screen is then subjected to a high- pressure spray wash , which forces remaining debris into a debris trough. screens troughs (fish trough inch diameter pipe , which discharges into the Niagara River approximately intake. NRG Huntley L.L.C. April! 0 , 2000

Beak Consultants Incorporated File: Huntley_ report - final. doc,-, ~ , METHODS This section describes the testing describes collection efficiency testing designed to evaluate system for removal , in Section 1. 0). Section 2.2 describes experimental handling (Objective 2), and Section 2. describes post- impingement survival testing (Objective historically impinged at importance. Low- Pressure Spray System A mark/recapture study was perfonned to pressure spray

. . wash system for removal of fish from the screen to the fish return trough. on January 21 , 1999 and during post- impingement survival testing (Objective 3) on January 23- , 1999. (two to four fish per inside the fish and debris troughs. to the configuration of the screenhou~e , the debris trough was not readily accessible for , #8 and #9; however , the fish return trough for screens #7 , #8 and #9 was was almost no debris during ft/min), which would be the normal operating speed. Testing was conducted over a range of spray pressures in order to determine pressure for fish removal. The low- pressure spray wash system consists of two inside and two outside spray wash headers , each of which has multiple spray nozzles. wash nozzles appeared to be working properly except at Screen #9 , where one of the two outside NRG Huntley L.L.c. Beak Consultants Incorporated April 10 , 2000 report fmal.doclow- pressure spray headers was not working. clean. For testing on , dead centrarchids (bluegill with rose bengal (a red biological stain) and placed in groups of 25. the nearest mm prior to T3:ble A- I). Screen #5 was , 5 , 8 Screens #6 through #9 were tested with 5 psi. Additional collection efficiency tests were conducted using a smaller species determine if size and fish shape had an effect on collection , stained dead emerald shiners , ranging in , were

January 26 , stained dead rainbow smelt were tested on Screens #5 , #6 and #9. The divided into two size groups , juveniles 75- 95 mm in length and adults 130- 140 nun in length. All screens were tested with 5 psi. On January 25- , the numbers of live

, " naturally. impinged"

caught in the wire recorded and compared. screening system in diverting live fish to the fish return trough rather than to the debris trough. Collection and Handling Mortality Testing

A test , 1999 to determine the handling of test fish on their subsequent were used in the study. A total of 49 live fish were introduced into the impingement device (handling controls) at a point upstream in the fish return trough. the fish were handled as if they were selected for extended survival testing (described in Section 3), i. , their initial hr extended NRG Huntley L.L.C. April 10 , 2000

Beak Consultants Incorporated File: Huntley_ report - fmal.docobservation period. An additional group of 36 fish (holding controls) were held in the extended survival a control for the device , these fish were treated as described above. Impingement Sampling The intent of specimens of each of four target fish species: alewife , emerald shiner , gizzard shad , and rainbow smelt. The goal of sample supplement the data on impingement survival for this species , since the sample size obtained in January (30 fish) was relatively small. peak monthly impingement studies at Huntley (1982- 1983 and collected and tested as available , holding space permitting. Sampling occurred during an 8- hr period on five consecutive nights on January 21- , 1999 and

again on October 24- , 1999. florv traveling screens installed in Screenwells # 5 and #6. continuously rotated at low speed (8 fpm). A temporary trough section was installed within the fish return trough between Screens #7. This temporary collection table (Figure Once there , the fish were directed into a brailing device or bucket and lifted out brailing device retained a minimum of 4 inches of water in order to protect the fish. At no time NRG Huntley L.L.c. Beak Consultants Incorporated April!0 2000 report fmal. docAt the beginning of each sampling event , a plug was placed in the temporary trough divert fish to the collection table. , but could be shortened due to large numbers of fish. move fish when hr sampling event , fish collection table to , if selected for survival evaluation. Fish not selected for survival , the target excess) were identified to species and counted , but were not held. event , the fish return trough was returned to its normal mode within the fish return trough , and blocking flow to the collection table (Figure In January gal and 100- gal rectangular galvanized steel tanks. gal , 130- gal and 240- gal round fiberglass or plastic tanks and one 100- gal rectangular fiberglass tank. were continuously supplied with water pumped from the intake forebay. through tanks

were set up near the test screens. tanks by directing the water flow. three to five times per hour. water. Fish were separated according to size , GUld

the observation period. target groups would result in more handling, practically all available , unless the species for which quotas were well exceeded. Initial condition was determined for all fish classified as live , stressed , or dead according to the following conditions: Live - No , fish actively upright position. NRG Huntley L.L.C. AprillO 2000

Beak Consultants Incorporated File: Huntley _ report fmal.docStressed - Fish with visible physical damage such as missing patches of scales , to~ fins hemorrhaging or maintaining orientation in a normal upright position. Dead - Fish with no obvious external signs of life and/or severely individuals with only slight opercular movement. Only fish classified as live were transferred to holding tanks. omitted from the holding tanks were then monitored for 24 hr. Live fish held for extended-survival (24- hr) observation were observed at 2 , 4 , 8 and 24 hr after

collection. At , the number of dead fish was recorded , and the dead fish were removed from the holding tank , identified to species , and measured for total length. At the 24-

observation , all remaining fish were identified to species; characterized as live , dead , or stressed; and measured to fill a quota of 25 randomly selected fish per species measured per collection. Water Quality Monitoring Water quality parameters were measured at the intake during sampling and in randomly selected extended-survival holding taken at a mid- depth location at ~e , and (approximately 0 , 4 C), pH , dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration (mg/l), and specific conductance 25 O C). Water in the concentration were monitored in selected holding tanks at the beginning, middle , and end of each collection period and extended survival monitoring period NRG Huntley L.L.C. April! 0 , 2000

Beak Consultants Incorporated File: Huntley_ report - fma1.docStation Operating Conditions Information on , such as (CWP) operation , service water pump (SWP) operation , and flow rates , was obtained by direct observation and was recorded on a daily basis for the duration of the testing. are presented in Appendix C. Analytical Procedures Estimates were made for the initial survival rates (Si ) and extended , 24- hr survival rates (S ) of the test fish by species and life initially live fish (Li ) by the sum of those initially determined to be live , stunned (ST ), and dead

(D). The extended the number of fish classified as live at the end of the 24- hr observation period (L ) by the total number of fish observed for extended survival. Post- impingement survival (S) was estimated as the product of initial and extended survival rates. , fish observed as being stressed initially or at 24 hr were conservatively treated as being dead. NRG Huntley L.L.C. April 1 0 , 2000

Beak Consultants Incorporated File: Huntley_ report - fmal.doc0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 1 Low- Pressure Spray System Recovery rates for marked centrarchids ranged from 88% to 100% (Table Screen #5 , the best results (100% recovery) came with spray pressures of 1. 5 and 5 psi. Testing at Screen #5 also showed that nearly all fish missed by the fish return trough were the debris trough. , recovery approached 100%, with the exception of Screen #7 (88%). At Huntley, the lower inside and outside spray nozzles of most screens are directly opposed. The lower inside spray wash on appeared to have weaker outside spray may explain the lower , if they between the flap seal and the descending screen. F or the test , only 37% of the fish were recovered in the fish return trough (Table the debris trough for a combined efficiency of Using dead rainbow smelt , the recovery rates for juveniles (75- 95 mm) from Screens #5 , #6 , and #9 were 63 , 42 and 52%, 140 mm) from , #6 and #9 were 98 , 86 , respectively. efficiency for the fish and debris troughs at Screens #5 and #6 were 89 to 100. Simultaneous collections of live

, " naturally impinged fish" from the fish troughs downstream of Screens #5 and #6 showed that 83% of the emerald shiners and the juvenile and adult rainbow smelt were collected from the fish return trough (Table 4). These NRG Huntley L.L.C. April10 2000

Beak Consultants Incorporated File: Huntley - report - final. dochigh recovery rates in the fish return trough shiners and 42 to 63% recovery of juvenile releases (Table 3). Therefore , better collection efficiency may be expected for live fish than for dead fish. Detailed test results are presented in Appendix Tables A- 2 through ACollection and Handling Mortality Testing During testing on , 1999 , none of the 49 golden shiners (holding controls) held for 24 hr died , no impingement mortality holding. 3 Post Impingement Survival January Survival During January testing, a total of 6 120 fish and 14 species were collected for survival evaluation during five nights of sampling (Table , 2 20~ emerald shiners , 315 juvenile gizzard , 30 alewife and three adult 364 fish were collected but not evaluated for extended survival. Rainbow smelt was the most abundant 140 mm (Appendix Table B- 1). There , separating smelt into two size impingement survival for rainbow smelt was 84. 2% (Table 7). The

to adults dead or stressed at 24 hr , and alive at 24 hr was applied to the total number of fish (measured and NRG Huntley L.L.C. April 10 , 2000

Beak Consultants Incorporated File: Huntley - fmal.doc. ~ unmeasured) in each of these three categories to estimate initial and extended survival of juvenile and adult rainbow smelt. , the extended survival for juvenile and adult smelt was estimated to be 74.4% and 94.3% , respectively (Table 7). Emerald shiner was the second most from 48 to 105 mm in a relatively uniform size distribution (Appendix Table B- 2). survival for emerald shiners was 97. 5% (Table 6). Juvenile gizzard shad was the third most abundant species collected. from 86 to 193 mm 3). Overall , impingement survival for juvenile gizzard shad was 5. 1 % 9% collected , ranging in length from 262 to 289 mm. collection , and their survival was considered to be zero. be a result of cold water temperature , which at the time of the study was near OO C. Gizzard in the Niagara River are at the northern limits of their have been thermally stressed prior to impingement. Alewife were not abundant , and only 30 specimens were collected , ranging in length from 89 to 204 mm (Appendix Table B- 4). Of these 30 fish , four were dead and 26 were stressed at the time of collection (Table 6). the initial and shad , the low survival could be related to water temperature. Alewife are their range in the Niagara River and Lake Erie , and typically move to deep water to winter temperatures (Smith 1985). In laboratory experiments , adult alewife from Lake Michigan lost orientation and ceased feeding and schooling at temperatures between 2. 0 and 2. 8 o c (35. 37O F) (Colby 1971). Water temperatures during c (Appendix ' C). Ten non- target species were collected , including trout- perch , yellow perch , rock bass , spottail shiner , white sucker , white perch smallmouth bass , bluntnose minnow , darters sucker. No species , except for trout- perch. NRG Huntley L.L.C. April 10 , 2000

Beak Consultants Incorporated File: Huntley _ report - fmal.docOctober Survival During October testing, a total of3 258 fish and during five nights of 824 rainbow smelt , 628 emerald shiners , 183 alewife , and 65 gizzard shad. Other species included spottail shiner (231' fish), rock bass (180 fish), and white bass (127 The extended (24- hr) survival rate for (Table 8). This rate is lower 2%) derived from testing in January for and adults combined , and lower than 6%) in Rainbow smelt in October ranged in length from 48 rnm to 5), with

a mean length of approximately 65 rnm , compared to a mean length of 88 mm in January. The estimated survival rate of emerald shiners (97. 5%) in October was nearly identical to the rate (97. %) estimated from testing in 100 mm (Appendix Table B- 6). continued to demonstrate high survival rates in 8%) and rock bass (98. 9%). Most gizzard shad collected and tested in October were juveniles (length frequency data provided in Appendix Table B- 7). Their estimated 24- hr survival rate (96. 9%) was much improved ov~r the 5. 1 % intake during testing ranged from C to 14 o C. temperatures that could cause thermal stress for gizzard shad , thus possibly higher survival than observed in January. Alewife , the species targeted for October sampling in order to increase sample sizes , experienced an improved 24- hr survival rate of 22.4% for a survival in January for a sample of 30 fish (Table 6). from 79 to 134 rnm (Appendix Table B- 8) and most likely included young-of- the- year fish. NRG Huntley L.L.C. April! 0 , 2000

Beak Consultants Incorporated File: Huntley - final. docWater Quality Monitoring and Station Operating Conditions Intake temperatures varied little ranged from 0 to 2 o C in January (Appendix Table C- 1) and 11.5 to 14 o C in October (Appendix Table C- 3). DO concentrations (Appendix Tables C- 1 and C- 3) remained at , or near , saturation. All circulating and service water pumps remained on line during the study (Appendix Tables Cand C- 3). intake (Appendix Tables C- 2 and C- 4). NRG Huntley L.L.C. April 10 , 2000

Beak Consultants Incorporated File: Huntley_ report final.doc0 OPTIMIZATION The traveling mortality minimizing features. They Ristroph" fish buckets with a modified bucket lip to reduce debris spray wash systems. Improvements to collection efficiency have the effect of improving fish that fish not captured in either the fish or debris troughs are sent through the cooling system and experience mortality. order to avoid exposure to the high pressure debris sprays. Collection few fish are missed by the screens and sent through the plant. fish are captured in the fish trough, and a high debris trough. Potential actions to improve collection efficiency. for follows. The gap between the flap seal and the measure this gap, but the flap seal did not appear to come into close contact with the We recommend that the flap seal be ' adjusted and re- tested. Since already high, only small improvements are necessary. Screen # 7 should be examined more closely, particularly the flap seal. The lower outside spray nozzles are presently being directed towards the be forcing fish into the gap between the flap seal and the screen. be re- directed. NRG Huntley L.L.C. April 10 , 2000

Beak Consultants Incorporated File: Huntley_ report - fmal.docSUMMARY The spray wash and collection screen to the fish return trough. large percentage of the impinged fish are in good condition for return to the river , as reflected by their condition within the fish return spray wash system have positively affected the 24- , post- impingement survival rate of the fish

impinged at , the 24- hr post impingement approach or equal 100%. considered to be dead. , further refinements in screening system design are not likely to produce tangible increases in survival. NRG Huntley L.L.C. April 10 , 2000

Beak Consultants Incorporated File: Huntley _ report fmal.docScreen #6 rotation

... screen,'

'\.

... '" return trough

---- flow collection table Figure 1. Collection apparatus asTab Ie 1. at Huntley Steam Station. General/Site Data number of travel in manufacturer eratin deck desi design low water level channel base level screenwell width channel de th number of screen s eeds low screen s eed high screen s eed Hydraulic Data screen ca acity velocity trou head loss across mesh total head loss across screen roach velocity Screen Data effective screen width number of basket sections mesh opening size mesh material mesh diameter depth of water in fish bucket width of water in fish bucket header

unt ey five Brackett Green 572~5 566. 563. 552. 10' 9" 19' 6" two 8' I min 16' I min 57500 m 2.41 -:::1 ' Isec 9' 7 1/2" 1/8" x 1/2" smooth tex stainless steel 063" (16 ga. 4 " 9' 7 1/2" two two 19/18 10 10 262- 370Table 1. Continued. header

two 9/10 80 256 gravl 18" I. 350' 6' / secTable 2. at the Huntley Station, January 21, fish return trou2h spray pressure (psi) 1.5

fish return & debris troughs spray pressure (psi) Screen # 5 100% 100% 94% 92% 98% 88% 100%

Screen # 9 100%

100% 100% 98% 98% 100% Screen # 6 Screen # 7 Screen # 8 NA = debris trough was inaccessible HuntcollEF . xlsTable 3. and two sizes of rainbow smelt at the January 23 and Screen # 5 Screen # 6 Screen # 9 HuntcollEF . xIs

fish return trou2h emerald rainbow smelt shiner juvenile adult 70- 100mm 75- 95mm 130- 140mm 63% 98%

370/0 420/0 86% 52% 88%

fish return & debris emerald rainbow smelt shiner juvenile adult 70- 100mm 75- 95mm 130- 140mm 89% 100%

1000/0 96% 960/0Table 4. trougbs at tbe Huntley Station , January 25- 26, 1999. size (mm)

number recovered from fisb trou h

number recovered from debris trou b

emerald shiner 70- 100 104 rainbow smelt 75- 140 995 HuntcollEF . xls

percent of recovered fish collected in fisb trou h 83 % 91%Table 5., 1999.initialinitial24-24-totaltotaltestdeadstressedalivesurvivaldeadstressedalivesurvivaltestedsurvivalhandling controls100.100.100.holding controls100.00/0100.100.Dunkirk - spring- sumry.xlsTable 6., January 21-, 1999.initialinitial24-24-totaltotalspeciesdeadstressedalivesurvivaldeadstressedalivesurvivaltestedsurvivalrainbow smelt335798.2 o430287885. 7O341884.2 %emerald shiner216898.50/0214699.220197.gizzard shad "juvenile23614.34.00~3151 %trout-perch100.100.100.alewife00/0yellow perch100.100.100.rock bass89.100.89.spottail shiner94.4%100.94.white sucker100.100.100.white perch37.100.37.gizzard shad" adult"00/0smallmouth bass100.100.100.bluntnose minnow100.100.100.darter100.100.100.redhorse sucker100.100.100.Targettotal6120Dunkirk - spring- sumry.xIsTable 7.juvenile" and "adult" rainbowJanuary 21-, 1999.initialinitial24-24-totaltotalspeciesdeadstressedalivesurvivaldeadstressedalivesurvivaltestedsurvivalrainbow smelt (all)335798.2 %430287885.341884.2 %estimated.:::: 100mm27.324.1681.297.00/0351.740.1289.376.1733.74.estimated ~ 100mm4.31675.99.50/078.31588.94.1684.94.Dunkirk - spring- sumry .xIsTable 8.29, 1999.initialinitial24-24-totaltotalspeciesdeadstressedalivesurvivaldeadstressedalivesurvivaltestedsurvivalrainbow smelt282146180.1 %58487559.182448.0%emerald shiner62198.61198.4%62897.30/0spottail shiner22798.3%22699.23197.alewife18198.90/013922.18322.4 %rock bass17898.178100.18098.white bass12598.4%12499.12797.gizzard shad100.96.96.smallmouth bass100.100.100.darter100.100.100.white perch100.100.100.yellow perch100.100.100.brook silverside100.100.100.pumpkinseed100.100.100.goldfish100.100.100.black crappie100.100.100.Target species in boldtotal3258Dunkirk _spring- sumry.xlsjI80IIjI80II......1--4Table ATable ATable ATable AAPPENDIX A LIST OF TABLES Lengths of fish used in collection efficiency testing at Huntley Station January 21 , 1999. Huntley Station screen collection efficiency testing results using marked dead centrarchids , January 21 , 1999. Lengths of marked catch efficiency test fish recovered from the debris trough and flap seal at Dunkirk Station , December 2 , 1999. Collection efficiency testing results using emerald shiner and rainbow smelt at Huntley Station , January 23 and 26 , 1999.Table A- 1. Lengths of at Huntley Station, January 21, Group Group Group Group Individual Individual Individual Individual Fish Length Fish Length Fish Length Fish Length (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) 160 120 133 160 151 117 161 161 157 161 126 121 157 157 121 149 121 114 144 155 135 135 143 154 122 144 120 161 155 150 122 134 126 119 157 134 122 160

150 121 161 130 121 120 160 102 122 156 124 131 122 145 115 122 150 125 144 132 113 132 140 142 129 120 120 150

121 150 131 138 127 154 126 130 121 135 130 159 130 126 123 121 104 114 122 148 114 130 120 104 121 128

Average 130.4 129. 130. 134.4 Minimum Maximum 161 161 161 161

HuntcollEF . xlsTable A- 2. Huntley dead centrarchid~, January 21, 1999. Spray Trial Fish Time Number Number Percent Number Percent Pressure Number Test Start Released Recovered Recovered Recovered Recovered (psi) Group From Fish From Fish From Debris From Fish & Trough Trou2h Trou2h Debris Trough Screen # 5 1307 1312 Total 100% 100% 1320 1340 Total 92% 98% 1.5 1345 1.5 1400 Total 100% 100% 1404 1420 Total . 47 94% 98% Screen # 6 1445 1450 Total 98% 100% Screen # 7 1510 88% Screen # 8 1527 1000/0 Screen # 9 1535 100% NA = not available , debris trough was inaccessible HwitcollEF . xIsTable A- 3. Lengths of marked catch efficiency test fish recovered from the debris trough at Huntley Station, January 21, spray pressure (psi) trial number test group fish collected from debris trough len hs average I

HuntcollEF . xls

1.5 1.5 154 148 121 121 110Table A-4.January 23 and 26,Screen # 5SpeciesSizeSprayNumberNumberNumberPercent(mm)PressureReleasedRecoveredRecoveredRecovered(psi)From FishFrom DebrisFrom Fish &Trou hTrou hDebris Trou hrainbow smelt "juvenilerainbow smelt "juvenilerainbow smelt "juvenile75-75-75-rainbow smelt "adult"rainbow smelt "adult'l130-140130-14063 %980/089%100%Screen #6lemerald shiner 70-10038rainbow smelt "juvenile75-rainbow smelt "juvenile75-42%.960,10rainbow smelt "adult"130-140rainbow smelt "adult"130-140860/0960,10Screen #9Irainbow smelt "juvenile75-52 %Irainbow smelt "adult" 130-14025NA = not available, debris trough was inaccessibleHuntcoIIEF .xIsTable B- 1 : Table B~2: Table BTable BTable BTable BTable BTable BAPPENDIX B LIST OF TABLES Length frequency distribution for rainbow smelt collected at Huntley Station January 21- , 1999. Length frequency distribution for emerald shiner collected at Huntley Station -January 21- , 1999. Length frequency distribution for juvenile gizzard shad Station , January 21- , 1999. Length frequency distribution for alewife collected at Huntley Station January 21- , 1999. Length frequency distribution for rainbow smelt collected at Huntley Station October 24- , 1999. Length frequency distribution for emerald shiner collected at Huntley Station October 24- , 1999. Length frequency distribution for gjzzard shad collected at Huntley Station , October 24- , 1999. Le~gth frequency distribution for alewife collected at Huntley Station October 24- , 1999.Table B- 1. Length frequency Station, January 21- 25, 1999. length range from 101 106 111 116 121 126 131 136 141 146 151 156 161 166 171 176 181 186 191 196 201 206 211 216 221

100 .105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 . 195 200 205 210 215 220 225 ~225 number low (mm) high (mm) median (mm) mean (mm) percentage of fish legthfrqoutput.xls

initial test end dead and dead and alive stressed stressed combined combined . 0 347 125 133 140 136 106 101 85. 81.8% 44.Table B- 2. Length frequency Station, January 21- 25, 1999. length range from 46. 101 106 111 116 121 126 131 136 141 146 151 156 161 166 171 176 181 186 191 196 201 206 211 216 221 legthfrqoutput.xls

100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190. 195 200 205 210 215 220 225 :::-225 number low (mm) high (mm) median (mm) mean (mm)

initial test end dead and dead and alive stressed stressed combined combined 125 105Table B- 3. Length frequency Huntley Station, January 21- 25, 1999. length range from 101 106 111 116 121 . 126 131 136 141 146 151 156 161 166 171 176 181 186 191 196 201 206 211 216 221 legthfrqoutput.xls

100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 - 195 200 205 210 215 220 225 :::-225 number low (mm) high (mm) median (mm) mean (mm)

initial test end dead and dead and alive stressed stressed combined combined 133 193 177 156 121 112 115 122 116 117Table B-4. Station, January 21- 25, 1999. length range from 101 106 111 116 121 126 131 136 141 146 151 156 161 166 171 176 181 186 191 196 201 206 211 216 221 legthfrqoutput.xls

100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 - 195 200 205 210 215 220 225 :::-225 number low (mm) high (mm) median (mm) mean (mm)

initial test end dead and dead and alive stressed stressed combined combined

. 1 204 133 136Table B- 5. Length frequency Station, October 24- 29, 1999. length range from 101 106 111 116 121 126 131 136 141 146 151 156 161 166 171 176 181 186 191 196 201 206 211 216 221

100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 - 195 200 205 210 215 220 225 :::-225 number low (mm) high (mm) median (mm) mean (mm) percentage offish legthfrqoutput.xls

initial test end dead and dead and alive stressed stressed combined combined 124 167 202 145 . 0 277 483 382 135 127

100. 98. 96.Table B- 6. Length frequency Station, October 24- 29, 1999. length range from legthfrqoutput. xls

101 106 111 116 121 126 131 136 141 146 151 156 161 166 171 176 181 186 191 196 201 206 211 216 221

100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 - 195 200 205 210 215 220 225 :::-225 number low (mm) high (mm) median (mm) mean (mm)

initial test end dead and dead and alive stressed stressed combined combin 235 100Table B- 7. Length frequency Huntley Station, October 24- 29, 1999. length range from legthfrqoutput.xls

101 106 111 116 121 126 131 136 141 146 151 156 161 166 171 176 181 186 191 196 201 206 211 216 221

100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 - 195 200 205 210 215 220 225 :::-225 number low (mm) high (mm) median (mm) mean (mm)

initial test end dead and dead and alive stressed stressed combined combined . 0 242 104Table B- 8. Length frequency Station, October 24- 29, 1999. length range from legthfrqoutputxls

101 106 111 116 121 126 131 136 141 146 151 156 161 166 171 176 181 186 191 196 201 206 211 216 221

100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 - 195 200 205 210 215 220 225 :::-225 number low (mm) high (mm) median (mm) mean (mm)

initial test end dead and dead and alive stressed stressed combined combined 138 101 134 131 99.4 101.APPENDIX C Water Quality and Plant Operational DataTable CTable CTable CTable CAPPENDIX C LIST OF TABLES Water quality and plant operational data during impingement survival testing at Huntley Station , January 21- , 1999. Water quality data for extended survival holding tanks during impingement survival testing at Huntley Station , January 21- , 1999. Water quality and plant operational data during impingement survival testing at Huntley Station , October 24- , 1999. Water quality data for extended survival holding tanks during impingement survival testing at Huntley Station , October 24- , 1999.Table C- Water quality and plant operational data during impingement survival testing at Huntley Station , January 21- 26, 1999. dissolved cond- number number water oxygen uctivity of circ. of serv. elev. screen location date time temp o mgIL ~cm pumps pumps feet speed Intake 21- Jan- 2350 12. 7.3 180 all 562. low Intake 22- Jan- 310 12. 7.3 200 all low Iritake 22- Jan- 625 12. not taken 190 all 562. low Intake 22- Jan- 2300 13.1 7.4 190 all 562. low Intake 23- Jan- 330 12. 7.4 200 all low Intake 23- Jan- 705 13. 220 all 563 low Intake 24- Jan- 13. 270 all 563.4 low Intake 24- Jan- 325 12.3 7.4 260 all 563. low Intake 24- Jan- 645 12. 225 all low Intake 25- Jan- 135 12. not taken 180 all 563. low Intake 25- Jan- 410 13.1 not taken 160 all 563. low Intake 25- Jan- 630 13. not taken 180 all 563. low Intake 25- Jan- 2310 12. not taken 180 all 563. low Intake 26- Jan- 320 13.5 not taken 170 all 563. low wqtables. xlswqtables. xls

Table C- Water quality data for extended survival holding tanks during impingement survival testing at Huntley Station January 21- 26, 1999. dissolved oxygen location date time temp o mgIL Tank 6 22- Jan- 12. Tank 1 22- Jan- 315 12. Tank 2 22- Jan- 626 12. Tank 5 22- Jan- 1000 13. Tank 3 22- Jan- 1300 14. Tank 2 22- Jan- 2305 12. Tank 3 23- Jan- 13. Tank 3 23- Jan- 335 12. Tank 3 23- Jan- 710 12. Tank 5 23- Jan- 745 13. Tank 6 23- Jan- 1215 13.4 Tank 2 24- Jan- 330 11.7 Tank 24- Jan- 642 12. Tank 6 24- Jan- 910 12. Tank 5 24- Jan- 1300 12. Tank 2 25- Jan- 140 12. Tank 25- Jan- 400 13. Tank 25- Jan- 632 13. Tank 5 25- Jan- 1030 13. Tank 6 25- Jan- 1215 13. Tank 5 25- Jan- 2315 12. Tank 5 26- Jan- 325 13.4Table C- Water quality and plant operational data during impingement survival testing at Huntley Station, October 24- 29, 1999. dissolved cond- number number water oxygen uctivity of circ. of servo elev. screen location date time temp o mgIL ~mlcm pumps pumps feet speed Intake 24- 0ct- 2200 205 563. slow Intake 25- 0ct- 110 205 563. slow Intake 25- 0ct- 432 10.3 205 563. slow Intake 25- 0ct- 2104 10. 205 563. slow Intake 26- 0ct- 10. 202 563.5 slow Intake 26- 0ct- 440 10. 200 563.5 slow Intake 26- 0ct- 2053 . .12 10. 210 563 slow Intake 27- 0ct- 142 10.4 201 563 slow Intake 27- 0ct- 454 10. 211 563 slow Intake 27- 0ct- 2100 11.5 10. 7.4 210 563 slow Intake 28- 0ct- 11.5 10. 7.4 209 563 slow Intake 28- 0ct- 440 11.5 10. 7.4 209 563 slow Intake 28- 0ct- 2058 10. 195 563 slow Intake 29- 0ct- 136 10. 211 563 slow Intake 29- 0ct- 455 10. 210 563 slow wqtables. xlswqtables. xls

Table C-4. Water quality data for extended survival holding tanks during impingement survival testing at Huntley Station, October 24- 29, 1999. dissolved oxygen location date time temp o mgIL Tank 1 24- 0ct- 2210 Tank 3 25- 0ct- 105 Tank 4 25- 0ct- 435 10. Tank 2 25- 0ct- 835 10. Tank 4 25- 0ct- 1235 10.4 Tank 2 25- 0ct- 2108 10. Tank 3 26- 0ct- 10.5 Tank 2 26- 0ct- 440 10. Tank 1 26- 0ct- 840 10. Tank 1 26- 0ct- 1220 10. Tank 9 26- 0ct- 2053 10. Tank 3 27- 0ct- 142 10.4 Tabk 2 27- 0ct- 454 10. Tank 10 27- 0ct- 854 10. Tank 1 27- 0ct- 1250 10. Tank 5 27- 0ct- 2100 11.5 10. Tank 9 28- 0ct- 11.5 10.4 Tank 1 28- 0ct- 440 10. Tank 2 28- 0ct- 840 10. Tank 11 28- 0ct- 1230 10.5 Tank 1 28- 0ct- 2058 10. Tank 10 29- 0ct- 136 12.5 10.4 Tank 2 29- 0ct- 455 10. Tank 5 29- 0ct- 855 12. 10. Tank 11 29- 0ct- 1230 10. Tank 1 29- 0ct- 2300 10. Tank 11 29- 0ct- 154 10.