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 Estimated 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 

flow routes in thePuntledge study 

channel. Figure 2 depicts the hydroelectric facilities and

area.

, r

 

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 objectives 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 number 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 between 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. 
UPPER

HATCHERY

N-+ PUNTLEDGE RIVER 

..... ( 

DIVERSION DAM

SLUICEWOLF

y-TRAPS (2)

\\j

G~ 

t(\

..\it.~O ~U\'

.

. 

PENSTOCK

20 40 m 

50 ~ 100 It

Figure 3

location of the Temporary Fish Screen at Puntledge Diversion Dam

Global 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 percent 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 fallchinooksmolts from the tchery

were released 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 the
Table 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 , I ~e similar

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, and 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

behaviour 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 In 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 screen 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 smolts2 (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 Age brood year (BY) transplants above Comox Lake: Number Smalls / Component Planted Expected

Age 0+ fry 824 000 82400

, Pre-smolts 201,000 160800

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 screen. 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 periodic

, 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 exhibited 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 diprlet 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

outplanting 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 betWeen 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. 1991 PUNTLEDGE COHO LENGTHS. ,WEIGHTS; A PERCENT SCALE lOSS

LEfT SIDE RIGHT SIDE % DESCALED

Date ~l (rom) Weight (g) left rIght totalMay- 110 14, " 12 i~ll:::tt!!;

, Wolf trap ' 5

5 ' 5 ~m::;~M:::,z~:

101 10.

114 13. 5 '101

114 13,

~ 1

107 10, 3 .

100108 11,110 13.

104 11, ~ 0 0 l-

, May- 113 13~4

Wolf trap 109 12,

135 24,

101

. 8.

~ 0

102

102 10.

APPENDIX 1
, /

.. 

LEFT SIDE RIGHT SIDE DESCALED

Date FL (mm) Weight (9)\ : L3 L.2 left right total

: (cont.) 0' 

11-2 12,

110 12,108 10,

112 12, ' 0 3 \

102 ~'" 5

107

/ ,

10.

109 12,

May~ 113 12,

11-2 12. 10-

~olf trap 13. 116

fJ7

.,

107 to, 15~

10-

114 13, 1, 4-'109 11, ' 3

93,

119' 15,113 13. 1'0 20,

:

0..

108 11,

7:9 97,

103 :10

10 '

108 11,9 '

./

108 11,

::

APPENDIX '

\
LEFT SIDE RIGHT SIDE % DESCALED

Date FL(mm) Weight(g) left right total

(cant.) 3 -

91;)

107 12,

105 11,1011 oo

113 13.

111 12.

109 12,

tOO 3 -

107 11. 5 -

- 3 tl!mmtl:~\Im::::::\l::~I:!U:I::

109 ~1.

83'

100 8.4 4 HWffjfi::

,

 

 

,:,,:, ,:,:,:,:.:.:,:, ..:,..:,:

102

May- 17' 111 14, 4/"

Wolf trap

APPENDIX 1

LEFT SIDE % DESCALED RIGHT SIPE

FL (mm) Weight (g) L5, L2~ " L1 left' right total

108 11.4 5' 

110 11. 20.

101 \ 3

\ 0

106 10,

 , 

..

109 10.100 10.

.1"

~ 6, 10, 20,

90 

5:.. , 6'

100 10,

105 10. ' 5

102 - 1O~

, /

" 5

' 10

10 ~

114 13,

109

10'

' 5

192 10,

i ~ 3:

:98 0': 20 

,, 

119 16, 10,

7;2

93, 3 /

10' 10,

10~

,7,

, 110 13.

109 13.

98"

APPENDIX, 1
LEFT SIDE RIGHT SIDE "oESCALED

Date FL (mm) ,Weight (g) L.2 Lt. left right total

(cont.) "

102 10. 0 -

Ma~- 100

Wolf trap 122 16,

108 11,

104 10,101 ~ 5

6;8

104 10, 2'0

i!im:Umil:I!l.ii

113 12.

10. '10 11'

120 15, .10

::i!!::tiMmiliilil:~ 16 j::::::jjM:m:\:\iml:

104 11.

' 10

10,

91,

5.4

10'

20)

105 12,

, 

APPENDIX 1

;

LEFT SIDE RIGHT SIDE %DESCALED

Date F!-,(mm), Weight (g) left right total

(cont.) 105 10.

,\,

tO1100 10, 10/

117 13,

8,4

100 2() 3 ~:tlilifti:17:: ,

106 10,

107 11.

112 11,

103 10.

J03

113' 12;1 ,0,

:::::::;*t;1t:llt:;'::M~i;llil~i:!;;::::i:::t::::::m;:;:~Ii,

104 5:1

102- 10.

102 ::-3

8;3 5;--

'10

104 -10;5

1:0

APPENDix
LEfT SIDE RIGHT SIDE % DESCALED

Date FL (mm) Weight (g) left right tote I 

May- 103 10, ' 3

124 18, - 3

Wolf trap 103 5 -

106 - 3

j01 3 '

' 7, 5 ~ ~ 3 ~ 5

114 13,

- 94 3 '

109 11.7

100

~ 5

105108 11.

115 14.

- 2

106

,,/ 4

93 ' ~ 7,

May- 118 16, 10,

Wolf trap 101

100

. ,

10'

:::::j:Mmml1:I:i 20,

, 

APP NDIX 1 '
- 5

1 I,

\ 

1\ '
LEFT SIDE RIGHT SIDE "DESCALED

Date FL (tntn) :Weight(g) L2. At' left right total

(cont.)

103102

Jun-

no length data

anQled u/s 

bypa~s

J~ 

30' 11 

10 

3, 

May~angled U/~ 105, 11. 1'0

bypass

102 10,

84; 5:4 10 

100 10.104

15"

92 '10. 20,

6;7

.. 

/8.

103104

APPENDIX
Date

(cont.)

Jundipnetted U/S 

of bypass

APPENDIX 1

FL(mm) Weight (g) 88 ~ 6, 90 6, 101 9, ~ 99 8, 90 6, 87 5, 109 11.6 102 10, 90 6, 100 9. 91 7-;7

92 ( 6, 100 9. , 102 87 ,

no length data

LEFT SIDE RIGHT SIDE

A2,

10-

5 -

1 5

~ 10

- 5

- 3

- 5

~ 60 20 . - 20

10 

- 0 ~ 0 30'

30,

~ 10

/ 5

- 0

50 

20, 3 '

5 '

A5 left

~ 0

10 

% DESCALED tight total

:::::i:~:~:~:::~::ii::i::::II:~:;::::m:m:::IQ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::

5 4'4 , 4 , 0 - 13 

5 ~ 14 14 ~ 10 

13 

1 iMMll:li.1' 

!rllll~fI11~Br""

;~:::~:::::::::::::::::;:::::::::;:::i; 5 4

:l:;:::::::ii:tml1~:::~:~:::ii:::

::::

:::::::i::::::::;:::~1::l1:ii 11 
, 
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

. ,

Number

Cpho smolts : ; 2 ' 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

210 381 \ 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 .. I ~ :t. .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

APPENDOC 8 P.go1
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.\

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

II.ic~

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 I . ~ , af fish

/ , ,

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 representingQ72% and 1.4% ()fthe respec~ive run

, sizes, plustwb ' cohofry, 'Increasedtlow through thehe(idpond was believed to have

increased 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 estimated 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 Diversion 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.

)?aily Catches and Estimated Numbe~~ofCohoSmolts in 1992 3 p. '

DaylightvsNightMovementsof Coho SmoltSin , I 1992. ' 2p. .

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 behavioral Oevices i~ 1989 and an electriC field in 1990 proved ineffective in

diverting downstream migrants away from the penstock intake (Bertgeyfieldand Smith, 1990;

Bengeyfield 1991). In 1991 a temporary screen, designed 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 Locationof 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 that 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~ingedon the ~emp0~~t screen in1992weree

IJlinegforthe :

d~greeOf

~calelo~s. Tljelackof iI11pirigementin 1991 wasattributedlocon~iderably 19wer flows

 (,  . , .. ...  ,  

~rough tbe hea~pond. ~

..    /
\/, 

: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 (6O2-14~ cfsL ~e Francis turbine atPuntledgeGS 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!esecondbypass 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 wa'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 conditidn

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 

:

INTAKE CHANNEL'

, ,

s:.1'-\\j~1'-

~\J~i\..",O0 Figure 3

Location of the Temporary Fish Screen'

at Puntledge Divetsion Dam 20 40 m

50 , ' 100 Global Fisheries Consultants Ltd. '

, \

, .,,

, 3. METHODS , I

Trapping

 , 

Fish that were divertedby the screen were sampjed in th~ bypass usmg Wolftraps~ :while fish

  ,

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

, 

Yearlmg coho salmon smolts were the principal testsubjectS 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 compriserlof 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 I ~, exarriined for ~arks anlilcounted. Traps

\\/~re calibrated 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 used , to e~apolate

the total ~umberSof coh?smolts ~oving through the bypass, based on the av~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 VERAGE 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 eachbfrtheteil zonesper 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 sII1o1ts 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 briefspillon 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 Impingement and Scale Loss'

I.hpihgeme

. ( ,

Impingeinent ccording to National Marine Fisheries S~rvicecriteria isanyphysiCal~ntact

bya fish with Ii sc ~nor ~truqture. 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 and fourth TopperflO1it$upstr~am from

\ , , , ,

thedam(Figute\4), andgeilerally 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 trauma 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~kmaXimum power - 

Procluction of 24~W. The final pefiOdofimpingemeht~ 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 higher
Figure 4. Distribution of Impi!1ged Salmonids in 1992.

120

, 90

.c:u:::'0 60

Chinook fry

.Coho smelts

III. 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 Como~ 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 lis ,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 the 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 diversioQd~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 second 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:* "outmigraiion.

5.4 Migratipn Timing

The timing of the ~992peak ~igration 'Y~ssignifi~ntlyearli~r by about tWo. ~~ks tbtan in

  ,  \

thethreeprevious y"ears (FigureU). Migrationbeganabo~tApril18, peakedineatly May, ,

, , / / ,  ,

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

Sect)on L2' LEFT RIGHT 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

Moy- 10i

....

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,

700 728 1-9

992 852

1037 9401058 940 24'1064. 9421068' 9401O69~ 944

939

1066 987

1061' 932'

9299n 925

1069

1070 93O~

1036 930

928

925

.

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.

= miSsIng dala Inl~rpolaled c= avg;lrap efficiency ot, '92 'coho In bypass

!!!j!!I~!!~!~:::~::::~::::::::::III:i::f!:::I: f~' . 

0830. coneln 6 '9 .15 ~ 1910 0 , 0 0850 7' 12 \ 

1945 Or' 0845 ' 12 ~ 19 . 33

1910 - ' ~'1 0 , 0850 3 , 9 -- 9 

2015 . 0 0 .

0910 - 0 1 . . 262025 b 0 ' o

0930 .0 ' 6 15. 38 . 59 ~ 2010 L0905 0 10 25 48 83

1915 ;0 O. 0 " 0 ~ 0825 0 9 20 33 62- 204O 261 ' I ~ 27 , 0900 0 ' 14 78 130 .

;2115- . O

, 

17 . 0900 0 11 43 1 58 ~ 0 2"12

2045

, 

O. 0900 14 ~ 73 179 266 - 2100 ' O ' 0 1045 15 48 70 133 1620 0 0 ~ 0, 

SUMWT

149 253 403

169,

\ 39 1951

- 78 1361 214

0- ' 0 78, 123 2141eo 143

~ 0

1361 169

169 234

143/ 234 ~99

195. 2991 383

9l' 247 3831 545

162 312 5391 403

130 214 ~ 4031 1019

169 0 . 175

247 506 8441 1494

110 117

279 1026 13771 1740' -474 1162 17271 877

..:0 c 13

: 312 .455 8641 877

- 0

~ 0
DAILY DISCHARGES CA TCHES OF COHO SMOLTS

COMOX PUN1 WATER Dall

DATE DAM DAM lEVEL " TIME Cone WTI. WJ2 WT3 SUM WT Cone WTI WT2 WT3 SUM WT Tolal

MAY5 1275 923 '27. 0910 ~ 12 ' 135 305 494 877 2351

+50% addtlassumed 27. 1150 156 , 247 442 thru 2nd bypass 27. 2115

1251 923 27. 0850 192 283 162 429 1247 1838 189O

27. 1950

1251 920 24. 27. 0840 192 286 221 390 1247 , 1857 2422

27. 2100

1173 91'5 I 27. ro 0810 106 206 362 325 688 1338 2351 3422

27. 2030

1089 91~ ' 24 27. 0915 164 304 527 383 1065 1974 3422 2558

27. 1930

1087 900 27. ~4O 136 202 388 325 883 1312 2519 2896

27. 1720 110

1055 905 27, 0840 108 223 420 578 70\ 1448 2727 4179

26. 2120 207 519 623 20\ 1344

1054 915 27. 0840 172 311 529 1117 2019 3435 2870

27. 2105 124 192 805 344 1247

1049, ~ 922 27. 08 0850 147 250 266 403 955 1623 3214

27. 1920 175 104 279

1044 917 27. 0900 178 214 452 390 1156 1390 2935 4487

26.95. 2015 118 636 123 766 ,

1040 912 26. 0900 121 215 237 573 786 1396 1539 3721 6481

26. 2025 149 49' 208 ~ 968 318 65 '- 1351

1035 911 26. 0810 144 319 327 790 935 2071 2123 5130 10221

26, 1910 176 243 1143 390 1578

17' 1040 876 26.78 0815 214 447 670 1331 1390 2903 4351. 8643 820\

27. 2010 114 179 740 247 175 1162

1053 919 27. 0905 116 233 735 1084 753 1'513 4773 7039 3877

nIl 2015 266' 351

1050 925 27. 0850 139 332 543 ' 468 903 2156 3526 6721

26. 2000 130 153 844 143 994

1045 ' 932 26. 0900 210 537 882 877 1364 3487 5727 62ro

26. 2030 - 72 242 1065 468 39 ' 1571

, 21 1065 915 27. 0901:\ 106 ' 134 482 722 688 870 3130 4688 7435

27. 2300 173 258 1123 299 253 1675

1023 889 27. 0900 152. 657 887 506 987 4266 57ro 5240

27. 1900 390 455

899 794 27. 0910 121. 200 408 737 786 1351 2649 4786 5013

27, 1920 519 558

896 783 27. ~ 0840 264 134 288 686 1714 870 1870 4455 3052

27, 1910 130 175

894 754 27, 0830 121' 112 210 443 786 727 1364 2877 2383

27, 2230 , 7 500 591

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

May 1494 1.17 .1377 ~ 8 '

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

6481 1351 5130 791

10221 1578 8643

8201 , 11'62 7039

5877 351 3526 ( 

.c -

6721 994 5127 .

6260 1571 4688

211 7435 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;

2065 331 1734

1714 208 l5.D6 12j
24HR

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'"