, 1

:.1 . j

--- . . 

### . j , - . , 

# " , 

# ' , ; , , " 

# " '

1'- 

### :._ ,,. ':: 

### \;:-



# 0 '
A N G E 

# N D 

# ROC

K L 

# N D 

# rES 

# , I :(. ::: , ~~' 

## , ,



# Pea r t R i v e r 

# New

Y 0 r k-' 

## , , , '

/ ("c~ , 

# ' ,

' ) ' 

# " '

F'P~ 

# f'B- B - , 

# . - ;... , 

# ; , . " ~ '

. ' ( H ' . , \
, .



# , \ 

# \ ' ' . ' ' " 

# ' ' 

# , '

" "

, ' '" ': '::



### I.~ 

# " .r, , ( 

# \ '

, : .

.................m..mm.. ~m..m"h"' :""""""'m.."'....""mm", m"",,"""m :"""'

:"'h"""""""""' ~;""""""

;:"""""""""""""""h""" ::"""

:""""""hm :""""" :"' ~~,, ~:, ~,,,, :""'

..m""'_h""' :""""""h ~_"""""" )



## \ \ 

## \ " /' :'



# EFFECTIVEN ESS 

# EVALUATION 

# " ~

OF A FINE MESH 

# BARRIER NET . 

# . ..

LOCATED AT THE 

# COOLING WATER INTAKE OF THE BOWLINE POINT
GENERATING 

# STATION , ' 

# " ,

i. :, I , ,

""""", "", mh, h..... h h.. .. m h ,.. "h hh.. ".. h.... m m"m.... ."..... h..".. mm"" .."m"...".. h.. "".....,... "h' h.. h.. h.. m".. ",m ""h h "'"h...... """h "" h, hh. mm.. "h h "... h "' ;m ..h..""", ,... "' 1'" '" ~..m ' : '

"" ".. m m.. """ : m mm ""'" "m 

## " .I . ,



### c' -

J, ( , , ' 

# . .

April 1994

, r.

r'. 

# , "

I , , ~ ::.



# LAWLER, MATUSKY & SKELLY ENGINEERS 

# One Blue Hill Plaza . Pearl River 

# New York 10965 , ( 

### -"&;J 

# II;) 

# -rW- r.. 

# a-U;j
/3'1/ F:! 11:;:1'0 

### II 4t'" 

### 11:91 

## ORANGE AND ROCKLAND One Blue Hill Plaza, Pearl River , New York 10965

February 7, 1996



### Mr. Edward 

### Radl e New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road 

### Albany, NY 12233- 

### 4756 Mr. Kenneth L. Marcellus Con sol idated Edi son Company of New York 4 Irving Place 

## New York, NY 10003

Mr. Wayne Elliot 

### New York State Department of Envi ronmental 

## Conservation 21 South Putt Corners Road 

### New Paltz, NY 

### 12561 

## Mr. William Kirk
Con sol idated Edi 

### son of New York 4 Irving Place 

## New York, NY 10003 Company



## Gentlemen:
Enclosed for review is Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. Research and 

## Development final report entitled Effectiveness Evaluation of a Fine Mesh 

### Barrier Net Located at the Cooling Water Intake of the Bowline Point

Generating Station. 

### II Orange and Rockland believes a fine mesh barrier system 

### at the Bowline facility is a feasible mitigative alternative and will 

### continue to test its effectiveness in future studies. 

### If you have questions or comments, please 

### call me at (914) 577- 

### 2898. 

## Sincerely, 

# /' , /." ~-!./



### t-t.U IY~ -j). . ).'J.-",,-:-. !..'



### r----'"
William D. Saksen Sr. Environmental Scientist

WDS: ag 

### Enc.



## cc: R. Tummarello



### T. Kosior F. Mari no 

### Sun ivan

ES\ENV\ 96LETTER. W'DS\ ORANGE AND ROCKLAND UTILITIES. INc. PIKE COUNTY LIGHT &. POWER CO. I ROCKLAND ELECTRIC COMPANY Pearl River , New Xork 

# Mi!ford. Pennsylvania Saddle R!ver , New JerseyApril 1994 

### ORANGE AND ROCKLAND UTILITIES, INCORPORATED

Pearl River, New York



### EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION OF A FINE MESH 

### BARRIER NET LOCATED AT THE COOLING 

### WATER INTAKE OF THE BOWLINE POINT

GENERATING STATION

LMSE- 94/0221 & 169/306

Prepared By: 

### LAWLER, MATUSKY & SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science & Engineering Consultants



## One Blue Hill Plaza Pearl River 

### . New York 10965

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.



### LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES iii



### 1 REPORT SUMMARY


### 2 INTRODUCTION

1 Background 2 Objectives

3 SITE 

### DESCRIPTION

1 Bowline Pond 2 Bowline 

### Point Generating Station



### 4 DESCRIPTION OF FINE 

### MESH BARRIER NET

1 Mesh 

### Selection 

### Selection of Target Species Mesh Size Selection

2 Net Design 3 Barrier Net 

### Deployment



### 5 EVALUATION PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND RESULTS 1 Evaluation Program Description

1.1 Water 

### Velocity Profiles Clogging and Biofouling

2 Program 

### Results



### Bowline Point Operation Biofouling and Clogging Observations Biological Monitoring

6 DISCUSSION 

### AND CONCLUSIONS 1 General Program Description



## Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers

### TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued)

2 Phase 

### II Program

Barrier Net Design Considerations 

### Barrier Net Deployment and Observations Barrier Net Effectiveness Evaluation

3 Conclusions


### REFERENCES CITED


### IT ACHMENTS 

### 1 - Bowline Pond Sediment Core Logs 26 April 1993

2 - Bottom 

### Profiles - Bowline Pond in the Vicinity of BPGS Cooling Water Intake 

## 3 - Test Frame Observation Information

4 - Cooling 

### Water Intake Pump Entrainment Collection Information

5 - Bowline Point Plankton Net 

### Samples Collection Information

6 - Bowline Pond Water Quality Information

7 - Total Length - 

### Body Depth Measurements for Bay Anchovy 

### 6-6



## Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly Engineers

### Table No.

5-4



### 5-6 

### LIST OF TABLES



### Title Water Velocity Survey, Bowline Pond: 10 September 1992 

### Operating Characteristics of Bowline Point Generating Station 

### Circulating Water Pump Operation and Cooling Water Flow 

### Bowline Point Fine Mesh Barrier Net Evaluation Study 

### 0 mm Mesh Test Panel Observation Information , Bowline Point 

### Fine Mesh Barrier Net Evaluation Study, July- August 1993 

### Water Velocity (cm/s) Recorded by Depth Behind the Fine Mesh Barrier Net, July- August 1993 

### Species Inventory and Abundance by Location 

### , Fine Mesh Barrier Net Evaluation Study - 1993

Ichthyoplankton Concentration (No.llOOO 

### ) Based on Intake Pump Samples Bay Anchovy Length Interval Information 

### , Cooling Water Intake Pump Samples 

### Ichthyoplankton Concentrations Based on 0. 5 m Plankton Net Samples Collected at Stations Inside and Outside the Fine Mesh 

### Barrier Net Bay Anchovy Length Interval Information 

### , Plankton Net Samples Collected Outside the Barrier Net 

### Bay Anchovy Length Interval Information 

### , Plankton Net Samples Collected Inside the Barrier Net 

### Average Daily Water Quality Information 

### , Bowline Point Fine Mesh Barrier Net Evaluation Program

### Bowline Point Fine Mesh Barrier Net Evaluation Study, Ichthyoplankton Collection Information 

### , Bowline Point 0.5 m Plankton Net - Special Samples Page No.



### 5-6A

10A

IOB



### IOC

IOD



### 11A



## Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly EngineersFigure No.

4:-



### 4-4 

### LIST OF FIGURES

Title Following Page Location of Bowline Point Generating Station 

### General Plan View of The Circulating Water System
Plan View of Intake Structure 

### Bowline Point Preliminary Design Plan View Fine Mesh Barrier Net Bottom Profile Along Fine Mesh Barrier Net Deployment Transect Bowline Point Fine Mesh Barrier Net Piling Installation 

### Designation and Measured Distances 

### Fine Mesh Barrier Net Deployment 

### Diagram of Entrainment Abundance Sampling System O.5m Plankton Net Sample Transects 5-4



## Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers

### CHAPTER

REPORT SUMMARY

Orange and Rockland Utilities 

### , Incorporated (ORU) has successfully deployed a barrier net 

### around the Bowline Point Generating Station (BPGS) cooling water intake structure to mitigate 

### fish impingement on the intake debris screens since 1977. The 9. 5-mm mesh barrier net is 

### deployed on a seasonal schedule (mid- 

### October through May) to cover the historic period of peak 

### fish impingement. Based on the effective use of the 9. 

### 5-mm mesh barrier net, ORU initiated a program in 1992 to determine the feasibility of deploying a fine 

### mesh barrier net to mitigate entrainment.



### Based on the results of some initial work conducted during 1992 

### , and numerous conferences 

### between ORU and Lawler , Matusky & Skelly Engineers (LMS) personnel 

### , it was concluded that 

### the best method to evaluate a fine mesh barrier net was to design , construct 

### , and deploy a full 

### scale experimental net at the Bowline Point cooling water intake structure during the period 

### when ichthyoplankton were present. 

### Monitoring the net would result in information on the 

### long-term feasibility of deploying and maintaining a fine mesh net, and the effectiveness of the net could be determined by monitoring ichthyoplankton 

### concentrations at locations inside and 

### outside of the net.

Since the bay anchovy larvae accounts for greater than 80% of the ichthyoplankton entrained at BPGS 

### , it was selected as the target species upon which to determine the effectiveness of the 

## fine mesh barrier net. 

## six week test period from mid- July through August , which 

### encompasses the historic period of peak bay anchovy (post yolk-sac) larval abundance 

### , was selected. The experimental fine 

### mesh barrier net would be constructed of nylon with 3. 0 mm 

### mesh , and designed to be deployed around the BPGS intake using pilings.



### The fine mesh barrier net test period extended from 19 July to 24 August 1993. During the 

### evaluation period several problems were encountered with net clogging and sinking. Initially 

## large numbers of immature jellyfish clogged the net, however , the principle net clogging

CFIO42294/11:22amlH22291 

## Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly Engineers

### problem was associated with very fine suspended silt. The net clogging problems 

### were



### countered by adding additional floatation to the net's surface line , and through in situ 

### cleaning
using high pressure water sprays. Overall 

### , monitoring the barrier net during the 1993 study 

### period suggests that , with scheduled maintenance 

### , a fine mesh barrier net can be deployed at the BPGS cooling water intake over the entire spring-summer period, Le. 

### , period currently not 

### covered by the 9.5 mm mesh barrier net.

The concentration of ichthyoplankton in Bowline 

### Pond during the 1993 fine mesh barrier net evaluation study period was very low. The low ichthyoplankton abundance levels preclude the determination of fine mesh barrier net effectiveness at limiting entrainment. Since the fine mesh 

### barrier net was successfully deployed over an extended period of time, the exclusion potential

of the 3. 

### 0 mm mesh net should be effective at limiting ichthyoplankton entrainment.

CFIO42294/11 :2bmlH22291 

## Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly Engineers

### CHAPTER 2



### INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

Since 1977 Orange and Rockland Utilities, Incorporated (ORU) has seasonally deployed (midOctober through mid- 

### May) a barrier net around the Bowline Point Generating Station (BPGS) cooling water intake , a shoreline intake located on Bowline Pond 

### , to limit fish impingement on 

### the intake traveling screens (Hutchison and Matousek 1988). The seasonal deployment period corresponds to the annual peak impingement period at BPGS. The barrier net with nominal 9. 

### mm mesh has been shown to be very effective at mitigating fish 

### impingement (NAI 1993).



### As part of the Hudson River Utilities 

### Settlement Agreement (1980) during the spring-summer period , the 

### Hudson River Utilities agreed to reduce water withdrawal rates at BPGS , Indian 

### Point Nuclear Generating Station , and the RosetOn Generating Station 

### , as a means of reducing plant operational impacts on ichthyoplanktOn through entrainment. Reduction in water
withdrawal can be accomplished through 

### either reducing cooling water pump flow rates, or
through unit outages. In order to meet the requirements of 

### the Settlement Agreement related to reduction in cooling water withdrawal BPGS relies primarily on unit outages, with some flow reduction.



### The location of the 

### BPGS cooling water intake structure on Bowline Pond offers a unique

setting for a riverine/esturaine intake 

### , one which allows for the 

### successful deployment of a

physical barrier. The cooling water intake 

### structure is located along the shoreline of the 56 acre 

### Bowline Pond which is open to the tidal Haverstraw Bay section of the Hudson River through a short channel about 

### 6Om (200 ft) wide and 5m (16 ft) deep at mean low water. The shallow 

### pond inlet limits pond access to Hudson River resident and migratOry biological populations,
while the expanse of the pond minimizes intake water velocities. 

### The use of a physical barrier at BPGS is the preferred mitigative strategy since: the location 

### of the intake on Bowline Pond 

### offers a low velocity zone from which to withdraw cooling water 

### , following initial material



## Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly Engineers

### costs 

### , pyhsical barriers have been shown to be an economical mitigation strategy, and no



## behavioral barrier device or system evaluated on the 

### Hudson River has demonstrated effectiveness at limiting cooling water withdrawl impacts on fish let alone on poorer swimming ichthyoplankton.



### In order to permit greater versatility in plant operation through the elimination of required unit outages ORU contracted Lawler , Matusky and 

### Skelly Engineers (LMS) to determine the feasibility of deploying a fine mesh barrier net at the Bowline Pond intake to the Bowline Point Generating Station during the spring-summer months as a means of reducing ichthyoplanlcton 

### entrainment. The initial 

## phase (Phase I) of the feasibility study was conducted during the summer of 1992 and included: (1) summarizing ichthyoplankton information from the Hudson 

### River (Haverstraw Bay), and Bowline Pond (including entrainment), (2) obtaining information on water velocities in Bowline Pond concentrating on the inlet to the Pond and the 

### current 

### barrier net deployment area , and (3) monitoring 

### mesh test panels for biofouling potential and loss of filtration efficiency due to clogging and biofouling. In general 

### , the results of the initial study phase indicated that a fine mesh barrier net could potentially be deployed at the cooling water intake during the spring-summer months; however 

### , there were several areas of concern 

### related to barrier net deployment (LMS 992a). The primary areas of concern were related to 

### net stress caused by reduced filtration efficiency due to clogging and biofouling, continual net 

### integrity due to damage from floating and submerged debris 

### , and interference with plant 

### operation due to intake blockage.



## 2 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

Taking into consideration the results of the Phase I study, the primary program objectives for 

### Phase II of the fine mesh barrier net evaluation study were: design and deployment of a fine mesh barrier net 

### , monitoring the net during the deployment period for clogging and biofouling, and determining the effectiveness of the net at 

### limiting ichthyoplankton access to the BPGS cooling water intake. Specific program objectives are listed below:

I. Select target species for barrier net exclusion , and determine 

### mesh size and period of deployment to maximize effectiveness of the fine mesh barrier net.



## Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly Engineers2. Determine the 

### best method for barrier net deployment - one that maximizes net 

### area while offering an easy method for cleaning and/or removal.

3. Track net clogging and biofouling during the period of 

### deployment with the intent of using the information in designing a full time spring/summer fine mesh 

### barrier net system.



## Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly Engineers

### CHAPTER 3

SITE DESCRIPTION



### BOWLINE POND

The cooling water intake for the 

### Bowline Point Generating Station (BPGS) is located on 

### Bowline Pond 

### , a small embayment on the west shore of the Hudson River 60 kilometers (km)

(37 miles) north of the Battery (Figure 3- 1). Bowline Pond 

### is connected to Haverstraw Bay, a wide shallow area of the lower Hudson River 

### , formed on the north by Stony Point and on the 

### south by Croton Point. Hudson River water enters Bowline Pond through a dredged inlet that is approximately 5. 0 meters (m) (16. 

### 5 feetrft)) deep at mean low water , and has a surface and 

### bottom width of 67 and 37 m (219 and 120 

## ft), respectively. The calculated open area of the inlet at mean low water is 260 m 2 (2797 ft2 ). Bowline Pond 

### is irregular in shape with several 

### small coves and has a surface area of 0. 23 km 

### 2 (56 acres) (Figure 3- 2). The 

### maximum depth 

### in the Pond is approximately 12 m (40 ft); Pond depth in the immediate vicinity of the BPGS 

### intake building, located on the west shore of the Pond 

## , is 9 m (30 ft). The shallow shore zone 

### around the Pond supports a dense growth of aquatic plants during periods of warmer water (LMS 1981 , Matousek et at. 1981).



### Velocity profiles were conducted at the inlet to Bowline Pond and at various locations in the 

### Pond covering an entire tidal cycle during 

## 10 September 1992. During the water velocity
survey period 

### , BPGS was operating two circulating water pumps (CWP) resulting in a total 

### plant withdrawal from Bowline Pond of2392 cubic meters per minute (m /min) (1408 cubic feet 

## per second rcfs)). Water velocity values recorded at the inlet to the Pond and in the vicinity 

### of the deployed 9.5 millimeter (mm) (0. 38 in. 

### ) barrier net are presented in Table 3- 1. Bowline 

### Pond inlet water velocity during the low slack tidal condition , corresponding to the lowest water 

### depth , averaged 32. 

### 7 centimeters per second (cm/s) (1. 

### 08 feet per second (fps)). Average water 

## velocities recorded during maximum flood , high slack , and 

### maximum ebb were similar averaging 19. 

### 1 cm/s (0. 63 fps), ranging from 18, 9 to 19. 

### 5 cm/s (0, 

### 62 to 0. 64 fps). Average 

### water velocity values in the vicinity of the BPGS cooling water intake structure (area of barrier



## Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers

### BOWLINE POINT STATION 

## RM37 TROY DAM ALBANY

RENSSELAER

SAUGERTIES

... HAVERSTRAW 'h:'€", ,IV.:f~?-\'



### Atlantic Ocean

FIGURE 3-1 

### LOCATION OF BOWLINE POINT GENERATING STATION

SAR, NET, ORANGE & ROCKLAND UTILITIES, INC.

FINE MESH BARRIER NET STUDY LAWLER , MA TUSKY & SKELL Y ENGINEERS

Pearl River, New YorkSource: EA (1989). 

## BOWLINE POND 

# HUDSON



# RIVER

DIFFUSER

RIVER SHORELINE

INTAKE CHANNEL 

# 60 120 m 

# LJ

SCALE IN METERS

FIGURE 3-2 

### GENERAL PLAN VIEW OF THE CIRCULATING WATER SYSTEM

BAA-NET, ORANGE & ROCKLAND UTILITIES, INC.

FINE MESH BARRIER NET STUDY LAWLER, MATUSKY & SKELLY ENGINEERS

Pearl River , New YorkTable 3- 

### WATER VELOCITY SURVEY 

### BOWLINE POND: 10 September 1992



### Bowline Pond Inlet 

### Water Water Velocity (feet per second) 

### Tidal Condition Time Depth North 

### Center South 

### Averaae
Low Slack 

### 0645- 

### 0656 

### Surface 689 

### 013 135 946 Mid- 

### depth 182 

### 338 760 Bottom 

### 520 

### 520 

### 676 239 

### ,Average 605 

### 238 383 075 

### Maximum Flood 1002- 1013 

### Surface 845 

### 507 169 507 Mid- 

### depth 845 

### 676 507 676 Bottom 

### 845 

### 845 338 676 

### Average 845 

### 676 338 620

High Slack 

### 1210- 1235 

### Surface 676 

### 676 

### 676 676 Mid- 

### depth 507 

### 845 

### 676 676 Bottom 

### 338 

### 507 

### 845 563 

### Average 507 

### 676 732 638


### Maximum Ebb 1613- 1623 

### Surface 355 

### 845 

### 507 569 Mid- 

### depth 676 

### 676 

### 676 676 Bottom 

### 507 

### 507 845 620 

### Average 513 

### 676 

### 676 622



### P . owline Oint Generatina Station: Barrier Net Deployment Transect 

### Water Water Velocity (feet per second) 

### Tidal Condition Time Depth North 

### Apex 

### South A veraae


### Low Slack 

### 0715- 0750 

### Surface 220 135 

### 338 231 Mid- 

### depth 338 

### 338 

### 338 338 Bottom 

### 0.423 

### 338 

### 507 0.423 

### Average 327 

### 270 

### 394 330 

### Maximum Flood 1040- 1115 

### Surface 169 

### 135 

### 110 138 Mid- 

### depth 287 169 

### 338 265 Bottom 

### 135 

### 287 

### 220 214 

### Average 197 

### 197 

### 223 206 High Slack 

### 1300- 1330 

### Surface 220 169 

### 093 161 Mid- 

### depth 169 

### 338 169 225 Bottom 

### 254 

### 338 

### 423 338 

### Average 214 

### 282 228 241


### Maximum Ebb 1640- 1710 

### Surface 169 

### 169 

### 152 163 Mid- 

### depth 254 507 

### 237 333 Bottom 

### 254 

### 676 

### 237 389 

### Average 226 0.451 

### 209 295



### 3-1A

### net deployment) (Table 3- 1) ranged from 10. 1 cm/s (0. 33 ips) recorded at low slack to 6.4 cm/s



### (0. 21 ips) recorded at maximum flood. In general the higher water velocity values 

### were recorded at the bottom and the lowest 

### values at the surface , however 

### , the difference between 

### water strata was not substantial. The tidally averaged water velocity was 8. 2 cm/s (0. 27 ips).


### Bottom sediment core samples were collected from the vicinity of the intake structure on 26 

## April 1993. Core logs are presented in Attachment 1. In general 

### , Bowline Pond sediments
consist of a layer of gray- 

### black organic silt approximately 0.3 to 1.2 

## m (1 to 4 ft) thick overlaying gray clay. 

### Core depths ranged from 2. 6 m (8. 

## 6 ft) to 4. 1 m (13. 

## 3 ft), with no evidence of bedrock or solid material noted at the depths evaluated. Core samples taken in 

### Bowline Pond near the existing intake structure during plant construction 

### , indicate that stiff 

### varied clay exists to a depth of approximately 15 m (50 ft). 

### Below the clay layer is a dense to 

## very dense layer of glacial till approximately 6 m 

## (20 ft) thick which overlays bedrock 

### comprised of sandstone 

### , shale , and siltstone (Bechtel 

### 1970).



### 2 BOWLINE POINT GENERATING STATION



### The Bowline Point Generating Station (BPGS) consists of two fossil- fuel fired 

### , steam electric units , each having a net generating capacity 

### rating of 600 MWe and a gross capacity of 622 

## MWe. Condenser cooling water for each unit is pumped from an intake structure located on Bowline Pond 

### , and after passing through the condenser tubes is discharged on the western side of Haverstraw Bay through a submerged diffuser system located in approximately 4.5 m (15 ft) 

### of water.

Each generating unit has three circulating water pumps (CWP) each with a rated capacity of 485 

### /min (128, 

### 000 gallons per minute (gmpD. Different pump combinations are used for use operating unit, including throttling ofthe condenser discharge butterfly valves to a 60% position 

### (NAI 1992). In general , under maximum unit generation and peak seasonal water temperatures 

### (summer conditions) only two CWPs (unthrottled) are in operation. Generating unit cooling 

### water flow rates related to the varying CWP operating conditions are presented in the following 

### table:



## Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly Engineers

### CIRCULATING



### WATER PUMPS IN OPERATIONS 

### COOLING- 

### WATER FLOW RATE PER UNIT

FLOW PER MINUTE 

### FLOW PER DAY 

# CUBIC
MILLION 

# METERS 

# GALLONS CUBIC 

# (gal) METERS 

### MILLION GALLONS

2 (throttled) 

### 700 973 1196 1454 185, 

### 000

257 

### 000 316 

### 000 384 

### 000 1.01 

### 1.40 1.72 

### 266

370 455 553 

### Operating characteristics for BPGS is presented in Table 3-
The BPGS has a separate once- through cooling water system for each unit. 

### The cooling water intake building is a reinforced-(;oncrete structure measuring 42. 

### 7 m (140 ft) across its face and 

### 21.3 m (70 ft) on each end (Figure 3- 3). Water depth 

### at the intake face is approximately 9. 

### m (30 ft) at mlw. There are six openings or ponals on the face of the intake structure and one
on each end. Each opening measures 4. 

### 9 m (16 ft) wide and 7. 

### 9 m (26 ft) high. The two side 

### openings or lateral fish passageways were incorporated into the intake structure to eliminate 

### dead spaces associated with screen channels that could trap fish. 

## Each of the eight intake 

### openings is fitted with a venically oriented trash rack having clear spacing between bars of 9. em (3.5 in. ). The six 

### intake traveling screens are conventional venical traveling band screens capable of operating at two speeds , 1. 8 and 3. 

### 7 m/min (6. 0 - 12. 

### 0 ftlmin), and having separate low and high pressure spray washes. Under normal operation 

### the intake traveling screens are 

### operated continuously. Fish and debris are washed from the front of the screens by an internal 

### spray header , collected in a water- 

### filled sluicev.:ay, and returned to the Pond approximately 30 

### m (95 ft) from the north side of the intake structure (outside the barrier net when deployed) via

an 45. 

### 7 em (18 in. 

### ) diameter fiberglass pipe. The screen mesh is constructed of stainless steel 

### with 9. 5 mm (0.375 in. 

### ) square openings. A plenum extending from the bar screens through the middle of the intake house separates the traveling screens and CWPs for the two generating
units .



## Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers

### TABLE 3-


### OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OF BOWLINE POINT

GENERATING STATION



### CHARACTERISTICS UNITS 1 AND 2 (EACH)

OPERATING Nominal generating capacity (MWe) 

### Cooling-water flow rate (m /min) 

### Condenser
Service water' 

### Heat rejeetion rate (Btu/hr) Cooling-water temperature rise (D 

### 600
1,422

8 x 109



### INTAKE 

### Type of intake Maximum approach velocity to the screens (em/see) 

### Pipe diameter from intake to condenser (m) Total flow (m /min) 

### Shoreline 23.

1,454



### THERMAL DISCHARGE Length of subaqueous discharge pipe from existing Hudson River shoreline (m) Pipe velocity (em/see) 

### Length of diffuser (m) 

### Number of diffuser ports 

### Inside diameters of diffuser ports (m) Port spacing (m) 

### Initial jet velocity (m/see) 

### Total diffuser flow (m /min) A verage depth to port centerline 

### below mean low water (m)
A verage depth to 

### river bottom below mean low water (m)
Port temperature rise above river ambient (D 

### 370

300 

### 67.

454



### 6.4

Service water drawn from main circulating water flow.


### Source: ORU (1977).BOWLINE PONDK 42.7 mSHEET PILING BULKHEAD10 mh--L--J- -SCALE1 in. = 10mBAR,NET,BOWLINE POINT GENERATING STATIONINTAKE STRUCTURE21.3 mFIGURE 3-3PLAN VIEW OFINTAKE STRUCTUREORANGE & ROCKLAND UTILITIES, INC.FINE MESH BARRIER NET STUDYLAWLER, MATUSKY & SKELLY ENGINEERSEnvironmental Science & Engineering Consultants

### CHAPTER 4



### DESCRIPTION OF FINE MESH BARRIER NET



### 1 MESH SELECTION



### Selection of Target Species

The first step in the evaluation of a fine mesh barrier net for deployment at BP 

### GS was to select the target ichthyoplankton population 

### , Le. 

### , the population that would be used to determine the

effectiveness of the barrier net. 

### Under Phase I of the fine mesh barrier net evaluation study, 

### LMS prepared a report detailing the available information on ichthyoplankton populations in Haverstraw Bay and Bowline Pond (LMS 

### 1992). Overall several fish species were represented 

### in ichthyoplankton collections from the Hudson River in the vicinity of BPGS. The dominant

species of fish occurring as ichthyoplankton in the area were; bay anchovy 

### (Anchoa mitchilll),

striped bass (Morone saxitilis) , white perch (Morone americana) , American shad 

### (Alosa

sapidissima), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), and blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis). 

### Other 

### species common to the area , but noted in 

### substantially lower numbers were; American eel

(Anguilla rostrata) , hogchoker (Trinectes maculatus) , bluefish (Pomotomus saltatrix) , and

rainbow smelt (Osmerus morck1x).



### Overall the dominant species collected in both plant entrainment 

### , and river sampling programs
in this river region , was the bay anchovy comprising 

## greater than 80% of the specimens collected. Bay 

### anchovy larvae are present in the BPGS vicinity in relatively high densities from late June through August , with a late July-early August peak. 

### Greater than 90% of the bay anchovy collected are post yolk-sac 

### , with the period of peak abundance extending from mid- July 

### through the end of August (LMS 

### 1992b). The average length range reported for bay anchovy post yolk-sac larvae is 2. 7 to 16. 

### 0 mm 

### , with the mean length recorded during the period of peak 

### abundance ranging from 13. 0 to 15. 

### 5 mm.



## Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly Engineers

### The bay anchovy was selected as the target species for the determination of the effectiveness



### of the Bowline Point fine mesh barrier net at minimizing ichthyoplankton entrainment.

2 Mesh Size Selection



### Aquatic organism retention on a porous surface (impingement), the organism 

### s ability to pass through a mesh opening (entrainment), or the ability of the organism to avoid the porous surface 

### (exclusion) are functions of the size of the mesh opening, the size and developmental stage of the organism , and hydraulic conditions. Physical exclusion by a porous surface (screen , net) 

### occurs when the 

## mesh size is smaller than the organism susceptible to entrainment; 

### hydrodynamic exclusion results from a low through-slot velocity, which limits extrusion of the organism through the mesh. In addition 

### , sensory and swimming capabilities of the organism

i.e., ability of the 

### organism to perceive the porous surface and swim against the local currents, 

### contributes to the exclusion potential of the screen system.

Several investigators have evaluated the 

### properties of screening system mesh size 

### opening 

### related to the entrainment and impingement of fish larvae. 

### Browne et al. (1981) evaluated 

### entrainment through a cylindrical wedge-wire screen , and found no significant difference in entrainment through 1.0 and 2. 

### 0 mm mesh screens. 

### Weisberg et al. (1984) evaluated mesh exclusion and entrainment through cylindrical screens with wedge-wire mesh openings of 1.

0, and 3. 

### 0 mm 

### , and found the greatest exclusion by the smaller mesh; however 

### , overall there was no significant difference in entrainment among the mesh sizes tested. 

### The exclusion 

### potential of the various size 

### meshes increased at a disproportionately 

## greater rate with an increase in the size of the fish larvae tested. An evaluation of fish larvae entrainment through 

### cylindrical screens with 2. 0 and 9. 

### 5 mm mesh found lower entrainment through the 2. 0 mm mesh; however 

### , the principal finding of the study was that for cylindrical screens equipped with 

### wedge-wire mesh 

### , entrainment reduction of fish larvae is substantially better for larger mesh sizes than can be accounted for by physical exclusion alone (Zeitoun et al. 1981).



### Schneeberger and Jude (1981), in a study designed to predict the exclusion capabilities of smallmesh screens on Great Lakes fish larvae , concluded that fish larvae body dimensions (maximum



## Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly Engineers

### depth 

### , average cross-sectional area) in relation to screen mesh size was the primary determinant



### of screen efficiency. They determined that body depth exceeded body width 

### , and that to predict 

### potential entrainment or impingement, the cross-sectional dimensions were best compared to 

### total body length. Several other studies designed to evaluate the effects of screen mesh size on 

### fish larvae entrainment and screen retention , have concluded 

### that body depth is the more 

### accurate morphometric measurement related to screen retention and entrainment (Tomljanovich

et a1. 1977 , 1978; 

## EAI 1981; Edwards et a1. 1981; Taft et 

## a1. 1981; Fletcher 1990). 

### However 

### , the same studies that have determined that body depth is the most important factor related to mesh selection have found that mesh retention (or exclusion potential) is not solely
dependent on body depth - 

### other factors that influence mesh exclusion potential include; 

### velocity, shape of the mesh opening, percent open area, visibility, clogging and biofouling, and 

### sensory and swimming capabilities of the target species.



### Body depth to total body length relationships were developed for larvae of several species of 

## fish (Schneeberger and Jude 1981), with one of the species , the spottail shiner 

### (Notropis

hudsonius), 

### a minnow species with a body shape similar to the bay anchovy. To establish a baseline for the selection of the fine mesh barrier net mesh size 

### , the formula developed for the spottail shiner was used to estimate the body depth of post yolk-sac bay anchovy, 

### representative 

### of the peak abundance period. A body depth 

### of approximately 1. 

### 9 mm was estimated for a

larvae 13. 

### 0 mm in total length 

### , and a body depth of 2.4 mm was estimated for a larvae with

a body length of 15. 

### 5 mm. The bay anchovy post yolk-sac larvae body depth estimates indicate 

### that the minimum mesh size should be 2. 0 mm.

Based on the results of morphometric analysis 

### , the size of the mesh opening in a barrier net designed to exclude post yolk-sac bay anchovy at BPGS should be approximately 2. 

## 0 to 2.


# mm. Given the clqgging potential of the smaller mesh openings , the greater availability of manufactured net material with mesh openings in the 3. 0 to 6. 

### 0 mm size range , and since it has 

### been demonstrated that hydraulic and biological considerations contribute to the 

### exclusion 

### potential of a screen system 

### , the mesh size selected for use in the BPGS fine mesh barrier net evaluation study was 3. 0 mm (0. 125 in). 

### Initial contacts with net suppliers indicated that the 0 mm mesh was available with multi- faceted (delta mesh) opening design. 

### The non-square



## Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers

### opening design is preferred to the square or bar design as it minimizes the diagonal or stretch

dimension which could permit the passage of a larvae with a deeper body depth dimension.

Following the selection of the 3. 0 mm size mesh 

### , net manufacturing companies were contacted to obtain net samples which could be used to determine percent open area. Several samples 

### woven nylon netting with multi.. faceted 3. 

### 0 mm mesh openings were received. Woven mesh was obtained in two different mesh 

### opening styles: Ace , which is oval in shape, and Delta which is hexagonal in shape. The twine break test for the Ace mesh netting 

### was 24 lb 

### , and the

Delta twine break test was 35 lb. In addition 

### , the net samples were supplied treated (dipped 

### in plastic) and untreated. 

### Measurements were made on both net styles - treated and untreated - and the percent open area for each net sample was determined using the formula:

Percent Open Area 

# (I- ND) (1-nd) x 

### 100



### where: 

## N = Horizontal threads per inch



### n = Vertical threads per inch 

## D = Diameter of horizontal twine



### d = Diameter of vertical twine


### The calculated percent open area for the nylon net samples were:

24 lb Ace (untreated) = 42. 

### 9 %

24 lb Ace (treated) . = 42. 

### 2 % 

### 35 lb Delta (untreated) = 53. 6 % 

### 35 lb Delta (treated) = 51.9 %



### The 35 lb Delta untreated material was selected for the BPGS fine mesh barrier net.

4-4 

## Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly Engineers

### NET DESIGN

After selecting the target species and the appropriate size of the net mesh opening, the next step 

### was to design the barrier net - configuration 

### , and method of deployment and removal. Several 

### factors were considered in designing the fine mesh barrier net:

1. Maximize net surface area to maintain through 

## mesh velocity at or below cm/s (0. 

### 5 fps).

2. For 

### increased net strength and durability (ability to withstand the influence of 

### large debris), the net would be constructed as a two layer system; the fine mesh (3. 

### 0 mm) 

### larval exclusion net supported by a 

## second net with larger mesh 

### openings and constructed of stronger nylon twine.

3. Construction of the net in sections or panels to 

### facilitate handling during deployment , cleaning, and retrieval.

4. Consider the use 

### of pilings for added net support 

### , and possibly permit easier net deployment and retrieval. 

# 5. Potential use of a plastic net material that would be more resistant to biofouling as determined from panel observations conducted during 1992.

6. Utilize existing barrier net 

### deployment techniques and equipment as much as possible.


### To determine the minimum net surface area required to result in the desired through net velocity 

### of 15 cm/s (0.5 fps) or less, the maximum BPGS cooling water flow projected for the study period of 32.3 m /s (512 

### 116 gpm; 1141 

### cfs) (four circulating water pumps, unthrottIed) was
used 

### , with all of the flow assumed passing through a barrier net with 50% open area. The 

### minimum net surface area was determined to be 424 m 2 (4564 ft2



### Discussions with net manufacturers resulted in the selection of a backing net constructed Number 21 twisted nylon twine with a square mesh opening of 4.45 cm (1.75 in). Number 21 

### twisted nylon twine is approximately 1. 65 mm (0. 

### 065 in) in diameter with a break test rating

of 90. 

### 7 kgs (200 lbs). The large 

### mesh opening of the support net was considered to have minimal influence on the filtration capacity of the fine mesh net.



## Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly Engineers

### The initial length of the net sections was set at 15. 

### 2 m (50 ft), panel lengths were increased by



## 6 m (15 ft) to accommodate deployment between pilings (see 

## Section 4. 

# 3) installed
approximately 15 m apart. 

### Net panels in this size range would be easy to handle , and would 

### be easy to customize to meet the varied depth contours in the vicinity of the cooling water

intake structure. In addition 

### , the net manufacturer indicated that it would be easier to match 

### the drape of the fine mesh and large mesh net material in relatively small sections. Each net section would be constructed using 9.5 mm (0. 

### 375 in. 

### ) diameter braided polypropylene rope.

In addition , a second rope was 

## attached 30 cm (1 ft) above the bottom line to assist in

maintaining the bottom seal (Figure 4-4). Floats with a 

### buoyancy rating of 850 grams (30 , ounces) were attached every 30 cm (12 in) along the top line of each net section.



### Water passage through the fine mesh barrier net would result in substantial stress on the net deployment lines 

### , and anchors. The 9. 

### 5 mm mesh barrier net (NAI 1993) is deployed from a buoyed surface line using anchors at the mid- 

### point of the north and south wings to maintain its

position. Given the increased 

### stress associated with the fine mesh net 

### , the use of anchors was

not considered practicable. 

### The alternate deployment technique relied on the installation and
use of wooden pilings. The 

### sediment sampling conducted in Bowline Pond during 26 April
1993 

### , indicated an organic sediment layer ranging from one to two meters thick overlaying a 

### dense gray clay. Core samples were not conducted to a depth that permitted the determination of bedrock or competent hard sediment. 

### Utilizing the results of the April core samples and sediment information developed during plant construction 

### , it was concluded that wooden pilings

with a 35. 

### 6 cm (14 in. 

### ) butt and 22. 9 cm (9 in. 

### ) tip driven into the sediment approximately 6 

### m (20 ft) would support the fine mesh barrier net (ORU 1993).

The Phase I work conducted 

## in Bowline Pond during the summer of 1992 , included the 

### biofouling potential of several types of mesh materials. Overall , the material that exhibited the 

### lowest rate of biofouling, and also was observed to clean the easiest , was a 3. 

### 0 mm mesh 

### constructed of polyethylene. Manufacturers of polyethylene netting were contacted related to supplying material for the fine mesh barrier net , however 

### , no manufacturer had the small mesh 

### material available in sizes which could economically be used to construct the required panels.

4-6 

## Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers

### Since polyethylene netting material was not available 

### , the experimental fine mesh barrier net

was constructed of nylon material.



### 3 BARRIER NET 

### DEPLOYMENT

Several Bowline Pond areas were considered for deployment of the fine mesh barrier net , with
the greatest emphasis concentrated on the inlet to the Pond, 

### and the area currently used to 

### deploy the 9.5 mm mesh barrier net. 

### Following a detailed 

## evaluation of all possible net 

### deployment locations, the area immediately in front of the intake stucture 

### , the same area where

the 9. 

### 5 mm mesh barrier net is currently deployed 

## , was selected. Reasons 

### why the other deployment locations were eliminated related to limiting public access to Bowline Point (public 

### access is currently unrestricted), time and costs associated with obtaining permits, economic considerations related to net size 

### , and restrictions imposed on ORU personnel related to the use 

### of the Bowline Pond oil boom boat docking facilities.



### Items considered for the deployment of the fine mesh barrier net around the Bowline Point 

### cooling water intake structure were:
1. Deployment of the net in a " 

### V" pattern with the apex of the net 45. 7 m (150 ft) 

### from the centerline of the face of the intake structure.

2. Use the 

### existing bulkhead attachment points located approximately 35 m (115 ft) 

### north and 40 m (130 ft) south of the cooling water intake structure.

3. Deploy the 

### net to maximize the distances between the intake structure and the net. The 

### minimum distance was estimated at approximately 22. 5 m (75 ft).

4. Optimize net surface area through the use of additional angled net sections. 

### The 

### additional sections would also help in changing clogged net sections.


### The basic configuration for the deployment of the fine mesh barrier net, considering the items 

## listed above, is presented in Figure 4- I. 

## The use of additional angled net sections was abandoned following receipt of barrier net section cost estimates 

### , and the cost for installing four additional pilings needed for deployment of the angled sections. However 

### , angled net sections



## Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly Engineers...ORUBOAT DOCKSEMIPERMANENT NET SECTIONS/ \.:.: ':-.,c::-CHANGEABLE NET SECTIONS\"""......I ......"""/~\ """"""...... \............"""\ """""". .......""""""........................ ,...... ............ ......~ '-\ "ANGLED NET SECTIONBOWLINE POINTSCREENHOUSEPILING50 ft---!SCALE1 em = 50 ftFIGURE 4-1BOWLINE POINTPRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN VIEWFINE MESH BARRIER NETBAA,HET,ORANGE & ROCKLAND UTILITIES, INC.FINE MESH BARRIER NET STUDYLAWLER, MATUSKY & SKELLY ENGINEERSEnvironmental Science & Engineering Consultants

## may be revisited if a permanent net installation is proposed following the completion of all

experimental work.



### Bottom profiles were obtained from the area of the BPGS cooling water intake structure during
7 April 1993 (Attachment 2). 

### From the bottom profiles a detailed bottom contour layout related to the tidally varying water depth in Bowline 

### Pond was constructed (Figure 4- 2). The depth 

### profiles permitted the calculation of average and minimum water depths in the immediate

vicinity of the 

### BPGS cooling water intake structure which were used to calculate net panel dimensions.

Nine wooden 

### pilings were driven to a 

## minimum depth of six 

## meters (20 ft) in a ' configuration around the Bowline Point cooling water intake structure during 7 and 8 July 1993. 

### Two criteria were established for pilings installation; I) apex piling would be 45. 7 m (150 ft) 

### from the center of the face of the intake structure , and 2) the distance between pilings would

be 15. 

### 2 m (50 ft). The piling installation configuration including actual dimensions referenced 

### to the BPGS cooling water intake structure is presented in Figure 4- 

### 3. The distance between 

### pilings was maintained at 15. 

### 2 m (50 ft), with the resulting distance from the pilings closest to 

### the bulkhead on the north (piling Nl) and south (piling Sl) side , 12.3 m (40. 

### 6 ft) and 20. 6 m 

### (68. 0 ft) respectively.



### The length of each barrier net panel was designed to be 4. 6 m (15 ft) longer than the distance between attachment points (pilings 

### , bulkhead). Based on the depth profile information , the 

### depth for the panels to be deployed between pilings N2 around the apex to piling S2 was 11. 

### m (36 ft), panels for deployment between pilings NI- 

### N2 and SI- S2 was 9. 

### 8 m (32 ft), and the two end panels were tapered from 6. 

### 7 m (22 ft) at piling Nl and 7. 

### 9 m (26 ft) at piling SI to 5.5 m (18 ft) at the bulkhead. Floats were attached every 30. 

### 5 cm (12 in) along the surface line of each net section.



### Following installation of the 

### wooden pilings, 9. 5 mm 

### galvanized steel cable was stretched between the pilings at the bottom (installed by divers on 19 July 1993), and approximately one



## Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly Engineers10.., 1211i!= 15ffi 203: 25i!= 15ffi 20c:(3: 25BULKHEAD.............,........... .............r,.."N,~28:51129.FII12214017219012515017526,511100,.....,.......,...,0.,..................., .............,.....,..,."...........,......,..,....,....,.......,.,....",........,,0,..,BAR.NET,140150122125100DISTANCE FROM BULKHEAD TO APEX (ft)...j.,..,....,.,........,...28;511172175200...................,.......,........,...,....,222225I Northern Section Profile I...1511~EX240250....,............,...-,..,..;.........,..-.......,......Southern Section Profile I...19020029,5112222252~.511~EX240250275300FIGURE 4-2BOTTOM PROFILEALONG FINE MESH BARRIER NETDEPLOYMENT TRANSECTORANGE & ROCKLAND UTILITIES, INC.FINE MESH BARRIER NET STUDYLAWLER, MATUSKY & SKELLY ENGINEERSEnvironmental Science & Engineering Consultants50 fth ---\SCALE1 em = 50 ftBA.,NET.S-415,1 m 15-3PILING15.5-1BOWLINE POINTSCREEN HOUSEFIGURE 4-3BOWLINE POINTFINE MESH BARRIER NETPILING INSTALLATIONDESIGNATION AND MEASUREDDIST ANCESORANGE & ROCKLAND UTILITIES, INC.FINE MESH BARRIER NET STUDYLAWLER, MATUSKY & SKELLY ENGINEERSEnvironmental Science & Engineering Consultants

### meter above the waters surface referenced to high tide. In addition 

### , two 25.4 cm (10 in) cleats



### were attached 

### , one on each side, near the tOp of each piling.

Fine mesh barrier net deployment 

### consisted of the following steps:

I. Net panels were 

## sewn together in a sequence related to deployment from the 

### south bulkhead to the north bulkhead. Two chains were attached to the bottom of each panel; one chain was attached at the very bottom of the net panel and the 

### second was attached one meter (3 ft) up from the bottom.

2. The complete net was loaded on the barrier net work platform , and the net

### attached to the south bulkhead using a cable running through the existing eyebolts. Bulkhead attachment was performed by a 

### diver.

3. Barrier net 

### was payed out from the work platform and attached to the first piling
(S I). 

### The bottom of the net was attached to the bottom of the piling by a diver using a rope. Shackles were 

### attached to the steel cable which was secured 

### around the bottom of the piling, and the net rope was brought to the surface and tied off at one of the cleats after passing 

### through the shackle. Two lines (one from the corner of each panel) were used to secure the bottom of the net at each piling.

4. Additional lines 

### , one every 3 m (10 ft), were attached to the bottOm of the net passed under the bottom support cable , brought to the surface 

### , and secured to the 

### top support cable.

5. Additional lines 

### , one every 3 m (10 ft), were attached to the float line of the net and secured to the top support cable.


### The deployment procedure described above was repeated at each piling and at the north 

### bulkhead attachment. A schematic diagram of the deployed net is presented in Figure 4-4. Over the course of the evaluation study period, net clogging problems related to large numbers 

### of immature jellyfish 

## , fine silt , and filamentous algae caused the net to 

## sink. On several 

### occassions water was observed spilling over the tOp of clogged net sections 

### , which could result
in surface oriented larvae entering the protected intake area. In general 

### , the problem of net 

### sinking was rectified within 12 hours through the attachment of additional floatation to the surface float line. Ultimately, cleaning of the net was required to restOre adequate net filtration 

### to maintain the top of the net at the water s surface.



## Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly Engineers150ft

147ft

8O'M..INE POINT SCREENHOUSE

PLAN VIEW ... ... ... .... ...

NET SECTION 

# / ~

.r- --- / 

### """ ""'- 

# " ---

FIGURE 4-4 

### Chain FINE MESH BARRIER NET 

### DEPLOYMENT

BAR....-r. 

### SIDE VIEW ORANGE & ROCKLAND UTILITIES, INC. FINE MESH BARRIER NET STUDY LAWLER , MATUSKY & SKELLY ENGINEERS

Pearl River , New York

### CHAPTER 5



### EVALUATION PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND RESULTS



### 1 EVALUATION 

### PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

1.1 Water 

### Velocity Profiles

To assist in evaluating the filtration efficiency and biofouling potential of the fine mesh barrier net, ' 

### velocity measurements were periodically recorded at points inside the deployed net. 

### Depth 

### profile velocity measurements were normally recorded at two locations along the north side and 

### tWo locations along the south side. The points selected for monitoring water velocity were; (1) 

### between pilings NI and N2 , (2) between pilings N3 and N4 

### , (3) between pilings 53 and 54 

### , and 

### (4) betWeen pilings 51 and 52 (Figure 4- 3). Water 

### velocities were recorded at one meter intervals from one meter below the waters surface to bottom using a Marsh McBirney Model 2000 velocity meter. In addition 

### , velocity profiles were scheduled to be conducted at the center 

### of each intake with operating cooling water pumps , however 

### , heavy debris loading on the trash 

### racks following removal of the 9. 

### 5 mm mesh barrier net, precluded monitoring intake water 

## velocity. Background velocity profiles were conducted at two locations along the north side and 

### one location along the south side following piling installation and prior to net deployment (20

July 1993).

1.2 Clogging and 

### Biofouling

Net Mesh Observations. 

### Prior to ordering the 3. 

### 0 mm mesh barrier net, 1. 0 m 2 panels 

# of treated and untreated, 24 lb. Ace and 35 lb. Delta nylon mesh netting were suspended in 

### front of the Bowline Point cooling water intake structure to evaluate clogging and biofouling

potential. Water depth at 

### the face of the intake structure is approximately 9 meters (30 it) at mean low water , with the depth of the test panels set approximately 3 meters (10 it) above the 

## bottom. Percent open area was calculated for each test panel: 

### 24 lb. Ace untreated = 42. 

### 35 lb. Delta untreated = 53. 

## 24 lb. Ace untreated = 42. 35 lb. Delta treated = 51.9%



## Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly Engineers

### Two TSK velocity meters were mounted on each frame supporting a mesh panel , one meter on



### the side of the frame and the second in the center of the frame upstream of the net. Panels 

### were visually inspected daily or every Other day for the first two weeks of deployment and then 

### periodically through the middle of June for debris buildup, biofouling, or sediment entrapment. 

### Differences in velocity meter readings between inside and outside meters were used to obtain 

### information on filtration efficiency. 

### The four test frames were deployed on 26 April 1993 , with 

### observations on biofouling and clogging extending until 

### 15 June 1993. The test frames were removed from the intake on 15 June 1993.

Test Panel Observations. 

### On 23 July 1993 test panels constructed of the 3. 

### 0 mm mesh

barrier net material 

### , with each panel measuring approximately 0. 

### 6 m square , were deployed

at 0. 

### 6 m below the waters surface , mid-depth and 1. 0 m above the bottom at four locations 

### along the barrier net. Test panels were suspended from the top net support cable outside of the

barrier net. Test panels 

### were removed for observation and photographed on 3 and 17 August 

## 1993. Test panels were removed at the same time the fine mesh barrier net was removed on 23- 

### 24 August, observations on clogging and biofouling were noted at the time of removal.

1.2. Diver Observations. 

### Divers were employed during 4-6 August 1993 to clean the barrier net using an underwater hydrolaser (high pressure water spray). In addition , divers 

### were used on 20-21 August to remove the barrier net. During the net cleaning and net removal 

### operations, divers reported on the condition of the net, i.e., holes , debris buildup, deployment configuration 

### , water currents, biofouling, and classification/characteristic of clogging material.



### Ichthyoplankton Monitoring

The primary focus of the Phase II study was the determination of barrier net effectiveness at 

### limiting the movement of bay anchovy larvae in the immediate vicinity of the Bowline Point cooling water intake structure. To determine barrier net effectiveness , a direct comparison was 

### made between biological samples collected at locations outside of the barrier net to 

### samples
collected at inside net locations.



## Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly Engineers

### Four- 

### inch trash pumps (Homelite Model No. 160TP4- 

## 1) were used to collect entrainment



### samples at the face of the intake structure in front of units with operating circulating water
pumps (CWP). 

### One pump was set up on the cooling water intake structure walkway, with the 

### intake hose deployed at the center set of trash racks for Unit No. I , and a second pump was 

### set up at Unit No. 2. Sample 

### water was withdrawn from three separate depths corresponding 

### to the top, middle and near bottom of the trash rack opening, and combined by discharging the 

### entire pump flow into a water buffered plankton net with 0.5 mm mesh (Figure 5- 1). The 

### sampling pump operation was adjusted to pump at a rate 

### of approximately 1.1 m /min (300 

### gpm), with a sample duration of 30-min resulting in a total sample volume of 34 m 3 (9, 

### 000
gals). Equal volumes of water were withdrawn by 

### pumping for ten minutes from the three designated water depths. Pumping rate was established at the beginning of each sample period by adjusting the throttle on the gas operated pumps to achieve a specified time to pump a 1cnown 

## volume. A total of three pump samples were scheduled to be collected in front of each
operating Unit during a diurnal period on 

### alternate days starting with the day prior to the 

### completion of net installation. The 

### collection of the three diurnal pump samples was equally spaced over the diurnal sampling period.



### Plankton net tows were conducted inside the barrier net during each sample day. The inside 

### barrier net plankton net samples were a composite of two 0. 5 m mouth diameter (0. 

### 5 mm mesh) 

### plankton net samples: one net deployed to sample the upper half of the water column (net depth

0 m), and the second net 

### deployed to sample the lower half of the water column (net depth 3. 5.5 m). A General 

### Oceanics velocity meter mounted in the center of the plankton

net was used to determine the volume of water sampled for each tow. 

### The two inside barrier net plankton net tows were 

### composited in the field following a visual inspection to note the 

### presence and general abundance of fish larvae and macroinvertebrates.



### Plankton nets with a mouth diameter opening of 0. 

### 5 m and 0. 

### 5 mm mesh were used to collect

samples outside the barrier net. 

### Two transects were sampled one along the north wing and the 

### second along the south wing of the net , with each transect extending from the bulkhead to the 

### apex of the net (Figure 5- 

# 2). Two plankton nets were towed along each transect; one with the depth set at 1. 

### 5 to 2. 0 m to sample the surface to mid-depth part of the water column 

### , and the



## Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly Engineers

### SCHEMATIC

VALVE

COLLECTION NET 

# -- '" '" \\

FLEXIBLE HOSE . \



### \ \ \ \

STEEL END TO SUOE ALONG TRASH RACK 

## ...

WATER LEVEL



# ~OW

OPERATING VIEW



### DISCHARGE HOSE FILTERED WATER 

### DISCHARGE 

### GRATES IN DECK



### SAMPLE NET IN WATER FILLED CONTAINER I I
I I
I I
I I

WATER LEVEL 

### TRASH RACKS STEEL COLLECTION END SLIDES ALONG TRASH RACK

INTAKE OPENING

FIGURE 5-1 

### DIAGRAM OF 

### ENTRAINMENT ABUNDANCE 

### SAMPLING SYSTEM ORANGE & ROCKLAND UTILITIES, INC. FINE MESH BARRIER NET STUDY LAWLER , MATUSKY & SKELLY ENGINEERS

Pearl River , New York 8AA'NET.

### second with net depth set at 3. 

### 5 to 5. 5 m to sample the mid-depth to bottom part of the water
column. The 

### contents of each depth sample from each transect were composited in the field following visual inspection to determine the presence and relative abundance of fish larvae and macroinvertebrates. Nets were towed at 120 cm/s (3. 

### 9 fps), with velocity through the water monitored using a General Oceanics velocity meter (Model No. 2031) with on-deck readout
(Model No. 2035). Transect tow times ranged between 60 and 75 seconds , with composite sample volumes between 28 and 36 m 

### 3 (7400- 9510 gal). All tows were 

### initiated at the bulkhead 

### and were terminated at the apex of the net.

Water quality information including water temperature (o 

### C), dissolved oxygen (mgll), specific

conductance ClLmhos/cm at 25O 

### C), salinity (parts per thousand (pptD, and transparency (cm) 

### were recorded at the end of each outside net sample collection at a station near the apex of the 

### net on the south side. Water quality information was recorded using calibrated meters 

### , with values recorded at 0. 

### 3 m (1 ft) below the surface , mid-depth , and 0. 

### 5 m (1. 

## 5 ft) above the

bottom. Water 

### transparency was based on the visibility of a 22. 

### 9 cm Secchi d

Inside and outside plankton net samples and intake pump samples were collected on the same
diurnal schedule. In general , two to three collections 

### were conducted during each diurnal 

### period. At the minimum 

### , one set of net samples were collected during the morning hours 

### , and another set were collected during the afternoon.



### Inside and outside barrier net samples were analyzed separately. All ichthyoplankton (larvae) 

### were identified to species, and counted. A representative sample of each identified species was 

## measured for total length. Body depth measurements were recorded for the dominant bay anchovy over the course of the study period.



### 5-4 

## Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly EngineersOUTSIDENORTH SAMPLETRANSECTOUTSIDESOUTH SAMPLETRANSECTBOWLINE POINTSCREENHOUSE50 ftSCALE1 em = 50 ftFIGURE 5-25mPLANKTON NETSAMPLE TRANSECTSORANGE & ROCKLAND UTILITIES, INC.FINE MESH BARRIER NET STUDYLAWLER, MATUSKY & SKELLY ENGINEERSEnvironmental Science & Engineering Consultants

### PROGRAM RESULTS

1 Bowline Point Operation



### Circulating water pump operation and cooling water withdrawal information covering the fine 

### mesh barrier net evaluation period is presented in Table 5- 1. The 

### fine mesh barrier net was deployed between 21 July and 23 August - the period of barrier net deployment is designated in Table 5-



### In general 

### , during the first six days and the final 17 days of barrier net deployment 

### , two CWPs 

### were operating; CWPs lA and 1B were operating during the first six days 

### , and CWPs 2A and 

### 2C were operating during the final days. Cooling water flow during the period of two pump

operation averaged 1.616 x 106 m 

### 3 (426. 95 x 106 gals). During the period 28 

### July through 6 

### August, there were generally four CWPs operating, CWPs lA and IB for Unit 1 and 

### CWPs

2A and 2C for Unit 2. 

### Cooling water flow under four CWP operation averaged 2. 868 x 106 3 (757. 73 x 106 

### gal).



### Biofouling and Clogging Observations

Test Frame Observations. 

### Observations made on the treated and untreated 3. 

### 0 mm mesh test panels 

### suspended at the face of the Bowline Point cooling water intake structure between 26 April and 15 June 1993 

### are presented in Attachment 3. It should be noted that due to the unrestricted flow potential around the test frames and the uneven water withdrawal among

the intake bays 

### , the comparison 

### between the inside and outside TSK velocity meters did not yield usable results 

### , and was terminated following 6 May 1993.



### For the first three weeks of test mesh deployment (26 April - 14 May 1993), the mesh of all four test panels remained open with only the occasional presence of decaying leaf litter 

### , aquatic vegetation , and live Gammarus recorded. Fine brown sediment was recorded on 

### the nets on 

### 11 May which continued to buildup on the panels over the remainder of the survey becoming 

### the principle mesh blocking component. When the mesh observations were terminated on 15



## Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly EngineersTABLE 5-1 CIRCULATING WATER PUMP OPERATION AND COOLING WATER FLOW BOWLINE POINT FINE MESH BARRIER NET EVALUATION STUDY

OPERATING CIRCULATING WATER PUMP 

# 1A 

# 1B 1C 2A

c ~

### June 

## , the mesh panels were approximately 50 to 75 % blocked , with fine sediment and
filamentous algae the principle clogging factors. 

### Overall there was no consistent difference 

### between mesh clogging for the treated and untreated meshes.

Test Panel Observations. 

### Test panels constructed of fine mesh barrier net material deployed at the surface, mid-depth , and bottom of Bowline 

### Pond to monitor biofouling and mesh clogging were evaluated on 3 and 17 August , and on 23- 

### 24 August when the fine mesh 

## barrier net was 

## removed. Photographs of the test panels were taken on 3 and 17 August. 

### Observational information on the test panels is presented in Table 5-

Observational information indicated that clogging and biofouling started and was greatest at the surface 

### , with temporal blockage of the test panels proceeding from surface to bottom. A fine brown silt was the principle mesh clogging factor followed by a filamentous algae. 

### By the end 

### of the six week study period 

### , the surface panels were completely blocked by the fine silt and filamentous algae. The mid-depth panels were approximately 50% blocked , with blockage 

### ranging from 25% for the N3- 

### N4 panel to 95% blockage for the NI- N2 panel. Blockage of the 

### bottom panels at the end of the study period ranged from 40% for the N3- N4 panel to 90% for the 53- 

### 54 panel (bottom test panel was probably resting on bottom following 5-4 pile breakage 

### on 5 August), with an 

## overall average blockage of approximately 50%. One interesting 

### observation was the substantially lower clogging and biofouling noted for the panels suspended 

### between pilings N3 and N4 compared to the other locations. In general 

### , mesh blockage was greatest for the test panels located closest to the bulkhead (N I- 

### , and 51- 52) and lowest for

the panels located near the apex of the barrier net (N3- , and 53- 54). Net 

### clogging was 

### primarily caused by fine silt 

### , with the higher degree of net clogging noted near the bulkhead probably related to increased silt suspension due to shallower water depth , and wave reflection 

### . from the bulkhead sheet piling.

Velocity Information. 

### Due to the extensive build-up of debris on the intake trash racks 

### following the removal of the 9. 

### 5 mm mesh barrier net on 6 June 1993, no velocity information 

### was obtained at the intake during the fine mesh barrier net evaluation stUdy period. Velocity
information periodically recorded at locations behind the fine mesh barrier net is presented



### 5-6 

## Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers0...,.TABLE 5-0 mm MESH TEST PANEL OBSERVATION INFORMATIONBOWLINE POINT FINE MESH BARRIER NET EVALUATION STUDYJuly-August 1993TESTPANELTEST PANEL LOCATION BETWEEN PILINGSDATEDEPTHS1-S3-N3-N1-3 Aug 93Surface95% blockage by fine silt90-95% blockage by fine silt20% blockage by fine silt95% blockage by fine siltMid-Depth30% blockage by fine silt and10% blockage, some bryozoansVery light bryozoans20% blockage, some bryozoansfilamentous algaeBottomNo blockage, some bryozoans10% blockage, some bryozoansVery light bryozoans10% blockage, some bryozoans17 Aug 93Surface90-95% blockage by fine silt95% blockage by fine silt and80-85% blockage by fine silt98% blockage by fine siltand filamentous algaefilamentous algaeand filamentous algaeand filamentous algaeMid-Depth60% blockage by fine silt and50% blockage by fine silt and5% blockage by fine silt90% blockage by fine siltfilamentous algaefilamentous algaeand filamentous algaeBottom50% blockage by filamentous80% blockage by fine silt20% blockage by fine silt60-70% blockage by fine siltalgae and fine siltand filamentous algae23 -24 Aug 93Surface98% blockage by fine silt98% blockage by fine silt90% blockage by fine silt99% blockage by fine siltand filamentous algaeand filamentous algaeand filamentous algaeand filamentous algaeMid-Depth70% blockage by fine silt75% blockage by fine silt25% blockage by fine silt95% blockage by fine siltand filamentous algaeand filamentous algaeand filamentous algaeBottom70% blockage by fine silt90% blockage by fine silt40% blockage by fine silt80% blockage by fine siltand filamentous algaeand filamentous algae5Aug93-Piling S4 breaks at sediment interface. Vertical angle 10-20 degrees. Bottom test panel restingon bottom,

### Table 5- 

# 3. Velocity information recorded prior to the installation of the net on 20 July 1993



### is also presented in Table 5-



## The first indication of reduced flow , based on water velocity profile 

### information recorded behind the barrier net, was noted at mid-depth in the vicinity of the belly of the net (Figure 4-4) 

### which is probably related to a 

### general build-up and accumulation of debris and immature 

### jellyfish, During the initial surveys, lower water velocity values were recorded from mid-depth 

### to bottom indicating that clogging and therefore lower net filtration efficiency started in this

area. Eventually the 

### filtration efficiency of the entire net was affected with the net acting as a dam , Le., water observed spilling over the top of the barrier net. 

### Maximum clogging was 

### noted during the first week of August especially at the south side location, In general , net 

### cleaning at the end of the first week of August restored the filtering capability of the net.

Diver observations during net cleaning indicated that the net was clogged by a fine brown silt

that cleaned with the high pressure water jet. 

### The principle problem noted with the water pressure cleaning of the net was the small area that could be cleaned at one time due to the small size of the device. The divers also observed that due to the heavy build-up of debris on 

### the intake screens resulting in a 45 cm (18 in) water differential at the trash racks, the greatest 

### currents were at the surface with only minimal flow below one meter. Divers 

### removed the 

## debris build-up from the intake trash racks starting on 

### 16 August; however , there are no 

### velocity profiles conducted after 16 August to determine if the more equal surface to bottom water withdrawal affected the net.



### Biological Monitoring

Fine Mesh Barrier Net Ichthyoplankton Program



### Species Inventory, Abundance , and Percent Composition.

Ichthyoplankton sampling using a lO, 

### 2-cm diameter trash pump was conducted at the BPGS 

### cooling water intake between 19 July and 16 August, and Bowline Pond plankton net sampling



## Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly Engineers

### TABLE 5-

WATER VELOCITY (em Is) 

### RECORDED BY DEPTH 

### BElDND THE FINE MESH BARRIER NET

July - August 1993

AVERAGE WATER VELOCITY (cm/s) 

### AND RANGE DATE DEPTH (m) 

### LOCATION A LOCATION B 

### LOCATION C LOCATION D

20 Jut 2.4 (1.8 - 3.4) 6 (2. 

### 7 - 4. 5 (2. 

### 7 - 8.
0 (1.5 - 2.4) 

### 2 (2.4 - 4. 8 (0. 6 - 2.4) 

### 1 (1.2 - 3. 1.3 (0. 6 - 1.8) 

### 6 (1.5 - 7.

, Jul 1.0 7 (0, 

### 3 - 4. 1.3 (0. 

### 3 - 2. 

### 1 (1.5 - 4. 1.5 (0. 

### 0 - 2. 8 (0. 3 - 1.5) 4 (~. 6 - 1. 5 (~. 9 - 1. 

### 5 (- 

### 3.4 - 2. 9 (~. 

### 3 - 2. 2 (- 

### 1.2 - 2. 1.0 (0. 

### 0 - 2. 8 (0. 0 - 1.5) 1.4 (0. 

### 0 - 5. 1.0 (~. 

### 6 - 3. 1 (- 1.5 - 3 (~. 6 - 1.2) 1.3 (~. 9 - 3.4) 3 (~. 

### 9 - 2. 6 (0. 

### 6 - 5. 0 (0. 9 - 3.4)


### 30 Jut 1.0 

### 7 (1.5 - 4. 8 (1.5 - 3.4) 

### 0(2. 3 (1.2 - 3. 

### 9 (1.5 - 4. 7 (1.5 - 4. 6 (2. 1 - 3. 

### 1.8 (1.2 - 3. 2 (3. 

### 0 - 7. 2 (2. 

### 7 - 7. 

### 6(2. 1.8 (1.2 - 2.4) 

### 3 (1.5 - 3. 5 (1.5 - 4. 6 (0. 

### 6 - 4. 3 (1.5 - 3. 0 (2. 7 - 3.4) 3 (2. 1 - 5. 

### 1.8 (1.2 - 2. 

### 3 (1.5 - 2.
2 Aug 1.0 

### 3 (1.2 - 7. 3 (~. 

### 6 - 2. 8 (- 

### 1.2 - 2. 7 (0. 

### 3 - 7. 5 (4. 9 - 12. 1.4 (- 2.4 - 3.4) 1.0 (~. 

### 3 - 2.4) 1.9 (~. 

### 9 - 6. 5.4 (3. 0 - 8. 2 (- 28. 

### 0 - 6. 1.3 (- 1 - 1.1 (~. 

### 6 - 2. 1.4 (- 

### 3 - 0. 1.9 (~. 

### 9 - 4. 8 (~. 

### 9 - 3. 1.4 (~. 

### 3 - 4. 

### 1 (1.5 - 4. 5 (~. 9 - 1. 5 (- 

### 1.2 - 2. 6 (~. 

### 6 - 2.
5 Aug 1.0 6 (3. 0 - 15. 83. 1 (48. 8 - 140. 1.5 (0. 

### 0 - 6.



### 2(7. 8 (0. 

### 0 - 3. 1.0 (0. 

### 0 - 3. 3.4 (0. 

### 0 - 6. 5 (0. 

### 0 - 3. 0 (0. 

### 0 - 4. 8 (3. 

### 0 - 7. 7.4 (6. 15. 6 (1. 5 - 15. 6.3 (4. 

### 6 - 9. 6 (1. 5 - 15. 0 (0. 

### 0 - 6.
12 Aug 1.0 

### 3 (- 0 - 18. 1 (0. 9 - 3.4) 

### 0 (1.5 - 3. 

### 8 (2.4 - 3. 3 (- 4 - 18. 2 (0. 

### 0 - 0. 

### 0 (1.5 - 2. 

### 7 (2.4 - 3. 7 (- 5 - 19. 0.4 (0. 

### 0 - 0. 9 (2. 

### 7 - 3. 1 (3. 0 - 3.4) 

### 4 (- 5 - 18. 1 (0. 

### 0 - 0. 3 (2. 

### 7 - 3. 2 (3. 0 - 3.4) 

### 3 (1.5 - 2. 2 (~. 

### 6 - 0. 0 (2. 

### 7 - 3. 

### 9 (2.4 - 3. 0 (- 

### 0 - 21.3) 5 (0. 0 - 1.5) 

### 3 (1.5 - 2.


### Location A = NI- N2; Location B = N3- N4; Location C = S3- 

### S4; Location D = SI- S2.

### was conducted between 19 July and 18 August 1993. Ichthyoplankton representing six taxa and



### six separate families were collected over the course of the evaluation program (Table 5-4); bay 

### anchovy, gobi (unidentified species), northern pipefish , silverside (unidentified species), striped bass 

## , and weakfish. 

## Four taxa were collected inside the barrier net, and four taxa were 

### collected in Bowline Pond outside of the barrier net , with bay anchovy and gobi collected at locations both inside and outside of the barrier net. Silvers ides (three specimens) and striped 

### bass (one specimen) were only collected at inside barrier net locations, while weakfish (three specimens) and northern pipefish (one specimen) were only collected at locations outside of the

barrier net.



## A total of 183 fish larvae were collected 

### , with the dominant taxon collected the bay anchovy

accounting for 84. 

### 7% (155 individuals) of the total catch. An unidentified gobi ranked 

### second 

### in overall abundance with 12 specimens or 6. 

### 6% of the total collection. The other four taxa identified in the Bowline Point intake , and Bowline Pond 

### ichthyoplankton collections totaled 

### eight specimens or 4.4% 

## of the total. An additional eight specimens were collected by the intake pump sampler 

## , but were damaged and could not be identified.



### BPGS Intake Pump Sampling Results.

Intake sampling using a 4. 

### in. trash pump commenced on 19 July and was terminated on 16 

## August 1993. A total of 67 samples were collected , 32 samples at the Unit 1 intake and 35
samples at the Unit 2 intake. 

### Of the 67 samples collected, 42 or 62. 7% were analyzed. All 

### samples from the first two weeks were analyzed , but only samples from selected dates were analyzed following 3 August due to low ichthyolpanlcton abundance. A total 

### of 64 fish larvae were identified in the 42 samples , with the bay anchovy (43 individuals) accounting for 67.

of the total (Table 5-4), 

### An unidentified gobi ranked 

## second in total abundance with 11

individuals or 17. 

### 2 % of the total collection.


## A daily summary of the cooling water intake pump 

### entrainment collection information is presented in Table 5- , with the per sample information presented in Attachment 4. 

### Information in Table 5- 5 is based on the formula:



## Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly Engineers

### TABLE 5-4


### SPECIES INVENTORY AND ABUNDANCE BY LOCATION 

### FINE MESH BARRIER NET EVALUATION STUDY - 1993

ABUNDANCE BY COLLECTION LOCATION

INSIDE OUSIDE INTAKE PLANKTON PLANKTON FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PUMP NET NET



### Atherinidae Unknown Silverside Engraul~dae 

### Anchoa mitchilli Bay anchovy 

### Gobiidae Unknown Gobi 

### Percichthyidae Moro1U! saxatilis Striped bass 

### Sciaenidae Cynosdon regalis Weakfish 

### Syngnathidae SyngTlllthus fuscus Northern pipefish UID



### TotalTABLE 5-ICHTHYOPLANKTON CONCENTRATION (No./l000 mBASED ON INTAKE PUMP SAMPLESA VERAGE PER DATE CONCENTRATION(No.llOOO mNUMBER OF SAMPLESCOLLECTED/ANALYZEDUNIT 1UNIT 2INTAKEDATEUNIT 1UNIT 2TOTALTOTALTOTAL19 Jul1/1733,923.733,923.20 Jul1/131.162.31.162.21 Jul1/128.428.422 Jul1/123 Jul3/358.487.458.487.424 Jul25 Jul26 Jul3/319.127 Jul3/319.28 Jul3/33/339.23.29 Jul3/33/330 Jul2/23/3117.4132.47,52.31 Jul1 Aug2 Aug3/33/33 Aug3/03/04 Aug1/11/15 Aug2/02/06 Aug2/1I/O7 Aug8 Aug9 Aug3/310 Aug3/011 Aug3/112 Aug2/013 Aug3/114 Aug15 Aug16 Aug2/1:3AHay anchovy.TotalAll lchthyoplankton.larvae in a samPle 

### 1000 VolumeFiltered (m



### Bay anchovy were collected between 19 and 30 July - no bay anchovy were collected in the month of August. The greatest concentration of bay anchovy larvae were noted during 19 July, 

### the first sampling date , conducted prior to the deployment of the fine mesh barrier net. 

### Overall 

### very few bay anchovy larvae were collected at the cooling water intake structure during the six 

## week fine mesh barrier net evaluation program. The 

### 1993 ichthyoplankton collection data 

### suggests that bay anchory abundance in Haverstraw Bay/Bowline Pond peaked earlier in July, 

### with fine mesh barrier net deployment and sampling occuring near the end of the peak.



### Length frequency information for the bay anchovy collected at the cooling water intake structure 

## is presented in Table 5-6. A total of 37 bay anchovy were measured for total length; total length ranged from 6. 

### 0 mm to 11. 2 mm 

### , with an overall average total length of 8.4 mm, Due 

### to the limited number of larvae collected , no growth 

### pattern trend over the six week study 

### period is evident.



### Bowline Pond Plankton Net Samples.

Plankton net samples were collected at two stations; one along the north side and the second along the south side, outside of the fine mesh barrier net between 19 July and 16 August 1993. 

### Samples collected on 19 July are pre-deployment net samples while the remaining outside net samples were collected following the complete deployment of the net. A total of 94 surface and 

### bottom composite samples were collected outside of the barrier net with 62 samples analyzed (66. 0%). As 

### noted earlier , only selected samples following 3 August were analyzed due to low ichthyoplankton abundance, A total of 88 fish larvae 

### were identified in the 62 samples analyzed with bay anchovy the dominant species; 83 individuals accounting for 94. 

### 3% of the total (Table 5-4).



### Depth composite plankton net samples were collected inside the deployed barrier net between 

## 22 July and 16 August. A total of 44 samples were collected 

### , with 28 samples or 63.



## Lawler, Matusky & Skelly EngineersTable 5-6BAY ANCHOVY LENGTH INTERVAL INFORMATIONCOOLING WATER INTAKE PUMP SAMPlESLENGTHINTERVAL5-4.1-4.6-5.6-6.1-6.6-7.6-6,1-8.6-9.6-10.10.10,10.6-11.11.11.11.6-12.12.12.12,6-13.13.13.13.6-14.14.14.14.6-15.15.15.15.6-16.16.16.16.6-17.17.17.17.6-18.18.18.18.6-19.19.19,19.6-20.20.20.20.6-21.21.21.21.6-22,22.22.22.6-23.TOTAL CAUGHTTOTAL ANAL VZED1993 SAMPLE DATE19JUL 20JUL 21JUL 22JUL 23JUL 26JUL 27JUL 28JUL 29JUL 3OJUL 2AUG3AUG 4AUG 5AUG 6AUG 9AUG10AUG 11AU 12AU13AU 16AU11.10.MINIMUM LENGTH 6.MAXIMUM LENGTH 9.MEAN LENGTH 7.

### analyzed. Bay anchovy was the 

### dominant species collected by plankton nets inside the barrier

net with 29 individuals 

### collected representing 93. 5% of the 31 larvae identified (Table 5-4),

Inside and outside ichthyoplankton collection information based on depth composite plankton 

### net samples is summarized in Table 5- 7. Per 

### date sample collection information is presented

in Attachment 5. 

### At outside barrier net stations 

### , bay anchovy were identified in samples from 19 July through 13 August. Peak 

### concentration of bay anchovy was noted during the first two weeks of the study period , with very few larvae collected following the end of July. 

### The peak 

### concentration of bay anchovy larvae inside the barrier net, corresponded in time to the outside peak , however 

### , there were no bay anchovy larvae identified in inside samples after the first 

### week of August. In general , there was no consistent difference in bay anchovy concentrations noted between inside and outside barrier net samples, however 

### , this may be due to the very low numbers of organisms collected during the study period.



### Length frequency data for bay anchovy collected at stations outside and inside of the fine mesh 

## barrier net are summarized in Tables 5- 8 and 5- 9, respectively. Length information for the 

### outside barrier net stations covers the entire study period 

### , with length data available from 19 

### July through 13 August. Bay anchovy total length gradually increased over the study period from an average length of 8. 7 mm during the first week of sampling to 17. 6 mm on 13 August.

Continuous recruitment of young larvae was evident through the end of July. 

### Similar average 

### total length and length range was noted for bay anchovy collected inside the barrier net when
compared to outside barrier net values , however , the small sample size precludes any 

### comparison.



### Average daily Bowline Pond water quality information recorded during the fine mesh barrier net evaluation period is presented in Table 5- 10. Per sample water quality information recorded 

## by depth and time of day is presented in Attachment 6. A verage daily water 

### temperature
ranged from 24.5O 

### C (27 July 1993) to 26.4 o 

### C (4 August 

### 1993), with an overall average of
25.4O C, In general 

### , the higher water temperatures were recorded at the surface and the lowest
water temperatures were recorded at the bottom (Attachment 

### 6). The 

### average specific 

### conductance over the study period was 8827 J-Lmhos/cm at 25O C, with a range from 6856



## Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly Engineers...TABLE 5-ICHTHYOPLANKTON CONCENTRATIONS BASED ON 0.5 m PLANKTON NET SAMPLESCOLLECTED AT STATIONS INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE FINE MESH BARRIER NETA VERAGE PER DATE CONCENTRAnON (No,l1000 mNUMBER OF COMPOSITE SAMPLESCOLLECTED! ANALYZED,:NSIDEOUTSIDEDATEINSIDEOUTSIDETOTALTOTAL19 Jul4/455.555.20 Jul21 Jul2/226.28.4922 Jul1/12/287.87.16.16.123 Jul3/36/642.442.424 Jul25 Jul26 Jul3/36/6158,158.27 Jul3/36/640.40.28 Jul3/36/660.60.11.311.329 Jul3/36/662.73.430 Jul3/36/630.41.0106,112.31 Jul1 Aug2 Aug3/36/637.37.28.333.3 Aug3/06/04 Aug1/12/231.231.25 Aug2/04/06 Aug1/12/27 Aug8 Aug9 Aug2/14/215.15.10 Aug3/06/011 Aug3/16/212 Aug3/06/013 Aug3/16/215,15.14 Aug15 Aug16 Aug1/12/218.IA - Rav anchovv.Total - Alllchthvnlankton collected,...Table !HIBAY ANCHOVY LENGTH INTERVAL INFORMATIONPLANKTON NET SAMPlES COLLECTED OUTSIDE THE BARRIER NET1993 SAMPLE DATELENGTHINTERVAL19JUL20 JUL21 JUL22 JUL23 JUL26 JUL27 JUL28 JUL29 JUL30 JUL2AUG3AUG4AUG5AUG6AUG9AUG10AUGIIAUG12AUG13AUG16AUG17 AUG18AUG5-4,1-4,6-5,&-6,1-6,6-7,&-8,1-8,6-9,6-10,10,10.10,6-11,11,11,11,6-12,12,12,12.6-13.13,13,13.6-14,14,14,14,6-15,15,15,15,6-16,16,16,16,6-17,17.17,17.6-16.18,18,18,6-19,19,19,19,6-20,20,20,20,6-21.21.21.521,6-22,22.22.522,6-23,TOTAL CAUGHTTOTALANALVZEDMINIMUM LENGTHMAXIMUM LENGTH13,10,12,12,11,12,22,MEAN LENGTH12,14,13,17,Table 5-9BAY ANCHOVY LENGTH INTERVAL INFORMATIONPLANKTON NET SAMPLES COLLECTED INSIDE THE BARRIER NETLENGTHINTERVAL5-4.1-4.6-5.6-6.1-6.6-7.6-8.1-8.6-9.6-10,10,10.10.6-11.11.11.11.6-12.12,12.12,6-13,13.13,13,6-14,14.14.14.6-15.15.15.15.6-16.16,16,16,6-17,17.17.17.6-18,18,18,18.6-19.19.19.19.6-20.20.20.20.6-21.21.21.21.6-22,22.22.22,6-23,:;)TOTAL CAUGHTTOTAL ANAL VIEDMINIMUM LENGTHMAXIMUM LENGTHMEAN LENGTH1993 SAMPlE DATE19JUL 20JUL 21JUL 22JUL 23JUL 26JUL 27JUL 28JUL 29JUL 3OJUL 2AUG3AUG 4AUG 5AUG 6AUG 9AUG10AUG 11AU 12AU13AU 16AU17AUG 18AU10,10.10.13,12.10.

### Table 5-



### AVERAGE DAILY WATER QUALITY INFORMATION 

### BOWLINE POINT FINE MESH BARRIER NET EVALUATION PROGRAM



## SPECIFIC 

## DISSOLVED SECCHI CONDUCTANCE SALINITY 

### OXYGEN DISK DATE 

## Celsius umhos/cm 25 C 

### (pp



### 25. 

### 10500.

127. 24. 

### 9333.

* No sample collected

c::- 1JLmhos/cm at 250 

### C recorded on 12 August to 10, 789 JLmhos/cm at 250 

### C recorded on 23 July.



### The highest conductivity values were recorded at the 

### bottom and the lowest at the 

### surface

(Attachment 6). A verage 

### daily salinity ranged from 4. 0 (9 August) to 6. 

### 3 (23 July) parts per thousand (ppt), and averaged 5. 0 ppt. 

### Salinity generally decreased over the study period with the highest values recorded during the first week of study and the lowest values recorded during the middle of August. There was very little variability in salinity noted by depth. Dissolved 

### oxygen was consistently high over the study period averaging 8. 1 mg/l with a daily average 

### range of 6. 

### 0 to 7, 9 mg/l. Water 

### transparency based on Secchi disk readings ranged from 77.

to 127, 

### 0 cm and averaged 89. 2 cm.



### Additional Samples

Evaluation samples were concentrated around the fine mesh barrier net 

### , during 27 July and 18 August additional 0. 

### 5 m plankton net samples were conducted in Bowline Pond away from the

barrier net (Table 5- 11) to detennine gross abundance , and to determine 

## if there was a distributional pattern to fish larvae in Bowline Pond that could affect the results of sampling in 

### the immediate vicinity of the barrier net. 

### No bay anchovy larvae were collected in the longer 

### duration open Pond samples, and fish larvae concentrations were generally the same as those 

### collected along the north and south side of the barrier net.

During the period 9 through 16 August 

### , one of the intake sample pumps was placed on the barrier net work barge and used to collect pump samples outside of the barrier net at a position

between pilings S2 and S3. 

## No bay anchovy 

## larvae were collected in the pump samples conducted outside of the barrier net (Attachment 3).

3.4 Total Length Body Depth Relationship. 

### A total of 134 bay anchovy larvae measured 

### for total length were also measured for body depth to determine the accuracy of the relationship

used to indicate the mesh size for the fine mesh barrier net. 

### The results of the measurements 

### are presented in Attachment 7. The resulting linear regression of total length versus body depth 

### for bay anchovy was determined to be:

Body Depth (BD) 

## = -0. 27533 + 0. 11274 (Total length)



## Lawler, Matusky & Skelly EngineersTABLE 5-BOWLINE POINT FINE MESH BARRIER NETEVALUATION STUDYICHTHYOPLANKTON COLLECTION INFORMATIONBOWLINE POND O.5m PLANKTON NET - SPECIAL SAMPLES----27 -Jul-APEX-104711:5952.19.19.18-Aug-APEXAPEX-122312241225122610:5211:0211:2511:3386.85.88.83.11.11.

### The R squared value for the equation is 0. 92216. The linear 

### regression equation for spottail

shiner used in estimating mesh exclusion potential was:

Body Depth (BD) 

## = -

28 + 0. 17 (Total length)



## The R squared value for the 

### spottail shiner equation was 0. 95. The regression equation 

### developed for bay anchovy from Bowline Pond predicts that a larvae measuring 13. 0 mm in 

### total length would have a body depth of 1. 2 mm 

### , and a larvae measuring 15. 

### 5 mm in total 

### length would have a body depth of 1. 

## 5 mm. The body depth values for bay anchovy larvae obtained under the fine mesh barrier net evaluation study were approximately 4D% of the values 

### predicted from the use of the regression equation for spottail shiner (Schneeberger and Jude 1981). The body depth results indicate that based on mesh exclusion potential only, an effective 

### Bowline Pond barrier net would require net mesh openings of 1. 0 to 1. 

## 5 mm. Based on the 

### 1993 evaluation study a net with mesh openings this small would not be deployable due to the 

### observed clogging rate.



## Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly Engineers

### CHAPTER 6



### SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS



### GENERAL PROGRAM DESCRIPTION



### Orange and Rockland Utilities, Incorporated (ORU) contracted Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly 

### Engineers (LMS) to evaluate the feasibility of deploying a fine mesh barrier net at the cooling wat!?r intake of the Bowline Point Generating Station 

### (BPGS) during the spring and summer 

## months as a means of mitigating ichthyoplankton entrainment. The 

### feasibility study was conducted in two phases; Phase I was conducted during 1992 

### and Phase II was conducted during
1993.



### Phase I consisted of monitoring several different mesh panels deployed in Bowline Pond during 

### the period June through September for biofouling and clogging, preparing a 

### comprehensive report on Bowline Pond and Haverstraw Bay ichthyoplankton 

### , and recording water velocities 

### in Bowline Pond over a complete tidal cycle. Results of the Phase I studies indicated that a fine 

### mesh barrier net could be deployed during the spring-summer period , the period which 

### corresponds to the seasonal peak abundance period for ichthyoplankton , however 

### , maintaining 

### the filtering potential of the net would require substantial maintenance. Velocity data collected 

### under Phase I suggested that the barrier net could be deployed at several locations in Bowline 

### Pond including the inlet to the 

## Pond and the area around the BPGS cooling water intake 

### structure currently used to deploy the 9.5 mm mesh barrier net.

Phase II of the fine mesh barrier net evaluation program had as its primary objective the design deployment , and monitoring of a fine 

## mesh barrier net at the BPGS cooling water intake

structure. Tasks to be 

### completed under the Phase II study were:

1. Select the location for the 

### deployment of the fine mesh barrier net.

2. Select the 

### target ichthyoplankton population which would be used to determine 

### the effectiveness of the barrier net.



## Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly Engineers3. Determine the 

### barrier net mesh size that would be effective at excluding the target ichthyoplankton population.

4. Design a 

### fine mesh barrier net taking into consideration: maintenance of low through mesh water velocities , potential 

### heavy debris loading, clogging and biofouling, easy deployment technique , and easy 

### net retrieval/removal for maintenance.

5. Develop and conduct a 

### sampling program to determine the effectiveness of the 

### fine mesh barrier net at limiting the movement of ichthyoplankton.



### 2 PHASE 

### II PROGRAM

1 Barrier Net 

### Design Considerations

Deployment Location. 

### Bowline Pond is within the property boundary lines of BPGS, however 

## , there are no restrictions on use of the waterbody by the general public. 

### BPGS 

### personnel have docking facilities along the breakwall north of the intake structure for the 

## mooring of the oil boom deployment boat. 

## ORU also maintains a boat launch ramp for 

### company employees on Bowline Pond. Given the use pattern of Bowline Pond by the general 

### public and BPGS personnel , the successful 

### deployment of a 9.5 mm mesh barrier net , and 

### favorable physical conditions including low water velocities and bottom configuration , the only 

### logical location for deployment of the fine mesh barrier net was in the immediate vicinity of the cooling water intake structure, i.e., in the 

### same general area where the 9. 

### 5 mm mesh barrier 

## net is seasonally deployed. Deployment of the fine mesh barrier net in the same general

vicinity as the 9. 

### 5 mm mesh barrier net, has the added advantage of using applicable equipment 

### and techniques currently used to deploy the larger mesh net.



### Water velocity along the fine mesh barrier net deployment transect was an important factor in 

### selecting the location for net deployment. Average water velocities recorded at low slack tidal 

### conditions at the inlet to Bowline Pond and along the 9. 

### 5 mm barrier net transect under two cooling water pump (CWP) operation were 30. 76 cm/s (1.01 fps) and 10. 

### 08 cm/s (0. 33 fps), 

### respectively. Lower average water velocities along the existing barrier net transect was another 

### reason for selecting this location for deployment of the fine mesh barrier net.



## Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly EngineersSelection of Target Species. 

### A review of ichthyoplankton data from Bowline Pond and

Haverstraw Bay indicated that the numerically dominant 

### species is the bay anchovy accounting 

### for over 80% of all larvae collected. Bay 

### anchovy larvae are present in the vicinity of BPGS from early June through August with the longterm peak ahundance period nOted from mid- July through mid- August. During 

### the peak abundance period, the life stage of the overwhelming 

### majority of bay anchovy larvae are post yolk-sacs, with average total lengths ranging from 13.

to 15. 

## 5 mm. Based on the numerical dominance of bay anchovy post yolk-sac larvae in the 

## vicinity of BPGS, this species was selected as the target species for the evaluation of the 

### effectiveness of the fine mesh barrier net. A six week evaluation period from mid- 

### July through 

### August was selected, corresponding to the period of peak abundance of the post yolk-sac life stage.



### Selection of Net Material and Mesh Size Opening. 

### A nylon mesh with a nominal 

### opening of 3. 0 mm was 

### selected for the fine mesh barrier net. The net type and mesh size 

### selected was based on material availability, optimal percent open area , cost , and exclusion 

### pOtential. Body size measurements (body depth 

### , width) for bay anchovy post yolk-sac larvae were not available in the literature for use in estimating mesh exclusion pOtential. To assist in 

### selecting the size of the fine mesh barrier net mesh size opening, regression equations for body 

### depth versus total body length for fish larvae with body shapes similar to the bay anchovy were examined. 

## It was estimated using a 

## regression equation developed for spottail shiner 

### (Schneeberger and Jude 1981) that the body depth for 13. 0 and 15. 

### 5 mm tOtal length bay 

### anchovy larvae would be 1. 9 mm and 2.4 mm , respectively. A regression equation for bay 

### anchovy body depth versus total length was subsequently developed from data collected during 

### the fine mesh barrier net evaluation study; the body depth for a 13. 

### 0 mm and 15. 5 mm total 

### length bay anchovy larvae was calculated to be 1. 2 mm and 1. 5 mm 

### , respectively.



### Under the Phase I study, it was nOted that a polyethylene material exhibited lower biofoulingclogging and cleaned easier than nylon mesh materials. Various net 

### manufacturing companies 

### were contacted and it was determined that polyethylene material with a 3. 

### 0 mm mesh opening was nOt available in sizes needed to economically construct the Bowline Point fine mesh barrier
net. Nylon 

### netting, untreated to maintain its white color and therefore higher visibility and to



## Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly Engineers

### maintain the maximum percent open area 

### , was selected for the fine mesh barrier net. Again

net manufacturers were contacted 

### , and after evaluating several mesh configurations and twine

sizes, a 3. 

### 0 mm Delta mesh net constructed of 35 lb. twine was selected. 

### A dual net system was designed for deployment at BPGS; the 3. 

### 0 mm fine mesh net supported by a nylon net with 

### 4.45 cm square mesh opening.

1.4 Barrier Net Design. 

### Given the high resistance of the fine mesh net to the free passage 

### of water (approximately 50% open area) and the greater potential for clogging and biofouling, 

### the deployment of the fine mesh net using the anchor system deployment technique of the 9. 

### mm mesh barrier net was nor considered adequate. A 

### system employing wooden pilings was
considered necessary to 

### support the fine mesh 

## barrier 

# net. Several piling installation 

### configurations were investigated with the prime concern related to optimizing the surface area of the net which would yield low through mesh velocities. The 

### final design called for the pilings to be installed in a ' 

### V' configuration around the intake structure with the point of the V' 45. 

### 7 m our from the center of the face of the intake structure. Pilings would be installed

approximately 15 m apart. The 

### actual area along the piling transect at mean low water was calculated as 1194 m 

### 2 (12 849 ft2 ). Using 

### 50% of the transect area as equal to the percent open area of the fine mesh barrier net, and the cooling water volume of 2392. /min 

### (4 CWPs unthrottled) , the average through mesh water velocity 

### would be 3. 34 cm/s 

### (0. 11 ips).



### The net was constructed in panels for deployment between the wooden pilings. Net panels were constructed 4.5 m longer than the distance between attachment points to permit easy deployment and to maximize net filtration area. 

### Two chains were added to the bottom of the net panels to 

### ensure the bottom seal during deployment. The use of panels was intended to facilitate net 

### deployment and removal for cleaning, however 

### , due to time and 

### economic constraints the prototype net was deployed in one piece with the net panels sewn together prior to deployment. 

### Floats were attached to the 

## surface line of the net at 30 cm intervals, however , as the net 

### clogged 

### , water pressure pulled the tOp of the net under 

### , additional floatation was added which helped to maintain the tOp of the net at the waters surface. Steel cables were stretched between 

### and secured to the bottom and top of the pilings for attachment of the net panels.

6-4 

## Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly EngineersBarrier Net 

### Deployment and Observations

Wooden pilings were installed during 12- 

### 13 July, and the fine mesh barrier net was deployed
during 19- 

### 21 July, with deployment complete at 1400 hrs on 21 July. 

### The steps for barrier net deployment were:

1. Steel cables 

### were installed between pilings 

### , and the end pilings and the bulkhead. 

### Cables were secured around each piling at the top (approximately 1.5 m above high water) and bottom.

2. The 

### barrier net was loaded on the work platform , and attached to the bulkhead south of the intake structure using the existing eyebolts,

3. Nylon attachment 

### lines were secured to the float line and bottom line of the net

at 6. 

### 5 m intervals.

4. The bottom and top of the net were attached 

### to the pilings with the point of attachment corresponding to the juncture of two net panels. The 

### bottom 

### attachment lines were passed under the bottom 

### steel cable and brought to the 

### surface cable and secured. The float line attachment lines were secured to the upper steel cable. 

### (Securing of all bottom lines was done by divers.

5. Divers inspected 

### the net following installation between each piling to ensure that the bottom of the net was in contact with the bottom 

### sediments.


### Initial observations of the deployed fine mesh barrier net were very good, divers found that the bottom attachment technique ensured a good bottom seal 

### , and the floats on the surface line were
maintaining the top of the net at the waters surface. The presence of 

### large numbers of 

### immature jellyfish in Bowline Pond following net deployment immediately started clogging the
net 

### , with the resultant water pressure forcing the top of the net under the surface of the water in several places. Additional flotation was added to the net, and manual cleaning of the net was 

## initiated: Manual cleaning of the deployed net had only limited success and this only at the surface 

### , with the primary technique of maintaining 

### the net at the waters surface the addition of 

### floatation. The jellyfish which remained in high concentrations in the Pond through the end of 

### July, resulted in continuous net submergence problems.



### In addition to the jellyfish , net clogging due to very fine 

### silt was evident. As noted with the jellyfish , as the net clogged the 

### resultant water pressure forced the top of the net under the



## Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly Engineerswaters surface. Divers were contacted 

### to attempt to clean the net in place during the first week



### of August. The divers using a Hydrolaser 

### , a high pressure water spray, were able to clean the net in three days. Tension on the net prior to the in situ 

### cleaning was great enough to snap one 

### of the pilings (piling 54) at the bottom , however , the steel surface cable was adequate to hold 

### the piling at an angle of approximately 10- 

### 15 degrees from vertical until the end of the study. During the net cleaning, the divers noted very strong surface currents but very low subsurface 

### currents behind the barrier net. Heavy debris build-up (primarily sticks) on the cooling waters intake fixed screens was noted during the latter part of July, and the divers attributed the uneven 

## flow pattern to the damming effect of the debris on the 

## screens. (NOTE: Divers were 

### contracted to clean the BPGS fixed screens on 16 August 1993.



### The fine mesh barrier net was removed without the aid of divers on 23- 24 August. Upon
retrieval the net was observed to be in good shape with no holes, rips, or tears. 

### The net was heavily clogged primarily by fine silt with some filamentous algae noted at the top.

Barrier Net Effectiveness Evaluation



### Ichthyoplankton samples collected using a pump at the BPGS intake, and 0. 5 m diameter mouth 

### plankton nets at locations inside and 

### outside of the barrier net were the primary method of
determining barrier net 

## effectiveness. Over the study period , the concentration of 

### ichthyoplankton in Bowline Pond was extremely light which limited the ability to detect any

effectiveness of the net at limiting ichthyoplarJcton 

### movement.



### The greatest concentration of bay anchovy larvae was noted during the first week of the study
period. GeneraIly the 

### concentration of larvae was similar between the cooling water intake and

inside the barrier net to the concentration recorded outside the barrier net. Length frequency 

### information for bay anchovy collected inside and outside the barrier net did 

### not indicate any difference. The low 

### abundance levels of icthyoplankton in general and bay anchovy specificaIly 

### during the fine mesh barrier net evaluation 

### study period does not permit the determination of the biological effectiveness of the net.



## Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly Engineers

### 3 CONCLUSIONS

The Phase II study pointed out that a fine mesh barrier net could be deployed at the cooling 

### water intake sttucture of the Bowline Point Generating Station during the summer period when 

### the concentration of bay 

### anchovy larvae is at its seasonal peak. 

### Clogging of the net was a 

### significant problem 

## , first by immature jellyfish and 

### secondly by fine silt , however , a net 

### maintenance program incorporating periodic net cleaning should counter the clogging problem. 

### Biofouling was not observed to be a problem during the 1993 study period. Future net designs 

### should incorporate the ability to remove and/or replace net sections for cleaning, since in place cleaning as done during the 1993 study is too slow 

### , and does not result in complete cleaning. 

### A regular net maintenance program incorporating periodic net panel replacement or cleaning should permit the deployment of a fine mesh barrier net over the entire spring/summer period. 

### Based on length frequency information the fine mesh barrier net should be effective at limiting the enttainment of post yolk-sac white perch 

### , striped bass , alewife , and blueback herring.



### Concentrations of bay anchovy larvae in Bowline Pond during the study period were extremely

low. Over 

### the course of the study a total of 67 pump samples and 138 plankton net samples (44 inside and 94 outside) were collected 

### , with 42 of the pump samples and 90 of the plankton net samples (28 inside and 62 outside) analyzed. 

### A total of 183 fish larvae were collected with bay anchovy (155 individuals) accounting for 85% of the total. 

### The number of larvae collected 

### precludes any determination of barrier net effectiveness based on larval exclusion.



## Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly Engineers

### REFERENCES CITED

Bechtel. 1970. Orange and Rockland Utilities 

## , Inc. Bowline Point Unit No. 1. Haverstraw 

### New York. 

### Boring logs. Job No. 7757. 

### Drawing No. C-4.

Browne 

### , M. 

## , LB. Glover , D. W. Moore 

### , and D. 

## W. Ballenger. 1981. In-situ biological and engineering evaluation of fine-mesh profile-wire cylinders as powerplant intake screens. Pages 36-46 In: P. 

## B. Dorn and J. T, Johnson 

### (eds) Advanced Intake Technology for Power Plant Cooling Water Systems. Proceedings of the Workshop held at the Sheraton

### Harbor Island Hotel April 22- , 1981.

Ecological Analysts 

## , Incorporated (EA). 

## 1981. Prototype wedge-wire screen intake module study. Report prepared for 

### Commonwealth Edison Company.
Edwards , S. , P. 

### M. McGroddy, D. Lispi 

## , and P. Dorn. 1981. Fine mesh 

### screens and an impingement-release system for marine fish larvae. Pages 128- 

## 137. In: Dorn , P. B. and 

### T. Johnson (eds) Advanced Intake Technology for Power Plant Cooling Water Systems. Proceedings of the Workshop held at the Sheraton- 

### Harbor Island Hotel April 22- , 1981.


### Fletcher , R. 

# I. 1990. A review of reported fine mesh screen applications for high volume 

### water- intake systems , and recommendations for further investigations. Prepared for 

### Consolidate Edison Company of New York , Inc. 7 pp. plus attachments.


### Hutchison , J. 

### B. Jr. , and J. 

## A. Matousek. 

## 1988. Evaluation of a barrier net used to mitigate 

### fish impingement at a 

### Hudson River power plant 

## intake. Hudson River Monograph. 

### American Fisheries Society. Monograph No. 4:280- 285.


### Lawler 

## , Matusky & 

## Skelly Engineers (LMS). 

# 1981. 1980 Hudson River studies at the Bowline Point Generating Station. Report prepared 

### for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.


### Lawler 

### , Matusky & Skelly Engineers (LMS). 1992a. Bowline Point fine 

### mesh barrier net evaluation study, progress report: June- 

## September 1992. Progress report submitted to 

### Orange and Rockland Utilities 

### , Inc. 7 October 1992.


### Lawler 

## , Matusky & 

## Skelly Engineers (LMS). 

## 1992b. Ichthyoplankton populations in Haverstraw Bay and Bowline Pond. Report 

### prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities
Inc. October 1992.


### Matousek 

### , J. 

### , M. V. Bonomo and J. B. Hutchison 

## , Jr. 1981. A multi- 

### gear fishery survey of a Hudson River embayment used as a source of cooling water. Poster paper presented at the Hudson River Fisheries Workshop 

### sponsored by the Hudson River Environmental 

### Society, Norrie Point Field Station of Dutchess County Community College 

### , September 1981.



## Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly Engineers

### REFERENCES CITED (Continued)


### Normandeau Associates 

## , Incorporated (NAI). 1993. Bowline Point Generating Station 1992 impingement studies. R- 

### 12147. 01. Report 

### prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities,
Inc. June 1993. 

### Orange and Rockland Utilities , Inc. 

## , (ORU). 

## 1993. Personal communication with W. Parisen. Manager- 

### Civil Engineering, Surveying and Construction Administration. Schneeberger , P. 

### J. and D. 

## J. Jude. 1981. Use of fish larva morphometry to predict 

### exclusion 

### capabilities of small-mesh screens at cooling-water intakes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 110(2):246- 

### 252.

Taft~ III , E. , RH. Berger 

### , J. Larsen , J. G. Holsapple 

## , and L. Eberly. 1981. Laboratory
evaluation of larval fish impingement and diversion systems. pp. 138- 158. In: 

### Dorn 

## B., and J. T. Johnson (eds). Advanced 

### Intake Technology for Power Plant Cooling Water Systems. Workshop Proceedings. 22- 24 April 1981. 

### Tomljanovich , D. 

## A., J. H. Heuer , and C. 

## W. Voightlander. 

## 1977. Investigations on the 

### protection of fish larvae at water intakes using fine-mesh screening. Tennessee Valley 

### Authority, Division of Forestry, Fisheries, and Wildlife Development , Technical Note 

### B22 

## , Norris, TN 

# , USA.

Tomljanovich , D. , J. H. Heuer , and C. 

## W. Voightlander. 

## 1978. Investigations on the 

### protection of fish larvae at water intakes using fine-mesh screening. Pages 125- 

### 139 In: 

## Sharma, RJ. and J. B. Palmer (eds), Larval Exclusion 

### Systems for Power Plant Cooling Water Intakes. Proceedings of 

### Workshop Held at Shelter Island Inn , February 7- , 1978. 

### Weisberg, S. 

### B., W. H. Burton , E. A. Ross 

### , and F. Jacobs. 1984. The 

### effects of screen slot size screen diameter 

### , and 

## through-slot velocity on entrainment of 

### estuarine ichthyoplankton through wedge-wire screens. Report 

### prepared for the Maryland Power 

### Plant Siting Program,

ZeitOun 

## , I.H., J. A. Gulvas 

### , and J. 

## Z. Reynolds. 1981. Effectiveness of small mesh cylindrical 

### wedge-wire screens in reducing fish larvae entrainment at an offshore and an onshore 

## location of Lake 

## Michigan. Pages 57-64. In: 

### Dorn , P. 

## B. and J. T. Johnson 

### (eds) 

### Advanced Intake Technology for Power Plant Cooling Water Systems. Proceedings of 

### the Workshop held at SheratOn- Harbor Island Hotel 

### , April 22- , 1981.



## Lawler 

## , Matusky & Skelly Engineers26 APRIL 1993 

### IT ACHMENT
BOWLINE POND SEDIMENT CORE LOGSData by Shy..,! 

## -L- 01 ...L



# SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION - TEST BORING LOG Boring No. 

### Project No, 

### S5C-1



## /~9-306

Project Name 

### FiNE HeSH 8~lZJZlL=1Z. Alsr V181V't~IZIlU 

### Date 2Gl/fl?,f13 (p AI'/?


### Client 

### ORu. 

# S~I

Il/'USn

Boring Location &f212/t?/? N.;r- SouTH SID/? :c.cNlC/f.


### Driller DTH/ cm / 

### /un'K Total Depth 8. c/ OF 70 7?t '-

lZG"co II':/!. Y 

### Monitoring Instrument(s) Depth to Water 

# ~MER 

# ~Ib

Fall 

# '------; ."...----



### Hole Diameter ..,.

/JJ I rJ'


### Ground Sur1ace Elevation

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL


### BLOWS ON CXI-

on I:) I:) cu c: 

### f - fine and - 

### 35- 50% .J::. Q) 

# cu- a.. ' 

## E.- 111 E a.. SAM PLEA c: a. =-

E a 

### ~ ~

~ c 

### m - medium some - 

### 20-35% iU E 

### 01- U ~ nJ Z .= cu a a 

### ":: a ....

12" IS" a: (J) cu (J) 

## g a: 

## :: u ~ u 

### c - coarse little - 10- 

### 20% (i) 

### trace - 0-10% 12" IS" 24"

fJ /)JET 

### SoFT ~(2.~y Cl.AY C-O~TA/NIIJ? O'U,I'tNlc:.

f'rI~rc(2.IAL (LeAves. lAJoD.C\D) .sON';: ~~/llJ/'- .I
SOIL. H'-Xta) 

# i~ ITBo..JT 

### 20- :z.~

3-1/- I fiIJiSI ~TZ""Y (J. -A Y 51,-7 Cot--J1!ij.JT 1/.JCIZc?A.seJ

/,AJITH 'D~fl7r/ 7'D (,.17/':"6" cLAY (/0%) 1.iiAc.-2. l)(z'~API(.J (f/.Jc~D).

1/- 

### Hgisr TZAr s "-

TV ct.,A Y T/ZA(:.fi OIl4A""I ~ .,rOI '- 

### SOMe P:OJG $,q....,.o 'TrzAC.1E. rn - c. SII~D

rzesT' ~(z"Y CLAY T/ZP-C.c. SIGT AT ~.lIJ~ 

### ;";~

EvGJJTvA-r...c...y D.;:-c.na:AJ /I--Jf, F.J rz.T't+.:!A..

c.GA IJ. 

## so'::! D~6S /JoT AP?cArt 

### 'b~ APffZoA C::11"J~ 'T/L.L.



### , AWl ~H MA TUSKY ; 

### ~ SKFLL Y ENGINE=R~Data by ShUul .....L- or



# SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION - TEST BORING LOG Boring No, /JS B - 2- Project No. j(s,9-3oc:'

Project Name FoJf: H€.!OH BATZJ2I€tt 1Jrn- l/'/BI2Ac..6)R.I~


### Client 

### ORu Date 

# Zfo ftfJfl.. q3 24.111',(. 

# St;lt I llrusn

Boring Location )J!JlZ.TH SIDe 8I1lz/Z,G!.. J.J8T AT EIJ'-I v-IC7W

Driller oTH / em/ KM'k:. 

### Total Depth /3. ?'

RECDU2/Zf 

### MonitoriflQ Iflstrufficnt(s) Depth to Water


### S-"/. irl E 

### HA~1MF~ Hole 

### Diameter D - IIJ 

### r;I

Wt::i~11I 

### Ground Sunace Elevation

F:J.II



### CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL 

### BLOWS ON ?;-

'E CI :c c: and - 

### 35- 50% ....



### 'U 0 1%1 (U c: 

### f - fine
.r::::. Q) (U 

## c.. . E ,- 

## :I (II SAM PLER c: Co ::a rtI E 0 

### :I ~ ~ C ::I 

### m - medium some - 20-35% /U E (II 

### 01-
rtI 

### U ~ rtI Z .:: (II 0 0 ;: 0 ....

120 18" a: CJ) Q) CJ) 

### ~ u 

### c - coarse liule - 

### 10- 

### 20%
ex: (j)



## Ff) trace - 0-10%

12" ISO

0-1. 

### weT 5oF-T 'j)AfZ1c.. ~/2J'Y Cc.A Y t/-JIT;! P/Z.f;AJ..)'c..J SO/'-

Qg~A""lw COI-JTAIN f...~lrv':;.s ",",oDD #,.l8:.Iis" AIP/!.O)(lmPrT"€LY 40 % ,)/z.~AI-Jlc...5

1/, 

### 7-20 SMA'-I... L.4YE~ ()I- - GrzAY GUly A-I-'O O~AJJt'- (I1An~Tl..IA'- SAm': As AS..V;; ~-,T 

### trWT 7S"~-

QJ2.~~L'- HA-r;uLIA-1...

1.. DAHP B~v.J"" .sA-NO 1\....0 J1c...r 1n.AU'i. H .III-IJ'O (S';;:-I'K.-/-4 ~At-JD) 61-'11J~ UPt,v/:rn..o

12~oZ. 8rr.ow"; ANO B(.~,,- - C,/2Ay ;:I~C JA""O LI7T...c:

:r I ...

i7Z Ac.Ii It ,....

.J A j.J D 77lAc.IL 4 ,.,0 Gj AA..r!!"L 

## ~es/l ~12,A'1' :sem i ~ oP, C'-A-y, IRA-EJ 

### "p .r/'-/ 1U1Zo-'~ H OuT Tlfc 

### Le/J~TH (Pc...A-IJoJ QT2"f CLA-Y)

LAWLER , MA TUSKY 3. SKE~L Y 

### ENGINE=R~Data by ShUul 01 ...L



# SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION - TEST BORING LOG Boring No, )JSC Project No. 

### IfR9- 3c!:Jb



### Client 

### ()/W Date .2(P 1tf1~ q .2 (P 1Jf7~ '13



# St:1lt

llrusn

Boring Loc::ltion 

### 8A~G,.q 1JG'T-lJo1Z.TH SIDE CE~1f:.. Project Name AIJO" /-(c-sH BIlf(.fld?/LlJEr (JlfYZACC)/ZIJ-IlJ



### Driller OTH 

## / cm It: fYI' (.:: 

### Total Depth 

## /2. 

# 0 PI J?cccw~IZY


### Monitoring Instrumcnt(s) Depth to Water 

## SA~II'" IIAMMFH 

### Hale Diameter 

## ()-

:11.


### Ground Suriace Elevation 

### Weight

Fall



### CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL



### BLOWS ON "0 CD CII- 'is. c: 

### f - fine and - 35- 

### 50% cu c:: - c .c; cu cu 

### a.. ' E '- :1 cu 11:1 E
-a. 

### SAMPLER c:: a. ~ -

E 0 :J "0 ~ C ::I 

### m - medium same - 20-35% iii E 

### 01- 

## u ~ ro Z 0 0 ': 0 ...

12' 18' a: en cu ~ c:: (.J ~ (.J 

### c - coarse little - 10- 

### 20% c::

c:: (j)



## (Pi) trace - 0-'0%

12" 18" 24' /.

t./ 

### /lJcr SOrT 

### "'lull cLAY W.lrH Orz.~AfV/C oS (PIt3CG.s of:

!IJ,&).DD L.r3'/JrVG".J.). 1#0 Q(Z.G(:I/UI,- /11 ~rrc./Z.i'H

## So~o Q1Z-f;/ftIJ(,- 

### .s~"" N";c~D / f'J,

'N-I. IIGf!.y ~jZ.~A~IL aL.~c.. cr.-Pry (!.o.....-nl-IIJJ 

### 80- 8S % '8c...~ OTZ(;;~"'/L JOIL liJ'-t.-..-DflJf

LtfA"'ff~ A"'O....,o 00

IIQ. HOtsT DoS'c.eC:4.sc 1/oJ O'lZ-l;/ftiJlc.... ml/r-re:~_ IAL 

### SoP,

~ ('Z.4 LA- Y 1/Z-1K1i:. 1J(..; 11-80,)( 10"-0

OlZf.A1-JIt.. JQ/t.. t..,:AvG'S / w,&)oD '?"EU:5,

B-3. /4ji?,A-V J/r.-TY 

### c,-A-Y (./177..."- Q~liAIJIL

f., U:~TfUz.1 c.oMl ~;; (l., (p.lTH 

# ~~p

IAu!)



### ~Jh/ ~tZ.4y Ct..AY AtJD 

## J/'-I l/J/1'r/ .some $.4#oJD G'-'I D;:~7. t./77/.,;' J./l?'O/t.JM .s~~fJ



### 225'- j),qmP GT2AY 'L.-~y t..//:I..e .5IL( rc 77ZA'E. SILT

FIIJIP" VJITH oG 

### pm, ~Q"".I~(j J"I~H'T"I

Mo(2n: C~H'Y\PPrl-T "..,ITrl lH?firl

LAWLER , MA TUSKY 3. SKEL.L 

### Y ENGINE::r

### ATTACHMENT 2


### BOTTOM PROFILES - BOWLINE POND IN THE VICINITY

OF BPGS COOLING WATER !NT AKE

t:-' ... "

...

.. " J;,' . . 

### :~~" 

### ~:"



### WJ:!,;:t ~,

. c , ~ ;~.

1, ' 

### " ..

, .; 

### , ' " , " , , , 

## : ' : ",

0-. " c , - ~

\.1\ , "

....

1: '" f-, \:) "" "- ..... , .... 

### ' ~ ~



## ()~h~ 

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

..



# :t~ ~-:

:o;';':';:;.' ~"C' " "- 

### ;~ - ";: 

## --:. - .~.... ""' 

# - ,

~ "t' =.. - , '

. . ~ ' ., ---

r-,

ox \.., 

# .. ~"'",-----, .---,,---- ,'-'.-') ,:~itf~~'j '":'~i't' ~" "..,.. ', ". 0" ' ,.~ I, ,':' .., t,..";:"" ,'-.:7~-'-", '0'6~Ol'--,-....-----...'---J.-'f...,J.'!I-T'Of - b')lH.tO' ?tI..t.f.bltl"""'!:::i' 'Z'-fO,/I.W-----,---Ii ~J .' "wjr~.;,,.. ." ,i'':t,. -'I. I: 1" ,\ I '. ,. f, ', . ~I.\I(I.~...~'II'" .'I ' '~Tt'..;l-,~ .., " W'It;rftl~r;'tl1 :\r"~""I, It~""C1.. ', ". "ll I' ~"' ,,I' I '(I .. I;,.","':', .. 1, .I. .'I,...IoU::;E::r:

### TEST FRAME OBSERVATION INFORMATIONFINE MESH BARRIER NET EVALUATION STUDY

1993 (Page 1 of 2)



### TSK METER REVS DATE 

### TIME TEST PANEL INSIDE OUTSIDE 

### COMMENTS

26 Apr 1600 24 A- 0000 0000 Initial deployment

1555 24 A- 0000 0000 Initial deployment 1550 35 D- 0000 0000 Initial deployment 1545 35 D- 0000 0000 Initial deployment

26 Apr 1906 24 A- Initial check

1903 24 A- 545 5620 Initial check 1859 35 D- 3600 5400 Initial check 1855 35 D- 775 5520 Initial check

27 Apr 0918 24 A- 200 28020 Very light debris and a few Gammarus

0913 24 A- 5930 30205 Very light debris and a few Gammarus 0904 35 D- 3060 33155 Very light debris and a few Gammarus 0858 35 D- 810 15300 A few Gammarus small pieces of weed- debris light

28 Apr 0822 24 A- 310 40675 A few Gammarus, debris light

0818 24 A- 1320 34770 A few Gammarus, debris light 0810 35 D- 17670 31185 A few Gammarus, debris light 0804 35 D- 2855 A few Gammarus, debris light

29 Apr 1243 24 A- 47315 A few Gammarus

1239 24 A- 40845 A few Gammarus, few pieces of weed 1236 35 D- 49555 A few Gammarus, small amount of aquatic 

### vegetation. 1233 35 D- 1325 A few Gammarus, small amount of vegetation

30 Apr 1626 24 A- 45640 Few Gammarus 

### and light debris

1623 24 A- 800 38785 Few Gammarus 

### and light debris 1618 35 D- 19930 48155 Few Gammarus 

### and light debris
1614 35 D. 520 Few Gammarus 

### with bits of detritus and leaves

3 May 0730 24 A- 375 I 06460 Gammarus, little debris

0726 24 A- 225 87830 Gammarus, little debris 0722 35 D- 53150 104450 Gammarus, small quantity of detritus 0718 35 D- 2360 Gammarus, 

### leaves, bits of detritus

### TEST FRAME OBSERVATION INFORMATION - 

### FINE MESH BARRIER NET EVALUATION STUDY

1993 (Page 2 of 2)

DATE 

### TSK METER REVS 

### TIME TEST 

### PANEL INSIDE OurSIDE COMMENTS

4 May 1 oo5 24 A- 285 43595 Gammnrus, light debris

1 oo3 24 A- 3535 34670 Gammnrus, light debris 1Ooo 35 D- 23210 44620 Gammnrus, a few leaves 0956 35 D- 2720 Gammarus, a few leaves, and light debris
6 May 0710 24 A- 31435 Gammnrus very light debris

0712 24 A- 3330 64195 Gammnrus, light debris 0715 35 D- 19380 77525 Light debris 0707 35 D- 940 Small quantity of detritus
11 May 0916 24 A- Few leaves and Gammnrus, small bits of aquatic vegetation, some fine sediment 0917 24 A- Few leaves and Gammarus, small bits of aquatic vegetation, some fine sediment 0918 35 D- Few leaves and Gammarus, small bits of aquatic vegetation, some fine sediment 0915 35 D- Few leaves and Gammarus small bits of aquatic vegetation. some fine sediment
18 May 0957 24 A- Few Gammnrus, little detritus (bits of weed)

1Ooo 24 A- Little detritus (slightly heavier than 24 A- UT)
1 oo2 35 D- Debris load light , however, heavier than 24 A- UT, small bits of weed 0954 35 D- Few Gammnrus, 

### pieces of wood spread around net- light
25 May 09oo 24 A- Debris light

0902 24 A- Debris light 0904 35 D- Debris light 0859 35 D- Brown slimy material on mesh, light debris load

1 Jun 1039 24 A- Light debris

1040 24 A- Light debris 1042 35 D- Light debris 1038 35 D- Light debris

15 Jun 1039 24 A- Leaves and algae - approximately 70- 75 % clogged

1042 24 A- Some leaves, brown algae - approximately 35 % clogged 1045 35 D- Leaves - brown algae - approximately 50% clogged greater clogging at bottom of net 1030 35 D- Leaves and brown filamentous algae - approximately 60% clogged

### IT ACHMENT 4


### COOLING WATER INTAKE PUMP ENTRAINMENT

COLLECTION INFORMATIONBOWLINE POINT FINE MESH BARRIER NET EVALUATION STUDYICHTHYOPLANKTON COLLECTION INFORMATIONENTRAINMENT PUMP SAMPLES19-Jul-93Unit 1100110:2736.83 II 733.27.162,923.Unit 22O-Jul-93Unit 1100615:1432.17 I31.31.62.Unit 221-Jul-93Unit 1100916:5535.26 I28.428.4Unit 222-Jul-93Unit 1101016:1435.88 IUnit 223-Jul-93Unit 1101508:0434,07 I146.29.4176.Unit 2Unit 1101911:5734.07 I29.29.4Unit 2Unit 1102314:5035.39 I28.28.56,Unit 226-Jul-93Unit 1103011:2135.86 I27.27.Unit 2Unit 1103413:2034.07 I29.429.4Unit 2Unit 1103715:1634,07 IUnit 227-Jul-93Unit 1103908:3534,07 I29.429.4Unit 2Unit 1104311:1734,07 I29.29.4Unit 2Unit 1104914:1034,07 IUnit 228-Jul-93Unit 1105208:2234.29.458.88.Unit 2105309:1634,Unit 1106112:5234.Unit 2105711:5834.Unit 1106314:3134,29.429.4Unit 2106615:1534.Unit 1107110:2234.29.429.4Unit 2106708:3534.Unit 1107211:3734.Unit 2107612:2531.Unit 1107914:5034.Unit 2108115:5022,3O-Jul-93Unit 1108208:1534.234,29.4264,Unit 2108608:5934.Unit 1109011:5034.Unit 2108711:0734,BOWLINE POINT FINE MESH BARRIER NET EVALUATION STUDYICHTHYOPLANKTON COLLECTION INFORMATIONENTRAINMENT PUMP SAMPLESUnit 1Unit 2109202-Aug-93Unit 11100Unit 21096Unit 11102Unit 21105Unit 11110Unit 2110603-Aug-93Unit 11114Unit 21111Unit 11118Unit 21120Unit 11125Unit 2112204-Aug-93Unit 11130Unit 2112705-Aug-93Unit 11135Unit 21133Unit 11139Unit 2114006-Aug-93Unit 11141Unit 21142Unit 11145Unit 209-Aug-93Unit 1Unit 21147Unit 1Unit 21151BN-OUT1152Unit 1Unit 21157BN-OUT11561D-Aug-93Unit 1Unit 21162BN-OUT1161Unit 1Unit 21167BN-OUT1166Unit 1Unit 21172BN-OUT117111-Aug-93Unit 114:02 34.09:30 34.08:50 34.12:07 34.12:48 34.15:27 34.14:40 34,08:55 34,08:13 34.11 :38 34.12:16 34.15:20 34.14:42 34.16:30 22.15:08 34.10:30 34.09:51 34.14:37 34.15:14 34.09:28 30.11:02 . 30.14:22 30.08:1034.11:3534,12:3534.14:5634.14:5634,09:4334.09:3834.12:0734.12:0034.14:4334.14:3534.29.429.4.,.BOWLINE POINT FINE MESH BARRIER NET EVALUATION STUDYICHTHYOPLANKTON COLLECTION INFORMATIONENTRAINMENT PUMP SAMPLESUnit 2117609:4334.BN-OUT117709:5034,Unit 1Unit 2118212:1834,BN-OUT118112:1134.Unit 1Unit 2118714:3934.BN-OUT118614:3034.12-Aug-Unit 1Unit 2119413:1336.BN-OUT119513:1334,Unit 1Unit 2119915:3339,BN-OUT120015:3334.13-Aug-Unit 1Unit 2120409:4436.BN-OUT120509:4434,Unit 1Unit 2120912:1436.BN-OUT121012:1434.Unit 1Unit 2121414:4036.BN-OUT121514:4034.16-Aug-Unit 1Unit 2121608:3534.BN-OUT121708:4034,Unit 1Unit 2122113:3034.BN-OUT122213:3734.NA = Not analyzedBN-QUT = Pump sample collected outside of the barrier net....t:C(j Z1-3t/)t""t/)3::t:T'JBOWLINE POINT FINE MESH BARRIER NET EVALUATION STUDYICHTHYOPLANKTON COLLECTION INFORMATION5M PLANKTON NET SAMPLESNORTH106414:3927.SOUTH106214:3031.INSIDE106514:5834.29-Jul-NORTH106908:5028.SOUTH106808:4233.INSIDE107009:1234.NORTH107412:0030.SOUTH107311 :5235.INSIDE107512:1834.NORTH107814:4027.SOUTH107714:3431.71INSIDE108015:0131.413O-Jul-NORTH108408:2928,SOUTH108308:2332,INSIDE108508:5432,NORTH108911 :3126.SOUTH108811 :2434.INSIDE109111:5632.NORTH109414:1828,SOUTH109314:1334,INSIDE109514:3733,02-Aug-NORTH109809:0728.SOUTH109709:0031.INSIDE109909:2935,NORTH110312:0925.SOUTH110112:0435.INSIDE110412:2835.NORTH110814:5627.SOUTH110714:5138.INSIDE110915:1333.03-Aug-NORTH111509:0014,SOUTH111308:5431.INSIDE111208:3930.NORTH111711:3527,SOUTH111611 :3135,INSIDE111911 :5230.NORTH112414:5826,SOUTH112314:5333,INSIDE112114:3531.4104-Aug-NORTH112915:1626.SOUTH112815:1032,INSIDE112614:5531.7105-Aug-NORTH113209:3027,SOUTH113109:2534,INSIDE113410:0127,32.32.35.29,191,310.92,92,111.31.069.87.105,96,83.29.31.35.29,159.310,61.961.111.31.31.030.31.069.87.105.64.83,32.29.31.BOWLINE POINT FINE MESH BARRIER NET EVALUATION STUDYICHTHYOPLANKTON COLLECTION INFORMATION5M PLANKTON NET SAMPLES-~~NORTH113813:4330.SOUTH113713:4033.INSIDE113613:2726,06-Aug-NORTH114414:1424,SOUTH114314:1028,INSIDE114614:3130.09-Aug-NORTH114909:1425.SOUTH114809:0827.INSIDE115009:3131.41NORTH115514:2027.SOUTH115414:1631.41INSIDE115314:0632.116008:2733.10-Aug-NORTHSOUTH115908:2234.INSIDE115808:1031.41NORTH116511:3030,SOUTH116411 :2532.INSIDE116311 :1432.NORTH117014:0029,SOUTH116913:5535,INSIDE116813:4234,11-Aug-NORTH117508:4825.SOUTH117408:4130.INSIDE117308:2733.NORTH118011:3025.SOUTH117911 :2531.INSIDE117811 :1338.NORTH118513:5728.SOUTH118413:5332.INSIDE118313:4237.12-Aug-NORTH118908:3025.SOUTH118808:2431.INSIDE119008:5432.NORTH119612:1826.SOUTH119312:1430.INSIDE119112:0131,NORTH119714:5128.SOUTH119614:4729.INSIDE119815:0528.13-Aug-NORTH120208:4827.SOUTH120108:4432.INSIDE120309:0332.NORTH120811:4325,SOUTH120711:3829,INSIDE120611 :2532,31.31.30.430.4t:I:1trjI:'trj:r=3::tr1..,0'\BOWLINE POINT FINE MESH BARRIER NET EVALUATION STUDYICHTHYOPLANKTON COLLECTION INFORMATION5M PLANKTON NET SAMPLES,~!I. ,'" ::mmm::#;~:m;W:#WmN::::::JI!.\'ilf.II~I;111111~11111NORTH121313:5424.SOUTH121213:4929.INSIDE121113:3831.16-Aug-NORTH121912:1127.SOUTH121812:0432.47INSIDE122012:2632.NS = No SampleNA = Not Analyzed36.436.4

### WATER QUALITY INFORMATION



## BOWLINE POINT FINE MESH BARRIER NET EVALUATION PROGRAM- 

## 1993

SPECIFIC DISSOLVED SECCHI WATER TEMP CONDUCTANCE SALINITY 

### OXYGEN DISK 

### DATE 

## TIME DEPTH 

## Celsius umhos/cm 

### 25 C 

### (ppt) (mgfl

MID 

### 25. 

## 0500 BOT 

### 25. 

## 11000 

## 20 JUL
21 JUL NS 

# 22 JUL 1709 SUR 

### 25. 

## 10080

MID 

### 24. 

## 10100 BOT 

### 24. 

## 10100 

# 23 JUL 0949 SUR 24. 

## 11000 90.

MID 

### 24. 

## 11000 BOT 

### 24. 

## 10000
1230 SUR 

### 24. 

## 11100 83. MID 

### 24. 

## 11100 BOT 

### 24. 

## 11100
1528 SUR 

### 25. 

## 10000 80. MID 

### 24. 

## 10900 BOT 

### 24. 

## 10900 

# 26 JUL 0912 SUR 24. 

## 9800 81.

MID 

### 24. 

## 9900 BOT 

### 24. 

## 0200
1300 SUR 25. 

## 10000 76. MID 

### 25. 

## 0200 BOT 

### 24. 

## 10200
1536 SUR 

### 25. 

## 10000 

## 7.4 76. MID 

### 25. 

## 0000 BOT 

### 24. 

## 10000 

# 27 JUL 0935 SUR 24. 

## 10000 88.

MID 

### 24. 

## 0200 BOT 

### 24. 

## 0200
1145 SUR 25. 

## 9900 78.

### WATER QUALITY INFORMATION



## BOWLINE POINT FINE MESH BARRIER NET EVALUATION PROGRAM- 

## 1993
SPECIFIC DISSOLVED 

### SECCHI 

## WATER CONDUCTANCE SALI N!TV 

### OXYGEN DISK 

### DATE 

## TIME DEPTH umhos/cm 

## 25C

MID 

### 24. 

## 0000 BOT 

### 24. 

## 10000
1440 SUR 

### 24. 

## 10000 83. MID 

### 25, 

## 10000 BOT 

### 24. 

## 0200
28 JUL 

### 1040 SUR 

### 25. 

## 9500 

## 86.4

MID 

### 25. 

## 9500 BOT 

### 25. 

## 10000 

## 6.4 1240 SUR 

### 26. 

## 9800 

## 7.4 76. MID 

### 26. 

## 9800 BOT 

### 24. 

## 10000
1505 SUR 26. 

## 9500 81. MID 

### 26. 

## 9500 BOT 

### 25, 

## 9800
29 JUL 

## 0925 SUR 26. 

## 9000 81.

MID 

### 25. 

## 9200 BOT 

### 25. 

## 9600 

## 5.4
1225 SUR 26, 

## 9000 88. MID 

### 26. 

## 9000 

## 7.4 BOT 

### 25. 

## 9500
1515 SUR 

### 27. 

## 9100 81. MID 

### 26. 

## 9400 BOT 

### 26. 

## 9400 

## 7.4
30 JUL 

## 0905 SUR 26. 

## 9200 

## 8.4 96.

MID 

### 25. 

## 9600 BOT 

### 25, 

## 10000
1125 SUR 

### 26. 

## 9200 95. MID 

### 25. 

## 9300 BOT 

### 25. 

## 9800
1445 SUR 

### 26. 

## 9300 

## 86.4

## WATER QUALITY INFORMATION



## BOWLINE POINT FINE MESH BARRIER NET EVALUATION PROGRAM- 

## 1993
SPECIFIC 

## DISSOLVED SECCHI WATER CONDUCTANCE SALI N ITY 

### OXYGEN DISK 

### DATE 

## TIME DEPTH 

## umhos/cm 

## 25C m /I

MID 

### 25. 

## 9300 BOT 

### 25. 

## 9600


## 2AUG 0940 SUR 25. 

## 9000 73.

MID 

### 25. 

## 9200 BOT 

### 25. 

## 9400
1235 SUR 26. 

## 9100 

## 86.4 MID 

### 26. 

## 9000 

## 7.4 BOT 

### 25. 

## 9500
1525 SUR 

### 25. 

## 9200 

## 8.4 73. MID 

### 25. 

## 9200 

## 7.4 BOT 

### 25. 

## 9500


## 3AUG 0910 SUR -26. 

## 9200 73.

MID 

### 26. 

## 9200 BOT 

### 25. 

## 9200
1200 SUR 26, 

## 9000 

## 7.4 88. MID 

### 26. 

## 9200 BOT 

### 26. 

## 9300
1445 SUR 

### 27. 

## 9000 88. MID 

### 26. 

## 9100 BOT 

### 25. 

## 9800


## 4AUG 1525 SUR 

### 26. 

## 8200 82.

MID 

### 26. 

## 8500 BOT 

### 25. 

## 8950


## 5AUG 100 SUR 26. 

## 8500 

## 6.4 114.

MID 

### 25. 

## 8600 

## 6.4 BOT 

### 25. 

## 8800
1335 SUR 

### 26. 

## 8500 121. MID 

### 26. 

## 8500 BOT 

### 26. 

## 8500


## 6AUG 143 SUR 25. 

## 8000 111.

### WATER QUALITY INFORMATION



### BOWLINE POINT FINE MESH BARRIER NET EVALUATION PROGRAM- 

## 1993
SPECIFIC 

## DISSOLVED SECCHI WATER CONDUCTANCE SALINITY 

### OXYGEN DISK 

### DATE 

## TIME DEPTH 

## umhos/cm 

## 25C m /I

MID 

### 25. 

## 8200 

## 7.4 BOT 

### 25. 

## 8300


## 9AUG 0935 SUR 25. 

## 7500 88.

MID 

### 25. 

## 8000 BOT 

### 25. 

## 8000
1430 SUR 

### 25, 

## 7500 

## 86.4 MID 

### 25. 

## 7500 

## 7.4 BOT 

### 25. 

## 8000


## 10AU 0830 SUR 25. 

## 7100 106.

MID 

### 25. 

## 7100 BOT 

### 25. 

## 7800
1140 SUR 

### 25. 

## 7100 88. MID 

### 25. 

## 7100 BOT 

### 25. 

## 7800
1410 SUR 

### 26. 

## 7700 73. MID 

### 25. 

## 7800 BOT 

### 25. 

## 7900

11 AU 

### 0900 SUR 25. 

## 7100 104.

MID 

### 25. 

## 7100 BOT 

### 25. 

## 8000
1145 SUR 

### 25. 

## 7100 81. MID 

### 25. 

## 7100 BOT 

### 25. 

## 7500
1410 SUR 

### 25. 

## 7200 71. MID 

### 25. 

## 7100 

## 7.4 BOT 

### 25. 

## 8000


## 12AU 0900 SUR 24. 

## 5500 96.

MID 

### 24. 

## 6900 BOT 

### 24. 

## 7200
1225 SUR 

### 24. 

## 7000 96.

### WATER QUALITY INFORMATION

BOWLINE POINT FINE MESH BARRIER NET EVALUATION PROGRAM- 

## 1993

SPECIFIC 

## DISSOLVED SECCHI WATER CONDUCTANCE SALINITY 

### OXYGEN DISK DATE 

## TIME DEPTH 

## umhos/em 

## 25C

MID 

### 24. 

## 7000 

## 7.4 BOT 

### 24. 

## 7100
1510 SUR 

### 24. 

## 7000 88. MID 

### 24. 

## 7000 BOT 

### 24. 

## 7000

13 AU 

## 091 SUR 24. 

## 7000 106.

MID 

### 24. 

## 7000 

## 7.4 BOT 

### 24. 

## 7100
1155 SUR 

### 25. 

## 7200 96. MID 

### 24. 

## 7200 BOT 

### 24. 

## 7800
1405 SUR 

### 26. 

## 7200 94. MID 

### 25. 

## 7300 BOT 

### 24. 

## 7500
16AU 1215 SUR 

### 26. 

## 8400 88.

MID 

### 25. 

## 8900 BOT 25. 

## 9100


## 18AU 1150 SUR 

### 25. 

## 9000 127.

MID 

### 25. 

## 9500 BOT 

### 24, 

## 9500

### IT ACHMENT 7


### TOTAL LENGTH - BODY DEPTH MEASUREMENTS FOR BAY ANCHOVYLENGTII - DEPTH RELATIONSHIP FOR BAY ANCHOVY

FISH LENGTII DEPTIi FISH LENGTII D EPTH NUMBER (mm) (mm) NUMBER (mm) (mm)

10.

12. 1.2 10. 1.0 12. 1.2

10.

12, 1.1

10.

11.3

8.4

10.

100 101 12. 1.2 10, 102 10, 103 104 10S 106 107 12. 1.2 108 109 10. 110

III 11.2 1.0 112 10. 113 10, 114 10. liS 10. 1.0 116 10. 1.0 117 10. 118 119 10. 120 121 122 10. 123 124 13, 1.3 12S 12. 1.1 11, 1.0 126 127 15. 1.5 128 22. 2.7 129 130 13. 1.2 131 132 0.3 133 l3. 1.3

134 17. 1.6..,