# 17099

July 1992

Prepared for 

# C. HYDRO Environmental Resources 

# Vancouver, B.

Prepared by W. Bengeyfield. 

# Global Fisheries Consultants Ltd. White Rock, B. ../Executive 

## Summary

A temporary fish screen made of knotless nylon netting was designed and installed by BC Hydro to divert the 

## 1991 juvenile salmon migration safely past Puntledge Generating Station. The study determined the overall efficiency of the 

## screen to divert the total fish run; whether 

## migrants were impinged or lost any scales on the screen; the size and timing of the 1991 outmigration; dimensions of head and body size of migrant fish; and the volume of-debris 

## cleaned from the screen. The temporary screen was evaluated by sampling wild coho salmon smolts in the bypass , 

## (representing fish that were successfully diverted) and in the sluice '(fish that circumvented the screen). The 

## numbers of fish sampled were used to estimate the total number of cohosmolts moving downstream/eich day by applying the 

## appropriate mark-recapture efficiency rating; Impingement of fish was " 

## the second majorconcem of this study. Virtually all (99. 3%) of the estimated 108, 

## 000 coho smolts that migrated in the spring of 1991 were effectively diverted by the temporary screen. - 

## Returns of adult coho to the PuntIedge River in 1993 should be 

## enhanced as a result of the successful downstream passage in 1991. 

## The plunge of waier (the nappe ) through the bypass' in the previous year (1990) 

## was suspected 

## to have discouraged smolts from migrating through the bypass. ~ The steel, ramp constructeQ in 

## 1991 improved the hydraulic characteristics of the nappt:. Smolts exhibited 

### lesS'reluctance to 

## approach and enter the bypass; both in daylight and in darkness , over the 1991 study period. 

## Coho smolts preferred to move down the left side of the bypass during daylight hours, whereas the distribution of catches at night' indicated a general lack of orientation by the fish. 

## The 

## right trap probably captured a greater proportion of fish at night because the screen guided fish down the right ' 

# side into the bypass. / Mortalities can occur at fish-screening facilities as a result of prolonged physicalcontact
(impingement) with the screen 

## , or from loss of scales or slime after brief contact with the screen, Direct 

## impingement was monitored by inspecting the net each morning. Only five

~ I 

### coho smolts were found dead on the screen. 

## Observations using underwater video showed that during the day, coho smolts typically 

## maintained a holding position about 10 to 20cm away 

### , from the mesh, but periodically, smolts 

## dropped back and brushed the net with the tips of their
tails in a - 

### deliberate exploratory. manner. These results 

## suggest that impingement did not occur 

## as a result of excessive approach velocities; fish found dead on the netting showed evidence of previous , trauma. 

## Scale loss measured from four groups of coho smolts 

## was highest in those 

## dipnetted in the bypass and those collected in tpe Wolf traps 

## , and was lowest in the group angled in Comox Lake. 

## The overall timing o(the 

## 1991 migration was similar to 1990~ with migration beginning about 

## May 1, peaking in late May-early June , and dwindling significantly in late June. 

### Sampling 

## was extended until July 8 as low numbers of coho smolts in the range 0('50 to 200 fish per day continued to migrate from the system. Nearly 23% of the coho smolts sampled in 1991 

## migrated during daylight hours, compared with 41% . in 1990. 

## Two study elements-rnorphometric dimensions 9fcoho and chinook smolts; and debris 

# loading- were undertaken to aid the d~sign of the permanent fish screen at Puntledge GS.



## i .

# Table of Contents

PaRe



## Executive Summary

Table of' 

# Contents ,

List of, 

## Figures, Tables & Appendices iii 

# 1. BACKGROUND 

# 1;1 Puntledge Study Area History of Fish- Project Interactions 

# 2. "STUDY OBJECTIVES AND 

# FACiliTIES Objectives & Approach 2 _ 

## River Discharge and Plant Operation The Temporary Screen 

# 2.4 Bypass 

# 2.5 Sluice 

# 3. METHODS Fish Sampling 

## Fish Observations 

## Analysis 

# 4. RESULTS

Effectiveness of the Screen 

### Estimate of , 1991 Coho Smolt Population Season~l Timing of Coho Migration 

## Diel Timing of Coho Migration Morphometric Measurements Steelhead Migration 

### Debris Loading

5. DISCUSSION

Evaluation of Screen Efficiency 

### 2 Impingement Estimates of Population Size 

# .4 Migration Timing



## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS LITERATURE CITED 

## A~PENDICES ! '

## Ust of Figures Figure 1. 

### Figure 2. Figure 3: 

### Figure 4.

Figure S. 

### Figure 6. Figure 7. Fig~re 8. 

### Figure 9. Figure 10. Figure 11. 

## List of Tables ' Table 1. Table 2. Table 3.
Table 4. Table S. 

### Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. 

## List of Appendices Appendix 1. Appendix 2. Appendix 3. Appendix 4, AppendiX 5,


### Appendix 6. Appendix 7. ' Location of Puntledge River 

### Study Area



### Puntledge RiverSchematic Flow Diagram Location of the Temporary Fish Saeen 1991 Photographs , at 

### Puntledge Diversion Dam. TemporarY Screen (downstream section) 

### Temporary Screen (upstream section) Coho Smolts Near the Saeen at Night 

### Coho Smolts in Front or Bypass in Daylight 1991 Length- 

### Weight Relationship for Coho Salmon Smolts. Timing of Chiriook Fry Ca!ches in the ' 

### Bypass in 1991. 

### Timing or Coho Smolt Recaptures in the Bypass in 1991. Coho Smolt Migration at Puniledge Diversion Dam in 1991. 

### Movements of Coho Smolts in Daylight ys Darkness in 1991. 

### Diel Catches of CohoSmolts in 1991. Daily Steel head Smolt Migration in 1991.



### Efficiency Tests of Bypass Traps in 1991. 

### Efficiency Tests of Tailrace and Sluice Traps in 1991. 

### Estimated Distribution of Coho Smalts During the Major Outmigration Period. 

### Fish Impingement on the Temporary Screen. 

### Percent of Coho Smolts in Descaling Categories. Distribution of Coho, Smolt Catc~es in the Bypass Traps: 

### Major Net Cleaning Operations - 1991 Migration Period. 

### Annual Estimates of Coho Salmon Smolts fro~ Puntledge.

1991 Puntledge Coho Lengths, Weights, & Percent Scale Loss. 

### Monthly Summary of 1991 Trap Catches at PuntledgeRiver. Daylight vs Night Movements of Coho SmoltS in 1991. Daily Catches and Estima 

### ted Numbers of Coho Smolts in 1991. Morphometric Relationships for Puntledge Hatchery Chinook 

# and Wild Coho Salmon. 1991 Puntledge Morphometric Measurements. 

### Steel head Smolts in Puntledge Bypass Traps in 1991;
iii 

### PaRe

3-1

13 p. 

### 1 p. 

### 1 p. 

## 2p. 2p. 2 p. 1 p.

# Evaluation of a Temporary Screen to Divert

Coho Salmon Smolts at PuntledgeGS

BACKGROUND

BC Hydro has been seeking a suitable technology that , 

## will ~educe juvenile salmonid
mortalities at their PlIntledge 

## River facility on Vancouver Island. Recent experiments using behavioural devices in 1989 and an electric field in 1990 proved ineffective in diverting 

## downstream migrants away from the penstock intake. BC Hydro then began to consider a permanent fish screen after learning of the success of the Eicher penstock screen at Elwha Dam , Washington.


## While the permanent screen was being designed 

## , a temporary barrier net was installed by BCH 

## Engineering to divert the 1991 smol~ migration through the 

### existing bypass. Global Fisheries 

## Consultants Ltd. was contracted to evaluate the effectiveness of the temporary screen on downstr~am migrants between May and July, 1991.

## Puntledge ' Study Area



## The Puntledge River flows for nine kilometres betWeen Comox Lake and its confluence with 

### the Tsolum River about 2 kIn above saltWater (Figure 1). 

## Comox Lake reservoir, operated by 

## BC Hydro, has limited storage capacity. Normal discharges down the PuntIedge River are regulated by a control dam (Com 

## ox Dam) at the lake outlet. The design flow in the river , between the tWo 

## dams for maximum power generation is approximately 31 cubic metres per 

## second (m js) (1100 cubic feet per second (cfs)). This 

## discharge was not attained during the 1991 evaluation period due to low sriowpack conditions in the 

## previous winter. 

## The maximum daily ComoxLake discharge since 1963 ocCurred in 1968; it was estimated at 

### 260 m 

## js (9273 cfs). The once per 200 y flood has been predicted to be 325 m js (11,500 cfs) 

### (H. Louie, BC Hydro 

## pers. comm.).


### The Puntledge Div~rs!on Dam is 3. 

## 7 km downstream from ComoxLake. Most of the river water enters the penstock here: for the production of electrical power at Puntledge GS. 

### Any 

## inflows to the diversion dam greater than the turbine capacity- 27. 2 m 

## js (960 cfs)-are 

## spilled over the dam into the river channel. Figure 2 depicts the hydroelectric facilities and 

# , r flow routes in thePuntledge study area. '- ~



## The river channel doWnstream of the diversion dam receives a minimum threshold flow of 2. 

### js (100 cfs) at all times to satisfy fish 

## habitat requirements. This minimum flow is increased to 5. 

### 7 m js (200 cfs) for the period 

### betWeen June 1 and September 25 each year to 

## facilitate the upstream migration of adult:"summer chinook salmon. 

## These minimum flow
levels are par, 

## t of a cooperative agreement betWeen BC Hydro 

## , Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), and BC Ministry of Environment 

## , Lands & Parks (MEbP).

\ 1. 

### Hi, story 

# of Fish- Project Interactions BetWeen 1955 and 1958, BC Hydro expanded the generation capability of the Puntledge 

## facility by raising the elevatiqns of both Comox storage and Puntledge diversion dams. Tests 

## in 1955 indicated that jqvenile salmon experienced a turbine mortality rate.in the range between 30' to 60 percent-during their downstream migration (DFO, 1962; Lister , 1968). 

## Annual fry salvage programs transported juvenile fish around the diversion ~am from 1956 to

## PUNTLEDGE RIVER HATCHERY



## UPPER PUNTLEDGE , HATCHERY 

# . ~

~(:JT- 

## ~O .

, . \ t1 T 

# ~~((;-



# " v , --. 

## -:/ 

# , , ---::;::.-:;:::.-- -:;:::.-::;:::.--



# c au R T N A Y



# / \(Y

kllometres



## Comox Lake



# Figure l' 

# Location of Puntlecfge River Study Area.
Global FI.herle. Con.ultant. Ltd,

## IMPOUNDMENT DAM



## TEMPORARY 

## SCREEN



# DIVERSION DAM

I ' 

# TURBINE , )



# Figure 2 Puntledge River Schematic Flow Diagram

Global Fisheries Consuaants Ltd.1964. Louvers were 

### tested in 1957 and 1959 but this experiment 

## , did not deflect sufficient numbers of smolts away from 

## the intake (Ruggles and Ryan, 1964). In 1965 the powerhouse


### was shut' 

## down in March and April to permit the construction of a spawning channel facility adjacent to the diversion dam (MarshaU, 1973). This 

## facility proved unsuccessful as a spawning channel and was converted to semi-natural rearing 

### channels.


## The full-scale Puntledge ~ver Hatchery was constructedin 1979 

## downstream of Puntledge 

# GS. Annual production of chinook salmol1 from Puntledge Hatchery has been variable. 

## Production of coho salmon at the hatchery/, on the other hand 

## , has been more successful in

reCent years. Surplus coho fry have been outplante 

## d annually to rear in the nearly 50 km of low gradient fish habitat in the watershed above Comox Lake.



## Coho smolts from these transplantS have been the principal test subjects of BC Hydro 

## studies on fish passage. , In 1989, behavioral devices including underwater sound , strobe light, 

# ),

and hanging chain diverted 8. 

## 6% of coho smolts to a bypass that discharged 0. 7 m 

### fs(26 cfs)

(Bengeyfield and Smith, 1989). 

## In 1990, an array of submerged electrified cables diverted 

## , only 1L1 % of the smolts into a bypass that discharged2. 

## 3 to 5. 7 m fs (80- 200 cfs) 

## (Bengeyfield, 1990), 

## Until the issue of turbine mortality isresolve~fisheries agencies have 

# I ~ indicated that they intend to restrict the passage of adult salmon and steelhead above the diversion dam as they have done since 1965. 

# , "

STUDY OBJECTIVES AND FACILITIES Objectives & Approach
The' 

### major objectiv es of the study were to determine:

. the efficiency of the screen in diverting 

### downstream migrants;
. whether migrants were impinged or 

## lost any scales on the screen;
. the size, and the seasonal and diel timing, of 

### the 1991 outmigration;
. dimensions of head and body sizedf migrant 

### fish;

. the 

## volume of debris, and the frequency of screen cleaning,

## The temporary screen was evaluated by sampling 

## wild coho salmon smoltsin the bypass

(representing fish that were 

## succ~fully diverted) and in the sluice (fish that circumvented the screen). The 

## numbers of fish sampled were used to estimate the total num 

## ber of coho smolts moving downstream each day by applying the appropriate mark-recapture efficiency rating.


## Impingement of fish was a second major 

## concern of this study. Impingement is a term used to describe a situation when fish are forced by high velocities to contact a physical 

### structUre. 

## Mortalities can occur at fish-screening facilities as a result of prolonged contact with the 

## screen, o~ from loss of scales or mucous coating after brief contact with the screen. Because chinook salmon are smaller and have reduced swimming capability than coho salmon , two 

## thousand hatchery chinook smolts were released upstream to assess their potential for impingemep.t on the temporary scre"en. 

## Two study components~orphometric 

## dimensions of coho and chinook smolts, and debris 

## loading-were undertaken in 1991 to aid the design of the permanent screen.

River Discharge and Plant 

# Operation The outmigration period in 1991 waschanlcterized by lower velocity conditions compared with 1989 and 1990. Inflows betwe 

## en May 10 and July 8 ranged from 13.4 to 16. 6 m /s (474 

## - 586 cfsJ. During the evaluation, the Francis turbine at Puntledge GS operated between 6. and' 

### 10.4 megawatts (MW), but can be operated ' 

## at 24 MW at maximum output. 

# The Temporary Screen 

# ~e temporary screen was a 

## 43 m (141 ft) nylon mesh net st ~etched across the river from the' 

## right bank at an angle downstream to the d~version dam (Figure 3). 

### The net physically guided 

## the migrating fish to the entrance of the bypass. The primary net was 

## constructed of tarred 

# ~ \

knotless nylon 

### 210120 

## inch mesh which was square- 

## hung from the float line. Secondary 

## closure nets of marquisette mesh were 

## used to seal the ends of the primary net to the rock

BC Hydro conducted a , separate study of the water velocities and current directions " 

### at different depth strata upstream and downstream of the temporary screen.UPPERHATCHERYN-+PUNTLEDGE RIVER----.....( ~DIVERSION DAMSLUICEWOLFy-TRAPS(2)\\j~~G~t(\..\it.~O~U\'.".PENSTOCK2040 m50~ 100 ItFigure 3location of theTemporary Fish Screenat Puntledge DiversionDamGlobal Fisheries Consultants,Ltd,

## b~k and to the face of the diversion 

# ~,

respectively, to prevent fish from circumventing ~e



## barrier. The upper edge of the net was supported by a series , 

## of Topper floats while the lead line was cabled to the river bottom (Figure 4A and 4B).


## Under the conditions experienced in 1991, river flow along the upstream Section of . 

## the net 

## generally had a higher ratio of sweeping velocity (parallel to the net face) relative to normal velocity (perpendicular to the net). In the 

## downstream section of the net, the water flow was generally perpendicular to the net. 

## Most of the water that passed through the temporary screen entered the penstock and was conducted to Puntledge GS about 4 Ian downstream. 

# Bypass The bypass is located in the 

## cross-stream section of the diversion dam. It was the same bypass used in 1990 but only the right half was 

## opened in 1991. The rectangular opening was 2, 

### 8 m 

### wide and discharged flows' between 1.2 

### ci'2. js (44- 

## 83 cfs) during the period. The bypass discharge was 

## , conveyed down a steel ramp into the river below the diversion dam. The ramp 

### was designed to improve the' hydraulic characteristics~ 

## the original nappe and thereby induce fish to use the bypass. The 

## depth of water entering the ramp averaged 20 to 26 cm, while the 

## depth of the headpond in front of the bypass was about 2. 2 m.


# Sluice
The . sluice is an opening in the diversion weir about 100 m 

## downstream of the bypass to the 

## left of the penstock intakes. The opening was 2. 

## 1 m wide and was sampled for fish that
circumvented the barrier net. 

### Approximately 0. 7 m 

## js 125 cfs) of flow discharged through the 

## sluice between May 15 and July 8 when turbine flows were too low to allow fish sampling in the tailrace. 

## / ,

# Figure 4. 1991 Photographs at Puntledge Diversion Dam.

4A, Temporary Screen (downstream 

### section) 4B. 

## Temporary Screen (upstream sectlon) - .



# ~'I: -..

4C, 

### Coho Smolts Near the Screen at Night 

## 40. Coho Smoltsin Front of the Bypass in Oayligr

# METHODS

Fish Sampling Yearling coho salmpn smolts were the principal test subjects used to evaluate the temporary screen. Traps placed 

## in the bypass enumerated fISh that were succc=~fully diverted by the,


## screen , whereas traps in the sluice and tailrace 

### enumerated fish that circumvented the net. 

### All captured fish were released into the large pool immediately below the diversion dam. 

## Trapping Between May 10 and July 8, trap catches were tallied twice a day, seven days a week, usually
between 0800- 

## 0900 h and between 1600'-1900 h. 

## Fish caught in the traps were sorted by species 

## , examined for marks, and counted. Traps were calibrated for trapping efficiency by releasing caudal- 

## clipped smolts upstream of the traps. ~ An efficiency test uses the recapture 

### rate determined from a known number of 

## marked fish to estimate the capture rate for the unmarked (wild) fish population.
Byoass 

## Three Wolf traps , 15 em wide and 2. 6 m long, were used to sample the bypass. The traps 

## discharged fish and waterinto 10 em PVC plastic piping atthe back of the trap that led to 

## individual holding compartments inside a floating live box. 

## M~ures to reduce descaling 

## caused by contact with the trapping gear included the placement of a 4 mm neoprene rubber sheet on top of the trap floors and styrofoam ' 

### bumpers 

## ' at the back end of the traps. Sharp edges which could potentially injure fish were caulked with silicone rubber.
The bypass traps were calibrated for capture efficiency on three occasions by r~leasing kn numb~rs oC-caudal-clipped coho smolts in the headpond upstream of the temporary 

### screen (Table 1),Table 1. Efficiency Te~ 

## of Bypass Traps In 1991.

Release Date 

## Species No, Released 

### ' No, Recaptured 27 May 

### coho 500

(hatchery) 

## 03 June coho 537

(l1atchery) 

## 20 June coho 176

(wild) 

## Percent 13.
15.



### AVERAGE COHO RECAPTURE RATE = 11. 

### 8 %


## 07 June chinook



### (hatchery) 

### 2000 512 25. 6 *

. The per 

### cent recovery of chinook was overly large due to the unexpected presence of wild chinook above the diversion dam in 1991. 

## Juvenile chinook salmon were not expected to be upstream of the diversion dam in 1991 aCcording to the Puntledge Hatchery staff , ~



## although single chinook fry were captured on three 

## different nights betwe ~n May 21- 26. On June 7 

## , 2000 fallc hinooksmolts from the tchery were rel eased into the headpond to test their reaction to the temporary screen. These fish were
not caudal- 

## clipped for two reasons: no wild chinook had been captured for nearly tWo weeks 

## and being smaller fish than the coho smolts , we did not want to impair their swimming 

## abilities in front of the screen. However , the large number of juvenile chinooks subsequently cap~ured in the bypaSs suggested that additional chinook were indeed present above the dam. 

## We had intended to use the species as the identifying mark in this recapture efficiency test but 

## the presence of other chinook confounded the results.



## Tailrace 

## A metal fyke trap (called the cone trap) was used to sample the tailrace of the power plant for 

## smolts that circumvented the screen barrier. Sampling of the 

### tailrace discharge atthe 

## powerhouse was discontinued on June 1 when it was suspected that fish in the lower river 

## wer~ being entrained in the cone trap. / Contamination of the cone trap sample by river fish
, occurred because~ of the 

## relatively low velocities of water exiting the draft tube, The alternate 

## method to deter:mine whether fish were circumventing the 

## temporary screen was to sample theTable 2. Efficiency Tests 

### ' of 

## Tailrace and -Sluice Traps In 

## 1991.
TAILRACE TRAP 

### SLUICE TRAPS No. 

### No. 

### No. 

## Released CaptUred 

## Percent CaptUred 

## Percent 1064 

## Release Flow (0) 

## , Date (cfs) 

## Species 27 May 

## 430 coho,



### hatchery


## sluice discharge alongside the intake at the diversi,?n dam. 

## At 10 MW (430 cfs), the cone trap

recovered 69 of 1064 marked smolts released along the length of 

## the Topper floats inside the

screen for an efficiency of 

### 5 percent (Table 2).



### Sluice 

## Two Wolf traps , 15 cm wide and 2. 8 m long, sampled the discharge through the sluice. 

## , A

live box was attached to the back end of 

## each trap. A single trap efficiency test recaptured 0

of 

### 1064 marked smolts (Table 2).



## Measurements

Subsamples of 

## the trap catches (usually 50 fish) were retained weekly for body measurements 

# , ,

and to assess scale loss, The subsampled fish were anesthetized with tricainemethanesulfonate (MS- 222). Fork 

## lengths were measured to thenearest millimetre (mm) (rom the tip of 

### the

\ nose to the fork of the caudal fin. Weights of 

## individual fish were measured to the nearest 0. gram (g) using a self- 

## taring Mettler PE3600 electronic balance. ' Four morphometric

characteristics of 

### heac!. 

## width, head depth, body width 

## , and body depth were mea~~r~d to the 

### nearest 0. 

### 001 mm , using 

### vernier calipers.

Scale' Loss 

## Scale loss was evaluated using a classification system developed by the US National Marine 

## Fisheries Service (NMFS) for the COlumbia River studies, Live cOho smolts were e 

### ~amined 

## from the foliowing Puntledge locations according to the Columbia River Standard Protocol: 

# \ "

(1) A subsample of 

## smol~ collected in the bypass traps; 

# (~)

Smolts dipnetted in the bypass plunge; 

# (3) Smolts angled in front of 

## the screen; and 

# (4) Smolts angled above ComoxLake Dam.

## Anesthetized fish were removed from the water and viewed' against strong backlighting to



## reveal any loss of scales , rust on one side of the body, then on the other side. ' 

### The NMFS
prot6Co1 divided each side of 

### the fish into five zones (Appendix 1). 

## One examiner estimated 

## and recorded the percent scale loss in each of the ten zones per fish. Subjectivity in the 

## estimation process was minimized by using the same examiner (D. Bell) for all determinations

of scale loss. 

### Categories of scale loss defined by NMFS (EPRI, 1990) were:

Partially Descaled = 3% to 16% 

## scale loss on either side of fish;

Descaled \ =



## Over 40% scale loss in two areas on same side !!!.

16% 

### or more scale loss on either side of fish. 

# Fish Observations The behaviour of coho smolts in front of the screen and the bypass was noted on several, 

## occasions (Figure 4Cand 4D). An underwater black and white camera recorded several 

## observation sessions on video tape. Red floodlights enabled observers to see fish at night with 

## minimal disturbance to behaviour. 

# Analysis The catch assigned to a calendar date included the day catch (trap set about 0900 h and checked about 1900 h), plus the 

## s~cceeding night catch (trap set about 1900 h and checked , about 0900 h, the next morning),


## Bypass Numbers of coho smolts caught in the bypass traps each day were used to estimate the total numbers ' of coho 

### smolts moving through the bypass. Two methods of extrapolation were 

### considered:

(1) base(f on 

### the percent of the discharge volume (16. 1%) sampled by the 

### combined traps; 2!. ~ ,

, (2) based on the average recapture rate (111. 

## 8%) of releases of marked 

## coho smoltson three dates (Table 1),

### Analysis of the individual trap 

## catches indicated that the coho smolts did not migrate through

the bypass in a uniform distribution. Therefore, the to~ number of 

## smolts using the bypass was estimated by Method 2 using the 

## trapping efficiency as indicated in the following formula:



## Daily total smolts
through bypass 

### combined catch 

### 118


## Sluice 

## The daily catch in the sluice traps was extrapolated on the basis of percent flow sampled 

## (14.3%) to estimate total smolts through the sluice. "",



# Daily totalsmolts combined catch
through sluice 

### 143


## Penstock As stated earlier, 9irect sampling of the tajlrace 

## discharge was not possible in 1991 and the 

## sluice discharge ~as sampled instead. Since the 

### evaluation of the screen requires knowing 

## how many fish circumvented the net , an indirect estimate of the number of fish that entered the penstock was derived using the sluice trap catch as an index.



### First 

## , we examined the ratios of sluice trap catches to penstock entrainment estimates from the ~vious year. In 1990 a makeshift 

## screen was tested for 7 days wh~n river flows we ~e similar



# , I

to 1991, 

### i.e. - 500 cfs. During 

### this trial 

## , three dates had paired data showing estimates of total 

## numbers of fish down the penstock as well as captures ir the sluice:

Date 

### 22Jun90 

### 23Jun90 26Jun90 Sluice

Catch 

### Penstock

Estimate

1 ' 

### Ratio



### 1:15 ' 

### 2:0 1:15 

# Average: 1:8 

## Therefore Penstock Estimate 1, based on somewhat similar discharge conditions in 1990, , 

## suggests that 1 smolt ~ught inthe sluice trap was equivalent to 8 smolts entrained in the
penstock, a 

### nd suggested a total penstock entrainment of 16 smolts based on the capture of two - smelts during the 1991 sampling 

### period,

## A second method (Pe~stockEstimate 2) was based on proportions of flow' volume between



## sluice and, penstock using 1991 catches in the sluice trap as an index: '


### Sluice Sluice 

### Penstock Flow 

## Date Catch 16 May 

### 434 1:17 

### 29 May 434 1:17 

### Average: 1:17


## Estimate , 2 

## suggests that 1 smolt caught in the sluice trap was equivalent to 17 smolts entrained in the penstock, and estimates 

## total penstock entrainment at 34 smolts during 1991.



## Penstock Estimate 3 is based on , the 

## single mark release of 1064 smolts in 1991 of which none were recovered in the sluice. Accordingly, the 

## catch of~ smolts in the sluice would represent 

## a penstock entrainment of at least 2, 128 smolts.


## In summary, three estimates of coho smolts that were entrained in the penstock in 1991 were 

## 16, 34 

## , and 2 128 smolts, respectively. Since no one method was obviously superior over 

## another, an average of the threeestimates-726 smolts-is suggested as the best' 

## approximation of the 1991 penstockentrainm:ent.

# RESUL TS

, in previous years , coho salmon smolts dominated the Puntledge catches in 1991. 

## Othef ' fISh captured during this study included 

### lesser nur-bersof coho fry, sockeye smolts and 

## chinook fry;steelhead , rainbow and cutthroat trout; Dolly Varde ~, stickleback, 

# ~d sculpin 

## (Appendix 2).


# Effectiveness of the Screen Coho Salmon Smolts Numbers of Diverted Fish and BioloJ!ical 

## Data Coho smolts used several routes to migrate past the diversion dam between May 10 and July 8, 1991 (Table 3), The temporary screen diverted about 107, 

### 890 coho smolts (99. 3 percent) 

## through the bypass while a total of about 740 smolts (0. 

## 7 percent) circumvented the screen 

## during the principal migration periOd. Unlike the previous two years, there were no spills, of , water over the dam in 1991.



## Table 3. 

## Estimated Distribution of Coho Smolts

During the Major Outmlgratlon Period


# ROUTI NG' 

## Compone~t . Turbine Non- 

### Turbine 

### % Total Run, 

## ~ypass nfa 

### 107, 876 * 

### 99:3 

### Sluice "fa 14 * c:::O, 

## Penstock 726 nfa
TOTAL: , 

### 726 1 ()7, 

### 890 108, 

### 616
., see Section 3. 3 for derivation of estimates.

## The estimate of 740 coho smolts that circumvented the screen was derived from indirect



## methods because low turbine flows did not allow us to sample the tailrace discharge directly. Instead, sampling in the sluice discharge was 

## substituted in spite of past indications that more 

## fish enter the penstock than the sluice, particularly under conditions of high flows. However the small numbers (2 coho, 1 chinook) caught in the sluice 

## discharge and the lack of smolts
observed riownstream 

### ' of the 

## temporary screen bC!th support the 

## contention that fISh did not 

## circumvent the screen in appreciable numbers. The netting was generally well-sealed along the 

## bottom and at both ends against the dam face ' and the bedrock bank, respectively, but 

## shortly after the net was installed 

## , one section of the float line lay at the water surface. When the first smolt was captured in the sluice trap on May 16, this potential escape ' route 

## was closed with a strip of netting the following day, The 

## second coho smolt was captured in the sluice trpp on 

## May 29 , and the chinook smolt was captured on July 1. 

### We surmise that fish circumvented 

## the screen while it was being repositioned or cleaned by divers on May 28.
Impinf!ement 

## - Impingement was monitored by inspecting the net each morning and examining any dead fish. 

## / Only five cobp smolts were found dead on the screen (Table 4), plus small numbers of stickl~backs andsculpins that 

## were not recorded. All of ' the 

### smolts were found , on the net 

## b;tween the second and fourth Topper floats (counting upstream from the dam) where the approach velocities through the net appeared highest 

### Four of the smolts had developed fungal

(Saprolegnia) 

## colonies. Three of the five were hatcherysmolts that had been fin clipped and relea~ed upstream of the screen during efficiency tests of the bypass traps. 

## Of the two unmarked smolts , one bad a large wound in 

### the abdomen , possibly caused by a bird. ' , -



## The underwater video showed smolts periodically dropping back and touching the net mesh

with the , tips of their caudal fin rays (Figure 4Q, 

## Smolts typically maintain~d a holding 

## position about 10 to 20 em away from the mesh. The movement to drop back and contact 

### the 

## netting took only a fraction of a second bef~re the fish either returned to its holding position

off the net or elSe 

### resumed swimming along the face of the net. We interpreted thiS !3ctile 

## beha viour as a means for a fish to test the integrity of the apparent b~rrier to migration.

## Table 4. Fish Impingement 

### on the 

# Temp~ry Screen.
Caudal 

### Topper 

### Date 

## Species Clip 

### Float 

### Note May 21 Co smolt 

### abdominal wound; fungus 

### May 27 Co smolt 

## yes fungus June 4 Co smolt 

## yes

Co smolt 

## yes fungus on tail Co smolt 

### fungus on tail


### According to US National Marine 

### Fisheries Service criteria , any physical contact by a fish 

## with a screen is , 

## deemed impingement. But throughout this study, water velocities were well 

## below the burst swimming speed of the fish: Smolts appeared to contact the net deliber.ately, 

### and no loss of control or swimming ability was 

## noted. This study did not consider such physical contact with the nylon net under low velocity conditions (oC 0. 

### 6 m 

## /s) to represent potential damage to the fish.



## Smolt size , and therefore swimming ability, was not considered to have affected performance 

## at the screen because river velocities were generally low during the outmigration period (J. 

## Scouras, BC Hydro data). Length measurements taken from 583 coho smolts between May 14 and July 4 had a mean length of 97, 

## 8 mm FL (range: 57- 

## 135 mm). ~ Figure 5 shows the 

## re!ationship between fork length and body weight of wild cohosmolts in 1991.

Figure 5. Length- 

## Weight Relationship for 1991 Coho Salmon.
25. 20, 

# \ .

to- 15,

~ 10, ....



### 40' 

# 80 90 100 

### Fork Length ' (mm) 

### 110 

### 120 130 140

### Scale Loss



## The fIVe coho smolts found impinged on the screen during the 1991 study were notexaritined for' 

## scale loss because of their poor physical condition. " ~



## The degree of scale , loss ' on live coho smolts was documented at four locations (Table , Appendix 1). 

## It was difficult to determine whether smolts actually lost scales on the temporary screen. The higher 

### percentage of desca1ed fiSh in the dipnet and, bypass samples suggested that the collecting gear was 

### ' likely responsible for more scale loss than the 

### screen.



## F~r fish that were cellected by angling and carefully handled to avoid, descaling, scale loss 

## among fish sampled in front of the screen was higher than for fish angled upstream of Comox Dam.

Table 5. Percent of 

### Coho Smolts I n Descallng Categories.



### GEAR & LOCATION DESCALED PARTIALLY DESCALED

,.,~ on 1 8ide 

### ~ in2ar_ 3-1~ on 1 aide' 7.1~ on 2 aides' 

### 72. 92, 17. 

## 307 80. 19,



### 61. 42. 38. 26. 

## Angled in Comox L , Angled at screen 

## Trapped in bypass Dipnetted in bypass , ,

NMFS criteria. Criterion based on the control sample from Comox Lake,Behavioral Observations



### Coho smolts exhibited different ' 

## behaviour according to the time of day. Those smolts that 

## migrated during daylight hours appeared to pause before going through the bypass. Fish were 

## most frequently observed in front of the s creen where the highest veloCities of water flowed 

## , through the mesh, and near the bypass. The school of fish in front of the bypass on a given 

## day would slowly increase in size over . a period of one to seyeral hours until it reached 50 

## 200 individuals. At times the entire group would school together, at other times fISh would be in smaller groups of 10 to 30. 

### The groups ' 

## generally moved back and forth, upstream and 

# ~ .

downstream 

## , along the face of the net, sometimes in deeperstJ:ata but more frequently in water 

## depths of 05 to 1. 

# 0 m. Non-schooling individuals were rarely ' seen 

## during daylight hours.
During the day, the school would typiCally follow an 

## anti-clockwise pattern of movement 

## downstream along the face of the lower screen, then across the face 

## ofthe dam in front of the 

## bypass opening. At the bypass they would sometimes' 

## orient themselves into the surface flow 

## for a brief period (Figure 4D), while at other times they would swim laterally across t.he 

## bypass just below the sill. In ~any cases , as ~e school moved 

## across to the 

## left side of the 

## opening, a number of 

## fish-often 5 to 2O-us'ilally in the rear portion of the school , would 

## allow themselves to be carried downstream around the left side of the bypass. The distribution 

## of coho smolts captured in the , three 

## bypass traps supports this pattern with the left trap 

## catching 86% of the daylight catches (Table 6)~

As 

## darkness fell, smolt behaviour began to change from the daytime pattern. Observations 

## made using dim red light suggested a gen ~ral correlation between reduction , in 

### schooling tendency and reduction in ambient light 

## , although flash photography confirmed that coho
smolts remained in groups for some time after sunset (Figure 4C). 

## By midnight fish at the screen exhibited a more random orientation to the net 

### , and sightings of single individuals 

## predominated over sightings of groups. The loss of visual cues at night may hav 

## ~increased the percentage of fish that engaged in tactile 

### testing of the screen, The distribution of coho 

## smolts captured during hours of darkness differs from the daytime distribution (Table 6) with 

## the right trap (nearest the screen) catching 46% of the fish,~ /



## Table 6. DI.trtbutton of Coho Smelt Catche.ln the 

## Bypa.. Trap..



## (derived from Appendix 3)

1991 

## Left ~ ('1) 

## Middle (12) Right ' (13) 

### TOTALS DAYLIGHT 

### No. 

## 2214 267 

## 568 

## Percent 86. 10. 100 

### DARKNESS No, 

### 2258 2391 

## 4040 

## 689 

## Percent 26, 27. 

### 46. 100

Chinook Salmon Fry 

### No chinook salmon fry, hatchery or wild 

### , were - impinged on the temporary screen during the 

## study period. The screen was ef,fective in diverting the smaller sized chinook salmon through
the bypass as well as the coho smolts. 

### When the study began, chinook salmon were notkriown to be upstream of the diversion dam. 

## On June 7 , about 2000 hatchery chinook fry were released upstream of the temporary Screen 

### to test their performance. The first 

## hatchery fry was recaptured in the bypass later that evening (Figure 6). However 

## , the numbers and the timing 

## of the subsequent catch of 512 

## chinook smolts for the next month (between June 7 and July 8) suggested that additional 

## chinook fry were indeed present upstream. This conclusion is supported by the recapture pattern for mar~ed coho smelts (Figure 7) which indicated that very few marked fish' 

### are 

## caught after the seventh day. '..

FIgure 6. 

## TIming of Chinook FryCatche. In the Bypa.s In 1991.

2000 hatchery , chinook released upstream on June 7 

## '" 30,
~ 25 ::IE Q 20 

### :z: 15



### 0 , 

# ~ "

- ~~ ~ = ~ 

## = ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 

# ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~



# :z: =;

21 .Rgure 7. \ 

### TIming of Coho Smolt Recapture. In the Bypa" 

# In 1.1.

3.0

II 20 ...

j1 15

-1 10

30 I 

### !! 25 1 '" 

# ~ \

~ 15. 10 +



### 0 ' : ~ 

# g.

~ 2 

# z: 1 I


### 0 ' .... .... ...

,. ;;;
.... ... ... 

# .,."

... 

## ... ,

537 marked fish released upstream on June 3 .., 

# ... !.,.,

... ;;;

:-.0 ::;) , ;::;
.... ...

5:! .... ...

::!2

176 marked fish released upstream on June 20 ... .. ...

... .,.,

.. .... ...

.. ....

5:!

. ....

### Estimate of 1991 

# Coho Smolt Population

The number of coho smoltsthat 

## migrated past the Puntledge Diversion Dam between May 10 

## and July 8, 199-1, was estimated to be 108 

### 616 smolts 2 (Table 3). 

## This number was derived 

## using a mark-recapture method of extrapolating the catch results from trap efficiency tests.
This estimate is considered more accurate than 

## the estimate of 80, 

## 009 fish that was derived using the proportion of flow sampled 

## , since the distribution of fish a~oss the bypass opening was not random. Daily 

## estimates of coho smolts derived by both methods are presented in 

## Appendix 4. 

## PuntledgeHatchery personnel forecast the size of the 1991 coho outmigration to be 273, 200 smolts (H~ Genoe pers. comm.). 

## Their forecast was based on expected survival rates for 

# , '

different components of the 1989 brood year (BY) transplants above Comox Lake: 

# Age Number Smalls / 

# Component 

# Planted Expected 

# Age 0+ fry 824 

# 000 82 400 

## , Pre-smolts 201, 

# 000 160 800 

# Adult pairs 2, 500 

### 30. 000 Total: 273 

### 200

, Seas~:mal 

## Timing of Coho Migration Figure 8 shows the seasonal timing of the 1991 outmigration as 

## recorded from daily estimates. Coho smolts were already migrating 

## downstream in small numbers by May 10 when sampling commenced in the bypass. Peak 

## outmigration of an estimated 5 

## 000 fish occurred on May 25. 

## After June 22 , daily estimates were fewer than 1000 smolts per day. Coho smolts Continued to 

## migrate in small numbers until July 8 when sampling was discontinued.

The high level of precision implied in the daily estimated numbe~ in Appendix 4 isan ,rtifact of the calculation procedure. The total 

### estimated number of coho smolts migrating during the period probably ranged between 100, 000 and 120, 

# 000 fish.

## 6000

5000

.! 4000 

# :s ,
i 3000
i 2000


### 1000 

## Figure 8. Coho Smelt ~Igratlon.t Puntledge Diversion 

## Dam In 1891.

, ::E C\I

::E 

## ~ - "")

Lt) Lt) ....

Lt) C\I Lt)

"")



## Diel Timing of Coho Smolt Migration Considerable migration during daylight hours was documented in 1991 (Figure 9). Appendix 3 indicates day-night variations in the daily catch distribution in , the bypass. 

### The overall 

## daylight migration w~ 22. 8% (the night estimate was 77, 

## 2%) based on all traps having paired 

## morning and evening data in a 24- h period (Table 6; Appendix 3). 

## On the date of peak 

## migration May 25, only 7% of the fish migrated through the bypass during daylight hours. 

## The highest daylight migration was recorded on June 5 when 79% of the estimated 2200 coho 

## smolts migrated during the day. 

## On three dates during the 1991 season 

## , the bypass traps were checked hourly to indicate the 

## diel variability in downstream movements by coho smolts (Figure 10).

# Figure 9.

...



## 100 , 80



## 100 .... 

### ;)-



# ~ovements of Coho Smolts In Daylight vs Darkness In 

# 1991.

Daylight DarkneSS
I-- 

### !'-

r-.-



### I I I I 

### . I I I 

# I I I I 

## N ~ ~ 

# ~, a N ~ ~ ~ 0 

# .... ~ 

# ~ ~ ~ .... ~ 

# ~ ~ ~ .... ~ .... .... ....



# - N N N N N ~ a .... .... ....



# .... .... N



# Morpl1ometric Measurements Appendix 5 indicates the relationships between individuaUork lengths of wild co - and 

## hatchery chinook smolts and their respective measurementso( head ~idth; head depth 

### , boliy 

### width and body depth, Individual da~ 

## including body weights are tabulated in Appendix 6.'0 

### g 20 :z:

'0 20

:z: '"(;

g; 10 :z: 

## Figure 10. Dlel Catches of Coho Smolts at Puntledge Diversion Dam In 1G91.



## MAY21- ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ 0 0 0 

# 00 0 0 

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~..................... ..............



# 000000000000000000 ~ ~ 

# ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ 

# ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

# ~ ~ 

# -- 

# -----

NNNNNOOOO 0 0 0 00- --

JUNE 5-



# 0000000000000000000000000 ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

# g~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

# ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,.,.,

Lt') co 

# r- CJ:) en 

### 0 - N"'" - 

### - N 

# r. w. 

# - ,- -

....... 

# - .,

- - - - - - - - N 

# NN ~ N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 

## ~ -



## JUNE 18-



# 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 88 8 

# ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

- - - ~ - - - - N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 

# 00 0 - - Hour

# Steel head Migration

Thirty- 

## four steelhead smolts were captured in 1991. Figure 11 shows the timing of their migration past the diversion dam. 

## Lengths and weights of steelhead, 

## smorts are presented in 

# , ,

Appendix 7. Scale samples were collected from 12 fish for analysis by Puntledge Hatchery.



## Figure 11. Daily Steel 

## head Smolt Migration at Puntledge



# Diversion Dam in 1991.

N = 34 smolts -...

to)



## 0 ~ - ~ 

# ~O ~ - ~ ~ 0 - ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ - 

# ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~



# -----~~~~~~Z -----~N~~~O
...;J 

# ..."

, :::Iii ..." "",



### 7 ' 

## Debris' 

# Loading Prior to installation of the screen in early May, BCH temporarily increased the discharge
between the two dams- 

## in order to flush woody debris off the banks of the upper river prior to ~eployment of the temporary scre en. A 

### trash boom was then pl~ced I!.cross the 

## river about 120 In upstream of the screen. The boom retained- 

## a large volume of debris of all sizes due to the moderate and uniform discharges throughout the study period. 

## The frequency of cleaning and the types and volumes of debris found on the temporary 

## screen were recorded by GFCL personnel (Table "). Accumulations 

## of detritus and algae on the net required perio dic 

## , brusbingwith a 10ng- 

## handledpushbroo!1l' On one occasion , divers c1eaned the net using a
high pressure water hose.Table 7. Major Net 

### Cleaning Operations. 1991 Migration Period.

, ~



# DATE CLEANING 

### DEBRIS TYPE



### May 15 GFCUhand broom Algae, twigs 

### May 27 

### GFCUhand broom 

### Algae, twigs, branches 

### first cottonwood seed 

### May 28 Divers 

### - unknown - June 4-5 GFCUhand broom Algae, , 

### twigs; several large logs
June 13 

### BCH&GFCUbroom Sticks, branches; conifer needles, 

### cottonwood seed 

### DEBRIS VOLUME c: 0. 

### 03 m .., -..,

# CONCLUSIONS , \,



## Evaluation of Screen Efficiency Virtually all (99. 3%) juvenile salmonids that migrated in the spring of 1991 were effectively diverted by the temporary screen. 

## Returns of adult coho to the Puntledge River in 1993 

# , , 

# I ,

should be enhanced as a result of the successful downstream passage of the 1989 BY cohort.


## - The plunge of water (nappe) through the bypass in 1990 was suspected to have discouraged 

## smolts from using the bypass that year. The steel ramp constructed in 1991 improved the 

## hydraulic characteristics of the nappe. Smoltsexhibiied less reluctance to approach and enter
the bypass, both in daylight and in darkness 

## , over the 1991 study period. However it is not known whether the high prOportion of fish passage in 1991 was attributable to 

### improved 

## hydraulic conditions in the bypass, or to the effectiveness of the screen barrier which left the 

## fish with no routing option.


## The preference ex hibited by coho smolts to pass 'down the left side of the bypass during 

## daylight hours suggests visual recognition and perhaps 

## avoidance of the center of the bypass opening, whereas the night 

## - distributibn indicates a lack of orientation by the fish. The right 

## trap captured a greater proportion of fish at night because the screen guided fish down the
right side into the bypass.


# Impingement

Five cohosmolts were found 

### directly impinged on the face of the screen, Examination of these fish indicated they bad 

## undergone previous trauma or injury,

Scale loss measured for four groups of coho smolts was highest in thosedipnetted in the 

## bypass, followed by those collected in the Wolf traps, and was lowestin the group angled in CQmox Lake. Th~ higher 

## percentage of descaled fish in the dip rlet and bypass ~amples ,;;

## suggest that the collecting gear was likely responsible for most of the observed scale loss.



## Low river velocities throughout ihe study period did not resUlt in exceSsive approach 

## velocities 

## , and the low abrasion characteristic of the nylon netting further suggest that the 

## impingement rate in 1991 was low and did n~tresult in significant scale loss to migrating smolts. 

## Estimates of Population Size BY89 coho smolt production from 

## upstream of the diversion daD" originated from three 

## components:

. 824 

## 000 hatchery coho fry averaging 3 grams planted in June- July 1990; . 201, 

## 000 hatchery pre-smolts averaging 12 gramspl~nted in late November 1990; and 

# . ,

. 2,500 

## pairs of adult coho released into Comox Lake in fall 1989 " '

Three estimates of the 1991 coho smolt migration were derived using the above numbers. 

## Two estimates were theoretical predictions based on known or assumed survival rates, and one estimate was based on empirical field , sampling.~ 

### , Estimate 1 used SEP Biostandards developed 

## by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for the Vancouver Island / Georgia Strait (GSVI) 

## production area- -(C, Cross, DFO, 

### pers. comm. ).



## The area standard suggested that- coho fry 

## planted in summer generally have an average 10 percent survival rate to the smolt stage yielding a theoreticale~timate of 82, 

## 400 smolts in 1991. Larger fry planted in fall have an average 20% survival rate to smolt, yielding 40, 

### 200 smolts. Survival to the smolt stage from 

### eggs produced by naturally-spawning adults is 1.2% 

## , and assuming an average fecundity of 

## , 2 000 eggs per female 

## , 30 000 smolts would be predicted. Estimate 1 was therefore 152,600 

## migrants from BY89 (Tab!e 8).


## Estimate 2 was predicted by Puntledge Hatchery management (H. Geno~, DFO pers. comm, 

## They expected similar survival rates from the summer fry outplants and from the adult pairs 

## but their prediction for the late fall release of pre-smolts was 80 percent survival. Estimate 2 

### was therefore 273 

### 200 migrants from BY89,

### Estimate 3 was extrapolated from trap catches in the bypass and sluice during this study (Table



## 3). The bypa~ component of 107 876 smolts was derived on the basis of, the average recapture rate of marked smolts on three 

## occasions. The sluice component of 14 smolts was 

## based on the proportion of flow sampled. The penstock component of726 smolts was 

## approximation derived from three different'methods. 

## The size of the run as sampled in 1991 was therefore in the order of 40 percent of the run predicted by Puntledge Hatchery, and 70 percent , 

## of the run predicted by the SEP Biostandards. 

## Additional numbers of coho smolts migrated 

## before and after the period of sampling, and 

## therefore the 1989 brood year was probably closer to the Biostandards prediction. After the 

## results of the field sampling were known, H. qenoesuggested that the 80% survival rate assigned to the pre-smolt category, 

## was not realized due to periods of flooding between their outplan 

## ting in November 1990 and the ~pring 1991 migration.

Table 8. Annual Estimates 

## of Coho Salmon Smolts from Puntledge. Predicted Estimates Samoled Estimate 

## SEP Puntledge 

## Study Year, Biostandards 

### Hatchery 1989 68, 000 . 

### 68, 

### 000 1990 100, 

### 000 180, 

### 000 1991 

### 152, 

### 600 \ 273, 

### 200 

# , /

0, Hydr~ 

### 114, 

### 000 149. 

### 000 108, 

### 600

. no fall release of pre-smolts for the 1989 cohort 

## Migration Timing,

The overall timing of migration was similar betWe 

### en 1990 and 1991, with migration beginning 

## about May 1, peaking in late May-early June , and dwindling significantly in late June. In ---



## 1991, sampling was extended until July 8 as low numbers of Coho smolts in the range of 50 to 200 fish per day continued to migrate from the 

### system.


## Nearly 23% of the , coho smolts sampled in 1991 migrated during daylight hours . compared 

## with 41% in 1990.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Our thanks to Mr. Harry Genoe and the staff of the Puntledge Hatchery who provided chinook 

## fry, miscellaneous supplies, and valuable advice. , Mr. Gary Birch coordinated the overall study as Contract Manager from Environmental
Resources, B. c. Hydro 

### , Yanco 

### ~ver. 

## Mr. Norm Smith, Operations Manager for Puntledge Generating Station , directed HydroForce Construction personnel and the underwater divers in 

### theJ timely 

## installation of the barrier net and bypass chute. Mr. Wing Joe of Burnaby 

## Mountain provided daily water flow records for the project. Mr. Goff Longworth reviewed the
draft report. 

## D. Bell, P. Wiley and B. Wing conducted the majority of the field work for Global Fisheries Consultants Ltd. 

## , with assistance from Jim Scouras of B. 

# C. Hydro. Bill Bengeyfieldciirected 

## the field work and prep~ed the fmal report.



### I \

## REFERENCES CITED -.,



# Bengeyfield, W. 

# 1990. Evaluation of an electrical field to divert coho salmon



## , smolts from the penstock intake at Puntledge Generating Station. Unpubl. report to B. 

## C. Hydro by Global Fisheries ConsultantsUd. , ,



## W~te Rock, B. 41 p. 

## Bengeyfield 

# , W. and HA. Smith. 1989, Evaluation of 

## behavioral devices to divert coho salmon smelts from the penstock 

## intake at thePuntledge qenerating Station. Unpubl. 

## report to B. 

## C. Hydro by Global Fisheries Consultants Ltd. White Rock, B. 

## ; 27 p. 

# DFO. 1963. Summary of current projects 

# , 1962. Progress report 

## , Fish Culture Development Branch 

## , Pacific Ar~a , Department of 

## Fisheries of Canada. 

## EPRI (Electrical Power 

## Research Institute). 1990; Evaluation of an Inclined Penstock Screen~tElwha Dam- 

## Spring 1990 Test Results. Interim MS Report by Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation and- Hosey ' 

## & Associates Engineering Company. EPRI 

## Palo Alto 

# , California.
Lister, D. 

# B. 1968. Progress report on assessment of the Puntledge River spawning channel 

## , June, 1965 to May, 1968. Resource Development Branch, Department 

## of Fisheries of Canada , Vancouver 

## , B. , 17 p.



### MarshalL D. 

### E. 1973. 

## Progress report on the Puntledge River Pr()gram, 1971 and, 1972. Can. Dept. of the Environment , ,



## Fisheries & Marine Service Tech. Rept. 1973- 

## 8, 59p. ' Ruggles 

# , CPo and P. Ryan. 1964. An investigation of louvers as a method of guiding 

## juvenile Pacific salmon. 

# Can. Fish Cult. 33: Q8 p: , , \ .I ~/ ,APPENDIX 1. 1991PUNTLEDGE COHOLENGTHS. ,WEIGHTS; A PERCENT SCALElOSSLEfT SIDERIGHT SIDE% DESCALEDDate~l (rom)Weight (g)leftrIghttotalMay-11014," 12 i~ll:::tt!!;, Wolf trap' 55 '5 ~m::;~M:::,z~:10110.11413.5 '10111413,~ 110710,3 .10010811,11013.10411,~ 00 l-, May-11313~4Wolf trap10912,13524,101. 8.~ 010210210.APPENDIX 1, /'..LEFTSIDERIGHT SIDEDESCALEDDateFL (mm) Weight(9)\: L3L.2leftrighttotal: (cont.)0'11-212,11012,10810,11212,' 03 \102~'" 5107/ ,10.10912,May~11312,11-212.10-~olf trap13.116fJ7-.,107to,15~10-11413,1,4-'10911,' 393,119'15,11313.1'020,":'0..10811,7:997,103:1010 '10811,9 './'10811,'::APPENDIX '- \LEFTSIDERIGHTSIDE% DESCALEDDateFL(mm) Weight(g)leftrighttotal(cant.)3 -91;)10712,10511,1011 oo11313.11112.10912,tOO3 -10711.5 -- 3 tl!mmtl:~\Im::::::\l::~I:!U:I::109~1.83'1008.44 HWffjfi::~",""""""" ~ ~,:,,:,,:,:,:,:.:.:,:,..:,..:,:102May-17'11114,4/"Wolf trapAPPENDIX 1LEFTSIDE% DESCALEDRIGHTSIPEFL (mm) Weight (g)L5,L2~" L1left'righttotal10811.45'11011.20.101\ 3\ 010610,- ,'..10910.10010..1"~ 6,10,20,905:.., 6'10010,10510.' 5102 -1O~, /" 5' 1010 ~11413,10910'' 519210,i ~ 3::980':20,,11916,10,7;293,3 /10'10,10~,7,, 11013.10913.98"APPENDIX, 1LEFTSIDERIGHTSIDE"oESCALEDDateFL (mm) ,Weight (g)L.2Lt.leftrighttotal(cont.) "10210.0 -Ma~-100Wolf trap12216,10811,10410,101~ 56;810410,2'0i!im:Umil:I!l.ii11312.10.'1011'12015,.10::i!!::tiMmiliilil:~16 j::::::jjM:m:\:\iml:10411.' 1010,91,5.410'20)10512,, -APPENDIX 1;----LEFTSIDERIGHTSIDE%DESCALEDDateF!-,(mm),Weight (g)leftrighttotal(cont.)10510.,\,tO110010,10/11713,8,41002()3 ~:tlilifti:17:: ,10610,10711.11211,'--10310.J03113'12;1,0,:::::::;*t;1t:llt:;'::M~i;llil~i:!;;::::i:::t::::::m;:;:~Ii,1045:1102-10.102::-38;35;--'10104-10;51:0- -APPENDixLEfTSIDERIGHT SIDE% DESCALEDDateFL (mm) Weight (g)leftrighttote IMay-10310,' 312418,- 3Wolf trap1035 -106- 3j013 '' 7,5 ~~ 3~ 511413,- 943 '10911.7100~ 510510811.11514.- 2106,,/ 493 '~ 7,May-11816,10,Wolf trap101100. ,10':::::j:Mmml1:I:i20,, -APPNDIX 1 '- 51 I,\ -1\ 'LEFTSIDERIGHT SIDE"DESCALEDDateFL (tntn) :Weight(g)L2.At'leftrighttotal(cont.)103102Jun-' ~nolength dataanQledu/sbypa~sJ~30'11103,May~angledU/~105,11.1'0bypass10210,84;5:41010010.10415"92'10.20,6;7../8.103104-'-"APPENDIXDate(cont.)Jundipnetted U/Sof bypassAPPENDIX 1FL(mm) Weight (g)88~ 6,90 6,101 9,~ 99 8,90 6,87 5,10911.6102 10,90 6,100 9.917-;792 ( 6,100 9., 10287 ,~ *no length dataLEFT SIDERIGHT SIDEA2,10-5 -1 5~ 10- 5- 3- 5~ 6020. - 2010- 0~ 030'30,~ 10/ 5- 050' '20,3 '5 'A5left~ 010% DESCALEDtighttotal:::::i:~:~:~:::~::ii::i::::II:~:;::::m:m:::IQ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::5 4'4 ,4 ,0 -135 ~1414~ 10131 iMMll:li.1'!rllll~fI11~Br"""""";~:::~:::::::::::::::::;:::::::::;:::i;5 4:l:;:::::::ii:tml1~:::~:~:::ii::::::::::::::i::::::::;:::~1::l1:ii11, -I'



## A~PE~DIX ' 

# : ~ 

# ' " , ~ . ~



### MON"(HL Y SUMMARY OF 1991 TRAP CATCHES 

### AT PUNTLEDGE RIVER. , " 

# ~, 

# , ' 

# , ' ' "

, BVP AS~

AY 1 0--

. \



## Coho smolts Coho 

# fry, Chinook smqlts 

## Sockeye Steel head , Rainbow 

## 'Cutthroat Dolly Varden 

## Sculpins Stic;klebacks 

# --

7853

2 ' 

# ,g,

7875 4720 215 414 I \



# 5403 ' \ '



### 113 , 68



## ; 0-

298 \.'



## SLUICE . ,



### Num 

## ber ; 2 Cpho smolts : ' I 

### Chinook smolts Trout fry 

### Sculpin Stickleback!?



## TAILRACE Ldw velocities exiting the turbine in 1991 aliowed flshalready 

### present in the river to enter ( 

# , , , ~ 

# , '

thE:! 

## tailrace (cone)trap~ Therefore the 1991 tailrace trap data was not used~ becausethe ' ,
origin (penstock or riv~r) of 

### the fish could 

# nof~ 

# djff~rentiated. ' ,

.' I 

# , ' . '

### Date

MAY10 ~ 

### "" '



### 11" 

### 12:,::~ /:'



### 14 ' 

# 16 /

, 20



### JUN01



### , 10

, 19



### Totals: ;--



## Percent: A~PENDIX 3.
Daylight va. Night 

## Movements of Co~ , Smolts at 

## Puntledge In 1191.



### Tra 

### Catch

118 122 106 

### 226 125

151 

### 180 103

- 33 

# 5 -

2..

'15

- 3



# 2214 267 86. 2 10. 1 ~



### , 0



### 0 ' Total Estimate



### 128 / 55 

### 138 109 

### 232
161



### 175 

### 206 149

20, 

# 18 '
136



### 2568 253

127, 331 

### 483 263 508 619 432 364 1085 

### 466 1169 924 1966 661 

### 364 

### 475 237 1483 1746 

### 1263 

### 432 

### 220 203 441 

### 407 356 

### 237 288 119 

### 398 169 381 

### 153 

### 1153 381 

### 203 

### 218~8 

# 18 y 86



# 22 38 129 

# 24 41 153 

# 39 54 165 

# 42 61 1~6 

# 43 89 250 

# / 40 

# 90 65 98 250 

## 60 ' 

# 106 . 251 

# 71 

# 42 88 64 156 107 

# - 95 130 ,151 

# 150 

# 50 62 ' ~ 190(. 

### 114 

# 12 

# 99 82 39 54 

# 78 77 76' 

# 81 '"'52 

# 41 62 30 52 38 

# 41 

# 12 44 

# 14
2258 2391 4040 

### 26. 27 . ~ 46.

ht Catch



### 401 

### 205

197 126 159 ' 

### 143

111



### 123



# 93 /

18 , 104



### 189 

### 218 258 289 382 

### 228 413 417 554 34'1' 

## 270 173 

### 460 294 

### 440 

### 368 171 

### 202 325 244 

### 29~ 108 140 147 

### 237 175 197 189 

### 105 198



### 114

\ 80



### 8689 ,~, ,';\' :,'~ " """"' ,..~~

~ : J::" , ::,:,~,

::" :::::::j ;":" ~,



### 533 948, ""' :",~ ",~



### 3166 

## 1602, 1847 

### 2186 ( 2449' 3237 " 932 

## 3534 4695 2890 2288 1466 

### 3898 

### 2492 3729 ( 

### 3119 1449 1712 

### 2754 

### 466 206~ 

### 2525 

## 915 - 1186 1246 ' 

### 20Q8 

### 1483 1669 1602 

### 890 1678 

### 492 814 966 390 381 

### 678 390 127, 

### 75920

~ ,



## Percent Daylight 

### nltlon



### 12 '



## 15 ', , -.: , ,

, DAILYCA 

### TCH~S AND-ESTIMATED N' UMESE:R$ OF CQHO 

### SMOL TSIN 1091 

# FryAe~ed: 

# , "

824, 

### 000 

### Pie~SmoItsReJ8ased: ,,:: , , ,

: 2O1~QCjQ 

### :plus: ~CQtJo pailS (BY '9)g2(K!Oeggs 

# ' ' " ' ' ,, ' ;" 

### ' ~

TOTAL RELEASED: :' 11025 000 ~ ' ~ "

I " 

# " ~ :, , 

# ' , '

r:xpect,~ Mi~rants: 400 ::,



# =:,;r.=~ i' , ~: 

# ~:: :':



### ~ TOTALEXPECTED: 273,200 

# ' ' " , , ' 

# ' ' , "CdHO CATC, BY ' WLUME BY MAFlK-RECAPT1JRE ESTIMATE eSnMATE) RUtHNG CUa.lUL. E$lIMA reo ~U""'ING CUMUL C8te Bypa'1 Bype882 &,pu83 

### Ska1 SIu1ce2 PAST lET DAY TOTAl, tgrAl.. ~RUN DAYTOTAI.. TOTAl.. ~RUN

883 71108 28:o:w. 832 ;ffT37 3S;~1" 1317 

## 72_ 28.51.. 1787 18534 38. 07.. 18' 852 73078/ 28. 180 III!Q~ 38.3Il"1o 720 73788 27. O1~ 1004071 38. 75"
l1li4 7~782 27, :J81ro 1358 101783 37. 25" 388 

### 751. 27. 542 1 02305 37, 4$" 335 7S52S 27. fS4~ 458 102783 37,
fS45 78370 27. 85~ 1153 

### 1~15 38. 001"
18' 487 78866 1~~ 878 104583 

### 3i,2ft 381 \ 210 r'148 28.2~~ 10487~ 38, 28, 288 77432 34~ 380 1 0S364 3.8. 148 77581 28, 203 1 05568 38, SC" 1~, ..J 12~ T77OS \ 28. 44" 10573 38. 388 78102 

### 28.53 S42 , 1 08278 28,. 0 ~ 210 78382 ~ 28, 88'!i, 381 10a861 130 78512 7~~ 178 1 06838 JUL'l:1 78581 

### 7ft 08932 78855 

### 7ft 102 1 070308 

### ' .

78748' 127 107161
9. I 83' 78842 

### :z8;~ 127 107288 155 78987 tmIo 212 107500 118 78115 98'IIt . 181 107661 43. 78158 ' 107720
~ 3

Total
MAY 1 0031 7853 JUN1.~ ~720 JUl1. 113

APPENDIX 4 . ,

Page 2

## 1.4



# ~O. 

# !j:

BS 0 ::I: ~ ,



## 0.4

E 12

L.J 

### ~ O, ::I:



### 40' I ' 

### APPENDIX 5 . ( -



### Relationships Between Fork Length, Head Depth, and Head Width 

### for Puntledge Hatchery Chinook an~ Wild Coho Salmon. , .



### chinook 

# II!

II! 

# II! II! II! COhO 

# ae"~ I . ~ , 

# ~ ~~

api . ~



# . I 

# ~ :t. .I. 

# I . . '

" I 

# 60 

# 70 SO ' ~



### FORK LENGTH (mm) 100 ' 

### 110 120 , \



# coho 0 I ' 

# . %0

CQJ 

# ~~%,B / chinook .

=t= IC!:i 

# ill . ~ .



# 60, 

# 70 SO ' 

### FORK LENGTH (mr11) 

### 100 

## 1l0 120 , /

I.,

## APPENDIX 5. , ' . , 

### , - 

# ~ ..
8e18tlQnahlps Betw8eo Fork "', ngth. BOdy Depth. 

## ai1dBodyWldth . ~ . 

# " , ' ' " "



## f9r puntledge, Hatchery C?hlnook 

## andWII~CohO Salmon. 

# ' ' 

# .. '

" ,, ,
APNNDIX, ..

'881 JIUI11..2DQe IICN'lIOM ETRIC I8MURIIIUII'S 

# ~ - ...... - 

# ...... ~.

OOt- 

# - '

....... 

# (-...

-..,........ cii . , 

# ..-

DoIIa ....... 

# -- -,

BODY \'\/10TH (em) HEAD' BODY \'\/10TH DEPTH 

# (em) (em) HEAD, DEPTH' (em): 

### FORK GRAM LENGTH WBGHT 

# (rrm) (g)



### S~CIES 'DATE SOURCE " ~

7..0 728 105 768 1'737 8911. 70& 681 578 868 572 1,.11042 722 9EW 635 708 775 141 SC8 741 792 714 571 985 690 759 1:641 275 979 081 704 . 1'13 002 551 015 1:701 595 143 1:695 144 59a 081 039 1:875 SC8 1:1548 ' 034 932 1,822 039 202 978 033 172 0.928

1104 (181 925 065 0.911 Q;gu. 0.915 0.827 0. 875 0.844 061 031 830 1104 0.1iI6O 0118 870 865 1198 835 0.818 055 883 923 95. 212 958 080 7s4 062 :0;7 809 010 ' 871 8$2 226 860 1;150 825 148 015 951 791 841 018 021 865 1.1 1.(199 034 072 0;1,102 049 973 1:252 1 . 0511 083 089 1166 0. 989 989 1,070 864 .1:131 992, 073 1152 974 050 218 914, 036 094 051 915 074 084 072 079 313 079 221 1:033 .. 082 141 925 158 018 978 168 010 186 964 252 ' 075 031 026 940 115 112 088 211 271 171 142 0;993 

# 3 1, 563. 

# 1 1, 451 1",,0 1. 722 

## 8 '1. 

# 3 1, 519 

# 7:5 1.425 0 ' 1. 334 

## 7"1 1. 382 2, 1. 241 

# 7 1. 468 

# 8 1. 359 10. ' 1, 

# 6.9 .. 1, 385 

# 3 1. 560 

# 9 1. 358 1.458 

# 9 1. 574 12, 

# 3 1. 732 

# 1 1. 363 

# 1 1. 545 

## S' 1, 571 

# 1 . 1;548 

# 0 1. 273 fO, 

## 6 ;1, 651 3 "- , 1 , 495 , 7, 

# 1 1.

, ,

469 15, 

# 6 ' 823, . 1, 600 :'2, 

# ~ 1. 776 

## 6:7 1, 529 

## 10:~ ,. U46 12, 1.657 

# 5 1. 398. 10, 

# 2 1, 705 

# 7 1, 404 

# 5 1, 396 14, 

# 6 1, 738 ' 

# 3 1, 501 13, 

# 6 1, 740 . 5, 

# 8 1, 367 13, 

# 0 1, 872 ~ 10, 8' 1, 631 

# 7 1, 4&9 

## 5 :1 399 

# 1 1, 363 10, 

# 9 1, 693 . 9, 1:591 :9, 

# 0 1. 585 12, 6; 1. 894 15, 1:888 10, 1.611 12, 

# 7 1, $48 

# 8 1. 529 COHO 118 ' 93 ~ 120

107

101 107

102 g.&

iI2 .... 117 113
111 "12 (86 May-29 , byp8ss ,. ..

103

113 87 .. 113
116 105

110 102 102 109 119 105 112 , ~' 

## , / .. \

s8e 1. 498 &62 410 450 759 612 641: 541 56~ 430 758 500 660 ;455 899 700 517

760 771 1:620 621 850 712 800 810 781 621 985 710 821 575 120 840 800

795 981 817' 810 910 975 905 010 950 0;838 028 &:35 1.050 770 1;040, 922 04-1 971 132 960 965 ~ 1, 088 .1, O40 1,, 141 075 110 950 112 001 1.50 975 320 160 COHO

11.

5 .. . 6, 1 '
i 10, 11,5 12:q 10, 112 ~ 100

106 100 ./103 101 g.&

101
110
108 102 bypass

P.go1 APPENDOC 8----

COHO JIII-13 bypas

CHINOOK May-29 halCl'Iery -:,/

510 0.877 1121 0.828 8.7 &10 130 832 000 8. 1 510 020 710 0.828

522 032 750 0.815 8.5 5011 082 743 881 1:572 075 7~1 0. 88IiI 6.8 1.482 OS1 ~ 1. 642 IIOQ 8.2 .a1 030 1.11511 800
1OS 10. 1.11.&5 170 857 0.861 1OS 10, 679 152 800 875 1011 12, 742 111 2.010 020

688 1150 835 0.8115 l1li 528 080 710 a.2 8ot 057 1. S62 0.873 052 705 0.832 1011' 1.550 072 182 0.830

G!! 037 770 802 6. 1 440 0.1177 

### s.s 788 , 1011 12, 7411 1l1li 060 023 100 11. 542 035 760 856 lIS 10, 737 120 800 030

11. 5119 101 816 86S lIS 535 061 791 0.800.

511 

### os; ~ 1, 700' 1110 113 ~77 011 835 1OS 10, 830 ~ 085 850 865 lIS 577 040 828 0. 882 8ot ,. 5SII 036 812 810 )112 510 000 ~ 725 8111 811 1 . 0311 588 830 119 11, 600 130 890 lItO

560 995 658 842 505 020 638 065 768 680 794 048 784 692 878 008 681 352 675 087 759 627 839 969 647 246 609

541 900 387 635 474 680 367 0: 753 549 0:861 487 962 708 349 660 904 671 280 619 061 725 515 0:719 921 665 268 637 944 750 504 720 1:0117 764 561 693 197 774 590 715 967 719 408 0':679

740 4&5 695 70 \ 011 731 ~13 671 1011 759 619 751 992 730 554 748
CHINOOK halcl'le,y 320 735 625 710 650 535 570 570 7OS 480 525 285 645 570 750 050 610 345 450 970 540 040 375 440 740 540 640 395 720 0 680 830 

### ),.

340 680 690 680 270 750 560 680 190 490 352 590 320 710 490 700 390 710 560 660' , 74 3;8 140 600 3;10 505

..--1, 750 520 810 280

1: 120 750 370 550 150 640 290 600 80, )1, 730 480 650

260 780 1,490 760 1.150 710 450 680 210 700 380 550 160 790 450 380 760 520 730 220 770 560 700 270 690 540 800

APpeNDIX 8 1'_2

## , /


# t.\ II.ic~

:!:it:ii::::!::;i::=:;;!!:!:=i:mi!::::::'::: j:::::::'::j::::

it:(::::(, i:::;i::):::, :!!=:::::::::!::i'iii=:::':I: U':=::::i:i::!i:!:::,!::

::!:::::=;i:::;:: :::;:::

:i: !:!:i::::: :Ii):!=::::!i::?'

?i(:::::;::,':!:' 

## (:: '

1--.

## ; /

## Executive Summary 

# , ;

I .' 

### The temp ~raryfi~hscreen was deployed again 

## in 1992 to divert juvenile ~lmonid 

## migrations past the Puntledge Generating Station. Thestud~ , objeckives were to. 

## determine the diversion efficiency ofthe screen; the degree and locations 

## ef - impingement an the screen; 'and the size a 

## ~d timing df the , outmigration. 

## The 

## temporary screen , operat~d from April 

## 13 to July 29, while\ the study period 

## Was April 

# : 17to June 13. ' Screen efficiency was evaluated by sampling wild coho salmon . 

## smelts in the bypass (representing fish that were successfully , 

## diverted) and in the tailrace (fish that 

## circumvented the screenand' passed thrcugh the turbine). ,The numbers , af fish 

# I . ~ 

# / " , ,

sampled each day were used to estimate the total number of ccjho smolts 

## moving' downstream by applying an 

## appropriate mark-recapture ,efficiency 

## ratin~~ As in 1991 virtuallYql1 (99 +%) of the'cahosmolts that migrated in ' 

## thespr~ng/ af 1992 were 

## effectivelydivertf?-o by the temporary screen; No smolts were 

## sampled in thetaiirace 

# discharge. ' ' "

i ,



## In 1992, the total Of296, salmonids faund dead on t~e screen was co 

# ~prised af272 cohosmolts and ~2 chinqok 

### , smolts 

## representingQ7 

## 2% and 1.4% ()fthe respec~ive run , sizes 

## , plustwb ' 

## cohofry, 'Increasedtlow through thehe(idpond was believed to have incre ased the approac.hvelo~itiesin 

## 'frotit of :the screen 

## , relative to. 1991 

## when 

# no. impingement mOJ;talities wer~ 

## recorded: 

# Of78 hnpinged coho smolts ' 

## ex.amined for 

## scale' 

## lass , 86% were Classified asdesc~fed;~ ' however 

## " the origins of descaling were not 

# " investigated. 

# . , " " ' -\ " 

# .. , 

# ~ ,

The timing of the coho smalt autmigration waS significantly earlier by about two 

## weeks than the ru:ns ih1989 , 1990- andpi91. The 1992 

## migratian began in , mid- April peaked in mid':May, 

### anddeclinedsignificantly by early June. . 

# ' , " ' 

# : ' ,. ~ , ~ , . \



## , Ap estim ated 132 

## OOOcohosmol~ssafely bypassed the penstock intakes~uring the 

## study ' peri'od. The peak daily migration 

## of JO 

## 221smolts occurred on ~ay 16. D~ring.



# , " 

# ' . " .

the l~st wee~ of sampling, estirpates ranged from 864 to 377 smoHsper day; , 

## , Appro:rcimaiely 15% 

## of the coho smalts migr::j.ted during daylight hours 

## , compared with

23% in 19~i1 

# and 41 % in 1990. , ' ~

, ~ 

# " ' " '- 

# , '

- ~



## The principal differences between. the 1992 study 

### and the previous : 

## year were the 

# increasedJlowsin 1992; the impingement affish an th~screen 

### , a change in sampling 

## , IQcation from sluice. to iailrac~ 

## , andH1e 

## largetandearliei. iun of coho 

### salmpo smolts. 

# ~ . 

# , ,, ~ . ' -,. , ..'--



## List of Figures Fjgure L Figure 2 '--



### Figure- 3, 

### Figure 4. 

### Figure 5. Figure 6. Figur~ 7. 

### Figure 8. 

### , Figure 9.
,Figure 10; 

### Fig\,ire ~l.



## List of Tables Table ,
Ta ble 2, 

### Tilble 3.
Table 4. 

### Table 5. ... ;.--

List 

## of Appendices Appendix l. Appelldix , 2. 

### AppendiX 3.

'" ,



### Appep.dix 4. 

### Appendix 5. ~ " 

# . \

Locatioil Of Puntledge , Rivet Study Area. , ,



### Puntl 

### edge River Schematic F1ow Di~gram;

, Location of 

### the Temporary Fish Screen.

Distribution of 

### Impinged Salmonids in 1992

Headpond Inflows and Impingement of 

### Coho Smelts in ' 1992. 

### Length- 

### Weight Relationship for Coho 

## Smoltsin 1992



# . /

Coho Smelt Migration at Pundedge D 

### iversion Dam in 1992. 

# , (

Movements of 

### Coho Smelts in 

## paylightvsDarkness in 1992 SieelhcadSmolt Cantureslin 199~
, Size oJ Da il y M igra lion 

### of Coho Swalts - 1989- 92. 

### Timillgof CohoSmolt Migra~ion - 

### 1989-



### Efficiency T~ts o(~ypassrrapsin 1992,

Distributioll of 

### Coho Smolts 

### , During the 1992 Study Period. ' 

### D9calirig 9tegpries orCohe Smelts Impinged in 1992. \ 

# . ' 

# . , . -

Distributio!,! of 

### 1992 Cohp SmoltCatches in the Bypass Traps.

-Annual Estimates of 

### Coho SalmonSmolts from Puntledge. 

## Pa2e



## , 23,

Scale Loss on Impinged 

### Puntledge Coho Smelts - 

# 1992. 2 p. 

### 1?9 

## ~FlshfatchatPuntledgeRiver. , Ip. )?ai 

### ly Catches and Estimated Numbe~~ 

### ofCohoSmolts in 1992 3 p. ' 

### DaylightvsNightMovementsof Coho SmoltSin 

# 1992. ' 2p. . 

# , I 1992 Steelhead Smelts, 1 p.

1lI , ,

## , ,

Evaluation of 

# a 'Temporary Screen.

to Divert 

# Salmon Smolts at Puntledge GS:

Year 

# 2 (19~~)

BACKGROUND
BC Hydro is planning to install two Eicher 

## penstock screens to reduce juvenile salmonid mortalities at Puntledge' 

## River GS on Vancouver Island. This permanent screen facility is 

## expected t~ be in operation for thesmolt migrati~n beginning in April 1993. Earlier 

## experiments with behavio ral Oevices i~ 1989 and an 

## electriC field in 1990 proved ineffective in 

## diverting downstream migrants away from the penstock intake (Be rtgeyfieldand Smith , 1990; 

### Bengeyfield 1991). In 1991 a temporary screen 

### , designe 

## d and installed by BCH 

## guided approximately ' 99% of the , estimated 108 

### 000 coho smolts through the ' 

## fish bypass at the dam (Bengeyfield , 1992). '--



### The ' 

## saq1e temporary sc~een was deployed again 

## fbrthe1992 smolt 

## migration while the Eicher screen' project was in the final design stage. Global Fisheries Consultants Ltd. was contracted 

# ~ '

to enumerate downstream migrants; determine timing of smolt otitmigration 

## andmonitor, the 

## screen for impingement and scale loss to migrants between April and June , 1992.

### , -



### r .

## , PUNTLEDGE RIVER HATCHERY - / . /~ ~ '



# G O 

# E N 

# A Y /

., UPPER 

## PUNTLEDGE HATCHERY 

# .. ...

, 1 

### kilometres ( ,



## Figure 1 , i



# Locatio 

# nof Puntiedge R~ver 

# $tudy Area.

Global Fisheries Consultants LId,

## IMPOUNDMENT DAM

TEMPORARY 

### SCREEN



## DIVERSION 

# DAM ~ 

# . ,

Figure 2 

# J Puntledge-River Schematic Flow Diagram

Global F"lSheri... Conluaants , LId,I " 

# .. 

# , '

~ " 0 

# ' ..

Theeffititmcyofthetemporary sCr~en in 1992 wa~measured' 

## bysampling cohq smolts in the ..' \ 

# ' " .. ' .. ' " ' ' 

# ;\

bypass (-representing fish th at W~re 

### diverted intQ the river), and,in th,e taiiraceat Puntledge GS~ ' I.. .. ' ~ , , .. ~ ' ' 

# " ' 

# " '
" ' ~ ' " "



### .. i ' 

### ' ' ,

(fish tqat circumvent~d the " 

### screen' and' piissed , 

### throl,lgb\ the turbine). 

## ' In 1991, fish, that 

# .. ~ ,

.. , ~ 

# .. 

# .. ' /-

eircumvenied thesq-een were 

### sampied in the, sluice because , low river flows precludeci 

# .. .. 

# ,(:"

.. "



# ' 'I 

# " ,

' " " , 

# " ~

'" '



### samPFngiI1:tb~tai'lnice. Thet9tal nt,lmberofcohQsmoltsit1oving downstream. 

## overth'e ~e~ori
was ~stiri'H~tedby 

### applying , an apprbpriate 

## trapeffici~n6yraii~g to , theqaily catc 

### :S,

Fish t~&t w 

## ~teim ~inge don the ~emp 

## 0~~t screen in1992weree IJlinegforthe : 

## d~greeOf ~calelo~s. 

## Tljelackof iI11pirigementin 1991 wasattributedlocon~iderably 19wer flows

~ (~ 

# , ~ ' 

# . , .. 

# ... ~ , 

# ~ '

~rough tbe hea ~pon d. ~ 

# .. 

# ' "

" /~ \ 

### /, '

:7 ,



# , 2. FACILITIES,

I ~ Riv~r Discharge and 

## Plant Operation

f. The Qutmigration period in 1292 wascharacterized, 

## byhighervelocity conditions compared 

## with 1991. I 

## Flows thrbugh the headpond during the study period between April 16 and June 13 ranged (rom~17 to 40 m js (6 

### O2- 

### 14~ cfsL ~e 

### Francis turbine atPu 

## ntledgeGS operated
betwe~n 11 and 24 

## megawatts(m~imumoutput)during thaltime. Ollerilinor spill over the diversion dam ' 

## occurred from May2 to M3y, 8~heD, inflows increased to , between 33 and



### (1173- 1425 cis). TI!es 

### econdbypass was openedl i~flY 

## from May 4 to May 5. .


# The 

# Temporary Screen 

# , '

The tempora~y screen was a , nylop. net 

### , 43 

## m (141 ft(Iong, positi9ned from the right ~nk . 

## , across and down the river to the cross';stream 

## wei!of the diversioI"! dam (Figur~ 

### 3); 

## The net 

# ~ .. /

, -



## .. guIded migrating fish to th~ bypass opening, The primary, net was 

### constructed, of tarred 

# ~ ~ , ,

knQtless, riylO 

### 210120; %~inch stretch mesh which was square- 

### hung frotn the float line. 

# ..

Additionalme ;es were implementedtopreventfi~h from circumventing the screen.

Secopdary nets of 

### marquisette mesh overlapp~d the 'two" ~nds of 

## the primary n~t against the 

# , ' , ' ' , \ ~ '

, c. dam face an~along the bedrock bank. The bottom sectjonofthe net was weighted 

### by: a cable



# , . 

# ..

to follow . the , Contour of 

## the riverbed, and was anchored in ' position ~ 

### pydivers~ The float line 

# " , ~ ' ' ~ 

# , ~

. .



## and upper section de thenetextendeciabout'30 ern abov ~' the 

## waterlevei and w a's hooked onto 

# \ '

~ ' " 

# " '

' '



## a s~ries Qf Topperfloats

Flow alon~ ' the upstream , portion oftliescreen had a higher ratio of 

## sweepingvelQcity(parallel , . 

# .. , '



## , the netJace) relative toapproachvelocity (perpendicular to ' the n~t~. ~is 

### cond itidn chang~d with increasing ' distance downstream as the water , 

## flow becamemor~perpendicular to

the screen. MbSf of 

## th~ screened watere ~tered the 

### pehs~ock located: 80 metres downstream



# , ' " "

the end of the intake 

### 'channel. 

# ~ ,

. I'/ ~PUNTLEDGE RIVER--:---'"INTAKECHANNEL', ,s:.1'-\\j~1'-~\J~i\..",O0Figure 3Location oftheTemporary Fish Screen'at Puntledge DivetsionDam2040 m50 , ' 100Global Fisheries Consultants Ltd. ', .- , \. ,,~



## , 3. 

# METHODS , I



# Trapping 

# ' , ~

Fish that were 

## divertedby the screen were 

## sampjed in th~ bypass usmg Wolftraps~ :whi le fish 

# ~ "

' ,



## , that circlfmvented the Screen were sampled in the powerhouse tailrace using a rrietal fyke trap: 

# , ~

Yearlmg coho salmon smolts were the principal tes tsubjectS for , the ~tudy. 

### ~ There was also a 

## single experimen~l release dfAge 0+ chinook smoltsfrom the hatchery. 

## Fish sarriplingwascdhducted from April 17 to June 13 

### 1992: Trap 

## catches w~re tallied, twice a 

## day, sev~ndays, a week. The ~ 

### catchassigned to each calendar day was comprise rlof a 

### d~)'light perigd (trap set abo~tO900r, and checked about 1900 h), plus th~ , 

# su~eding ~ight 

# " ~ 

# ) ,

period (trap set about 1900 b and checked about 0900h the 

### next ' 

# morning):, ~
, Fish caught in 

### tbe traps were 

### , identified to species 

## , exarriined for ~arks anlilcounted. Traps 

# I ~ \\/~re calibr ated for~beir' 

## ~piure efficiency,Py releasingkno 

## ,:~

nu~gers o(cauQaI- 

### clipped smolts upstream of the traps. Anefflciencytest uses 

## tbe recapture rate 

## of the known number 

# ' . , ~ , ' 

# , : ' ' ~ ~



## of marked fish to estimate. the capture rate of the unmarked fish population. 

# , , " ,



# Bypass ~ " 

# , , , ~



### Thre 

## /Wolf trapS , ,



### 15 ~m wide and' 2. 

## 6rri long, were used , to 

### s3.IIlple the discharge througb' the 

### bypass. " 

## Tbe traps delivered the (ish with a reduc ~d volume of water into 10 Ctn0 PVC plastic 

# , ~

, piping that l~d to separate ho)ding~ompart~ents inside a floatihg , 

## live box; 

# ' '

The average capture efficiency of ~he three bypass traps for ,hatchery, coho 

### smolts was , rated . 

# , / ' , ,

duringtwoexpe ~imeritalreleases at 15.4.% (Table 1). 

## Daily catches w ~re u sed , 

## to e~apolate 

## the total ~umberSof coh ?smolts ~oving 

### through the byp 

### ass 

## , based on the a v~rage recapture 

## rate ofdperimentallymarkedJisb:

Estimi:1ted' 

## imolts thn?ughbypass 

### combined trap catch 

### 154 (. , ./ ,

## Table 1. Efficiency Tests of 

## Bypa~s Traps in 1992.

Release Date 

### Sp~cies 

## ' No, Released No, Recaptured 

## Percent 10 May 

### coho i + 

### 500 15.



### (hatchery) 13 May coho 1 

### 500 15,



### (hatchery) A VE 

### RAGE COHO RECAPTURE RATE, = 

## 15. 4%(


## 01 June chinOok 0+ 

### 487 16,

, (hatcherY)



## Table 1 indicates that these traps were somewhat more efficient in capturing hatchery chinook 

### smolts (16. 

### 8%). , !



## Tailrace A metal fyke trap (called the cone trap) was used to sample the tailra~e at Puntledge GS for 

## any smolts that circumvented the scre ~n barrier. - A siogle 

## ~st of cone trap efficiency was 

## conducted April 28 by releasing 500 marked smelts into the penstock at a turbine lqad of 24, 

# MW. Eighteen marks were recovered for an capture efficiency of 3. 6%. 

## Spill Eight 2x2 fyke n~ts were suspended beneath the metal grating along the length of the 

## diversion dam to sample any fish that spilled over the crest,


# Measurements

...__. _~~ ~.~

~-_..~_..~,_ ..., ~"...."-- - _..~ .. ~"-~ 

### '----"~-'-



## , Subsamples of the trap catches (target of 50 fish) were retained weekly for length and weight measurements, Subsampled fish were 

## anesthetized with tricainemethanesulfonate (MS- 222). 

# ..

Fork lengths were measured to the nearest rrtillirnetre (mm) 

## from the tip of the nose to the fork
of the caudal fin. 

## Weights of individual fish were measured to the nearest 0, 

## 1 gram (g) using

a self- 

## taring Mettler PE3600 electronic balance,, ,- \ ' / - , " , 

# " \ " ' 

# ' ,

'~ ,



## smoltsfoun~ifupil1gedon' tbe sCreen were examined fpr .scale 

## lqssacCo(ding to the



# , , 

# " ' ' ~ \ , 

# ' '

c()lumbia :River 

### Stcindard 

## ~rot6coL(Appendixi), 9ne exa riner e~timatedand recordedtbe 

## percent s ~le l()~sdn 

### eac hbfrtheteil zone 

## sper fish. ' ' '

# RESUL "fS 

# , '

, i



### Coho salmon smolts comprise~ 98. 

## 2% of the total fish ~ample at Puntledge m 1992, Other 

### fish captured during this study were coho fry~ 

### sockey~ smolts 

## chinook fry, steelhead/rainbo\V 

## trou~ Dolly Varden char , and sculpin (Appendix 2).


## The temporary scr~~n was installed on April 13 

# , 1992. The bypass remail\ed : 

### closed since 

## there were no observations of coho s II1o1ts 

### moving downstream. After a small 

## number of fish' accumulated intheheadpond 

## , the bypass stoplogs were reinovedand sampJjng wa;;be~n on 

## April 19~ Fjshsampling Was discontinued ~n June 13; Thescre 

## ~n was removed from the , Puntledge River ' 

## on July 29 , 1992.

Effectiveness of 

# the Screen 

# " ~

The temporaryscreendiverted 

## all coho; chinook , and steelheadmigrants through the 

### bypass 

# : I 

# " I ' , 

# ~ , ..~ '

, duringtbe 1992 study perioQwith: 

### the exccption otth~ 's ~alt number offish imp!ngedo.nthe screen. The 

## total outinigratioll of coho smoltsduring, the stuQY period was estimated at , "



### 132 395 ' 

### fish 

### ~ An ' un 

### knownnumber..of additional migrants ' 

## were diverted by the screen until its 

# , " 

# - ' 

# " ('

.. '



### , removaL


## Based on sampling in the tailrace 

## ~d in the brief spillon May2- , no salmo ~id mi 

### ~rantS c:ircumvented th~ scre6n during the study period (Table 4). 

## Of the few fish sampled by the 

## 9Onetrap in 1992 , all were determined t9have, acc:ideritly entered the trap 

### from thelow~r 

### river , ,



### and~had riot been entr ~ined!n tljepenstock. This assessment 

### was based on visual 

# ,,' ' ' " ' "

differences insi;z~ ' and appearance between 

## wild and hatcherysalmonids. . '
, ,



### " 4 

## Imping 

# ement and Scale Loss' I.hpihgeme . ( ,



### Impingeinent 

## ccording to National Marine Fish eries S 

## ~rvicecriteria 

## isanyphysiCal~ntact bya fish with Ii sc ~nor ~tr uqture. Howeyer 

## , physical contact with the screen w no~ , ",,- ' 

## , '\
, , ~ ,



### Table 2; DistributionefCoho Smelts During the 1992Study_ 

## Petiod, 

# / ,

ROUTING Component Bypa-ss , Spill 

### Penstock' 

### , Impingement Turbine , f'!Jon- 

### Turbine 1$2, 

### 123 

### % Total ~un 

### ilia 

### nfa 99,

.. I 

### nla

272



### rponit ~red , 

## at Puntledge in 1992. " Instead 

## , impingement was measured by the incidence of . direct mortality on the screeneachmomfng. TotalmortaJities of272Coho~molts 

## , 2 , coho fry, 

# ~ !

: 22 chinookfry, and 41 sculpinswere recorded on 

## thes~een in 1992, The 

## majority of the salmonids w~reimpinged; on the 

## netbetween the first an d fourth TopperflO1it$upstr~am from 

# , ' 

# . , , ' ' , " \ ~

thedam(Figute\4), an dgeilerally In thetaI' O. (iIllpfthe water ' column; ~long with most 

# , ,

' 'J 

# , ;

theh::afand wood debris.
Fiveadditfonalchinook fry were 

## impinged on 

## the net (at float 1) butwerenot, 

## indudedin, the



# ~ ' 

# ' "

, ,.. 

# \ "

impingement total. These , hatchery fish/had' been 

### immen:;ed in Bismark , Brown , 

### dye for , an 

# , , ' ~



## experimental release , and their imping~ment may , 

## have been caused by trau 

## ma during the 

# \ "

,J ' 

# , '

markingprocedure. 

# ~'

, , , / 

# ' (

I , 

# , ,

Figure 5 indicate~ the da~s' Of im~ingement qf272 

## cohp smoltsin relation to headportd 

### inflows in ' 1~9~, ' Th~fitst major incidence of 

### impingement began when , 

### inflows to the , ' 

# ' ' : ,


# .. , ~ 

# ' /

headpond rose abovenorIT).alon iMay2.;8, 

## ' This earlyperiod'fas followed by a lower , buJ 

# ' , ~ '

~sisteht inCidence of impingement--duririg ~table infl()ws, 

## during, norm~km aXimum power -

Procluction of 

# 24~W. The final pefiOdofimp ingemeht~ 

### froIhMaij8td22 was 

### chanl~terized 

# " '

; I 

# " ~

by, a comparatively high~ 

## rateof impi;gemen(eve ~asinfl.o\Vs beg 

## dropp~g, 

# " ,

App~oach velOcities (perpe ~dicular to the net) and sweeping-velocities (parallel , to the net)

weir 

## measured oIiMay4 1992 , a day when Com 

## ox Dam diScharge, (1324 cfs)was higherFigure4.Distributionof Impi!1gedSalmonids in 1992.120, 90.c:u:::'0 60Chinook fry.CohosmeltsIII.flow--..,Table 3. Descaling 

### Categ9ries , 

## of Coho Smolts , Impinged In 1992 ' ~



### DESCALED PARTIALL 

### YDESCALED ~UMBER ~16% on 1 

### side ~40% In 2

IIreas 

### ~16% on

side 16% on2



### sides 

### 86% 

### 55% 14% 19%

NMFS criteria for descallng. 

### , Crit,rlon bas .donthe1~91 controlsa'!'plein C omo~ Lake. 

# , \

, Scale Loss 

## Scale losse ~ on 78 

### impinged coho smoltswere - recorded \ in 

### 1992. Examination for \ scale loss 

## revealed the soft physical conditionoC most specimens. :The degree 

### ofscale loss is 

## summarized in Table 3 

## , and t~erecords of individualCish are tabulated 

### ill- Append,i~ 1.



### Size and Timing of 1992 

## Coho Smolt Migration

Population Size



## ' " / 

# , , , ' . ' 

# ' ,

The total number of coho smolts ~as estimated , at 132 

## 395, ofwhkh 272 wereimpinged'



# " ~

the screen. Therefore the compdnent that migra~ed past the Puntledge Diversibn Dam' 

### between 

## April 18 and June 12 , 1992 , wase~titrtated to , be 132 

### 123 smolts 

### (Table 2). This 

### estimate 

# I..~ .. 

# ' , , -

Was derived I by using a mark-recapture method tpatextrapolated the catch results in 

## Appendix 3 based on trap efficiency tests. . ' '-- 

## /' '

The predicted size of the 1992 coho migration~ 

### based on SEP Biostandards , ,



## was forecast to be ' ' 

# ' \

68,500 smoltS, Puntledge Hatch~ry personnel 

### transplanted tl:u::followingcomponents, 

## of-the 

# " , .. " 

# ' ,

1990 brood' yearinto the watershed 

## 3Q()veComoxLake: " ,



## Age 0+ fry (in 

# 1991) Adult females (in 1990) 

### No. Planted 752, 000 

## .. 275 ' SmoltsExpected 200 300 

## Total: / 500 COmpbnent 

# . ,

Th~ high, level of predsion in the ' daily 'estimated numbers in AppenCiix 3 l is , 

### an artifact of the CJlculati~n 

### procedure, '-.

## Figure 7.
12000

1 Qooo Iii 

### 8000 ::J 

### 6000 ell 

### 4000 ....



### 2000

C\I

c:: o...~ .:(



## Coho Smolt Migration , 

## at Puntledge Diversion ' Dam in 1992.

C\I C\I :.- :.- :.- .:( .:( .:(
. ,



## Figure 7 shows the seasonal timing of the 199~outmigration bas ~don the daily estimates.



## Whensamplin~ commenced in the bypass on April 17 , observations in the forebay s 

## ~ggesied 

## th(it the mignltionofcoho smolts 

## was not yet underway. Peak outmigration of an estimated 

## 221 fish, occurred on May'16." After June 4 

## , daily estimates'dropped to fewer than 1000 

## smolts per day, Coho smalls continued to migrate in small numbers (300- 800per day) until June ' 12 ' 

### when sampling was discontinued, 

## Diel Timing of Coho Smolt Migration 

# , "

Migration during daylight hours was again documented in 1992 (Figure 8). Appendix 4 indicates day-night variations in the daily catch distribution in the bypass, Over the 1992 

## " study period , 15% of cOho smolts migrate,! through th 

## e bypass during daylight hours while 

## 85% migrated during darkness 

## , based on all dates having paired morning and evening data. 

# . ,

I' 

### , On the date of peak 

## ~ig~tion; May 16 

## , this same ratio .15% and 8 

## ~%migrated through the bypass during daylight hours a'Od darkness 

## , respectively. The date , with the highest percentage 

## , daylight migration was May 12 wl1en 43% ' 

## (n=1247) of the estimated 2870 cOho smolts 

## migrated during the day.
Analysis of Individual trap catches' 

## indicated that the spatial distribution of coho smolts , migrating through the bypass differed be 

## ~een . daylight and darkness as shown ll!. Table 4. 

## , The right trap caught 56% of all fish that moved at night , whereas the left trap caught 65% of all fish moving in daylight.M~vemei1ts of 

## CohoSmOI~' Daylight ys Darkness (n1992. 

## , ' ' '( , " 

# , , , . ' ~ 

# . , 

# ; "

## Figure 9. \ ,

Ste~lhead 

# Smelt Captures in 1992. \~ -

;.C 2,- i:i:

..-I

I-I 

### I") U'I ~ ... '"



## NI N N _ .-4 !"1 

### Ill-'" ~ .-4 I") U'I, ""- '" .-4 - I") .-4 .-4 .-4 .-4 .-4 U'I ... 

### "'~

.-4 

## N M
r:::

1-:1, ..



### a:li 0 .-4 .-4 :-, :-,

III



# Steel head ~igration Twenty-nin~ steelhead smolts were capfuredin ' 

## 1992. r 

## Figure9 shows the timing of their 

# , ' : - ' \ 

# - , 

# :" ,

migtath;m past the div 

### ersioQd~m. Leng~s 

### , weights al1d~c:a!e sa~ples~er~: 

### t3.kenfrom , tv(o 

### sieelhead ~~olts (App~ndix~), ,. ..~ . '

# CONCLUSIONS Evaluation of Screen Efficiency Based on the 1?92 sampling results 

## , the ,temporary screen effectively diverted all 

## of the coho salmon , chinook salmon 

## , and steelhead migrants through the bypass 

## , with the exception of the 

## 296 juvenile salmonids impinged on the screen, hnpingement mo~lityrepresented-O, 2% of

the total estimated . 

### cohosmoIt run , 1.4%- 

## of the chinook run 

## , and none of the steelhead run.
The 1992 distribution of coho smolts within the bypass was similar to that observed in 1991 during daylight hours , the majority 

## , of fish passed do~n the left side of the bypass while at night 

## , most fish travelled down the right side.

, 5. 

# Impingem~nt During the principal migration, period 

## , river flows in 1992 remained near nonnallevels for maximum power generation 

## , except duringaminor spill condition that lasted about eight days, in early May. , These hydraulic conditions appeared to represent 

## the threshhold of impingement for. juvenile coho and chinook salmon on the temporary screen. The increase in 

### impingement numbers , 

## after May 17 (Figure 5) coincides with the secondary peak of 

## outmigration. This trend could be associated with warming river temperatures , and 

## coneommitant reduction in swimming stamina.


## Scale loss for impinged coGo smolts was generally high. 

## It was not possible to establish 

## whether the scale losses occurred before or after the smolts died on the scre~n. / 

# . Estimates of Population Size The coho smolt production of BY90 from 

## upstream of the diversion dam , originated as follows:

. 103 

## 843 unfed hatchery fry planted ~n Corpox 

# 4ke; . 398, 

## 000 fed hatchery fry planted , in Comox Lake;
. 250 

## 000 fed hatchery fry planted in Cruickshank River; and , ( , '(

. 275 

## adult females + 369 adult males, ~ ' ~ , ' \. '

# Figure 10. Size of 

## Daily Mi graUon of 

# Coh~Smolts- Puntledge River , 1989- 

## 92. " "



## , I , 1 

### 0000,



### 7500 ::-. ' ...



## 5000

CI) 

## 2500

1992' 1990' - 1989 

### " '



# ' \

For the secon d year , a , 

### very ~ighperCentage of 

## juvenile miwanf:s 

## Was diverted around the 

## Puntledgeturbineby the temporary s ~reen~ 

### R~tums 

## of adult coho to thePuntledge River in 

## Fall1994 sQould be sigpificant based on the large siZe of 

### the 1992 sml:* " 

### outmigra iion.



## 5.4 Migr 

## atipn Timing The timing of the ~992peak ~igration 'Y ~ssignifi~ntlyearli~r by about 

### tWo. 

# ~~ks tbtan in



## ~ ' ,~ 

# ~ ' \

thethreeprevious y"ears (FigureU). Migrationbeganabo 

## ~tApril18 , peakedine atly May, , 

## , " , / / " 

## , " 

# " ,

and subsided significantly by early June. Onl'y! 15% 

### ofthecohosITIolts th at were sampled in 

# ~ ' ' ! 

# ~ '

1992 migrated through the bypass area during daylight hours 

## , compar~d with 23% in 1991 and 

## 41 %in 1990. ,/ \' , ,

I " " "Figure 11. Timing of Coho 

## Smelt Migration - Puntledge River , 1989- 

## 92. '-- : ~

1992

1991

1990 ,..

, Q
1~B9



## April Hay .:Tune .:Trily

( "



## REFERENCES CITED

Bengeyfield 

# W. 1992. 

### Evaluation of a te)11porary screen to ' 

### divert fisli 

## ; at P\intledge GS, Unpubl. report to C. Hydro by Global 

## Fisheri~s Consultants Ltd" White Rock , B. 

## , 33 p. Bengeyfield 

# , W. 1990. 

## Evalua~ion of an electrical field to divert col1o salmon smolts from the penstock 

### intake i ' fat Puntledge Generating 

## Station. Unpubl. report to . 

## C. Hydro by Glpbal Fisheries Consultan~ Ltd. 

### , White Roc~, B. C'! 

### , 41 ' I'. , 

## Bengeyfidd , W. and H. 

# Smith. 1989.
Evaluation of behavioral devices to divert coho salmon ! smolts from 

### the penstock take at the ' 

### PilntledgeGenerating Statibn, UnpubI. report , to B, c. Hydro by Global 

### Fisheries Consultants Ltd. 

## , White Rock 

## , B.c. 

# , 27 p~ 

# " ' 

# ' '

EPRI (Electrical Power Research 

# Institute), 1990. Evaluation of an Inclined Penstock Screen at Elwha Dam- Spring 1990 Test 

### Results~ 

## InterimMS Report bySton~ and Webster Engineering Corporation and Hosey & 

## Associates Engineering Company. EPRI , Palo Altb , california.'--

### APPENDIX SCALE LOSS ON, IMPINGED PUNTLED. 

### GE COHO SMOLTS - 1992.



### NMFS" 

## Descaled" (::- 16%on one side) 

# PERCENT SCA IE 

## LOSS

DATE Ne.t LEFT SIDE RIGHI SIDE COMBINED SIDES LEFT RIGHT 

### Sect)on L2' TOiAL Apr- :58 Moy- T3 ' Moy- 35 

### 5 '

80

30, 

### '15' 70,



### 50 --..



### 15, 4er 

## 50, 10/

I.

;c:-5
10

20 ~ 40



### 30' 15' 15 40' 

### ,37

:60 ~ 0, 101 10. 15~

" 35
50 \ 

### lor
10, ~ 5

75' I 

### -10 

### 10i Moy- ....

60'DATE 

### Net LEFT SIDE RIGHT SIDE COMBINED SIDES 

### Section ., LEFT RIGHT TOT At May- 

### , 37 ~ 5



### 10

T4 I 

### 60' - 5

100 100 ~ lop 100 100 100 May- 95 , 70

100 May-6 ~ T3 

## 60'

30 ' '

May- SO, 

### ' 34 10.

May- 40 

### ' 40

~ 5 

### 20' May- 

### n/r 

### 20.

70,7007281-99928521037940105894024'1064.9421068'9401O69~94493910669871061'932'9299n9251069107093O~1036930928925---.~27.27.\ 27.08. 27,08 "2.7.27. 0527.~ 27.26:9526.26.26.26.27.10 '27.27.27,27.27~27;9527,98 /27,27,27,:?7,55 '27.APPENDIX' 3)'DAILY CATCHES AND ESTIMATED,NUMBERSOF COHO SMOLTS IN 1992.= miSsIngdala Inl~rpolaled c= avg;lrap efficiencyot, '92 'coho In bypass!!!j!!I~!!~!~:::~::::~::::::::::III:i::f!:::I:f~' .0830. coneln6 '9 .15 ~1910 0, 008507'12 \1945Or'0845 '12 ~19. 331910 - '~'10 ,08503 ,9 -- 92015. 00 .0910 - 0 1. . 26~ ~-2025b 0' o0930 .0' 615.38. 59~ 2010L09050 102548 831915;0O.0 "0 ~0825 09 2033 62-204O 261' I ~27 ,09000 ' 1478130 .;2115-. O. ,17. 09000 11431 58~ 02"122045, ~O.090014 ~73179266 -2100 ' O' 01045154870 1331620 00 ~0,SUMWT149253403169,\ 391951- 7813612140- '0 78,1232141eo143~ 01361169169234143/234~99195.29913839l'24738315451623125391403130214~ 403110191690 .175247506844114941101172791026137711740' -474116217271877..:0c 13: 312.4558641877- 0~ 0DAILY DISCHARGESCATCHES OFCOHO SMOLTSCOMOXPUN1WATERDallDATEDAMDAMlEVEL "TIMEConeWTI.WJ2WT3SUM WTConeWTIWT2WT3SUM WTTolalMAY51275923'27.0910~ 12 '1353054948772351+50%addtlassumed27.1150156, 247442thru 2nd bypass27.2115125192327.085019228316242912471838189O27.1950125192024.27.08401922862213901247 ,1857242227.2100117391'5I 27.ro081010620636232568813382351342227.2030108991~' 2427.0915164304527383106519743422255827.1930108790027.~4O13620238832588313122519289627.1720110105590527,084010822342057870\14482727417926.212020751962320\1344105491527.0840172311529111720193435287027.210512419280534412471049,~ 92227.0808501472502664039551623321427.1920175104279104491727.0900178214452390115613902935448726.95.2015118636123766 ,104091226.0900121215237573786139615393721648126.202514949'208~ 96831865 '-1351103591126.08101443193277909352071212351301022126,19101762431143390157817'104087626.7808152144476701331139029034351.8643820\27.20101141797402471751162105391927.090511623373510847531'513477370393877nIl2015266'351105092527.0850139332543 '46890321563526672126.20001301538441439941045' 93226.090021053788287713643487572762ro26.2030- 72242106546839 '1571, 21106591527.0901:\106' 13448272268887031304688743527.230017325811232992531675102388927.0900152.657887506987426657ro524027.190039045589979427.0910121.200408737786135126494786501327,192051955889678327.~ 0840264134288686171487018704455305227,191013017589475427,0830121'11221044378672713642877238327,2230, 7500591

### APPENDIX 4. 

### DaylJght vs. Night Movements of CohoS molts In 

### 1992~

24HR TOTAL Day # Dark. Day Apr21 

### i36 136 ' 0



### 214 214 143 6 i 136 169 169 

### 0 ' 234 234 

### 299 ' 299

27 383 383

545 \ 54? '-.

0403 403 0 3.0 1019 175 844

.1377 ~ 8 ' May 1494 1.17

1740 1'3 1727 877 864 877 877 2351 \ 513 1838 ' 22 1889 32 1857 

### ;2422 2351 

### 3422, 3422 1001 -"'\. 

## " ,

2558 2519 2896 169 '2727 4779 1344 3435 2870 1247 1623 . 13! ~ 3214 

### 279' 2935

4487 766 3721 791 6481 1351 5130 10221 1578 8643 8201 , 11'62 7039 5877 351 3526 ( .c - 6721 994 5127 . 6260 1571 4688 7435 211 1675 576.D ,

5240 455 4786 5013 558. 4455 . 89 3052 175 2877 2383 591 1722 474 1448 c-r 2026 ) , . ,

1253 273 981 '78 2675 2584 2455 455 200.0. 19; ""

331

2065 1734 1714 208 l5.D6 12j24HR TOT AL # Day # Da~k 

### %Day % Dark Jun, 1 1325 1247 

### 94'

2974 221 2753 3123 325 2799 1494 455 1039 877 208 669 864 182', 682 844 156 688

136 695 734 643 10 \ 500 429 ' I

377 9.7 279 513 130 383 TOTALS: 131396 , 19201 112196 PERCENT 14. 85,

### r--,



## HD vV\ 

# Ch(Af

FRED WINCHELL SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST



### STONE & WEBSTER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES a division of STONE WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORA TION 145 SUMMER STREET, BOSTON, MA 01107 TELEPHONE: (617) 589. 2856 FAX: (617) 589. 1911



# DC 

# hydro proudofourSeroice

G, (GRAEME) MATTHEWS , P, ENG~ Technical Services Department 6911 Southpoint Drive Hydroelectric Engineering Division Burnaby, B. c. V3N 4XS Canada ;tl 

## ~)'

Telephone: (604) 

# 52S~ Fax: (604) 52S- 

# --?8IY . ff Telex 04- 

# 54512 ~ c'"