Fine-mesh 

Traveling S

EPRI-EPA MeetingAugust 26, 2008Doug Dixon, EPRIJon Black, Alden
2

EPRI 2008 Technology Research P• Fine mesh screen performance 

(laboratory)

• Fish return effects on survival 

– Eggs, larvae & juveniles 

(laboratory)

– Adults (literature)

• Designing portable fine mesh 

screen field testing device

• Beaudrey screen performance

– Hatchery & native fish injection

• Barrier net design for rivers 

(physical model testing)

• Technology performance review 

summary report (~ Dec 2008)

• Planning 2009 research program
3

Types of Fine Mesh Screens
4

Fine Mesh Collection Screens: Sum

• Biological Pe

– Extremely – Survival h

pro-larvaejuvenile), specific

– Challengi

• Limited field d

sites) with fav(debris) perfo

• Handling proc

develop & im

• Screen desig

develop & im
5

Typical Modified Traveling Screen
6

Fine-mesh Traveling Water Screen • Proven engineering performance• Can resolve O&M issues in addition to pro

protection

• Relatively easy to retrofit• Improved screen designs• Fine-mesh screens different from other en

reducing technologies – handle or collect afish/shellfish eggs & larvae
7

Biological Performance – Metric fo• The metric for measuring biological perform

impact the ability of fine-mesh screen to m

– Numbers of organisms– Biomass– Equivalent Adult Modeling– Larger entrainables are better able to s

collection process
8

C
9

Challenges
10

Challenges
11

C
12

Challenges
13

• Condition of fish• Handling controls• Visual observations• Control of variables

– e.g., duration,

velocity

• Environmental variables

– Water quality, debris loading

Laboratory vs. Field
14

Laboratory Evaluation – Striped Ba
15

Field Studies – Immediate Survival• Larval fish have high natural mortality• In the laboratory, these mortalities can be 

by handling controls

– latent mortality can mask effects

• In the field – what can you use for control?• In the absence of controls is immediate su

method for measuring performance?
Observed Trends
17

Fine-mesh Evaluations

Year of 

Evaluation Water body 

1977 Columbia River H1977 Columbia River 1977 Laguna Madre 

1977-1978 Hudson River 

1980 Tampa Bay 1981 Laboratory 

1984-1985 Cape Fear River 1985-1989 Lake Ontario 1987-1991 Lake Erie 

1988 Mississippi River 2008 Laboratory 
18

Localized Differences• Hanford Generating Project and 

100-N, Columbia River

• Comparison between adjacent intakes• Similar Configuration

– 1/8 in. (3.2 mm) - conventional traveling 

100-N 

No. collected 1,296 Survival 0% All species 97

92% 

Through-screen velocity

2.9 ft/sec 2
19

Taxa Screenwash 

Hatcha

Fish Eggs:

Anchoa mitchilli 74 Sciaenidae 80 

Latent Surviv

Fish Larvae:

Anchoa mitchilli 68 Sciaenidae 63 

Fish Returns Effects
20

Seasonal EffectsSomerset - Lake OntarioRistroph screen –

1.0 mm mesh

Species Lifestage Season

N

Te

JUV winter JUV spring JUV summer JUV summer JUV fall JUV fall 

rainbow smelt

JUV fall 

- 0.88 - 1.08 - 2.5 - 3.1 ft/s 
21

Species Lifestage

No. 

Tested

smallmouth bass PYSL 12 spottail shiner PYSL 22 yellow perch PYSL 96 white perch PYSL 10 emerald shiner PYSL 60 white bass PYSL 190 rainbow smelt PYSL 475 alewife PYSL 50 gizzard shad PYSL 47 

Species Differences
22

Length Effects

0.0%

20.0%40.0%60.0%80.0%

100.0%

≤7 7‐8 8‐9 

CommonCarp Survival

0.5 ft/s ‐ 8 min
EPRI-sponsored Laboratory St
24

Study Design - 2007

Variable Geiger

BrackettGreen 

Mesh 0.5 mm 0.5 mm Water Velocity 0.5 and 1.0 fDuration of Exposure 4 and 8 minut
25

Study Design - 2008

Variable Geiger

Mesh 0.5 mm (modified bucket) Water Velocity 0.5 and 1.0 Duration of Exposure 2 and 4 min
26

Test Facility
27

Test Facility
28

1.0 m

0.5 mmscreen

0.5 mmscreen
29

Flume with Water
30

Test Species - 2007

Species n

NL Range 

(mm) 

common carp 29,195 5.4 - 13.8 channel catfish 20,200 13.9 - 23.0 white sucker 29,400 12.5 - 28.8 
31

0.0%

20.0%40.0%60.0%80.0%

100.0%

A 

Percent Survival

Screen

Commom Carp

Control 0.5 ft/s ‐ 4 min 0.5 ft/s ‐ 8 min 1.0 ft/s ‐ 4 min 

Common Carp Survival - 2007
32

0.0%

20.0%40.0%60.0%80.0%

100.0%

A 

Percent Survival

Screen

White Sucker

Control 0.5 ft/s ‐ 4 min 0.5 ft/s ‐ 8 min 1.0 ft/s ‐ 4 min 

White Sucker Survival - 2007
33

0.0%

20.0%40.0%60.0%80.0%

100.0%

A 

Percent Survival

Screen

Channel Catfish

Control 0.5 ft/s ‐ 4 min 0.5 ft/s ‐ 8 min 1.0 ft/s ‐ 4 min 

Channel Catfish Survival - 2007
34

Tested Species 2008• Hybrid striped bass• Common carp• Bigmouth buffalo• Golden shiner• Channel catfish
35

Attempted Species in 2008

Species Tested Explanat

Hybrid striped bass Limited Seal failure on pump intake 

nitrogen super-saturation c

Golden shiner Limited Seal failure on pump intake 

nitrogen super-saturation c

Gizzard shad –Group 1

N Eggs were not viable, man

failure to hatch, 100% mor

Gizzard shad –Group 2

N Mal-development of GI trac

active feeding 

River herring N 35% mortality on arrival, ab

feeding in the presence of densities and microencaps
36

2008 Observed Trends• Testing ended July - preliminary 

stages of data analysis has been initiated

• Improvements in bucket design 

have improved transfer efficiency and survival

• Observed decrease in survival 

as velocity and durations of impingement increased

• Life stage effects observed with 

drop in survival as organisms transition from yolk-sac to post yolk-sac
37

Head tank & Pump

6” diameter pip

Collection discharge & Tray

Injection tubes

Fish Return System Components
38

Collection Box Configuration at Each 

Height 

Un

4 ft 2 ft

71.9’

Injec

Parallel 6” Pipes

Collection Box

Fish Return - Facility Design
39

Common Carp 

Bigmouth Buffalo

Buffalo Larvae

Cyprinus carpio 

Ictiobus cyprinellus 

Fish Return - Test Species
40

Three Drop Heights

• Underwater• 2 ft• 4 ft

Two Velocities at each

Height

• 2 ft/sec• 6 ft/sec

Fish Return - Test Conditions
41

Fish Return - Summary

0

102030405060708090

100

2 ft/sec 6 ft/sec 

Percent  Survival

Velocity

Survival – UnderwaterDischarge

Channel Catfish Bigmouth Buffalo Golden Shiner 
42

Fish Return - Summary

0

102030405060708090

100

2 ft/sec 6 ft/sec 

Percent  Survival

Velocity

Survival ‐ 2 ft Drop

Channel Catfish Bigmouth Buffalo Golden Shiner 

Golde
43

Fish Return - Summary

0

102030405060708090

100

2 ft/sec 6 ft/sec 

Percent  Survival

Velocity

Survival ‐ 4 ft Drop

Channel Catfish Bigmouth Buffalo Golden Shiner 
44

Designing Portable Field Testing P[Example: EPRI-EPA Wedge Wire T
45

Pilot Scale Preliminary Designs – B
46

Barge Mounted
47

Barge Mounted
48

Fine Mesh Collection Screens: Sum

• Biological Pe

– Extremely – Survival h

pro-larvaejuvenile), specific

– Challengi

• Limited field d

sites) with fav(debris) perfo

• Handling proc

develop & im

• Screen desig

develop & im
49

EPRI Technology Research Progra• Beaudrey screen performance

– Hatchery & native fish injection

• Barrier net design for rivers 

(physical model testing)

• Technology performance review 

summary report (~ Dec 2008)

• Planning 2009 research program: 

recommendations welcomed

– Additional fine-mesh laboratory 

tests (e.g., vacuum screens?)

– Fine mesh field tests– Evaluation of infrasound?– Field test of riverine barrier net?