\2-qc)

r:rnJ Hal yake Canal Response of .Juvenile Clupeids Louvers in the Holyoke Canal. Fall 1 992 February 1993 Prepared by Harza Engineering Company with RMC Environmental Services, Inc.r .. I -

, . - ,. I -

! - ( . r - i - Table of Contents

, - r .

; - I - .

, . I -TABLE OF CONTENTS USTOFTABIES

.................................................. ill USTOFFIGURES................................................. v SUMMARY

...................................................... IN1RODUcrION .................................................. 5 Background .................................................. 5 StudySite ................................................... 7 PriorStudies ................................................. 9 CurrentStudy

............................................... MElHODS

...................................................... Louver Array Guidance Efficiency

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Effect of Passage Through the Gatehouse on Guidance Efficiency

. . . . . . .. Collection, Holding, and Marking of Juvenile Clupeids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.. Collection

............................................. Holding............................................... Marking and releasing

.................................... SpeciesComposition

.......................................... Vertica1DistributionFykeNets

.................................. Clupeid Passage Under the Louver Array. .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Clupeid Passage Through the Louvers

............................. Bypass Faci1ity

............................................... Velocity Measurements ........................................ 26 Estimate of the Number of Unmarked Juvenile Clupeids Bypassed. . . . . .

.. Unmarked Juvenile Clupeid Passage Under and Through the Louver Array Proportions of Unmarked Juvenile Clupeids Bypassed

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. RESUL'fS .

...................................................... Evaluation of the Proportion of Marked Fish Guided by the Louver/Bypass System ............................................... Data Set Used to Estimate Bypass Efficiency. . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Estimate of Proportion of Marked Fish Guided by Louver Array

. . .. Species Composition and Length Frequency Analysis of Marked Fish ............................................ Evaluation of Proportion of Unmarked Juvenile Clupeid Guide by the Louver/BypassSystem.................................... 35 Number of Unmarked Juvenile Clupeid Passing Under and Through the Louver Array .................................. 36 Diel Pattern of Juvenile Clupeid Movement Through the Bypass

. . . . . . . .. Proportion of Unmarked Juvenile Clupeids Bypassed

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Vertical Distribution of Juvenile Oupeids In Holyoke Canal Upstream from the Louver Array

................................... Immediate Mortality of Fish Collected at BCF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Velocity Measurements

........................................ DISCUSSION

.................................................... CONCLUSIONS

.................................................. LITERATURE CITED

............................................. APPENDIX A Fish Collection and Holding Data APPENDIX B Velocity Measurements APPENDIX C Daily Collections of Unmarked Clupeids by Gear APPENDIX D Holyoke Canal Flows ATTACHMENT Plan of Study, Agency Correspondence , and Nusco Responses 1992 Holyoke Canal Juvenile Clupeids Report VSA March 25 , 1993Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. Table 10. Table 11. Table 12.

LIST OF TABLES Recapture times of marked clupeids in the Holyoke Canal bypass collection facility Recapture and percent bypassed of marked clupeids (corrected for bypass collection facility efficiency) released below the gatehouse of the Holyoke Canal Recapture and percent bypassed of marked clupeids (corrected for bypass collection facility efficiency) released above the gatehouse of the Holyoke Canal Bypass collection facility efficiency tests Oupeids released in Holyoke Canal and recaptured at Hadley Falls Percentage and mean fork lengths of blueback herring and American shad in subsamples of louver /bypass efficiency test fish taken before release into the Holyoke Canal Percentage and mean fork lengths of blueback herring and American shad in subsamples of louver/bypass efficiency test fish recaptured in Holyoke Canal Bypass Facility Independent sample t-test results for differences in lengths of captured fish at the behind the louver gill nets, under louver tyke nets , and the vertical distribution nets Numbers of marked clupeids passing under and through the louvers corrected for area sampled by the net Estimated number of unmarked clupeids passing under the louver during concurrent sampling at the Holyoke Canal , corrected for area and gear efficiency Estimated number of unmarked clupeids passing through the louvers during concurrent sampling at the Holyoke Canal , corrected for area and gear efficiency Estimated total number of juvenile clupeids diverted through Holyoke Canal Bypass 1992 Holyoke Canal JUYeDiIe Qupeids Report VSA March 24, 1993 IIITable 13. Table 14. Table 15. Table 16.

Mean number of clupeids bypassed during diel samples at Holyoke Canal Fall 1992 Estimated number of unmarked clupeids passing through the bypass during concurrent sampling at the Holyoke Canal (corrected for bypass collection facility efficiency) Capture of unmarked clupeids in the vertical distribution nets during concurrent samples at the Holyoke Canal Average of the velocity measurements take along the length of the louvers in Holyoke Canal, Fall 1992 1992 Holyoke Canal JUYeDiIe Qupeids Report VSA March 24, 1993Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Figure 10. Figure 11. Figure 12. Figure 13. Figure 14.

LIST OF FIGURES General location plan Schematic illustration of Holyoke Canal Gatehouse Location of nets on louver array at Holyoke Canal during 1992 Plan of Holyoke Canal bypass and fish sampling facilities Schematic diagram of tyke nets for sampling the vertical distribution of juvenile clupeids in Holyoke Canal during 1992 Schematic diagram of gill nets used to sample juvenile clupeids during 1992 Schematic diagram of tyke nets used for sampling juvenile clupeids passing under the louvers in Holyoke Canal during 1992 Holyoke Canal bypass collection facility Site of marked- fish releases for tests of the guidance efficiency of the bypass in Holyoke Canal during 1992 Elapsed time from release to recapture in the bypass of marked clupeids released above and below the gatehouse at Holyoke Canal , Fall 1992 Location of velocity measurements taken in Holyoke Canal during 1992 Relationship between estimated guidance efficiency and flow Mean hourly bypass rate of clupeids for seven diel samples, Holyoke Canal 1992 Hourly bypass rate of clupeids for diel samples at Holyoke Canal between September 24 and October 21 , 1992 1992 Holyoke Canal Juvenile Qupeids Report VSA March 24 , 1993\ - r -

, - ,-- - DOWNSTREAM PASSAGE OF JUVENILE CLUPEIDS, FALL 1992

, . I .

, .SUMMARY The 1992 juvenile clupeid study was the first study of the permanent louvers with a completed bypass in the Holyoke Canal. The primary objectives of the study were to: Determine the proportion of juvenile clupeids guided by the louver array into the bypass. Estimate the number of juvenile clupeids that pass under or through the louvers; and, Determine the vertical distribution of juvenile clupeids in the canal as they approach the louvers. During the course of addressing these three primary objectives, the following three items

were determined. The total number of juvenile clupeids moving through the bypass; The diel pattern of juvenile clupeid movement through the bypass; and The effect of fish passing through the gatehouse on guidance efficiency. In response to agency comments on the Plan of Study, the mortality of juvenile clupeids attributable to the bypass collection facility was also evaluated qualitatively. The louver array consisted of a 40-ft section of full- depth louvers and a 400- ft section of louvers that extended about nine feet below the water surface. The clear opening between 1992 Holyoke Canal JUYeDiIe Qupeids RepOrt VSA

March 24, 1993slats was 2- 3/8 inches for the full depth louvers and 2 inches for the 9- ft louvers. The bypass consisted of an intake , a 36- inch diameter , 550-ft long pipe , and fish sampling facility. The hydraulic capacity of the bypass is about 150 cis. The proportion of juvenile clupeids guided by the louver array into the bypass, derived from

test releases of marked fish, is estimated to be about 76 percent based on mark/recapture tests performed between September 28 and November 6, 1992. The tests were performed by releasing marked fish downstream from the gatehouse. An additional

18 tests were performed in which the marked fish were released upstream from the

gatehouse. However , these tests were found to be invalid because an undetermined number of the released fish did not enter the canal. Therefore , these tests were not included in the estimate of the proportion guided by the louver array. The proportion of juvenile clupeids guided by the louver array, derived from naturallymigrating unmarked fish , is estimated to be about 86 percent (1 505 000 while the bypass collection facility and canal nets were being fished concurrently). The proportion bypassed was developed using the numbers of unmarked fish diverted to the bypass , the numbers of unmarked fish collected in the tyke and gill nets, and the respective gear efficiencies determined from the test releases of marked fish. A series of three tyke nets was fished at fixed locations under the louver array to determine if juvenile clupeids passed underneath the louvers. Similarly, five experimental gill nets 1992 Holyoke Canal Juvenile Qupelds Report VSA

March 24, 1993were set behind the louver array to determine the number of fish passing through the louvers. Using results of the test releases of marked juvenile clupeids to estimate the gear efficiencies of the under- louver tyke nets (0. 131) and the through- louver gill nets(0. 0032), an estimated 14% (250, 000) of the fish passed through or under the louver array during the concurrent sampling periods. Of these , 1% (19, 000) of the clupeids passed under the louvers and an estimated 13% (231 000) clupeids passed through the louver array. An array of four tyke nets was fished vertically approximately 585- ft downstream of the gatehouse to determine the vertical distribution of clupeids approaching the louvers. Two nets were fish at a depth down to 8 feet and two nets were fished at a depth below 8 feet to estimate the distribution of fish in the water column. Approximately 60 percent of the fish captured in the vertical nets were at depths less than 8 feet. The estimated number of juvenile clupeids bypassed during the emigration period from September 28 to November 6, based on daily catch and 24- hour samples , was approximately 709 000 clupeids , consisting of 1 466, 000 blueback herring and 243, 000 American shad. This is an estimated 86% of all clupeids entering the canal. Of the estimated number of fish diverted by the louvers, approximately 85 percent emigrated between 1700 and 2100 hours throughout the study. The remainder emigrated through the bypass during the rest of the day in a relatively uniform rate through the daylight hours as determined from seven 24- hour samples. 1992 Holyoke Canal Juvenile Qupeids Report VSA March 24, 1993Immediate mortality of fish using the bypass and collected in the fish sorting trough was very low. Although not designed as a mortality study, of the 3 300 marked clupeids taken from the bypass collection facility for tests at Hadley Falls Station, only 23 (0. 7%) died during the minim um period of 24 hours they were maintained in holding pools. 1992 Holyoke Canal JUYeDiIe Qupeids Report VSA

March 24, 1993INTRODUCTION Background A joint state and federal effort has been underway for more than 20 years to restore anadromous fishes , specifically American shad, Alosa sapidissima, and Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar. to the Connecticut River (NUSCO 1987). Holyoke Water Power Company (HWP) began operating a fish lift for upstream passage of these species at the Holyoke Project in 1955, 11 years prior to the commencement of the restoration program (NUSCO

1987). Most of the effort prior to 1975 had been to provide upstream passage for these species at the Holyoke Dam. Following completion of the upstream passage facilities in 1975 , HWP commenced experimenting with downstream passage facilities in the canal. successful bypass facilities for emigrating adult shad was developed and constructed by HWP in 1980. The number of adult shad returning to spawn in the Connecticut River has risen steadily, indicating the success of these efforts. Attention is now focused on the downstream passage of all anadromous fishes at this hydroelectric facility. On February 26 , 1988 , the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FER C) issued Articles 42 through 44 of the Holyoke Project License (Project No. 2004) regarding downstream

passage of anadromous fishes. Northeast Utilities Service Company (NUSCO), filed a

1992 Holyoke Canal Juvenile Qupeids Report VSA

March 24, 1993Compliance Plan in response to the Articles on May 23, 1988. Additionally, NUSCO, in 1990, signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission committing to construction of downstream fish passage facilities for anadromous fishes at NUSCO' s Connecticut River

hydroelectric facilities. In the Connecticut River , clupeids (American shad and blueback herring) spawn from early May through mid- June , depending on water temperatures. The juveniles remain in the river throughout the summer and usually begin their downstream migration in September. Water temperature is one of the primary environmental parameters associate with the commencement of emigration (O' Leary 1984; O' Leary and Kynard 1986). Emigration begins when water temperature declines to 19 D C, usually by mid- September , and continues

into early November. Marcy (1976) noted that most juvenile c1upeids had left the river prior to water temperature reaching 6 D Daily movements of juvenile clupeids in the Connecticut River occur primarily in late afternoon and evening, peaking between 1700 hours and 2200 hours (O' Leary and Kynard 1986). Juvenile clupeids appear to emigrate in schools (O' Leary and Kynard 1986), within the top two meters of the water column (Buckley and Kynard 1985). 1992 Holyoke Canal Juvenile Qupeids Report VSA

March 24, 1993Study Site The study was conducted at the Holyoke Project (formerly called the Hadley Falls Project), which is located on the Connecticut River , river mile 86 , in the City of Holyoke Massachusetts. Emigrating fish that approach the Holyoke Project must follow one of four possible paths to pass downstream: 1) over the crest of the dam when river flows are high enough that spilling is occurring; 2) over the Bascule gate, which is opened during critical emigration periods; 3) through the Hadley Falls Station; or 4) through the Holyoke Canal system. The Holyoke Canal system is comprised of a series of three canals, with the First Level canal being at the same elevation (elevation 100 Holyoke datum) as the Hadley Falls pool , and the Second and Third Level canals being at El. 80 and El. 67. 5, respectively (Figure 1). The flow into the First Level canal is controlled by a gatehouse, located approximately 200 feet upstream and to the west of the Holyoke Dam. Flow through the gatehouse is regulated by 10 of 12 bottom-opening gates (Figure 2). Two gates, one at each end of the gatehouse, are kept closed. Maximum flow through the First Level Canal is

approximately 7, 000 cfs. To divert fish out of the canal system to the river , a louver array leading to a bypass has been constructed in the First Level Canal (Figure 3). Construction of the permanent louvers was completed in August, 1992. The bypass facility (Figure 4) was designed to pass emigrating fish from the Holyoke Canal to the tailrace of the Hadley Falls Station, a drop of approximately 52 feet. The bypass facility consists of three components, an intake structure, a pipeline and a bypass collection 1992 Holyoke C8DIII JUYeDiIe Qupeidl Report VSA March 24 , 1993facility (BCF). The design flow of the structure is approximately 150 cis at a normal canal

- ~ elevation of 100.

---' r-- The intake structure is located on the left bank of the canal approximately 950 feet downstream of the canal headworks. The bypass entrance is approximately 8 feet deep and 5 feet wide having a nominal entrance velocity of 3. 8 ft/sec, approximately 1.5 times the velocity in the canal at a canal flow of 7, 000 cis. The throat of the bypass intake is 18 feet long and has provisions for the insertion of Venturi- like restrictors that enable the entrance velocity to be increased. The transition to the pipeline is at the downstream end of the bypass intake. The pipeline is 36 inches in diameter and is 550 feet long. At the intake structure , the pipe make a combination 300 vertical and 1200 horizontal bend. The pipeline is buried for the first 120 feet, above ground for the next 320 feet and is buried for the remaining 110 feet. The bypass collection facility (BCF) is located on the right bank of the Hadley Falls tailrace approximately 380 feet downstream of the powerhouse. The structure has provisions for separating the fish from the bypass flow and diverting them to a 5, 000- gallon collecting pool. The separation is accomplished using a guide vane that can be lowered into the flow just downstream of the end of the pipeline. The fish and water are guided to a wedge- wire screen, through which most of the water is shed. A small portion of the flow with the fish is passed over a weir at the downstream end of the screen and onto a sorting trough or into 1992 Holyoke Canal JUYeDiIe Qupeids Report VSA March 24 , 1993the collecting pool. When there is no need to sample the fish , the diversion vane is lifted and the flow and fish are discharged directly into the tailrace. . The louver array consists of a 40-ft section of full- depth louvers and the remainder consists of 9- ft deep louvers. The clear opening between slats was 2- 3/8 inches at the full depth louvers and 2- inches at the 9- ft louvers. Prior Studies Prior to this study, a series of three studies was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of using floating louvers , 8 feet deep with a clear opening between slats of 2- 5/8 inches , to guide anadromous fishes to a location where a bypass could be constructed. The first of these studies was conducted using radio-tagged, hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon smolts in the spring of 1990 (NUSCO 1990). That study consisted of releasing small groups

comprised of approximately 10 fish each , at various locations above and below the gatehouse and determining what proportion of those fish were guided to a 15- ft wide gap at the end of the louver array. Results of this study indicated that approximately 90 percent of the smolts were guided to the gap at the end of the louver array. These tests were conducted at canal flows varying from 4 000 to 5, 200 cis.

In the fall of 1990 , a study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the louver array in guiding juvenile clupeids to a 6- ft wide wooden flume located at the end of the louver 1992 Holyoke Canal JuveaiIe Qupeids Report VSA

March 24, 1993array (Harza and BioSonics 1990). The bypass flume was simply an open ended trough with no means of bypassing fish or accelerating the flow. The effectiveness of the louvers was evaluated primarily using hydroacoustics and, to a lesser extent, using netting. Although the analyses of the hydroacoustic data were complicated by numerous factors, the results suggested that the success of the floating louver array in guiding fish to the bypass was highly variable, and that large numbers of fish may have passed underneath the louvers. In 1991 , the juvenile clupeid study at Holyoke was the first effort at evaluating the effectiveness of the completed floating louver bypass system. The overall mean guidance efficiency of the louver array for marked juvenile clupeids was 45 % (:t 20%), the weighted average guidance efficiency, based on wild fish captured in the collection facility and the under louver nets was 69%. Guidance efficiencies for fish released below the gatehouse were 60% and 84%, while guidance efficiencies for fish released above the gatehouse, inducted through the gate openings, ranged from 14% to 53%. During the spring of 1992 , the effectiveness of the floating louver array/bypass system in guiding Atlantic salmon smolts was tested using a combination of radio telemetry and marked fish releases. The tests were conducted for louver spacings of three inches and for spacings of twelve inches. In three tests conducted with the three inch spacings, the overall guidance efficiencies were 89%, 90% and 95%, respectively, with a mean of 91.3%. The overall guidance efficiencies in three tests conducted with the twelve inch spacings were 1992 Holyoke Canal JUYeDiIe Qupeids Report VSA

March 24, 199386%, 63%, and 90%, respectively, with a mean guidance efficiency of 79. 7% (Northeast Utilities 1992). Current Study The juvenile clupeid study conducted during the fall of 1992 was the first effort to evaluate the effectiveness of the permanent, fixed louver/bypass system completed in August, 1992. There were seven objectives of the 1992 Holyoke Canal Juvenile Clupeid Study as stated in the Plan of Study: Determine the proportion of clupeids guided by the louver array into the bypass. Estimate the number of juvenile clupeids that pass under or through the louvers; and, Determine the vertical distribution of juvenile c1upeids in the canal as they approach the louvers. During the course of addressing these three primary objectives, the following four items

were determined: The total number of juvenile clupeids moving through the bypass; The diel pattern of juvenile clupeid movement through the bypass; The effect of fish passing through the gatehouse on guidance efficiency; and Preliminary indication of the immediate mortality of juvenile clupeidspassing through the bypass. The Plan of Study is presented in Attachment 1992 Holyoke Canal JUYeDiIe Qupeids Report VSA March 24, 1993METHODS To respond to the seven objectives , four different fish collection gears were used: 1) Four tyke nets fished in a vertical array upstream of the louvers (Figure 5); 2) A series of five gill nets fished directly behind the louvers (Figure 6); 3) A series of three fyke nets fished at fixed locations underneath the partial louvers (Figure 7); and, 4) The BCF at the end of the louver/bypass system (Figure 8). Louver Array Guidance Efficiency The proportion of juvenile clupeids guided by the louvers into the bypass (= proportion bypassed) was determined using the mark/recapture technique. In a mark/recapture study, the number of fish approaching the louvers (N~ is known; hence, only the marked guided fish (NJ (recaptures) need to be enumerated to estimate the proportion guided. The equation used to determine the guidance efficiency (proportion bypassed) was: GE * 100 (1)

where: GE is the guidance efficiency, N R is the number of marked fish recaptured, NM is the total number of marked fish released , and NVN is the number of marked fish captured

in the vertical net array upstream from the louver/bypass system. Because the number recaptured in the BCF may not include all of the fish bypassed due to some inefficiency in

1992 Holyoke Canal JUYeDiIe Qupeids Report VSA

March 24 , 1993the collection process , the actual number collected must be corrected in the following manner: BCF

(2) where: nR is the actual number collected in the BCF and is the gear efficiency of the

BCF determined independently. The following assumptions were made to derive the bypass guidance efficiency: 1) All fish leaving the release pen used the canal as a passage route to arrive downstream of the louver- bypass system; 2) There was no loss of marked fish to predators; 3) All fish leaving the pen did so in response to being " ready to emigrate ; and, 4) All marked fish that entered the BCF sorting trough were observed and enumerated. Thirty- four groups of up to 500 marked fish were placed in release pens and allowed one

or two hours to " voluntarily " swim from the pen. The release pens were opened between 1700 hours and 2000 hours. After the fish were released , the BCF was fished for varying lengths of time depending on estimated travel time of the fish emigrating through the canal. In all cases, the BCF was fished for a period of at least one half hour after the last marked fish was captured. In preparing each group for release , a total of up to 600 marked juvenile c1upeids were removed from the holding facilities (see " Collection, Holding, and Marking of Juvenile 1992 Holyoke Canal Juvenile Qupeids Report VSA

March 24, 1993Clupeids" ) and placed in containers for transport to the release site. Prior to releasing, 100 fish were removed from the group, measured and identified to species. After the fish were released, the first 100 recaptured marked fish were identified to species and the fork lengths measured. These pre- and post-release determinations were conducted to evaluate whether shad and herring are guided to the bypass in different proportions or different sizes of fish are diverted. Effect of Passage Through the Gatehouse on Guidance Efficiency To determine the effect of passage through the gatehouse on the proportion of juvenile clupeids guided by the louver array, 18 groups of marked fish were released from the log boom on the upstream side of the gatehouse near the middle of the entrance to the canal (as was done in 1991). An additional 16 groups of marked fish were released from the downstream side of the canal gatehouse near the middle of the canal. The release pen locations are shown on Figure 9. Collection , Holding, and Marking of Juvenile Clupeids Collection. The juvenile clupeids used in the mark/recapture tests were collected by two different methods. Prior to the capture of large numbers of juvenile clupeids in the Turners Falls Bypass Collection Facility, juvenile clupeids were collected by beach seining. 1992 Holyoke Canal JUYeDiIe Qupeids Report VSA March 24, 1993The seining site was the Oxbow , approximately six river miles upstream of Hadley Falls. The numbers of fish collected from each location are presented in Appendix A, Table AFish were seined by deploying a 200-ft long by 8- ft high, 1/4- inch mesh seine from a boat perpendicular to the shoreline and immediately retrieving it in an arc toward the shoreline. Juvenile c1upeids were sorted from other species and water braIDed into 20-gallon circular containers. Containers of fish were transported by boat to a transport truck and emptied into an oxygen-supplemented transport system. A maximum of 200 clupeids was held in each 20-gallon container. Fish were not held for more than 30 minutes in the 20- gallon containers before being transferred to the oxygenated transport system. Fish collected at Turners Falls were collected by brailling fish from the sorting table and enumerating them as they were placed in 50-gallon plastic containers. The 50- gallon containers were emptied into the tanks on the transport truck. The transport truck system consisted of four 50-gallon tanks, with oxygen supplied independently to each tank. Salinity in the transport tanks was maintained between six and eight parts- per- thousand (ppt). Transport time from the collection sites to the holding facility at Hadley Falls Station was approximately 15 minutes from the Oxbow , and 45 minutes from the Turners Falls Bypass Collection Facility. 1992 Holyoke Canal JUYeDiIe Qupeids Report VSA

March 24, 1993Holding. The holding facility at Hadley Falls consisted of five 3- ft deep x 12- diameter , 2, 500 gallon swimmin g pools. The pools were located under a wooden frame structure covered with a plywood/tar- paper roof. To help maintain water temperature during cold nights, removable black plastic walls were installed. The holding facility was operated primarily as a closed system. Water was circulated and filtered in each pool by two or three 330-gallon- per- hour carbon canister filters. In addition, filters supplied with the swimming pools were used to assist in particulate removal and water circulation. A salinity of four ppt was established in each pool prior to placing fish in the facility. Salinity

was maintained between two ppt and four ppt during holding. Water quality in each pool was monitored daily throughout the study (Appendix A, Table 2). Parameters measured , and action levels employed , were as follows: Parameter Action Level Temperature COC) 10 o C minimum (max. loT=2O Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 0 mg/L minimum Zero (4 ppt initial)

Salinity (ppt) minim Ammonia (un- ionized) 02 mg/L minimum If any of the parameters did not meet the specified action criteria, water in the affected pool was partially changed to restore acceptable water quality. As an additional water quality

1992 Holyoke Canal JUYeDiIe Qupelds Report VSA March 24 , 1993precaution, partial water changes were conducted at least weekly. Parameters were measured per manufacturer s instructions utilizing equipment listed below. Parameter Equipment Temperature eC) Hand- held thermometer Dissolved Oxygen(ppm) Yellow Springs Instruments Model 57

Salinity (ppt) Yellow Springs Instruments Model 33 Accumet Model 1001 Ammonia LaMott Chemical Model NANR/ AG35 Because fish were held for short periods of time feeding was not required; however, the pools were cleaned daily with a siphon-operated swimming pool vacuum.

The fish collected from each of the bypass collection facilities, and those fish collected by seining were held in separate collection facilities. The mortality of fish in the pools was recorded daily (Appendix A, Table A- I).

Marking and releasing. For marking, juvenile clupeids were concentrated in the holding pools with a 3- ft by 20-ft small mesh minnow seine. Either the top or bottom caudal fins were clipped. aipped fish were held for approximately 24 hours prior to being used in any tests. After clipping, 150 fish were held in each of four 50-gallon barrels with 1/4- inch holes throughout the top half of the barrels. (The holes allowed water to circulate 1992 Holyoke Canal Juvenile Qupeids Report VSA March 24, 1993

/'"through the barrels while they remained in the holding pools. ) Immediately prior to placing the fish in the release pen, the barrels were lifted from the holding pools and transported to the pen, where 100 fish were removed and the remaining 500 marked fish were carefully poured into the release pen. The fish were allowed to acclimate to the pen for a period of 30 to 90 minutes before the pen was put into the release position. Upon being placed in the release position, the fish were allowed to acclimate for 5 minutes before the pen door was opened. After a period of two hours (prior to Oct. 20) or one hour (on and after Oct. 20) the pen door was closed, and the fish remaining in the pen were removed and enumerated. The length of time that the pen was open was changed to one hour because it became apparent that most of the recaptures occurred during the first hour that the pen was open, indicating that those fish " ready to emigrate " left the pen quickly (Figure 10).

The release pen above the gatehouse was attached to the trash boom upstream of the gatehouse. The pen was stored in slack water tight against the boom until five minutes prior to release, when it was pulled ten feet downstream of the boom to an area where the flow was most likely to direct fish under the gatehouse and into the canal. After allowing five minutes for the c1upeids to adjust to the new location, the door was opened. The release pen in the canal was attached to a cable and pulley system positioned approximately 365 feet upstream from the be gjnnin g of the louver array. The pen was stored in slack water at the edge of the canal until five minutes prior to release , when it was 1992 Holyoke Canal JUYeDiIe Qupeidl Report VSA

March 24, 1993pulled into the center of the canal. After allowing five minutes for fish to adjust to the new location, the door was opened. Species Composition For each mark/recapture test, the fish to be marked and released were selected from one of the five holding pools. Because it was not possible to determine the species composition of the released fish without extensive handling prior to release, the species composition was determined from a subsample of the marked fish. The subs ample consisted of 100 randomly

selected marked c1upeids removed from the transport barrels immediately prior to putting test fish in the release pens. Vertical Distribution Fyke Nets The vertical distribution of naturally emigrating juvenile clupeids approaching the louver array was determined using a vertical array of tyke nets. Each of the four nets was identical having a mouth 5. 4 feet wide and 3. 5 feet deep and a length of 15 feet with a 6- ft long detachable cod end. The nets were constructed of a 1.5- inch stretch mesh outer liner and a O.5- inch stretch mesh inner liner covering the entire length of the net (Figure 5). Each net was attached to a steel frame. The nets were fished from a pre- fabricated tower , located approximately 100 feet downstream of the upstream end of the louvers and 50 feet from the right bank of the canal. The nets were set by lowering them down guide slots on the sides 1992 Holyoke Canal Juvenile Qupeids Report VSA

March 24, 1993of the tower. As each net was lowered, the next net frame was attached to the previous net frame to ensure that the nets were in the same position each time they were fished. An 18-

inch spacer was placed between the second and third nets to increase the depth that the third and fourth nets sampled. Net 1, the top net, fished from the surface to a depth of 3.5

feet; Net 2 fished from 3. 5 feet to 7 feet; Net 3 fished from depths of 8. 5 feet to 12 feet;

and, Net 4 , the bottom most net, fished from depths of 12 feet to 15. 5 feet. The nets were raised and lowered using a 12 Volt DC- powered winch. Approximately five minutes were required to raise and lower the nets. A General Oceanics volumetric flow meter was suspended in the mouth of each net at the center of each of the net frames. During the later portion of the study, the General Oceanic Volumetric Flow Meters were used on alternate days to test the effect on the efficiency of the nets. All sampled clupeids from each net were identified to species and measured to determine species composition and length frequency. The remaining fish were enumerated and

released. Because the vertical distribution nets were used only to determine the depths of clupeids approaching the louvers, it was determined that the sample times would not have to be concurrent with the bypass sampling; therefore attempts were made to always set the nets between 30 minutes and 15 minutes prior to sampling the bypass and pulled no later than

15 minutes after sampling at the bypass ended. 1992 Holyoke Canal Juvenile Qupeids Report VSA March 24, 1993Clupeid Passage Under the Louver Array A conclusion of the study conducted in 1991 was that a significant proportion of the juvenile clupeids moved under the floating louver array and, consequently, were not guided to the

bypass facility. The floating louver array was replaced in 1992 by the fixed louver array. To determine the number and proportion of fish moving under the fixed louver array, three tyke nets were deployed below the louvers (as was done in 1991). Estimates of the number of marked fish moving under the louver array were calculated using the numbers of marked fish collected in the tyke nets and corrected for the total area of canal flow that passed under the louvers. Each of the three nets were identical and consisted of a net body that had a 100ft wide by

12- ft deep mouth , and was 18 ft long with a 16- ft long detachable cod end. Although these nets did not reach the bottom of the canal , they fished the water column from the bottom of the louvers (9- ft depth) to 21 feet (approximately 3- ft from the bottom). The body of the net was constructed of 1.5- inch stretch mesh inner liner (Figure 7). A 40-ft long by 12-

deep lead , constructed of 3/4- inch stretch mesh with a float line and lead line , was attached to the net mouth. At the upstream end of the lead and on each side of the net mouth , 6- inch diameter rings were attached at 12- inch intervals. The nets were fished by attaching these rings to 12- inch diameter hoops that slid up and down 100inch diameter columns anchored to the bottom of the canal. The locations of the columns were such that the upstream end of the lead was located directly underneath the louvers, the downstream end 1992 Holyoke CaDal Juvenile Qupeid8 Report VSA March 24 , 1993of the lead was 10 feet behind the louvers , and the other side of the net mouth was directly underneath the louvers (Figure 7). The nets were raised and lowered by attaching the upstream end of the lead and the two sides of the net mouth to the hoops and lowering the bottom ring with a series of ropes and pulleys attached to the columns. To sample the nets, the cod ends were lifted to a boat, detached and replaced with an empty cod end.

subsample of up to 50 c1upeids was take to determine species compositions and length frequency of the collection in each net. To make the sampling of the under louvers nets as concurrent as possible with the BCF , it

was attempted to always set them within 15 minutes prior to the start of sampling at the BCF and to pull them within 15 minutes prior to the conclusion of sampling at the BCF. Based on the angle at which the nets were emplaced in the canal , each tyke net and lead combination sampled an area of 464. 76 ft2. The area subsampled by each of the three tyke nets was determined by summing the actual area sampled and 50% of the area between two adjacent nets. For Net one , the entire area between the edge of the net and the wall of the canal was included as part of the subsampled area. The area between Net three and the canal wall , where the louvers extended the entire 21 foot depth of the water column, was included as part of the area subsampled by the gill nets, not that of tyke Net three. Of the 800 ft2 area underneath the louvers, Net one subsampled 2 400 ft2 , Net two subsampled 440 ft2 , while Net three subsampled 960 ft2 Net one actually sampled 19.4% 1992 Holyoke Canal Juvenile Qupeids Report VSA

March 24, 1993(464. 76/2 400) of its 2 400 fp subsampling area, Net two sampled 32. 3% of its 1 440 ft2 subsampling area, while Net three sampled 48. 4% of its 960 ft2 subsampling area. Correction of the number of fish (marked and wild) collected in the tyke nets for the area sampled was accomplished in the following manner: R.,k.J =

l:.f.l , . 1

(3) where: N R,k,a is the estimated number of marked fish (R) passing under or through the louvers (k) during test s; ~i is the actual number of fish collected in the nets (i) set under

or behind the louvers (k) during each test s; j is the number of nets; ~ is the area represented by each net (i); and is the area sampled by the respective nets. Clupeid Passage Through the Louvers To determine if juvenile clupeids passed through the louvers, a series of five gill nets were fished directly behind the louvers (Figure 6). Each net was composed of alternating panels four of which were 3/4- inch stretch mesh and three of which were I- inch stretch mesh.

Each panel was 6- ft wide and 100ft deep, hung to a finished length of 35- ft and depth of 10-

ft. 1992 Holyoke Canal Juvenile Qupeids Report VSA March 24, 1993To keep the louver net sample times as concurrent as possible with the bypass sampler , the gill nets were set during the 15 minutes prior to the start of sampling at the bypass , and were pulled during the 15 minute period prior to the conclusion of sampling at the bypass collection facility. A subsample of up to 50 clupeids was taken to determine the species composition and length frequency. For each test, the numbers of fish collected in the gill nets were corrected for the area of the louver array. Each of the five gill nets fished behind the louvers sampled an area of 315 fp. The gill nets sampled areas that were 35 feet wide and 9 feet high for a total area 325 ftZ. Of the 4 440 ft2 total area of the louver array, the number of fish collected in Gill Net 1 represented the number of fish passing through 900 ft2 of the louver array; the numbers collected in Nets 2 , 3, and 4 represented 720 ft2 of the louver array each , and the numbers collected in Gill Net 5 represented the numbers passing through 1 380 ft2 of the louver area. Correction of the numbers of fish collected in the gill nets for the area of the louvers was accomplished using Equation 3. 1992 Holyoke Canal Juvenile Qupeids Report VSA March 24 , 1993Bypass Facility Fish that were guided by the louvers into the bypass during sampling were collected in the bypass collection facility sorting trough (Figure 8). These fish exited the bypass through an

inch diameter pipe leading to a 24- ft long sorting trough. Fish collected in the BCF were enumerated and checked for recaptures of marked fish. On occasions when there were too many fish on the sorting trough to observe each fish individually, fish were enumerated volumetrically using a small net. Each day that fish were counted in this manner , three sets of three netfulls were randomly collected; from these nine netfulls an average number per net was derived. Special attention was given so that approximately the same size netfull was

taken throughout the sample period. If , after a group of marked fish had been released , the number of fish collected precluded examining each fish individually for a mark, that release

was not included as a louver guidance efficiency test. Additionally, a subsample of up to 50 clupeids was taken from each hour sample to

determine the species composition and size distribution of that sample. The number of fish collected at the BCF during each sampling period were corrected for gear efficiency to obtain a more accurate estimate of the numbers of fish bypassed. This correction was accomplished as: 1992 Holyoke Canal Juvenile Qupeids Report VSA March 24, 1993BCF"J SCF"J SCF

(4) where: N BCF,a is the corrected number of marked fish collected at the BCF during sample period, s; n BCF,a is the actual number of marked fish collected; and is the collection efficiency of the BCF. The sampling efficiency of the bypass collection facility

(~) was determined by injecting 50 marked fish into the upstream end of the bypass pipe and recording the number of these fish collected in the sorting trough. This test was conducted 22 times throughout the study. BCF sampling efficiency was calculated as: R"J 8 - I M,I BCF

(5) where: is the collection efficiency of the BCF , n R,s is the raw number of fish collected (recaptured) in test s, and n M,a is the number of fish injected into the bypass pipe. Velocity Measurements To determine if the louvers and bypass system created the desired increase in velocity along the length of the louvers, a series of 21 measurements (Appendix B) were made using a

Marsh- McBirney Model 201 or Model 2000 mechanical flow meter. The velocity 1992 Holyoke Canal J_niIe Qupeids Report VSA March 24, 1993measurements were taken at a depth of three feet directly in front of the louvers and in the bypass intake (Figure 11). Estimate of the Number of Unmarked Juvenile Clupeids Bypassed To estimate the number of juvenile clupeids bypassed during the sampling period , the bypass collection facility was fished between 1700 hours and 2100 hours on 42 days , for 24 hours on 6 days, and 15 hours on October 8, when a 24- hour sample was cut short at 0800 due to

a lack of adequate river flows. The bypass collection facility was fished some additional

hours , as needed, for the mark/recapture tests. Estimation of the total number of clupeids bypassed required two steps: Estimation of the numbers bypassed between 1700 and 2100 hours during the study period , and extrapolation of those numbers to the entire day based on the diel pattern of captures in a 24- hour sampling series. The formulation of this

estimate was: W,

..:-.. BCF 4-Ar,d L.J . 1 4-Iv'

(6) where W B is the number of unmarked fish bypassed; W BCF, 4-br, d is the number of fish collected at the BCF during the 4- hour sampling period each day (d); and P 4-br is the proportion of the daily emigration of fish bypassed during the 4- hr sampling period between 1700 and 2100 hours derived from six 24- hour diel samples (See Below). 1992 Holyoke Canal JUYeDiIe Qupeids Report VSA

March 24, 1993Unmarked Juvenile CIupeid Passage Under and Through the Louver Array Estimates of the numbers of unmarked juvenile clupeids passing under and through the louver array are based on the numbers of unmarked fish collected in the under- louver tyke nets and the through- the- Iouver gill nets, respectively, and the estimates of the gear efficiencies derived from the test releases of marked fish. The numbers of recaptured , marked fish were used to determine the efficiency of the underlouver tyke nets , as well as the efficiency of the through-the- Iouver gill nets. The net efficiencies of the respective nets, in this context, is defined as the number of all marked fish collected in the respective nets divided by the number of marked fish released less the number collected in the BCF , the other nets and the vertical tower nets. Mathematically, the mean efficiencies for the under- louver tyke nets and the through- the- Iouver gill nets were calculated for the entire study period as: N R.k.I ' = I il,. - (E R.BCF,. + E R.YT,. + E N AA- .-1 .-1 .-1 .-1

(7) where: is the mean efficiencies for the tyke nets (f) and gill nets (g), respectively; N R,k,s and N R,k-l,s is the number of marked fish derived from Eq. 3 for the two gear collections (if k = tyke nets then k- l = gill nets) ; N M,s is the number of marked fish released to conduct test s; N R,BCF,a is the number of marked fish recaptured in the bypass collection facility (Eq. 1992 Holyoke Canal Juvenile Qupeids Report VSA

March 24, 19934) during test s; and N R,vr,a is the number of marked fish recaptured in the vertical tower nets in test s. Estimates of the total number of unmarked fish passing through or under the louvers were obtained by dividing the respective under and behind louver efficiencies into the total number of unmar ked fish captured by the under and through the louver nets: w.

- ~ k,.r L.J ,. I

(8) where: W L is the estimated number of unmarked fish passing through or under the louvers; W k,s is the estimated number of fish passing under or through the louvers during a sample period (s) corrected for sampling areas using Eq. 3 (substituting W k,a for N R,k,a and w k,s for R,k,s in the equation); and E.: is the gear efficiency from Eq. 7. Proportions of Unmarked Juvenile Clupeids Bypassed The overall guidance efficiency of the louver/bypass system for the unmarked fish (the proportion of unmarked fish bypassed) was estimated from the numbers of fish collected at the BCF the and in each of the sampling gears during the concurrent sampling corrected by the gear efficiencies calculated from the results of the test releases of marked fish. The

calculation is s ummarize d as: 1992 Holyoke Canal JUYeDiIe Qupeids Report VSA March 24 , 1993GE -

BCF,I = 1

W BCF,; + E

"/,; + ,,; I-I I-I I-I

(9) where: GEw is the estimated guidance efficiency of the louvers for the wild, unmarked fish;

W BCF b W f,b and W r,.i are the numbers of unmarked c1upeids collected during daily concurrent samples in the BCF (Eq. 4 , where W = N and w = n), under- louver fyke nets (Eq. 8) and

through- the- Iouver gillnets (Eq. 8), respectively. 1992 Holyoke Canal JUYeDiIe Qupeids Report VSA March 24, 1993RESULTS Results of the field investigations to evaluate the guidance efficiency of the louver /bypass system in the Holyoke Canal are comprised of mark-recapture data obtained from four sampling stations, as well as the numbers of unmarked fish collected by each of the sampling gears. The initial analysis focuses on the proportions of fish passing through the

louver/bypass system to estimate its overall guidance efficiency. Results of these proportional analyses are then used in conjunction with the numbers of unmarked fish collected in the bypass collection facility to estimate the total number of juvenile clupeids

entering the Holyoke Canal during the 1992 fall outmigration period. The field study was

initiated on September 15, 1992 and concluded November 2 , 1992. Evaluation or the Proportion or Marked Fish Guided by the Louver/Bypass System Data Set Used to Estimate Bypass Efficiency. The numbers of fish released during each test and the numbers of marked fish recaptured at the BCF by hour are presented in Table 1. The daily totals of fish collected in the under- louver nets, gill nets , vertical tower nets and the daily total BCF catch for the tests in which the releases were made downstream of the gatehouse are presented in Table 2. The fish collected in the tyke nets and gill nets were only counted on a daily basis (one collection per day). Results of recaptures in each of the sampling gear for tests in which the releases were made upstream from the gatehouse are presented in Table 3. The canal flow during each of the tests and numbers of fish

1992 Holyoke Canal JUYeDiIe Qupeids Report VSA

March 24, 1993collected at the BCF corrected for gear efficiency are included in Tables 2 and 3. These initial results from the test releases were then used to derive the gear efficiencies of the tyke and gill nets (See Below). The collection (gear) efficiency of the BCF is estimated to be 93 percent , based on 22 tests in which 50 marked juvenile clupeids were injected into the upstream end of the bypass and recaptured at the BCF. Results of the efficiency tests are presented in Table 4. Using this overall efficiency estimate, the numbers of fish collected at the BCF were corrected for gear efficiency by dividing the sum of the hourly BCF collections by 0. 93. The estimated

numbers of marked fish passing through the bypass were used in estimating the overall proportion of marked fish guided by the louver/bypass array. Gear efficiencies of the vertical tower nets , the under- louver tyke nets and the behind- louver gill nets were not determined in the field. Examination of the data presented in Table 2 revealed that the results obtained from the test made on September 29 were extraordinarily low relative to the other test results. No apparent cause for the low recapture level was observed in the field. Because the estimate appeared extremely low , the test result was examined using the standard normal deviate test (Sokal and Rohlf , 1969) and determined to be a statistical outlier from the estimates made for the other downstream releases (standard normal deviate Z = 2.46 , P = 0. 007), as well as from the upstream and downstream releases combined (Z = 2. 27, P = 0. 012). Therefore

this result was eliminated from further analyses. 1992 Holyoke Canal JUYeDiIe Qupeids Report VSA

March 24, 1993Examination of the computed mean bypass efficiency for marked fish released upstream of the gatehouse (61%) and for marked fish released downstream of the gatehouse (76%) revealed a major difference in estimates. Analysis of variance (ANOV A) indicated that the difference between the results obtained from the upstream releases and the downstream releases was statistically significant (ANOV A, N = 33, F = 4. 975 , P = 0. 033). This result

is consistent with a finding of the 1991 study (Harza and RMC 1992), which also concluded that the bypass guidance efficiency was lower for fish released upstream of the gatehouse. The differences between the two sets of tests are illustrated in Figure 12. The difference between the guidance efficiency relationships for the upstream-release and downstream-release tests is , in part, explained by recaptures outside the Holyoke Canal of marked fish released upstream of the gatehouse. A basic assumption of the tests is that all fish released upstream from the gatehouse enter the Holyoke Canal. This assumption was violated by the recapture of upstream-released marked fish in both the tailrace traps and spillpool traps used in the Hadley Falls Station studies (Harza 1993). A total of 12 marked clupeids were collected in the spillpool and tailrace (Table 5). Based on these observations

it was concluded that the estimates of louver guidance efficiency associated with the upstream-release tests are unreliable. Because the basic assumption of the upstream-release tests was violated , the analyses presented below are based only on the results obtained from the downstream-release tests. 1992 Holyoke CaD8l JUYeDiIe Qupeids Report VSA March 24 , 1993Estimate of Proportion of Marked Fish Guided by Louver Array. Using the numbers of marked fish collected in the BCF , corrected for gear efficiency, relative to the numbers of marked fish released downstream from the gatehouse, the mean guidance efficiency of the fixed louver array is estimated to be 76. 0 percent. As indicated in Figure 12 , the guidance efficiency appears to be inversely related to canal flow over the range tested. Species Composition and Length Frequency Analysis of Marked Fish. Prior to releasing fish into the canal to evaluate the guidance efficiency of the louver/bypass system, subsamples comprised of up to 100 fish were retained from each test group to determine the species composition and size distributions of the released fish. The purpose of this sampling was to determine if there was a difference in the guidance efficiency according to species or according to size of the fish. Also, because the test fish were collected at locations away from the Holyoke Canal (the Oxbow or Cabot Station Collection facility), these data were collected for comparison with the unmarked fish collected in the sampling gear within Holyoke Canal. Percent species composition and average lengths of the respective species for each release group are presented in Table 6. second subsample of the marked fish was collected at the BCF. Again species composition and length data were obtained for comparison with the data collected prior to release of the fish. Percent species composition and average lengths of the respective species for each set of recaptured , marked fish are presented in Table 7. 1992 Holyoke CauaI Juvenile Qupeids Report VSA March 24 , 1993Comparing the species composition of the subsamples collected prior to release with those collected at the BCF, using a Sign Test, indicates no significant difference (P ~ 0. 05) in the composition of the samples collected at the two sites. Therefore, the data indicate that

there is no difference in the guidance efficiency according to species. A series of independent sample t-tests were performed on the length frequency data among the subgroups of the released fish. These statistical tests, as summarized in Table 8, indicated that for both American shad and blueback herring, the mean length of the fish recaptured in the BCF was significantly less than the mean lengths of the respective species released both upstream and downstream from the gatehouse, suggesting that guidance efficiency is affected by fish size. Evaluation of Proportion of Unmarked Juvenile Clupeid Guide by the Louver/Bypass System. Evaluation of the proportion of unmarked juvenile clupeids diverted to the bypass by the louver array is comprised of three estimates: Estimates of the total number of unmarked juvenile c1upeids passing under the louver array; the total number of unmarked fish passing through the louver array; and the total number of unmarked fish passing through the bypass.

These estimates, as described below , are derived from the numbers of fish collected during

the daily, concurrent sampling periods (WBCF, i' W !,I and W ), and estimates of the gear efficiencies derived from the marked fish test releases. 1992 Holyoke Canal JweniIe Qupeids Report VSA March 24 , 1993Number of Unmarked Juvenile CIupeid Passing Under and Through the Louver Array Marked fish recapture data for fish released downstream from the gatehouse (Table 2) were used to calculate the efficiency of the fyke - nets under the louvers and the efficiency of the gill nets behind the louvers. A total of 5 998 marked , juvenile clupeids were used in the marked fish tests. Of these , 4 530 were diverted through the bypass, as estimated by the number collected at the BCF, and 41 were collected in the vertical tower nets. The

remaining 1 427 marked fish are assumed to have passed either through or under the louver array and were available for collection by the tyke nets or the gill nets. A total of 186 marked clupeids , corrected for area sampled , were collected by the tyke nets (Table 9). Therefore , the estimated gear efficiency of the tyke nets (Ed using Eq. 7 is estimated as: JI (~N BCF vr ~NJ 186 998 - (4530 + 41

(10) = 0. 131 For the through- louver gill nets , a total of 4 marked clupeids (corrected for area sampled) was collected during the study. This yields a gill net efficiency of: 1992 Holyoke Canal Juvenile Qupeids Report V'A March 24 , 1993r.N r.N JI (r.N BCF r.N r.N) (11) 5998 (4530 186) 0032 The under- louver net efficiency, then, is estimated to be 13. 1% and gill net efficiency is estimated to be 0.32%. By dividing the under louver efficiencies into the total number of unmarked fish captured by the under louver tyke nets , corrected for areas sampled , estimates of the daily numbers of fish passing under the louver are calculated (Eq. 10). The daily estimates are presented in Table 10. Overall , approximately 19 000 (1 %) naturally- migrating, unmarked fish are estimated to have passed under the louvers during the daily concurrent sampling periods. In a similar fashion, by dividing the behind louver efficiencies into the numbers of fish

collected in the gill nets , corrected for area, estimates of the daily number of fish passing through the louvers are calculated and are presented in Table 11. Approximately 231 000 (13%) fish are estimated to have passed through the louver system during the daily concurrent sampling periods. 1992 Holyoke Canal Juvenile Qupeids Report VSA March 25 , 1993Estimate of Total Number of Clupeids Diverted Through Bypass An estimated 1 709, 000 juvenile clupeids (Table 12) were bypassed through the bypass during the 1992 study period. Of these, approximately 1 466, 000 were bypassed between 1700 and 2100 hours with the remaining 243, 000 bypassed during the remainder of the day. These estimates were derived from the numbers of fish collected in the BCF and the

relative daily proportion bypassed during the daily sampling period (1700 - 2100 hours). The proportion of the daily number of fish bypassed during the sampling period was derived from seven 24- hour samples collected at the BCF. As determined from the 24- hour samples, the numbers of fish collected during the four- hour sampling period each day constituted approximately 85 percent of the total number of fish bypassed each day. During the remaining 20 hours , only 15 percent of the fish moved through the bypass (Table 13). An estimate of the total number of fish bypassed during the

study was obtained by dividing the total number of fish collected during the four- hour sampling period by 0. 85 and summing the numbers through the study period. The total estimated number of fish bypassed on each day is presented in Table 12. Overall , an

estimated 1 709, 000 juveniles moved through the bypass during the fall of 1992. 1992 Holyoke Canal JuveDile Qupeids Report VSA

March 24, 1993Diel Pattern or Juvenile Clupeid Movement Through the Bypass Results of the numbers of fish collected during each hour of the 24- hour sample (extending from 2100 hours through 1700 hours the next day) are summarized in Figure 13. The numbers of fish collected each hour of each 24- hour sample are presented in Figure 14. In general , the results of these samples supports the assumption that the majority of the juvenile clupeids emigrate during the early evening hours (1700 to 2100). Because there is no significant difference in the distribution of collections among the seven 24- hour samples the relative proportions of fish moving through the bypass facility were accumulated to yield the average proportions for each hour of the day. The average numbers of fish and the relative proportions of the total daily movements for the 24- hour samples are summarized

in Table 13. These average hourly estimates (corrected for gear efficiency) were , in turn, used to estimate the total number of fish moving through the bypass during the study period.

Proportion of Unmarked Juvenile Clupeids Bypassed

As summarized in Table 14 , an estimated 1 504, 833 unmarked juvenile clupeids , corrected for gear efficiency, were diverted through the bypass to the BCF while the BCF and nets were being fished concurrently. Combining this estimate with the estimates of the numbers of fish moving through and under the louver array (calculated above), and the proportion of wild fish entering the Holyoke Canal that were guided to the bypass structure , the

1992 Holyoke Caual Juvenile Qupeida Report V5A March 24, 1993guidance efficiency of the louver array using the collections of unmarked fish , was calculated as: 1: BCF,i i = 1

1: BCF,i i = 1 1:"1,1 i = 1 i = 1 (12) 504, 833

1,504, 833 + 18, 848 + 231,202 = 0. The estimate of 86 percent for the guidance efficiency of wild, unmarked juvenile clupeids compares favorably with the estimate of 76 percent for the guidance efficiency calculated using marked fish released downstream from the gatehouse and is considerably higher than the estimated 69 percent guidance calculated for the 1991 study (Harza and RMC 1992). Vertical Distribution of Juvenile Clupeids In Holyoke Canal Upstream from the Louver

Array. In 1991 , it was concluded that a significant number of the juvenile clupeids entering the canal passed under the louvers, thereby avoiding the diversion capacity of the louvers. estimate directly the numbers of fish approaching the louvers within the depth profile of the louvers and the numbers of fish approaching the louver array below the louvers, vertical tower nets were set upstream from the louver array. As summarized in Table 15 , the total 1992 Holyoke Canal Juvenile Qupeids Report VSA March 24 , 1993number of clupeids collected in the top two nets of the vertical tower array constituted approximately 60. 3 percent of the total number of fish collected in the tower nets. Conversely, approximately 39. 7 percent of the fish collected in the tower nets were collected in the lower two nets, below the louvers. Immediate Mortality of Fish Collected at BCF Immediate mortality of bypassed fish was qualitatively assessed by periodically inspecting the fish that were collected in the sorting trough. Although some descaling did occur on the sides of some fish , very few dead fish were observed. Additionally, for the 3, 300 bypassed fish that were held in the holding pools, only 23 died within 24 hours and the overall delayed mortality was approximately 0. 7 percent (Appendix A, Table 1), although this estimate was not developed as a part of a formal mortality study. Velocity Measurements Velocity data are presented in Appendix B. Similar velocity patterns were evident in the average velocities of three Canal flow ranges, 3, 000 to 4 000 cis, 4 000 to 5, 000 cis, and 5 000 to 6, 000 cfs (Table 16). There were slight fluctuations with an overall increase in velocity from the upstream end of the louvers to a point at the mouth of the bypass , where a rapid increase in velocity occurs. 1992 Holyoke Canal Juvenile Qupeids Report VSA March 24 , 1993DISCUSSION Prior to the Fall 1992 juvenile clupeid study in the Holyoke Canal , the previously installed floating louver array, designed to divert emigrating juvenile fish to the bypass facility, was replaced with a fixed louver array, suspended on steel supports. The 1992 studies , therefore , were the first to investigate the effectiveness of the fixed- louver/bypass system in guiding juvenile c1upeids to the bypass opening. With the floating louvers in place, the estimated guidance efficiency was approximately 45 percent, with significant numbers of the juveniles apparently moving under the louvers (Harza and RMC 1992). Results of the 1992 studies of juvenile c1upeid emigration demonstrated a considerable increase in the efficiency with which the fish were guided into the bypass system. Based on the test releases of marked fish , the proportion of marked fish passing into the bypass was

estimated to be 76 percent. The estimate of guidance efficiency based on the 1992 collections of unmarked fish yielded an estimated guidance efficiency of 86 percent.

An attempt was made to compare the guidance efficiencies computed using the upstream (61 %) and downstream (76%) release tests. Based on statistical analysis and confirmed by observations in the field , the estimate based on the upstream tests was considered to be unreliable. Therefore , no quantitative evaluation of the effect of fish passing through the gatehouse could be made. 1992 Holyoke CaDaJ JUYeDiIe Qupeidl Report VSA March 24, 1993In previous years , no relationship between the proportion of fish bypassed and canal flow was demonstrated. However , for the 1992 studies, the results of the downstream-release tests indicate that the effectiveness of the louvers may be inversely related to flow. Additionally, in 1991 , only approximately 20 percent of the fish entering the canal were determined to be within the upper 8 ft. of the water column, where their movement would be influenced by the louver array. In 1992 , over 60 percent of the unmarked fish entering the canal were determined to be within the upper 8 ft of the water column. For the marked fish , the numbers of fish collected near the surface relative to the number of fish collected below the level of the louvers was quite marked. For the vertical tower nets, the numbers of fish in the upper nets (VI and V2 from Table 2) indicated only 36 percent of the marked fish released downstream of the gatehouse were in the upper 8 ft of the water column, with 64 percent (V3 and V4 from Table 2) occurring in the lower water stratum. It appears from Table 2 , that the number of marked fish captured in both the below louver tyke nets and vertical tower nets 3 and 4 were greater at high flows than at low flows. 1992 Holyoke Canal Juvenile Qupeids Report VSA March 24 , 1993CONCLUSIONS The results of the data collections and subsequent analyses lead to the following conclusions relative to the study objectives: The overall effectiveness of the fixed- louver/bypass system in guiding juvenile c1upeids through the bypass is estimated to be 76 percent , based on the release of marked fish downstream from the gatehouse and recaptures at the BCF. The proportion of naturally migrating fish using the bypass is estimated to be 86 percent, based on the collection of unmarked fish in the BCF , under- louver nets , behind- louver gillnets , and the respective gear efficiencies derived from the test release results. The total number of juvenile clupeids estimated to have moved through the bypass system during the 1992 study period is approximately 1 709, 000. Using gear efficiencies determined from the test releases of marked fish and the collection of unmarked fish in tyke nets and gill nets , an estimated 14%

(250 000) of the juvenile clupeids that entered the Holyoke Canal during 1992 Holyoke Canal Juvenile Qupeids Report VSA March 24, 1993concurrent sampling were not diverted to the bypass (approximately 1 (19, 000) passed under the louvers and 13% (231 000) passed through the louvers). Overall , the majority (60 percent) of the unmarked fish entering the Holyoke Canal remained within 8 ft of the surface as they approached the louver array. However, only 36 percent of the marked fish (released downstream from the gatehouse) remained in the upper 8 ft of the water column.

The diel pattern of juvenile c1upeid movement through the Holyoke Canal indicates that approximately 85 percent of the fish move between 1700 and 2100 hours each day. Because of the unreliability of the estimate for guidance efficiency using marked fish released above the gatehouse, the effect of fish passing through the gatehouse could not be determined. Based on the periodic assessments of juvenile clupeids collected at the BCF

the immediate and delayed fish mortality resulting from capture in the collection facility is less than 0. 7 percent. Most of the observed injury and mortality consisted of descaling of one (or both) sides of the fish , is attributed

to contact with collection trough and sorting tables. 1992 Holyoke Canal JUYeDIIe Qupeids Report V5A March 24 , 1993LITERATURE CITED Buckley, J. and B. Kynard. 1985. Part I. Vertical distribution of juvenile American shad and blueback herring during the seaward migration in the Connecticut River. Final Report to Northeast Utilities Service Company. Harza Engineering Company and RMC, 1992. Response of Atlantic Salmon Smolts to Louvers in the Holyoke Canal, Prepared for Northeast Utilities Service Company

Berlin, Connecticut, USA, FERC Project No. 2004.

Harza Engineering Company. 1991. Response of adult American shad to floating louvers in Holyoke Canal. Harza Engineering Company and BioSonics , Inc. 1991. Holyoke Canal downstream fish passage studies - Response of juvenile clupeids to louvers in the Holyoke Canal , Fall

1990. Lindgven, B. W. 1968. Statistical Theory (2nd Edition). The MacMillan Company, CollierMacMillan Ltd , London.

Marcy, J. R. 1976. Early life history studies of American shad in the lower Connecticut River and the effects of the Connecticut Yankee plant. In: Merriman, D. and LM. Thorpe (eds. ). 1976. The Connecticut River Ecological Study: The impact of a nuclear power plant. Am. Fish. Soc. Mono. No. 1. pp. 141- 168.

Northeast Utilities Service Company. 1992. Holyoke Canal Downstream Fish Passage Studies. Response of Atlantic Salmon Smolts to Louvers in the Holyoke Canal, Spring 1192. Northeast Utilities Service Company. 1990. Studies of migratory behavior of Atlantic salmon smolts ( Salmo salar) at the Hadley Falls Project, Connecticut River , Holyoke Massachusetts during 1990. Northeast Utilities Service Company, Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission, U. Fish and Wildlife Service , National Marine Fisheries Service , State of Connecticut State of Massachusetts , State of New Hampshire, and State of Vermont. 1990.

CRASC- NUSCO Downstream Fish Passage Memorandum of Agreement. 13 pp. 1992 Holyoke Canal JUYeDiIe Qupeids Report VSA

March 24, 1993Leary, JA 1984. Characteristics of the downriver migration of Juvenile American shad (AlQm sapidissima) and blueback herring (AlQsa aestivalis ) in the Connecticut. M. Thesis, University of Massachusetts , Amherst, Massachusetts. Leary, J. A and B. Kynard. 1986. Behavior , length , and sex ratio of seaward migrating juvenile American shad and blueback herring in the Connecticut River. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 114:430-435. Sokal , R. R. andF. J. Rohlf. 1969. Biometry. The principles and practice of statistics in biological research. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, CA

SPSS. 1990. SPSS/C + Statistics 4. 0 for the mM PC/JIT/AT and PS/2. SPSS inc. Chicago. 1992 Holyoke Canal JUYeDiIe Clupeids Report VSA

March 24, 1993r ~

- . ; , r .

, . i . l . Tables I. . l "Table 1. Recapture times of marked clupeids in the Holyoke Canal bypass collection facility. Number Start Time Release Release Canal of fish 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 Total

Date Location Time Flow released Recapture 09/25 Below 18:15 3200 500 162 274 436 09/28 Above 17:30 3000 500 128 293 09/29 Below 17:45 3000 500 09/30 Above 18:00 3000 500 136 250 397 10/01 Below 19:00 3000 433 335 374 10/02 Above 18:00 3000 500 155 10/03 Below 18:11 3000 407 181 137 327 10/05 Above 18:00 3000 484 147 263 10/06 Above 18:00 3000 496 107 259 382 10/07 Below 18:00 3000 427 321 377 10/08 Above 18:00 3000 500 215 215 10/09 Above 18:00 3000 500 119 116 257 10/10 Below 18:00 3000 448 305 400 10/11 Above 18:00 3100 500 125 247 10/12 Below 18:00 3000 409 275 306 10/14 Above 18:00 3300 500 126 10/16 Below 18:00 4500 362 288 306 10/17 Above 18:20 4500 500 119 183 10/18 Below 19:30 4300 194 112 10/20 Above 20:00 4500 395 297 305 10/21 Below 19:05 4500 430 309 326 10/22 Above 19:00 4500 421 248 249 10/23 Below 19:00 4500 401 182 190 10/24 Above 19:00 4500 175 10/25 Below 17:55 4500 175 10/28 Above 17:45 4500 326 145 218 10/29 Above 17:35 5400 349 108 133 245 10/30 Below 17:37 5400 492 194 205 10/31 Below 17:25 5400 411 219 225 11/01 Above 17:10 5400 357. 157 160 11/02 Below 17:00 5400 476 297 300 11/03 Above 17:00 5400 499 415 415 11/05 Above 17:00 5600 439 303 306 11/06 Below 17:00 5600 433 200 232 TOTALS 14439 2077 3023 3019 600 8801 retimeTable 2. Recapture and percent bypassed of marked clupieds(con-ected for bypass collection facility efficiency) released belowthe gatehouse of the Holyoke Canal.ReleaseWmerCanalFishActualCon-ectedDmelimeTemp.FlowReleasedF3 G1G2 G3 G4 G5V2 V3 V4RecapturedRecapturedBypassed09/2518:1518.320050043646993.09/2917:4517.300050019.4%10/0119:0015.300043337440292.1 0/0318:1115.300040732735286.10/0718:0014.300042737740594.10/1018:0016.3000.44840043096.10/1218:0016.300040930632980.10/1618:0013.450036230632990.10/1819:3012.430019411212062.1 0/2119:0512.450043032635182.1 0/2319:0011.450040119020451.1 0/2517:5511.450017510460.1 0/3015:3710.540049220522045.1 0/3117:2510.5400411O' 022524260.11/0217:00540047630032368.11/0617:00560043323224958.Totals59984213453076.F1 = Under louver net 1 (upstream)G5 = Gill net 5 (downstream)F2 = Under louver net 2 (middle)V1 = Vertical distribution net 1 (surface)F3 = Under louver net 3 (downstream)V2 = Vertical distribution net 2 (5.25 ft)G1 = Gill net (through louver net) 1 (upstream)V3 = Vertical distribution net 3 (10.25 ft)G2 = Gill net (through louver net) 2 (2nd from gate house)V4 = Vertical distribution net 4 (13.75)G3 = Gill net (through louver net) 3 (middle)X1 = Bypass collectionfacilityG4 = Gill net (through louver net) 4 (4th from gmehouse)" Determined to be an outRer and not included in determining percent bypassed.% bypassed = corrected recapture! (fish released - the sum of fish captured in the vertical distribution nets).recbelo-Table 3. Recapture and percent bypassed of marked clupeids (corrected for bypass collectionfacility efficiency) released abovethe gate house of the Holyoke Canal.ReleaseWaterCanalFishActualCorrectedDateTimeTel1l'.FlowReleasedF3 G1G2 G3 G4G5V2 V3RecaptureRecaptureBypassed09/2817:3018.300050029331563.09/3018:0016.300050039742785.4%10/0218:0015.300050015516733.10/0518:0015.300048426328358.4%10/0618:0014.300049638241182.10/0818:0016.300050021523146.10/0918:0014.300050025727655.10/1118:0016.310050024726653.10/1418:0013.330050012613527.10/1718:2014.450050018319739.4%10/2020:0011.450039530532884.10/2219:0012.450042124926864.10/2419:0011.450017551.10/2817:4510.450032621823473.10/2917:3510.540034924526376.11/0117:10540035716017249.11/0317:00540049941544689.4%11/0517:00560043930632976.TOTALS79414498483761.F1 = Under louver net 1 (upstream)G5 = Gill net 5 (downstream)F2 = Under louver net 2 (middle)V1 = Vertical distribution net 1 (surface)F3 = Under louver net 3 (downstream)V2 = Vertical distribution net 2 (5.25 ft)G1 = Gill net (through louver net) 1 (upstream)V3 = Vertical distribution net 3 (10.25 ft)G2 = Gill net (through louver net) 2 (2nd from gatehouse)V4 = Vertical distribution net 4 (13.75 ft)G3 = Gill net (through louver net) 3 (rTiddle)X1 = Bypass collectionfacilityG4 = Gill net (through louver net) 4 (4th from gatehouse)% bypassed = corrected recapture/ (fish released - the sum of fish captured in the vertical distribution nets).N :\projects'5185\jg\recabove'"Cg;s::11) CD::Js:uCo :J11)c::::::JCo\)m toU,)()' ~............(:)........CD CDI\) I\)............(:) (:)~ $I\) I\)............~ ~ID IDI\) I\)............i\3 i\501 ~ID IDI\) I\)........................Q QI'V Ni\5..:LU,)......I\) I\) I\)I\)..................Q Q Q......00 01 (0I\) I\) I\)........................Q Q Q Q(0U,) U,)ID IDID CDI\) I\) I\)I\)...,01 0--Is:u'-c:::s:u......0 0~ ~l'Vl'V......U,)ID ID IDell\) I\) I\) CD01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01~ ~CD""tI~ g~ -g 2t:::Jm -a)"~ ~ ~~to to to to to to to to to to tOtO tO00 m00 ~00 m I\)00 ~m 0 8 ~ m00 ~I\) 0000 I\)~ ~Table 5. Clupeids released at Holyoke Canal and recaptured at Hadley Falls. Date Species Location Number 06- 0ct ck h ng ascu 07 - Oct American shad Tailrace OS- Oct American shad Bascule to- Oct American shad Bascule 12- 0ct Blueback herring Bascule 14- 0ct American shad Bascule had levTable 6. Percentage and mean fork lengths of blueback herring and American shad in subsamples of louver/bypass efficiency test fish taken before release into the Holyoke Canal. Blueback herring American shad Ave. Ave. Date Number Percent Length (mm) Number Percent Length (mm) 09/25 98% 09/28 89% 11% 09/29 93% 09/30 90% 10% 10/01 94% 1 0/02 86% 14% 10/03 35% 65% 10/05 31% 69% 10/06 26% 74% 0/07 20% 80% 10/08 90% 10% 10/09 35% 65% 1 0/1 0 19% 81% 1 0/11 26% 74% 0/12 20% 80% 0/14 17% 83% 10/16 47% 53% 0/17 99% 0/18 16% 84% 10/20 11% 89% 10/22 15% 85% 10/23 99% 0/24 99% 10/25 ERR 100 100% 10/28 99% 10/29 ERR 101 100% 10/30 99% 10/31 ERR 101 100% 11/01 ERR 100 100% 11/02 ERR 106 100% 11/03 ERR 101 100% 11/05 99% 11/06 ERR 101 100% N:\projects\5185\jg\JenpenTable 7. Percentage and mean fork lengths of blueback herring and American shad in subsamples of louver/bypass efficiency test fish recaptured in the Holyoke Canal Bypass Facility. Blueback herring American shad Ave. Ave. Date Number Percent Length (r!!m) Number Percent Length (mm) 09/25 100 94% 65. 71. 09/28 100 99% 63. 76. 09/29 44% 65. 56% 74. 09/30 102 94% 67. 72. 10/01 95% 67.4 71. 0/02 86% 66. 14% 78. 10/03 45% 65. 55% 69.4 10/05 16% 62. 84% 70.4 10/06 54% 63. 46% 68.4 10/07 24% 62. 76% 69. 10/08 102 97% 61. 72. 10/09 22% 62. 78% 70. 1 0/1 0 20% 64. 80% 70. 1 0/11 17% 63. 83% 69. 0/12 27% 65. 73% 71. 0/14 62. 96% 72. 10/16 36% 68. 64% 80. 10/17 66. 94% 77.4 10/18 16% 70.4 84% 77. 10/20 16% 66. 84% 74. 10/22 12% 70. 88% 75. 10/23 ERR 121 100% 78. 0/24 67. 97% 78. 10/25 66. 100 97% 78. 10/28 ERR 109 100% 79. 10/29 113 100% 10/30 ERR 127 100% 76. 10/31 ERR 241 100% 76. 11 /01 ERR 118 100% 73. 11/02 ERR 121 100% 80. 11/03 ERR 100 100% 78. 11/05 ERR 109 100% 80. 11/06 72. 114 98% 78. recapTable 8. Independent sample t-test results for differences in lengths of captured fish at the behind the louver gillnets, the under louver tyke nets, and the vertical distribution nets.peclest-tableTable 9. Numbers of marked clupeids passing under and through the louvers, corrected for area sampled by the net. Under Under Under Behind Behind Behind Behind Behind Louver Louver Louver Louver Louver Louver Louver Louver Fyke Fyke Fyke Gill Gill Gill Gill Gill Date Net 1 Net 2 Net 3 Net 1 Net 2 Net3 Net 4 Net5 09/25 09/29 10/01 10/03 10/07 10/10 10/12 10/16 10/18 10/21 10/23 10/25 10/30 10/31 11/02 11/06 Totals 100 rebelo-aTable 10. Estimated number of umarked dupeids passing under the louver during concurrent sampling at the Holyoke Canal, corrected for area and gear efficiency. (efficiency is from releases below the gatehouse excluding Sept. 29). Under Under Under Total Canal Louver Louver Louver Estimated

Date Flow Net 1 Net2 Net 3 Under Louver 09/15 3300 09/16 3300 09/17 3000 09/23 3200 09/24 3200 364 403 09/25 3200 09/26 3300 09/28 3000 09/29 3000 396 443 09130 3000 10/01 3000 111 182 10/02 3000 10/03 3000 10/05 3000 459 482 10/06 3000 617 680 10/07 3000 111 111 10/08 3300 396 459 10/09 3000 221 221 10/10 3000 10/11 3100 10/12 3000 475 546 10/13 3300 728 751 10/14 3300 10/15 4500 111 198 10/16 4500 10/17 4500 237 277 10/18 4300 118 396 538 10/19 4500 118 119 190 427 10/20 4500 269 356 10/21 4500 237 190 269 695 1 0/22 4500 789 379 696 1865 10/23 4500 553 166 1044 1763 10/24 4500 158 1123 1376 10/25 4500 158 712 917 10/28 4500 355 332 2215 2902 10/29 5400 355 474 411 1241 10130 5400 119 253 10/31 5400 285 411 11/01 5400 119 142 340 11/02 5400 206 316 11/03 5400 158 11/05 5600 103 11/06 5600 Totals 3434 2679 12735 18848 ccorf2Table 11. Estimated number of unmarked clupeids passing through the louvers during concurrent sampling at the Holyoke Canal (corrected for area and gear efficiency, efficiency was calculated from releases downstream of the gatehouse, excluding sept. 29). Estimated Behind Behind Behind Behind Behind Total

Canal Louver Louver Louver Louver Louver Through

Date Flow Gill Net 1 Gill Net 2 Gill Net 3 Gill Net 4 Gill Net 5 Louvers 09/15 3300 09/16 3300 09/17 3000 09/23 3200 09/24 3200 2741 2741 09/25 3200 09/26 3300 2741 2741 09/28 3000 09/29 3000 713 1427 2140 09/30 3000 2741 2741 10/01 3000 9594 9594 10/02 3000 1371 1371 10/03 3000 9594 9594 10/05 3000 713 9594 10308 10/06 3000 2140 108279 110419 10/07 3000 4112 4112 10/08 3300 713 8224 8937 10/09 3000 713 27412 28126 10/10 3000 10/11 3100 10/12 3000 1371 1371 10/13 3300 4112 4112 10/14 3300 10/15 4500 1371 1371 10/16 4500 1371 1371 10/17 4500 10/18 4300 2741 2741 10/19 4500 4112 4112 10/20 4500 2741 2741 10/21 4500 4112 4112 10/22 4500 1371 1371 10/23 4500 10/24 4500 9594 9594 10/25 4500 1371 1371 10/28 4500 1371 1371 10/29 5400 10/30 5400 10/31 5400 1371 1371 11/01 5400 11/02 5400 1371 1371 11/03 5400 11/05 5600 11/06 5600 TOTALS 713 713 4994 224781 231202

ccorg3Table 12: Estimated Tala! Number of Juvenile Clupeids Diverted Through Holyoke Canal Bypass Number Bypassed DATE 1700- 2100 2100- 1700 Tala! 09/15 161 174 09/16 179 204 09/17 09/18 09/19 09/20 09/21 09/22 09/23 798 284 083 09/24 235 387 11, 622 09/25 288 839 12, 127 09/26 822 846 668 09/27 09/28 785 162 947 09/29 085 701 786 09/30 869 516 385 10101 268 650 917 10102 541 1,406 947 10103 782 768 550 10/04 10/05 577 760 338 10106 104 112 216 10107 423 326 749 10108 195 022 217 10/09 22, 983 631 29, 613 10/10 857 296 153 10/11 552 647 199 10/12 040 876 916 10/13 81, 432 177 609 10/14 946 971 19, 917 10/15 213 481 136 223 616 10/16 953 393 34, 345 10/17 244 905 149 10/18 102 995 899 111 893 10/19 768 123 891 10/20 143 324 453 160, 10/21 134 359 333 138, 692 10/22 052 10, 711 762 10/23 774 266 040 10/24 100 414 802 114 216 10/25 827 116 943 10/26 10/27 10/28 394 9,421 815 10/29 12, 921 695 14, 616 10/30 833 299 10, 132 10/31 192 813 005 11101 613 516 129 11102 536 071 607 11103 789 077 866 11104 11105 162 246 11106 125 219 Totals 465 644 243 651 709 295

tab14v4Table 13. Mean number of clupeids bypassed during diel samples at Holyoke Canal , Fall 1992. BegInning Mean number Percent of of 1 hour sample bypassed 24 hour total 17:00 9297 13% 18:00 44189 61% 85% of total 19:00 5598 bypassed 20:00 2836 21:00 2801 22:00 2124 23:00 830 00:00 903 01:00 861 02:00 825 03:00 737 04:00 807 05:00 436 06:00 313 15% of total 07:00 bypassed 08:00 09:00 10:00 11 :00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 Mean number bypassed per diel sample 72724 100%

diel2Table 14. Estimated number of unmarked clupeids passing through the bypass during concurrent sampling at the Holyoke Canal (corrected for bypass collection facility efficiency). Date 09/15 09/16 09/17 09/23 09/24 09/25 09/26 09/28 09/29 09/30 10/01 10/02 10/03 10/05 10/06 10/07 10/08 1 0/09 10/10 10/11 10/12 10/13 10/14 10/15 10/16 10/17 10/18 10/19 10/20 10/21 10/22 10/23 10/24 10/25 10/28 10/29 10/30 10/31 11/01 11/02 11/03 11/05 11/06 Total cbcfcpue

Canal Flow 3300 3300 3000 3200 3200 3200 3300 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3300 3000 3000 3100 3000 3300 3300 4500 4500 3000 4300 4500 4500 4500 4500 4500 4500 4500 4500 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5400 5600 5600

Estimated Total Clupeids 161 108 1599 5274 2288 3822 4809 . 10925 12712 8401 7541 7243 21686 29226 16249 57251 27791 5973 1 0902 65040 62792 19151 213481 27953 32244 105549 53768 148173 135116 76052 84774 100414 42977 68287 11769 8200 3525 4337 5166 1729 190 187 1504833Table 15. Capture of unmarked clupeids in the vertical distribution nets during concurrent samples at the Holyoke Canal Vertical Vertical Vertical Vertical Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribution

Date Net 1 Net 2 Net 3 Net 4 09/15 09/16 09/17 09/23 09/24 09/25 09/26 09/28 09/29 09/30 10/01 10/02 10/03 10/05 10/06 10/07 10/08 10/09 10/10 10/11 10/12 10/13 10/14 10/15 10/16 10/17 10/18 10/19 10/20 10/21 1 0/22 10/23 10/24 10/25 1 0/28 10/29 10/30 10/31 11/01 11/02 11/03 11/05 11/06 vercatchTable 16. Average" of the velocity measurements (ftIsec) taken along the length of the louvers"" in Holyoke Canal, Fall 1992.Bypass pipe enteranceBypass trashracksEnd pointDaysCanal FlowBypass PointsFull Depth Louver Points9 Ft Deep Louver PointsMeasured(CFS)-18'-12'-6'14'24'37'49'61'73'91'109'127'163'199'235'295'355'433'465' J3000-39994000-49995000-59993.42.4.. Averages derived fromAppencflX B..... Location of velocity measurements (points) taken in Holyoke Canal are listed as the distanceQn feet) from the start of the louvers.hoIvveI1--- --c.aj.' - ' , 000

';-' ,::'-' DA ,.-I~:

., NFl"

,/ 0v/; I I II

~~: :;~ C0

j---; ",/t;- SCULE GATE

(""'" II OLEY FALLS t ,

nON 4j

/YO. rl? OVFR"'-LO"""

\. "

. . tt tt .sOtJTI-I ,..,---DLC'" \ \..-'l II ~L ""0,- yOKE" NOTE: ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE REFERRED TO HOLYOKE DATUM ELEVATION ZERO BEING 2. 53 FEET BELOW SEA LEVEL.

--- FLOW DIRECTION

( ) FLOW DISTRIBUTION IN % OF FULL- RUN FLOW (ABOUT 7 200 CFS). FLOW DISTRIBUTION IN % OF PARTIAL FLOW (ABOUT 6000 CFS).

( J .100

- -'-----' Notheast Utilities Service Company DOWNSTREAM FISH PASSAGE FOR HOLYOKE CANAL FIGURE 1. GENERAL LOCATION PLANEI. 11 5EI. 11 0EI. 1 05EI. 1 00EI.EI. 90EI. 85EI. 80EI. 75977 ft.587 ft.542 ft.- GatehouseRange of gate openings---!--ian gate opening~~during lestUpstream extentof louvers98.25 ft.94.75 ft.89.75 ft.86.25 ft.Vertical distribution netsDownstream extentof louversBottom of louver EI.91 ft.Figure 2.Schematic illustration of Holyoke CanalGatehouse.OYPf\SSCOcLECTION\CIUTY;ASP'I'ElMIJWC(VERTICAL DISTAIBlITION NETSIAMPUNa TOWER!~8O'TTOIIv;'.P.. I~ ",,.. ,,"!i:'--;'II.. t~ ;""-' .. ,,~~",;"\,, .",,-'FLOWPlANC:JJFigure3:Location of nets on louver array at HolyokeCanal, 1992...TAn..RACE CANAl HOW FISH SA~PLlNG FACILITY (NEW . C4OJ PLANTED AREA

PAVED ROAD . WOOD RAIL . FE CONCRETE FLooDWALl: RELOCA TED ROAD (NOTE 6) 36. DIA. BYPASS PIPE (NEW. C301 CIO) APPROXIMATE lOCATION OF ABANDONED PENSTOCKS FULL DEPTH LOuvlRS (Nlw C2OJ PLAN Figure 4. PLAN OF HOLYOKE CANAL BYPASS AND FISH SAMPLING FACILITIESDetachable Cod end2 ft. X 2 ft. mouth w/fyke1/2in. stretch mesh8 ft. longNet Body "1/2 in. stretch mesh' .15ft. long .1 Metal FrameMouth5 ft. 4-1/2 in. wide3 ft. 6 in. deepFlow..... 1.75 ft.Plan of Holyoke Canal.... 5.25 ft..... 10.25 ft.Fish BypassEntranceVertical DistributionNets.... 13.75 ft.Figure 5.Schematic diagram of tyke nets for sampling the verticaldistribution of juvenile clupeids in Holyoke Canal during 1992...... 20 ft.Sideview of net arrangementr~1J m.,SGill nets r35 ft. long.......,.......................Plan of Holyoke CanalGill netse c mesAlGill nets.........,.Louver panelFlowFigure 6.Schematic diagram of gill nets used to sample~uvenileclupeids during 1992.10ft. deepNet Body1/2 in. stretch mesh40 ft. longDetachable Codend2 ft. X 2 ft. mouth w/fyke3/4 in. stretch mesh16 ft. longStyrofoam floatsWing (left side only)3/4 in. stretch mesh40 ft. longMouth 10 It, wide X 12 It, deepPlan of Holyoke CanalUnder Louver NetsFlowLouver PanelFish Bypass EntranceFigure 7.Schematic diagram of tyke nets for sampling juvenile clupeids passing under the louvers inHolyoke Canal during 1992.- . - - - ' - - . - - . - :- ~~ ~ = e :

:~_ -:~O : e ;~o

:: :: ::: ':. :~

.e.o

:~~. . ~ . . - : - . ~' FISH SAMPLING FACILlTY

FISH TROUGH

-. WEDGEWIRE SCREEN

. . . - ..t. .

~ - .: .. : - 0 ' ::~

: .:~ - :~: ~: // ;. ~ ;~~~:~. \: i:

;:~ ; ~ : ;: ~ = ;:-: . ; : :- : - : - - : :'" . e

-; - 0 ,

, . ()' . " . - C

8" 0 PIPE

. 0 - e

- - . r. COLLECTING POOL TO TAILRACE SORTING TROUGH

. . . Figure 8. HOLYOKE CANAL BYPASS COLLECTION FACILITY~::::::::::::::::',',',',~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:U~~~~~~~~~~~~Ut~ ~~j ~~~j~j~~~~~~~~ ~~~~j~:111111~11111ilili~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:11111111.111111::::::::::::::::::::::::::Irrllllllj~j1~1~1~1~1~1~1j1~1~1~~::~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::IIIIIIIIIIIIII!u~~~~~~~~u~~~~u~:!~!!!!!~!~:~:~!!:!:!111111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIFigure 9.Site of marked fish releases for tests of the guidance efficiencyof the bypass in Holyoke Canal duringFall 1992.Release pen AHadley IntakesCanal FlowOverflowBascule GateRelease pen1 000/0900/0800/0:to....+-'700/0:to....600/0500/0+-'400/0+-'...-300/0:to....200/0a..1001000/0ReleasetimeFigure 10.1 hour2 hours3 hoursElapsed time after release4 hours5 hoursElapsed time from release to recapture in the bypass of marked clupeids releasedabove and below the gatehouse at Holyoke Canal, Fall 1992.Start of louvers(trash racks)Holyoke CanalEndblockBypassFull depthlouvers(40 ft.Distance fromstart of louvers1 - 18 ft. downstream2 - 12ft. downstream3 -6 ft. downstream4-Oft.5-4ft.6-14ft.7 - 24ft.8 - 37 ft.9-49ft.10 - 61 ft.11 - 73 ft.12 - 91 ft.13 - 109 ft.14-127ft.15 -163 ft.16 - 199 ft.17 - 235 ft.18 - 295 ft.19 - 355 ft.20 - 433 ft.21 - 465 ft.Figure 11. Location ofvelocity measurements takenin Holyoke Canal during1992.Figure 12. 70%- ()' 110% Ii ~- fa 40%- C!) 30%- 20% 10%

Relationship between guidance efficiency and flow Releases Made Downstream from Gatehouse 110%

~'* 110%- 1000 2000 3000 4000 Flow (cfs)

5000 eooo 7000 110%

Releases Made Upstream from Gatehouse 80%- 70%- ()' 110%- Ii 50%- fa 40%- C!) 30%- 20%- 10%-

'*'* '*" '*" 1000 2000 3000 4000 Flow (cfs)

5000 eooo 7000::J..!::Q) -eni9 2a. ~ 2::J- -- - -- - - - - ------ -~- -1-- ------ --- --- --- --- --- -- - --- - -- -- - - ----- --- --- --- -- - --- --- --------- -- - --- ------ --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ----- - - - - - - - - ---- --- -~- -1-- ------ - -- - -- - -- - - -- -- -- - ------ --- -- - - -- --- - -- - - - - - ---- --- --- --- --- --- --- --------- --- --- --- --- ------ ------------------ ----- - - - - - - - - - - ----- -~- -1-- --- --- - -- - -- - -- - - ---- --- --- --- -- - -- - --- ------ --- --- --- --- ------ --- --- --- --------- ------ --- --------- -.-------.------------- --- --- --- --- --- -~- -1-- --- - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - ------ --- --- --- --- -- - --- --- --- --- --- ----- ---------- ------------ ------ ------------------------ ----------- - - ---- -- - -- - --- -~ --1- ---- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - --- -- -- - ------ --- --- -.. .----------- ---.-. .-- --------- -.. .-. ... .-. .-.....-..-. .-..-. .-....... ....- --- - - - - - -- - - -- - -~ - -1----- - -- - - - -- - - - - -- ---- --- -- - -- - -- - --- -- - -- - - - -- -- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ------.----- --- ------ --------- --- -------- -- - -- - - - - - - - -- - -~ - -1- -.-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- --- - -- - - - -- ---- - - - -- - - - - - -- - -- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --------- --- --- --- --- ------ --- --- ----- ---. -- - -- --~ -~- -~ -~--. --~-- - -- -- - --- --- --- -- - -- -- -----.- - - ---- - - -- - -. - - - - -- --- --- --- ... ... -.. .-. .-....... ... ... ... ... ... .-. .--.-.... ..- ... ....Beginning of1 hour sampleFigure 13. Mean hourly bypass rateof clupeids for seven diel samplesHolyoke CanalFall 1992.HJ"t - - - - - - ..1-- - - - - - - - - - _n u- - -- --- - -- - -- --- -- - --

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n - -- -- - - --

- - - - - -. -.- -- - --- --- - -- --- - -- -- - - -- --- --- --- --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - -- -- - --- - --

.s= Q) ~ c. ~

~ - - - - - - .:- \t - -

- --- - - - - - - --- - -- - - - - -- - -- -- - -- - -- - --- --- --- - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - -- --- , ,

- - - - - - - - --- - -- -- - --- - -- --- --- -- - - -- - - - --- - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- 08' Beginning of 1 hour sample 1-

Sep24 --- Sep28 --- Sep3O Oct? .s= 15

15OT - --~ 1-- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --

- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ~ f Ct! !'1 C. 0 ;:.., F .c - en 1~- - ~- -1- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- -

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --. -- ---- --- .-- --- - --~ -- --- - -- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --. --- --- --- --- .-- ----- - --- --- --- 20: :00 02' :00 08:00 Beginning of 1 hour sample 1-

Oct 15 --- Oct 19 Oct 21 Figure 14. Hourly bypass rate of clupeids for diel samples at Holyoke

Canal , between September 24 and October 21 1992., ' r ' i , r .

, . r . r .

, - Table 1. I . Table 2. l . i .

\ . \ - Appendix A FISH COLLECTION AND HOLDING DATA Fish collected and held for use in the tests of the guidance efficiency of the bypass in the Holyoke Canal during 1992 Daily water temperature, salinity, pH and ammonia of the fish holding pools used in the guidance tests at the bypass in the Holyoke Canal during 1992Appendix A-Table 1. Fish oollected and heldfor use in tests of the guidance efficiency of the bypass in Holyoke Canal during 1992.COLLECTION COLLECTIONFISH INFISH INFISH INMORTAlIlY MORTAUTYMORTALIlYTOTAL FISHNUMBERNUMBER lRANSPORTCOLLECTIONSITESllEPOOLS FROM POOLS FROM POOLS FROM TOTAl FISH OF OXBOW OFTURNERS OF BYPASS TOTAL FISHUSED INDAlECOLl.EClED STOCKED MORTAliTYSITElEMP (C)DOOXBOWTURNERSBYPASSIN POOLSFISHFISHFISHMORTAUTY CAUBRATlON1Wd .31683168 .17-Od37703770 .20-0d15401540 .19-0d .21902190 .05-0d .27688913659 .17O4-Od .34358944329 .15-0d .44274427 .OWd .27141222836 .01-Nov .17161716 .3ODd815. 81505-Nov .69169104-Nov12911291 .23-0d .16481648 .22-Od22482248 .29-0d .16111611 .27-Od17671767 .27-Sep .4992598559022-Sep .24107624862O-sep81916698519-5ep82216899003-0d900B964 HolyokeBypass3538B964434 .1509-0d24002394Holyoke Bypass 14.\ 10.136023943754 .nsep4152413913Oxbow21.3 I 10.494719496618-Sep381360Oxbow 23.10.8251699942821-Sep24092403Oxbow 20.7 10.3221165338628-Sep16131612Oxbow 18.0 10.478347831916-Sep1500148911Oxbow 23.5 10.2654265413213212-Sep76475410Oxbow21.0 9.99399311-Sep249243Oxbow 24.24324313-Sep11001093Oxbow 22.0 9.205020503615-Sep1800178911Oxbow 22.3 10.3097309714214214-Sep13601354Oxbow 24.11.03239323916516524-Sep20412037Oxbow18.0 ,10.626919630825-Sep17851782Oxbow 16.8 10.719171911006-0d24202414Tumers FaBs 15.0 9.36728854557 .1026-0d14001395Turners Fals 10.5 9.23732373 .07-Od21002100Tumers Falls 14.0 9.49472815228 .150028-0d14211418Turners Fab 9.2 8.22132213 .60003-Nov159158Turners Fab 8.0 10.12921292 .60002-Od550550TumersFab 16.0 8.515351531111140001-Od2095207322TumersFaHs 16.5 8.26159116172155031-Od21652157TumersFals 8.5 11.23712371 .60026-Sep600599Turners Fals484859954472400O2-Nov750748Turners Fals 8.0 10.17371737 .72525-0d725724Turners FaRs 10.5 10.19331933 .60016-0d700699Tumers FaRs 13.8 9.46074607 .6003O-Sep24002398TumersFals 17.8.58404790 '5630240012-Od24002399Turners FaBs52545895843 .150013-0d24002398Tume.. Fab 14.6 9.6663496712 .151914-0d12001197Turners Fals 14.2 7.54045404 .240011-Od24002399Tume.. Falls 14.0 9.43575894946 .150017-Sep635631Tume.. Fals18936312524252560024-0d860854Tume.. Fals 10.\ 9.18091809 .434365021-Od24002396Tume.. Fals 12.I 9.28512851 .102529-Sep24002394Tume.. Fans. I3245239456391010153510-0d18001800Tume.. Fals 13.\ 9.256014934053 .1500TOTAL5643456266158. i602174237995089991% 0.19% 0.70%1.42%60060065097565097524006506006006006006006009001600147015501875240018006508501500Appendix A-Table 2. Daily water temperature,salinity, pH, and ammonia of the fish holding pools used in the guidance testsat the bypass in Holyoke Canal during 1992.TANK NO.WaterDissolvedtemp.oxygenSalin~yTANK NO. 2WaterDissolvedAmmonia temp.oxygenSalinityTANK NO.WaterDissolvedAmmonia temp.oxygenSalinityTANK NO.TANK NO. 5WaterDissolvedAmmonia temp.oxygenSalinityAmmoniaDATE(C)(IT19'L)(%)(mgtL)(C)(mgtL)(%)(mglL)(C)(mglL)(%)(mgtL)(C)(mgtL)(%)(mgtL)(C)(mgtL)(%)(mgIL)11-Sep22.5012-Sep19.5013-Sep18.7.45014-Sep18.7.418.1S-Sep18.18.16-Sep21.18.18.17-Sep21.21.1 B-Sep22.7.200.2522.19-5ep20.6.42D-Sep17.7.421-Sep17.22-Sep18.18.523-Sep18.19.24-Sep14.15.15.15.2S-Sep12.13.9.413.14.26-Sep13.15.14.14.27-Sep14.15.6.415.15.28-Sep16.16.16.16.7.47.4829-Sep16.16.7.4915.3D-Sep12.12.13.14.01-0ct10.10.11.8.411.7.4202-0ct12.11.11.10.411.7.40OO-Oct14.8.815.15.14.04-0ct14.7.4114.15.15.8.8OS-Oct13.10.13.10.414.10.14.OO-Oct11.10.10.10.411.10.411.10.07-0ct10.10.10.10.11.10.411.08-0ct11.10.12.10.12.13.09-0ct13.14.1 D-Oct15.15.11-0ct14.15.15.7.4712-0ct14.14.14.7.415.13-0ct13.10.13.9.47.4913.13.14-0ct11.11.8.912.1 S-Oct12.411.10.11.9.412.8.316-0ct13.13.7.4113.17-0ct12.12.12.1 B-Oct19-0ct10.10.2D-Oct3.207.4521-0ct10.10.22-0ct10.8.423-0ct24-0ct10.0.25WaterDissolvedAmmonia temp.oxygenSalinityAppendix A-Table 2. Daily water temperature, salinity, pH, and ammonia of the fish holding pools used in the guidance testsat the bypass in Holyoke Canal during 1992.TANK NO. 1WaterDissolvedtemp.oxygenSalin~yTANK NO.WaterDissolvedAmmonia temp.oxygenSalinityTANK NO. 3WaterDissolvedAmmoria temp.oxygenSalinityTANK NO.TANK NO.WaterDissolvedAmmonia temp.oxygenSalinityAmmoniaDATE(C)(mgtL)(%)(mWl)(C)(mg/L)(%)(mgtL)(C)(mgtL)(%)(mg/L)(C)(mgtL)(%)(mWl)(C)(mgtL)(%)(mgtL)25-Oct10.10.26-Oct10.7.4927-Oct10.28-Oct10.10.29-0ct11.11.7.413D-Oct11.31-Oct11.7.4001-Nov12.11.02-Nov11.203-Nov11.04-Nov11.05-Nov11.MAXIMJM16.10.22.10.22.10.422.12.16.11.5MINIMUM10.6.410.0.25MEAN13.4.4514.7.4415.13.11.WaterDissolvedAmmonia temp.oxygenSalinity- ," .- ,_, -, _~ -:..~ ~-.-- --- ~--.._- ..... --.. -c::::3: -a5;c:3: -.)Ie~ mAppencix B. Velocity measurements (ft/sec) taken along the length of the louvers" in Holyoke Canal, Fall 1992.DaysCanal RowBypass PointsFull Louver Points9 Ft Deep Louver PointsEnd PointMeasured(CFS)18'12'14'24'37'49'61'73'91'109'127'163'199'235'295'355'433'09/1533002.409/1633001.609/1730001.31.109/2332001.809/24320009/25320010.2.41.109/26330009/2830007.509/29300009130300010/0130007.81010230001010330001.91 010530007.37.62.41.71.510106300010107300010/08330010/09300010/1030002.41.710/1131001.710/12300010/13330010/14330010/1545003.43.410/16450010/17450010/18430010/19450010/20450010/21450010/2245003.410/28450010.11.6.410/30540012.10/315400holyvel1Appendix B. ContinuedDaysCanal FlowBypass PointsFull Louver Points9 Ft Deep Louver PointsEnd PointMeasured(CFS)18'12'0' I14'24' t37'49'61'73'91'109'127'163'199'235'295'355'433' I465'11/02540011.11/0354004.211/05560010.11/0656008.1. Location of velocitymeasurements (points) taken in Holyoke Canal are listed as the distance (in feet) from the start of the louvers (bypass trashrack)... Doubleline indicates replacement of Marsh-McBimey model number 201 current meter w~h Marsh-McBimey model number 2000 curent meter.holyvel1Appendix C , Table 8. Daily collection of unmarked clupeids in behind louver gill net four. TOTAL TOTAL EST. EST. START START ELAPSED CANAL TOTAL CLUP/ MEASURED MEASURED EST. SHAD EST. HERRING DATE TIME TIME FLOW CLUPIED HOUR SHAD HERRING SHAD HOUR HERRING HOUR 09/15 16:51 04:22 3300 09/16 17:18 04:52 3300 09/17 16:35 02:26 3000 09/23 16:52 04:04 3200 09/24 16:49 05:07 3200 09/25 16:48 04:07 3200 09/26 16:48 04:06 3300 09/28 16:50 05:05 3000 09/29 16:48 05:06 3000 0.4 09/30 16:47 05:04 3000 10/01 16:46 05:04 3000 10/02 16:47 05:01 3000 10/03 16:49 05:00 3000 10/05 16:49 05:04 3000 10/06 16:49 05:00 3000 10/07 16:55 05:00 3000 10/08 16:52 05:01 3300 10/09 16:49 05:10 3000 10/10 16:49 05:05 3000 10/11 16:47 05:04 3100 10/12 16:49 04:09 3000 10/13 16:48 02:26 3300 10/14 16:49 05:06 3300 10/15 16:56 03:57 4500 10/16 16:49 04:03 4500 10/17 17:48 03:07 4500 10/18 16:49 05:05 4300 10/19 16:46 04:03 4500 10/20 16:48 05:05 4500 1 0/21 16:49 05:06 4500 1 0/22 16:48 04:02 4500 10/23 16:48 04:05 4500 1 0/24 16:50 04:04 4500 10/25 15:48 04:57 4500 10/28 15:48 04:02 4500 10/29 15:45 04:04 5400 10/30 15:51 04:01 5400 10/31 15:49 04:05 5400 11/01 15:50 04:06 5400 11/02 15:49 04:06 5400 11/03 15:52 03:59 5400 11/05 15:49 04:04 5600 11/06 15:50 04:03 5600 TOTALS 190. PERCENTSAppendix C , Table 9. Daily collection of unmarked clupeids in behind louver gill net five. TOTAL TOTAL EST. EST. START START ELAPSED CANAL TOTAL CLUP/ MEASURED MEASURED EST. SHAD EST. HERRING DATE TIME TIME FLOW CLUPIED HOUR SHAD HERRING SHAD HOUR HERRING HOUR 09/16 :28 :32 300 09/17 16:36 02:32 3000 09/23 16:55 04:03 3200 09/24 16:51 05:06 3200 09/25 16:49 04:09 3200 09/26 16:49 04:08 3300 0.48 09/28 16:51 05:06 3000 09/29 16:49 05:07 3000 09/30 16:48 05:05 3000 10/01 16:47 05:05 3000 10/02 16:48 05:02 3000 10/03 16:50 05:01 3000 10/05 16:50 05:07 3000 0.4 10/06 16:50 05:02 3000 15. 14. 10/07 16:56 05:01 3000 10/08 16:53 05:03 3300 10/09 16:50 05:12 3000 10/10 16:50 05:06 3000 10/11 16:48 05:07 3100 10112 16:50 04:10 3000 10/13 16:49 02:26 3300 10/14 16:50 05:07 3300 10/15 16:57 03:58 4500 10/16 16:51 04:04 4500 10/17 17:49 03:09 4500 10/18 16:50 05:06 4300 10/19 16:47 04:05 4500 10/20 16:50 05:06 4500 0.4 1 0/21 16:50 05:07 4500 0.2 1 0/22 16:49 04:03 4500 10/23 16:49 04:07 4500 10/24 16:51 04:05 4500 10/25 15:49 04:59 4500 10/28 15:50 04:02 4500 10/29 15:47 04:04 5400 10/30 15:54 04:00 5400 10/31 15:50 04:06 5400 11/01 15:51 04:08 5400 11/02 15:50 04:07 5400 11/03 15:53 04:00 5400 11/05 15:50 04:05 5600 11/06 15:51 04:04 5600 TOTALS 186. 164 3618 160 PERCENTS

catchg5Appendix C , Table 10. Daily collection of unmarked clupeids in under louver net one. TOTAL TOTAL EST. EST. START START ELAPSED CANAL TOTAL CLUP/ MEASURED MEASURED EST. SHAD/ EST. HERRING! DATE TIME TIME FLOW CLUPIED HOUR SHAD HERRING SHAD HOUR HERRING HOUR 09/15 16:19 04:22 3300 09/16 17:07 03:53 3300 09/17 16:44 01:52 3000 09/23 17:02 04:04 3200 09/24 17:00 05:07 3200 09/25 16:58 04:09 3200 09/26 16:58 04:08 3300 09/28 17:00 05:02 3000 09/29 16:58 05:06 3000 09/30 16:56 05:06 3000 10/01 16:56 05:03 3000 10/02 16:58 05:01 3000 10/03 17:00 05:00 3000 10/05 16:57 05:08 3000 10/06 16:57 05:04 3000 10/07 17:04 05:00 3000 10/08 16:59 05:06 3300 10/09 17:23 04:46 3000 10/10 16:59 05:05 3000 . 10/11 16:58 05:05 3100 10/12 16:58 04:10 3000 10113 16:58 02:23 3300 10/14 16:58 05:06 3300 10/15 17:06 03:59 4500 10/16 17:02 04:02 4500 10/17 17:04 04:05 4500 10/18 17:00 05:17 4300 0.4 10/19 16:57 04:07 4500 10/20 16:59 05:07 4500 1 0/21 17:00 05:07 4500 1 0/22 16:58 04:04 4500 10/23 16:57 04:07 4500 1 0/24 17:00 04:08 4500 10/25 15:59 04:59 4500 10/28 16:00 04:03 4500 10/29 16:00 04:02 5400 10/30 16:05 04:00 5400 10/31 15:54 04:10 5400 11/01 15:54 04:11 5400 11/02 15:57 04:10 5400 11/03 16:09 03:49 5400 11/05 15:48 04:15 5600 11/06 16:04 03:59 5600 TOTALS 190. PERCENT

catchf1Appendix C , Table 11. Daily collection of unmarked clupeids in under louver net two. TOTAL TOTAL EST. EST. START START ELAPSED CANAL TOTAL CLUP/ MEASURED MEASURED EST. SHAD/ EST. HERRING! DATE TIME TIME FLOW CLUPIED HOUR SHAD HERRING SHAD HOUR HERRING HOUR 09/15 16:13 04:26 3300 09/16 17:04 03:53 3300 09/17 16:41 01:53 3000 09/23 17:01 04:03 3200 09/24 16:58 05:07 3200 09/25 16:55 04:09 3200 09/26 16:55 04:08 3300 09/28 16:58 05:06 3000 09/29 16:55 05:07 3000 0.4 09/30 16:54 05:06 3000 10/01 16:54 05:03 3000 10/02 16:55 05:02 3000 10/03 16:57 05:01 3000 10/05 16:55 05:08 3000 10/06 16:55 05:03 3000 10/07 17:02 05:00 3000 10/08 16:58 05:05 3300 10/09 17:19 04:48 3000 10/10 16:56 05:05 3000 10/11 16:56 05:05 3100 10112 16:56 04:10 3000 10/13 16:56 02:23 3300 0.4 10/14 16:56 05:06 3300 10/15 17:04 03:58 4500 10/16 17:00 04:02 4500 10/17 17:57 03:10 4500 10118 16:58 05:18 4300 10/19 16:55 04:07 4500 10/20 16:57 05:06 4500 0.4 1 0/21 16:58 05:07 4500 1 0/22 16:56 04:03 4500 10/23 16:55 04:07 4500 10/24 16:57 04:09 4500 10/25 15:56 05:00 4500 10/28 15:58 04:03 4500 0.2 10/29 16:12 03:48 5400 10/30 16:07 03:56 5400 10/31 15:56 04:06 5400 11/01 15:55 04:08 5400 11/02 15:55 04:10 5400 11/03 16:07 03:49 5400 11/05 15:56 04:05 5600 11/06 16:02 04:00 5600 TOTALS 189. 113 101 101 PERCENT

catchf2Appendix C , Table 12. Daily collection of clupeids in under louver net three. TOTAL TOTAL EST. EST. START START ELAPSED CANAL TOTAL CLUP/ MEASURED MEASURED EST. SHAD EST. HERRING DATE TIME TIME FLOW CLUPIED HOUR SHAD HERRING SHAD HOUR HERRING HOUR 09/15 16:09 04:25 3300 09/16 17:01 03:53 3300 09/17 16:39 01:52 3000 09/23 16:58 04:03 3200 09/24 16:55 05:06 3200 09/25 16:53 04:09 3200 09/26 16:53 04:08 3300 09/28 16:56 05:10 3000 09/29 16:52 05:08 3000 09/30 16:51 05:07 3000 10/01 16:51 05:04 3000 1.4 10/02 16:53 05:01 3000 10/03 16:55 05:01 3000 0.4 10/05 16:52 05:08 3000 10/06 16:53 05:03 3000 10/07 17:00 05:00 3000 1;5 1.4 10/08 16:57 05:03 3300 10/09 17:16 04:48 3000 10/10 16:54 05:05 3000 10/11 16:54 05:05 3100 10/12 16:54 04:09 3000 10/13 16:54 02:23 3300 19. 19. 10/14 16:54 05:06 3300 10/15 17:01 03:59 4500 10/16 16:57 04:03 4500 10/17 17:54 03:09 4500 10/18 16:56 05:06 4300 10/19 16:52 04:08 4500 10/20 16:53 05:08 4500 10/21 16:55 05:07 4500 1 0/22 16:54 04:03 4500 10. 10. 10/23 16:52 04:09 4500 15. 15. 1 0/24 16:54 04:09 4500 17. 17. 10/25 15:53 05:01 4500 10/28 15:55 04:03 4500 140 34. 140 34. 10/29 15:54 04:04 5400 6.4 10/30 16:09 03:52 5400 10/31 15:58 04:01 5400 11/01 15:53 04:08 5400 11/02 15:53 04:10 5400 11/03 16:05 03:48 5400 11/05 15:53 04:05 5600 11/06 15:55 04:05 5600 TOTALS 189. 805 805 634 450 355 PERCENT

catchf3Appendix C , Table 13. Daily collection of clupeids at the Holyoke Canal bypass oollection facility. TOTAL TOTAL EST. EST. START START ELAPSED CANAL TOTAL CLUP/ MEASURE MEASURE EST. SHAD EST. HERRING DATE TIME TIME FLOW CLUPEIDS HOUR SHAD HERRING SHAD HOUR HERRING HOUR 09/15 17:00 01:00 3300 09/15 18:00 01:00 3300 09/15 19:00 01:00 3300 09/15 20:00 01:00 3300 104 104 09/16 17:00 01:00 3300 09/16 18:00 01:00 3300 09/16 19:00 01:00 3300 09/16 20:00 01:00 3300 09/17 17:00 01:00 3000 09/17 18:00 01:00 3000 09/17 19:00 01:00 09/17 20:00 00:30 09/23 17:00 01:00 3200 09/23 18:00 01:00 3200 09/23 19:00 01:00 3200 494 494 107 107 387 387 09/23 20:00 01 :01 3200 992 976 09/24 17:00 01:00 3200 09/24 18:00 01:00 3200 09/24 19:00 01:00 3200 1545 1545 995 995 550 550 09/24 20:00 01:00 3200 1937 1937 09/24 21:00 01:00 3200 1419 1419 09/24 22:00 01:00 3200 1494 1494 09/24 23:00 01:00 3200 722 722 09/25 00:00 01:00 3200 1069 1069 09/25 01:00 01:00 3200 1096 1096 09/25 02:00 01:00 3200 1346 1346 09/25 03:00 01:00 3200 1617 1617 09/25 04:00 01:00 3200 2753 2753 09/25 05:00 01:00 3200 1526 1526 09/25 06:00 01:00 3200 402 402 09/25 07:00 01:00 3200 09/25 08:00 01:00 3200 09/25 09:00 01:00 3200 09/25 10:00 01:00 3200 09/25 11 :00 01:00 3200 09/25 12:00 01:00 3200 09/25 13:00 01:00 3200 09/25 14:00 01:00 3200 09/25 15:00 01:00 3200 09/25 16:00 01:00 3200 09/25 17:00 01:00 3200 09/25 18:00 01:00 3200 148 148 09/25 19:00 01:00 3200 1100 1100 582 582 518 518 09/25 20:00 01:00 3200 879 879 448 448 431 431 09/26 17:00 01:00 3300 09/26 18:00 01:00 3300 492 492 464 464 09/26 19:00 01:00 3300 1205 1205 1183 1183 09/26 20:00 01:00 3300 1856 1856 133 133 1723 1723 09/28 17:00 01:00 3000 09/28 18:00 01:00 3000 09/28 19:00 01:00 3000 964 964 286 286 678 678 09/28 20:00 01:00 3000 1548 1548 941 941 607 607 09/28 21:00 01:00 3000 1882 1882 926 926 956 956 09/28 22:00 01:00 3000 1722 1722 446 446 1276 1276 09/28 23:00 01:00 3000 1127 1127 201 201 926 926 09/29 00:00 01:00 3000 956 956 153 153 803 803 catchbcfAppendix C , Table 13. Continued TOTAL TOTAL EST. EST. START START ELAPSED CANAL TOTAL CLUPt MEASURE MEASURE EST. SHAD EST. HERRING DATE TIME TIME FLOW CLUPEIDS HOUR SHAD HERRING SHAD HOUR HERRING HOUR 09/29 01:00 01:00 3000 885 885 177 177 708 708 09/29 02:00 01:00 3000 591 591 508 508 09/29 03:00 01:00 3000 681 681 599 599 09/29 04:00 01:00 3000 443 443 346 346 09/29 05:00 01:00 130 130 09/29 07:00 01:00 3200 09/29 08:00 01:00 3200 09/29 09:00 01:00 3200 09/29 10:00 01:00 3200 09/29 11:00 01:00 3200 09/29 12:00 01:00 3200 09/29 13:00 00:31 3200 09/29 14:00 01:00 3200 09/29 15:00 01:00 3200 09/29 16:00 01:00 3200 09/29 17:00 01:00 3000 09/29 \.-18:00 01:00 3000 345 345 277 277 09/29 19:00 01:00 3000 3008 3008 467 467 2541 2541 09/29 20:00 01:00 3000 4160 4160 2320 2320 1840 1840 09/29 21:00 01:00 3000 2641 2641 1100 1100 1541 1541 09/30 17:00 01:00 3000 09/30 18:00 01:00 3000 581 581 498 498 09/30 19:00 01:00 3000 6644 6644 6133 6133 511 511 09/30 20:00 01:00 3000 2882 2882 1718 1718 1164 1164 09/30 21:00 01:00 3000 1714 1714 857 857 857 857 09/30 22:00 01:00 3000 2269 2269 781 781 1488 1488 09/30 23:00 01:00 3000 1005 1005 205 205 800 800 10/01 00:00 01:00 3000 901 901 141 141 760 760 10/01 01:00 01:00 3000 905 905 139 139 766 766 10/01 02:00 01:00 3000 1404 1404 468 468 936 936 10/01 03:00 01:00 3000 1042 1042 521 521 521 521 10/01 04:00 01:00 3000 758 758 531 531 227 227 10/01 05:00 01:00 3000 553 553 501 501 10/01 06:00 01:00 3000 871 871 801 801 10/01 07:00 01:00 3000 10/01 08:00 01:00 3000 10/01 09:00 01:00 3000 10/01 10:00 01:00 3000 10/01 11 :00 01:00 3000 10/01 12:00 01:00 3000 10/01 13:00 01:00 3000 10/01 14:00 01:00 3000 10/01 15:00 01:00 3000 10/01 16:00 01:00 3000 10/01 17:00 01:00 3000 10/01 18:00 01:00 3000 483 483 430 430 10/01 19:00 01:00 3000 4131 4131 2313 2313 1818 1818 10/01 20:00 01:00 3000 2135 2135 932 932 1203 1203 10/01 21:00 01:00 3000 1054 1054 422 422 632 632 10/02 17:00 01:00 3000 10/02 18:00 01:00 3000 10/02 19:00 01:00 3000 3650 3650 3369 3369 281 281 10/02 20:00 01:00 3000 2338 2338 738 738 1600 1600 10/02 21:00 01:00 3000 930 930 167 167 763 763 10/03 17:00 01:00 3000 catchbcfAppendix C , Table 13. Continued TOTAL TOTAL EST. EST. START START ELAPSED CANAL TOTAL CLUP/ MEASURE MEASURE EST. SHAD EST. HERRING DATE TIME TIME FLOW CLUPEIDS HOUR SHAD HERRING SHAD HOUR HERRING HOUR 10/03 18:00 01:00 3000 286 286 263 263 10/03 19:00 01:00 3000 4222 4222 4222 4222 10/03 20:00 01:00 3000 1777 1777 1707 1707 10/03 21:00 01:00 3000 429 429 261 261 168 168 10/05 17:00 01:00 3000 10/05 18:00 01:00 3000 761 761 441 441 320 320 10/05 19:00 01:00 3000 3761 3761 1917 1917 1844 1844 10/05 20:00 01:00 3000 5312 5312 2506 2506 2806 2806 10/05 21:00 01:00 3000 10331 10331 3509 3509 6822 6822 10/06 17:00 01:00 3000 10/06 18:00 01:00 3000 1157 1157 839 839 318 318 10/06 19:00 01:00 3000 17302 17302 14021 14021 3281 3281 10/06 20:00 01:00 3000 4880 4880 1289 1289 3591 3591 10/06 21:00 01:00 3000 3833 3833 1303 1303 2530 2530 10/07 17:00 01:00 3000 10/07 18:00 01:00 3000 351 351 124 124 227 227 10/07 19:00 01:00 3000 10963 10963 10963 1 0963 10/07 20:00 01:00 3000 2098 2098 1012 1012 1086 1086 10/07 21:00 01:00 3000 1699 1699 566' 566 1133 1133 10/07 22:00 01:00 3000 1113 1113 378 378 735 735 10/07 23:00 01:00 3000 546 546 240 240 306 306 10/08 00:00 01:00 3000 439 439 140 140 299 299 10/08 01:00 01:00 3000 360 360 101 101 259 259 10/08 02:00 01:00 3000 425 425 196 195 230 229 10/08 03:00 01:00 3000 218 218 113 113 105 105 10/08 04:00 01:00 3000 296 296 228 228 10/08 05:00 01:00 3000 231 231 180 180 10/08 06:00 01:00 3000 258 258 219 219 10/08 07:00 01:00 3000 10/08 08:00 00:40 3000 10/08 17:00 01:00 3300 10/08 18:00 01:00 3300 13257 13257 7713 7713 5544 5544 10/08 19:00 01:00 3300 20634 20634 18687 18687 1947 1947 10/08 20:00 01:00 3300 1 0923 10923 1071 1071 9852 9852 10/08 21:00 01:00 3300 8422 8422 1748 1748 6674 6674 10/09 17:00 01:00 3000 10/09 18:00 01:00 3000 4995 4995 1110 1110 3885 3885 10/09 19:00 01:00 3000 11179 11179 9838 9838 1341 1341 10/09 20:00 01:00 3000 5198 5198 3379 3379 1819 1819 10/09 21:00 01:00 3000 4472 4472 2733 2733 1739 1739 10/10 17:00 01:00 3000 10/10 18:00 01:00 3000 10/10 19:00 01:00 3000 1501 1501 1092 1092 409 409 10/10 20:00 01:00 3000 1097 1097 366 366 731 731 10/10 21:00 01:00 3000 2898 2898 1059 1059 1839 1839 10/11 17:00 01:00 3100 10/11 18:00 01:00 3100 293 293 259 259 10/11 19:00 01:00 3100 2830 2830 999 999 1831 1831 10/11 20:00 01:00 3100 2963 2963 613 613 2350 2350 10/11 21:00 01:00 3100 4046 4046 728 728 3318 3318 10/12 17:00 01:00 3000 10/12 18:00 01:00 3000 3639 3639 728 728 2911 2911 10/12 19:00 01:00 3000 22085 22085 7362 7362 14723 14723 10/12 20:00 01:00 3000 34727 34727 4862 4862 29865 29865 10/13 17:00 01:00 3300 catchbcfAppendix C , Table 13. Continued TOTAL TOTAL EST. EST. START START ELAPSED CANAL TOTAL CLUP/ MEASURE MEASURE EST. SHAD EST. HERRING DATE TIME TIME FLOW CLUPEIDS HOUR SHAD HERRING SHAD HOUR HERRING HOUR 10/13 18:00 01:00 3300 58395 58395 20214 20214 38181 38181 10/14 17:00 01:00 3300 10/14 18:00 01:00 3300 3722 3722 351 351 3371 3371 10/14 19:00 01:00 3300 6012 6012 3498 3498 2514 2514 10/14 20:00 01:00 3300 6020 6020 1817 1817 4203 4203 10/14 21:00 01:00 3300 2050 2050 2009 2009 10/15 17:00 01:00 4500 10/15 18:00 01:00 4500 190176 190176 7458 7458 182718 182718 10/15 19:00 01:00 4500 5031 5031 101 101 4930 4930 10/15 20:00 01:00 4500 3268 3268 261 261 3007 3007 10/15 21:00 01:00 4500 3415 3415 201 201 3214 3214 10/15 22:00 01:00 3000 1541 1541 1452 1452 10/15 23:00 01:00 3000 276 276 180 180 10/16 00:00 01:00 3000 948 948 857 857 10/16 01:00 01:00 3000 909 909 218 218 691 691 10/16 02:00 01:00 3000 781 781 704 704 10/16 03:00 01:00 3000 399 399 110 110 289 289 10/16 04:00 01:00 3000 380 380 115 115 265 265 10/16 05:00 01:00 3000 10/16 06:00 01:00 3000 . 10/16 07:00 01:00 3000 135 135 10/16 08:00 01:00 3000 10/16 09:00 01:00 3000 10/16 10:00 01:00 3000 10/16 11:00 01:00 3300 10/16 12:00 01:00 3300 10/16 13:00 01:00 3300 10/16 14:00 01:00 3300 10/16 15:00 01:00 3300 10/16 16:00 01:00 3300 10/16 17:00 01:00 4500 10/16 18:00 01:00 4500 10108 10108 1944 1944 8164 8164 10/16 19:00 01:00 4500 13138 13138 973 973 12165 12165 10/16 20:00 01:00 4500 2708 2708 226 226 2482 2482 1 0/17 18:00 01:00 3000 8833 8833 1799 1799 7034 7034 10/17 19:00 01:00 3000 12338 12338 449 449 11889 11889 10/17 20:00 01:00 3000 8816 8816 499 499 8317 8317 10/18 17:00 01:00 4300 162 162 149 149 10/18 18:00 01:00 4300 75066 75066 31607 31607 43459 43459 10/18 19:00 01:00 4300 16642 16642 3819 3819 12823 12823 10/18 20:00 01:00 4300 3915 3915 376 376 3539 3539 10118 21:00 01:00 4300 2376 2376 137 137 2239 2239 10/19 17:00 01:00 4500 10/19 18:00 01:00 4500 40027 40027 3202 3202 36825 36825 10/19 19:00 01:00 4500 5236 5236 332 332 4904 4904 10/19 20:00 01:00 4500 4724 4724 185 185 4539 4539 10/19 21:00 01:00 4500 7406 7406 290 290 7116 7116 10/19 22:00 01:00 3000 5336 5336 323 323 5013 5013 10/19 23:00 01:00 3000 1281 1281 1230 1230 10/20 00:00 01:00 3000 1084 1084 100 100 984 984 10/20 01:00 01:00 3000 1221 1221 346 346 875 875 10/20 02:00 01:00 3000 696 696 120 120 576 576 10/20 03:00 01:00 3000 557 557 111 111 446 446 10/20 04:00 01:00 3000 464 464 408 408 10/20 05:00 01:00 3000 202 202 155 155 catchbcfAppendix C , Table 13. Continued TOTAL TOTAL EST. EST. START START ELAPSED CANAL TOTAL CLUP/ MEASURE MEASURE EST. SHAD EST. HERRING DATE TIME TIME FLOW CLUPEIDS HOUR SHAD HERRING SHAD HOUR HERRING HOUR 10/20 06:00 01:00 3000 10/20 07:00 01:00 3300 10/20 08:00 01:00 3300 10/20 09:00 01:00 3300 10/20 10:00 01:00 3300 10/20 11:00 01:00 3300 10/20 12:00 01:00 3300 10/20 13:00 01:00 3300 10/20 14:00 01:00 3300 10/20 15:00 01:00 3300 1 0/20 16:00 01:00 4500 10/20 17:00 01:00 4500 10/20 18:00 01:00 4500 100437 100437 66958 66958 33479 33479 10/20 19:00 01:00 4500 28257 28257 3646 3646 24611 24611 10/20 20:00 01:00 4500 4557 4557 253 253 4304 4304 10/20 21:00 01:00 4500 4510 4510 796 796 3714 3714 10/21 17:00 01:00 4500 60434 60434 6842 6842 53592 53592 10/21 18:00 01:00 4500 56457 56457 19491 19491 36966 36966 10/21 19:00 01:00 4500 6060 6060 1584 1584 4476 4476 10/21 20:00 01:00 4500 2003 2003 367 367 1636 1636 10/21 21:00 01:00 4500 704 704 117 117 587 587 1 0/21 22:00 01:00 3300 352 352 331 331 10/21 23:00 01:00 3300 447 447 429 429 1 0/22 00:00 01:00 3300 484 484 465 465 10/22 01:00 01:00 3300 229 229 202 202 1 0/22 02:00 01:00 3300 125 125 111 111 1 0/22 03:00 01:00 3300 286 286 223 223 1 0/22 04:00 01:00 3300 156 156 134 134 10/22 05:00 01:00 3300 118 118 10/22 06:00 01:00 3300 10/22 07:00 01:00 3300 161 161 132 132 10/22 08:00 01:00 3300 10/22 09:00 01:00 3300 10/22 10:00 01:00 3300 10/22 11:00 01:00 3300 10/22 12:00 01:00 3300 10/22 13:00 01:00 3300 10/22 14:00 01:00 3300 10/22 15:00 01:00 3300 1 0/22 16:00 01:00 3300 10/22 17:00 01:00 4500 1436 1436 166 166 1270 1270 10/22 18:00 01:00 4500 49441 49441 8916 8916 40525 40525 10/22 19:00 01:00 4500 10524 10524 1417 1417 9107 9107 1 0/22 20:00 01:00 4500 9327 9327 538 538 8789 8789 1 0/23 17:00 01:00 4500 1 0/23 18:00 01:00 4500 63653 63653 63653 63653 10/23 19:00 01:00 4500 11716 11716 11716 11716 1 0/23 20:00 01:00 4500 3414 3414 3414 3414 10/24 17:00 01:00 4500 29758 29758 7861 7861 21897 21897 1 0/24 18:00 01:00 4500 57196 57196 6600 6600 50596 50596 10/24 19:00 01:00 4500 3153 3153 3099 3099 10/24 20:00 01:00 4500 3278 3278 3216 3216 10/25 16:00 01:00 4500 3860 3860 3783 3783 10/25 17:00 01:00 4500 30759 30759 615 615 30144 30144 10/25 18:00 01:00 4500 2018 2018 1937 1937 catchbcfAppendix C , Table 13. Continued TOTAL TOTAL EST. EST. START START ELAPSED CANAL TOTAL CLUP/ MEASURE MEASURE EST. SHAD EST. HERRING DATE TIME TIME FLOW CLUPEIDS HOUR SHAD HERRING SHAD HOUR HERRING HOUR 10/25 19:00 01:00 4500 2651 2651 106 106 2545 2545 10/25 20:00 01:00 4500 681 681 681 681 10/28 16:00 01:00 4500 233 233 224 224 10/28 17:00 01:00 4500 60264 60264 3814 60248 60248 . 10/28 18:00 01:00 4500 2203 2203 2159 2159 10/28 19:00 01:00 4500 807 807 807 807 10/29 16:00 01:00 5400 101 101 10/29 17:00 01:00 5400 8887 8887 168 168 8719 8719 10/29 18:00 01:00 5400 1490 1490 1430 1430 10/29 19:00 01:00 5400 467 467 458 458 10/30 16:00 01:00 5400 213 213 213 213 10/30 17:00 01:00 5400 6448 6448 239 239 6209 6209 10/30 18:00 01:00 5400 727 727 700 700 10/30 19:00 01:00 5400 238 238 238 238 10/31 16:00 01:00 5400 1438 1438 195 195 1243 1243 10/31 17:00 01:00 5400 1206 1206 1182 1182 10/31 18:00 01:00 5400 384 384 384 384 10/31 19:00 01:00 5400 250 250 241 241 11/01 16:00 01:00 5400 1001 1001 961 961 11/01 17:00 01:00 5400 2659 2659 504 504 2155 2155 11/01 18:00 01:00 5400 287 287 287 287 11/01 19:00 01:00 5400 11/02 16:00 01:00 5400 2676 2676 288 288 2388 2388 11/02 17:00 01:00 5400 668 668 655 655 11/02 18:00 01:00 5400 755 755 755 755 11/02 19:00 01:00 5400 705 705 705 705 11/03 16:00 01:00 5400 946 946 86; 860 860 11/03 17:00 01:00 5400 328 328 13 i 315 315 11/03 18:00 01:00 5400 226 226 222 222 11/03 19:00 01:00 5400 108 108 3.- 102 102 11/05 16:00 01:00 5600 41u 11/05 17:00 01:00 5600 11/05 18:00 01:00 5600 11/05 19:00 01:00 5600 11/06 16:00 01:00 5600 11/06 17:00 01:00 5600 11/06 18:00 01:00 5600 11/06 19:00 01:00 5600 TOTALS 312. 1462047 195 3266 12522 302448 967 1159599 3708 PERCENT 21% 79% 21% 79%

catchbcf, . I . I . Appendix HOLYOKE CANAL FLOWSAppendix D. HOLYOKE CANAL FLOWS FALL 1992 POND GENERATION MW. DISCHARGE CFS

DATE I TIME I ELEV. I HADLEY 1 HADLEY 2 CANAL I BASCULE HADLEY CANAL I 1200 10225 250 3000

09/15 1300 10219 250 3000 09/15 1400 10211 250 3000 09/15 1500 10221 250 3000 09/15 1600 10219 250 3000 09/15 1700 10192 250 2300 3300 09/15 1800 10177 250 1800 3300 09/15 1900 10171 250 1800 3300 09/15 2000 10164 250 1800 3300 09/15 2100 10166 250 1600 3300 09/15 2200 10176 250 1800 500 09/15 2300 10189 250 1400 09/15 2400 10191 250 1400 09/16 100 10194 250 1400 09/16 200 10198 250 1400 09/16 300 10201 250 1600 09/16 400 10203 250 1400 09/16 500 10207 250 1400 09/16 600 10202 250 1400 09/16 700 10202 250 1400 09/16 800 10201 250 1400 09/16 900 209 250 1400 09/16 1000 207 250 1400 200 09/16 1100 207 250 1400 200 09/16 1200 203 250 1400 200 09/16 1300 209 250 1400 200 09/16 1400 209 250 1400 200 09/16 1500 216 250 1400 200 09/16 1600 218 250 1400 200 09/16 1700 189 250 1400 3300 09/16 1800 182 250 1400 3300 09/16 1900 175 10. 250 1400 3300 09/16 2000 169 10. 250 1400 3300 09/16 2100 164 10. 250 1400 3300 09/16 2200 190 250 1400 3300 09/16 2300 175 250 3300 3300 09/16 2400 177 250 4100 500 09/17 100 182 250 4100 09/17 200 188 250 4400 09/17 300 208 250 3000 09/17 400 228 250 2600 09/17 500 245 250 1600 09/17 600 253 250 1600 09/17 700 260 250 1600 09/17 800 266 250 1400 200 09/17 900 267 250 1400 200 09/17 1000 269 250 1600 200 09/17 1100 269 250 1400 200 09/17 1200 273 250 1600 200 09/17 1300 272 250 1400 200 09/17 1400 262 250 1400 200 09/17 1500 280 250 1400 200 09/17 1600 280 250 1400 200 09/17 1700 270 250 1600 3000 09/17 1800 257 15. 250 1800 3000 09/17 1900 261 11. 250 1400 2000 09/17 2000 263 250 1400 500 09/17 2100 261 250 1400 09/17 2200 259 250 1800 09/17 2300 259 250 1800 09/17 2400 257 250 1800Appendix D. Continued POND GENERATION MW. DISCHARGE CFS DATE I TIME I ELEV. I HADLEY 1 HADLEY 2 CANAL I BASCULE HADLEY CANAL 09/18 100 256 250 1900 09/18 200 256 250 1800 09/18 300 256 250 1800 09/18 400 256 250 1800 09/18 500 257 250 1800 09/18 600 251 250 1400 09/18 700 250 250 1800 09/18 800 254 250 1800 09/18 900 250 250 1800 09/18 1000 250 250 1800 09/18 1100 249 250 1600 09/18 1200 249 250 1800 09/18 1300 247 250 1800 09/18 1400 244 250 1800 09/18 1500 246 250 1800 09/18 1600 247 250 1600 09/18 1700 242 250 1800 09/18 1800 240 250 1800 09/18 1900 250 250 1800 09/18 2000 250 250 1600 09/18 2100 252 250 1800 09/18 2200 256 250 1800 09/18 2300 235 250 3900 09/18 2400 234 250 4400 09/19 100 236 250 4100 09/19 200 237 250 4400 09/19 300 246 250 4100 09/19 400 255 250 4400 09/19 500 279 250 3100 09/19 600 305 250 1800 09/19 700 323 250 1800 09/19 800 315 250 2300 09/19 900 312 250 09/19 1000 309 250 09/19 1100 305 250 09/19 1200 300 250 09/19 1300 291 250 4400 09/19 1400 288 250 4100 09/19 1500 285 250 3300 09/19 1600 289 250 2800 09/19 1700 288 250 1800 09/19 1800 288 250 1800 09/19 1900 286 250 1800 09/19 2000 285 250 2100 09/19 2100 284 250 1800 09/19 2200 281 250 1800 09/19 2300 279 250 1800 09/19 2400 277 250 1800 09120 100 274 250 2100 09120 200 272 250 1800 09120 300 270 250 1800 09120 400 269 250 1800 09120 500 266 250 1800 09120 600 264 250 2100 09120 700 263 250 1600 09120 800 262 250 1600 09120 900 261 250 1800 09120 1000 260 250 1600 09120 1100 258 250 1600 09120 1200 257 250 1600 09120 1300 254 250 1800 canalfloAppendix D. Continued POND GENERATION Mw. DISCHARGE CFS DATE I TIME I ELEV. I HADLEY 1 HADLEY 2 CANAL I BASCULE HADLEY CANAL 09/20 1400 251 250 1600 09/20 1500 249 250 1400 09/20 1600 248 250 1600 09/20 1700 246 250 1400 09/20 1800 245 250 1600 09/20 1900 245 250 1600 09/20 2000 245 250 1400 09/20 2100 245 250 1400 09/20 2200 243 250 1400 09/20 2300 243 250 09/20 2400 241 250 1400 09/21 100 240 250 09/21 200 239 250 1400 09/21 300 237 250 1600 09/21 400 235 250 1400 09/21 500 234 250 1600 09/21 600 232 250 1600 09/21 700 230 250 1400 09/21 800 229 250 1600 09/21 900 227 250 09/21 1000 225 250 09/21 1100 220 250 09/21 1200 215 250 09/21 1300 213 250 1400 09/21 1400 211 250 1600 09/21 1500 211 250 1400 09/21 1600 211 250 1400 09/21 1700 211 250 1400 09/21 1800 211 250 1400 09/21 1900 212 250 1400 09/21 2000 213 250 1400 09/21 2100 216 250 09/21 2200 216 250 1400 09/21 2300 220 250 1400 09/21 2400 223 250 1600 09/22 100 228 250 1400 09/22 200 232 250 1600 09/22 300 239 250 1400 09/22 400 246 250 1600 09/22 500 254 250 1600 09/22 600 259 250 1400 09/22 700 264 250 1600 09/22 800 268 250 1400 09/22 900 269 250 1600 09/22 1000 270 250 1600 09/22 1100 270 250 1400 09/22 1200 270 250 1600 09/22 1300 269 250 1400 09/22 1400 269 250 1600 09/22 1500 270 250 1400 09/22 1600 270 250 1400 09/22 1700 276 250 1400 09/22 1800 276 250 1400 09/22 1900 279 250 1400 09/22 2000 284 250 1400 09/22 2100 289 250 1400 09/22 2200 277 250 3300 09/22 2300 272 250 4700 09/22 2400 272 250 4100 09/23 100 278 250 4100 09/23 200 282 250 4700 cananloAppendix D. Continued POND GENERATION MW. DISCHARGE CFS DATE I TIME I ELEV. I HADLEY 1 HADLEY 2 CANAL I BASCULE HADLEY CANAL 09/23 300 286 250 4700 09/23 400 286 250 4100 09/23 500 290 250 4700 09/23 600 294 250 4700 09/23 700 301 250 4100 09/23 800 300 250 4100 09/23 900 295 250 4700 09/23 1000 291 250 4100 09/23 1100 286 250 4100 09/23 1200 281 250 4100 09/23 1300 283 250 3300 09/23 1400 285 250 2800 09/23 1500 284 250 3000 09/23 1600 283 250 3000 09/23 1700 269 250 2800 3200 09/23 1800 244 250 2800 3200 09/23 1900 235 10. 250 3000 3200 09/23 2000 226 10. 250 2800 3200 09/23 2100 219 10. 250 3000 3200 09/23 2200 211 10. 250 2800 3200 09/23 2300 206 10. 250 3000 3200 09/23 2400 190 10. 250 4700 3200 09/24 100 190 10. 250 4100 3200 09/24 200 195 10. 250 4700 3200 09/24 300 229 250 4100 09/24 400 251 250 4700 09/24 500 301 250 2300 09/24 600 310 250 2100 09/24 700 315 250 3100 09/24 800 321 250 3100 09/24 900 318 250 4700 09/24 1000 315 250 4700 09/24 1100 310 250 4100 09/24 1200 305 250 4700 09/24 1300 300 250 4100 09/24 1400 296 250 4100 09/24 1500 284 2.4 250 4400 1500 09/24 1600 264 250 4100 3300 09/24 1700 270 250 2800 3300 09/24 1800 269 250 2600 3300 09/24 1900 265 250 2600 3300 09/24 2000 265 250 2600 3300 09/24 2100 264 250 2600 3300 09/24 2200 262 250 2300 3300 09/24 2300 255 10. 250 2600 3300 09/24 2400 259 10. 250 2800 3300 09/25 100 266 250 2600 3300 09/25 200 273 250 2600 3300 09/25 300 279 10. 250 2600 3300 09/25 400 283 10. 250 2800 3300 09/25 500 286 250 2600 3300 09/25 600 288 10. 250 2600 3300 09/25 700 309 10. 250 1800 3300 09/25 800 310 10. 250 1400 3300 09/25 900 311 10. 250 1400 3300 09/25 1000 310 10. 250 1400 3300 09/25 1100 310 10. 250 1400 3300 09/25 1200 291 10. 250 2300 3300 09/25 1300 260 10. 250 3300 3300 09/25 1400 222 10. 250 5400 3300 09/25 1500 205 250 5600 3300 cana~loAppendix D. Continued POND GENERATION MW. DISCHARGE CFS DATE I TIME I ELEV. I HADLEY 1 HADLEY 2 CANAL I BASCULE HADLEY CANAL 09/25 1600 167 250 7000 3300 09/25 1700 160 250 5600 3300 09/25 1800 114 250 7300 3300 09/25 1900 144 250 5400 3300 09/25 2000 156 10. 250 5200 3300 09/25 2100 171 250 5200 3300 09/25 2200 190 10. 250 4700 3300 09/25 2300 203 250 5400 3300 09/25 2400 218 10. 250 5200 3300 09/26 100 236 250 5200 3300 09/26 200 256 250 5400 3300 09/26 300 280 250 5600 3300 09/26 400 287 250 5200 3300 09/26 500 299 250 5600 3300 09/26 600 312 250 5400 3300 09/26 700 318 250 6700 300 09/26 800 318 250 7900 300 09/26 900 315 250 300 09/26 1000 310 250 300 09/26 1100 302 250 300 09/26 1200 289 250 300 09/26 1300 300 250 300 09/26 1400 300 250 300 09/26 1500 300 250 300 09/26 1600 260 250 3300 09/26 1700 244 250 3300 09/26 1800 218 250 3300 09/26 1900 230 10. 250 3300 09/26 2000 235 250 3300 09/26 2100 211 250 3600 3300 09/26 2200 186 250 3900 3300 09/26 2300 210 250 4100 300 09/26 2400 215 250 4700 300 09/27 100 240 250 2100 300 09/27 200 254 250 1600 300 09/27 300 272 250 1600 300 09/27 400 281 250 1600 300 09/27 500 289 250 1600 300 09/27 600 295 250 1800 300 09/27 700 303 250 1600 300 09/27 800 306 250 1600 300 09/27 900 308 250 300 09/27 1000 309 250 300 09/27 1100 310 250 300 09/27 1200 311 250 300 09/27 1300 294 250 300 09/27 1400 287 250 300 09/27 1500 277 250 300 09/27 1600 269 250 300 09/27 1700 261 250 300 09/27 1800 256 0.4 250 300 09/27 1900 248 250 300 09/27 2000 244 250 300 09/27 2100 236 0.4 250 4100 300 09/27 2200 229 250 4100 300 09/27 2300 243 250 2100 300 09/27 2400 245 250 1800 300 09/28 100 248 250 1600 300 09/28 200 257 250 1600 300 09/28 300 260 250 1600 300 09/28 400 264 250 1600 300 cana~loAppendix D. Continued POND GENERATION MW. DISCHARGE CFS DATE I TIME I ELEV. I HADLEY 1 HADLEY 2 CANAL I BASCULE HADLEY CANAL 09/28 500 266 250 1800 300 09/28 600 271 250 1600 300 09/28 700 280 250 1600 300 09/28 800 269 250 3900 300 09/28 900 268 250 3100 09/28 1000 264 250 3200 09/28 1100 260 250 3100 09/28 1200 255 250 3100 09/28 1300 249 250 3400 09/28 1400 242 250 3800 09/28 1500 222 250 4100 1500 09/28 1600 214 250 3800 3300 09/28 1700 217 10. 250 3600 3300 09/28 1800 2112 10. 250 4100 3300 09/28 1900 212 10. 250 3600 3300 09/28 2000 215 10. 250 4100 3300 09/28 2100 221 10. 250 3900 3300 09/28 2200 224 10. 250 3600 3300 09/28 2300 225 250 4100 3300 09/28 2400 230 250 4100 3300 09/29 100 236 10. 250 3900 3300 09/29 200 243 250 4100 3300 09/29 300 252 250 3900 3300 09/29 400 258 10. 250 4100 3300 09/29 500 258 250 4100 3300 09/29 600 258 250 4100 3300 09/29 700 275 10. 250 3300 3300 09/29 800 276 10. 250 3000 3300 09/29 900 272 10. 250 2800 3300 09/29 1000 267 10. 250 2800 3300 09/29 1100 258 10. 250 2800 3300 09/29 1200 253 10. 250 2800 3300 09/29 1300 240 10. 250 2800 3300 09/29 1400 232 10. 250 2800 3300 09/29 1500 224 10. 250 2800 3300 09/29 1600 219 10. 250 2300 3300 09/29 1700 220 10. 250 1800 3300 09/29 1800 217 10. 250 2100 3300 09/29 1900 215 10. 250 2100 3300 09/29 2000 212 10. 250 2100 3300 09/29 2100 209 10. 250 1800 3300 09/29 2200 208 10. 250 2100 3300 09/29 2300 201 250 2800 3300 09/29 2400 218 250 4100 3300 09130 100 224 250 4700 09130 200 236 250 4100 09130 300 246 250 4700 09130 400 254 250 4700 09130 500 258 250 4700 09130 600 263 250 4100 09130 700 289 250 3600 09130 800 292 250 1800 09130 900 292 250 2100 09130 1000 303 250 1800 09130 1100 305 250 2100 09130 1200 303 250 2800 09130 1300 290 250 4400 09130 1400 289 250 4400 09130 1500 274 250 4100 3300 09130 1600 258 9.4 250 4100 3300 09130 1700 256 10. 250 4100 3300 canalfloAppendix D. Continued POND GENERATION Mw. DISCHARGE CFS DATE I TIME I ELEV. I HADLEY 1 HADLEY 2 CANAL I BASCULE HADLEY CANAL 09130 1800 246 10. 250 4100 3300 09130 1900 235 250 4100 3300 09130 2000 222 250 4100 3300 09130 2100 238 10. 250 1800 3300 09130 2200 229 250 1800 3300 09130 2300 228 250 1600 3300 09130 2400 228 250 1800 3300 10/01 100 234 250 1600 3300 10/01 200 238 250 1600 3300 10/01 300 244 250 1600 3300 10/01 400 250 250 1600 3300 10/01 500 255 250 1800 3300 10/01 600 255 250 1600 3300 10/01 700 262 250 1600 3300 10/01 800 262 250 1400 3300 10/01 900 251 250 1400 3300 10/01 1000 270 250 1400 3300 10/01 1100 260 250 1400 3300 10/01 1200 261 250 1400 3300 10/01 1300 263 250 1400 3300 10/01 1400 232 250 2800 3300 10/01 1500 231 250 2800 3300 10/01 1600 231 250 3000 3300 10/01 1700 228 10. 250 2800 3300 10/01 1800 224 10. 250 3000 3300 10/01 1900 220 250 3000 3300 10/01 2000 217 10. 250 3000 3300 10/01 2100 211 10. 250 2800 3300 10/01 2200 210 10. 250 3000 3300 10/01 2300 216 250 2800 3300 10/01 2400 242 250 2800 10/02 100 240 115 250 3900 300 10/02 200 247 250 4700 300 10/02 300 263 250 4100 300 10/02 400 285 250 4700 300 10/02 500 301 250 4700 300 10/02 600 260 250 7000 300 10/02 700 296 250 5200 300 10/02 800 294 250 5000 300 10/02 900 315 250 5900 300 10/02 1000 307 250 3900 300 10/02 1100 304 250 3900 300 10/02 1200 296 250 4700 300 10/02 1300 306 250 3300 300 10/02 1400 306 250 2800 300 10/02 1500 306 250 2800 3300 10/02 1600 293 250 2800 3300 10/02 1700 293 10. 250 1800 3300 10/02 1800 290 10. 250 1600 3300 10/02 1900 281 250 1600 3300 10/02 2000 273 10. 250 1600 3300 10/02 2100 264 250 1600 3300 10/02 2200 264 250 1600 3300 10/02 2300 275 250 1600 300 10/02 2400 285 250 1600 300 10/03 100 285 250 1600 300 10/03 200 285 250 1600 300 10/03 300 287 250 1600 300 10/03 400 288 250 1600 300 10/03 500 289 0.4 250 1600 300 10/03 600 290 0.4 250 1600 300 cana~loAppendix D. Continued POND GENERATION MW. DISCHARGE CFS DATE I TIME I ELEV. I HADLEY 1 HADLEY 2 CANAL I BASCULE HADLEY CANAL 10/03 700 293 250 1600 300 10/03 800 297 250 1600 300 10/03 900 296 250 1600 300 10/03 1000 295 250 1600 300 10/03 1100 295 250 1600 300 10/03 1200 296 250 1600 300 10/03 1300 298 250 1600 300 10/03 1400 298 250 1600 300 10/03 1500 300 250 1600 300 10/03 1600 301 250 1600 300 10/03 1700 281 250 1600 2800 10/03 1800 280 9.4 250 1600 2800 10/03 1900 272 250 1600 2800 10/03 2000 265 250 1600 2800 10/03 2100 257 250 1600 2800 10/03 2200 241 250 1600 2800 10/03 2300 244 250 1600 300 10/03 2400 257 250 1600 300 10/04 100 253 250 1800 300 10/04 200 253 250 1800 300 10/04 300 253 250 1800 300 10/04 400 257 250 1800 300 10/04 500 256 250 1800 300 10/04 600 254 250 1800 300 10/04 700 253 250 1800 300 10/04 800 253 250 1800 300 10/04 900 254 250 1800 300 10/04 1000 256 250 1800 300 10/04 1100 256 250 1800 300 10/04 1200 256 250 1800 300 10/04 1300 254 250 1800 300 10/04 1400 253 250 1800 300 10/04 1500 253 250 1800 300 10/04 1600 255 250 1800 300 10/04 1700 256 250 1800 300 10/04 1800 255 250 1800 300 10/04 1900 250 250 1800 300 10/04 2000 250 250 1800 300 10/04 2100 250 250 1800 300 10/04 2200 250 250 1800 300 10/04 2300 245 250 1800 300 10/05 2400 245 250 1800 300 10/05 100 240 250 1800 300 10/05 200 240 250 1800 300 10/05 300 248 250 1800 300 10/05 400 248 250 1800 300 10/05 500 250 250 1800 300 10/05 600 252 250 1800 300 10/05 700 256 250 1800 300 10/05 800 258 250 1800 300 10/05 900 262 250 1800 300 10/05 1000 266 250 1800 300 10/05 1100 266 250 1800 300 10/05 1200 268 250 1800 300 10/05 1300 266 250 1800 300 10/05 1400 266 250 1800 300 10/05 1500 267 250 1800 300 10/05 1600 259 250 1800 2800 10/05 1700 247 250 1800 2800 10/05 1800 233 9.4 250 1800 2800 10/05 1900 230 250 1600 2800Appendix D. Continued POND GENERATION MW. DISCHARGE CFS DATE I TIME I ELEV. I HADLEY 1 HADLEY 2 CANAL I BASCULE HADLEY CANAL 10/05 2000 223 250 1800 2800 10/05 2100 219 250 1800 3300 10/05 2200 208 10. 250 1800 3300 10/05 2300 200 10.4 250 1800 300 10/05 2400 221 250 1800 300 10/06 100 227 250 1800 300 10/06 200 233 250 1800 300 10/06 300 238 250 1800 300 10/06 400 242 250 1800 300 10/06 500 215 250 1800 300 10/06 600 250 250 1800 300 10/06 700 250 250 1800 300 10/06 800 253 250 1800 300 10/06 900 254 250 1800 300 10/06 1000 256 250 1800 300 10/06 1100 255 250 1800 300 10/06 1200 255 250 1800 300 10/06 1300 255 250 1800 300 10/06 1400 255 250 1800 300 10/06 1500 255 250 1800 300 10/06 1600 244 250 1800 3300 10/06 1700 228 10. 250 1800 3300 10/06 1800 222 10. 250 1800 3300 10/06 1900 210 10. 250 1800 3300 10/06 2000 205 10. 250 1800 3300 10/06 2100 195 10. 250 1800 3300 10/06 2200 190 10. 250 1800 3300 10/06 2300 193 10. 250 1600 3300 10/06 2400 210 250 1800 300 10/07 100 214 250 1800 400 10/07 200 218 250 1800 400 10/07 300 225 250 1800 400 10/07 400 232 250 1800 400 10/07 500 239 250 1800 400 10/07 600 245 250 1800 400 10/07 700 248 250 1800 300 10/07 800 251 250 1800 300 10/07 900 253 250 1800 300 10/07 1000 255 250 1800 300 10/07 1100 256 250 1800 300 10/07 1200 258 250 1800 300 10/07 1300 258 250 1800 300 10/07 1400 259 250 1800 300 10/07 1500 259 250 1800 3300 10/07 1600 250 250 1800 3300 10/07 1700 234 10. 250 1800 3300 10/07 1800 230 10. 250 1800 3300 10/07 1900 224 10. 250 1800 3300 10/07 2000 218 10. 250 1800 3300 10/07 2100 210 10. 250 1800 3300 10/07 2200 208 10. 250 1800 3300 10/07 2300 207 10. 250 1800 3300 10/07 2400 201 10. 250 1800 3300 10/08 100 194 10. 250 1800 3300 10/08 200 188 10. 250 1800 3300 10/08 300 185 10.2 250 1800 3300 10/08 400 187 10. 250 1800 3300 10/08 500 179 10. 250 1800 3300 10/08 600 176 10. 250 1800 3300 10/08 700 160 10. 250 1800 3300 10/08 800 154 10. 250 1800 3300Appendix D. Continued POND GENERATION MW. DISCHARGE CFS DATE I TIME I ELEV. I HADLEY 1 HADLEY 2 CANAL I BASCULE HADLEY CANAL 10/08 900 158 250 1800 500 10/08 1000 176 250 1800 500 10/08 1100 180 250 1800 500 10/08 1200 182 250 1800 500 10/08 1300 187 250 1800 500 10/08 1400 194 250 1600 500 10/08 1500 197 250 1800 500 10/08 1600 200 250 1800 500 10/08 1700 180 5.4 250 1800 3300 10/08 1800 168 10. 250 1800 3300 10/08 1900 158 10. 250 1800 3300 10/08 2000 150 10. 250 1800 3300 10/08 2100 140 10.4 250 1600 3300 10/08 2200 133 10. 250 1800 3300 10/08 2300 120 10. 250 1800 3300 10/08 2400 141 250 1800 400 10/09 100 149 250 1600 400 10/09 200 157 250 1800 400 10/09 300 168 250 1800 400 10/09 400 178 250 1800 400 10/09 500 188 250 1800 400 10/09 600 197 250 1800 400 10/09 700 200 250 1800 200 10/09 800 206 250 1800 200 10/09 900 210 250 1800 200 10/09 1000 211 250 1800 200 10/09 1100 202 250 1800 300 10/09 1200 202 250 2100 500 10/09 1300 208 250 2100 500 10/09 1400 208 250 1800 500 10/09 1500 216 250 1800 500 10/09 1600 208 250 1600 3000 10/09 1700 190 250 1800 3000 10/09 1800 186 250 1800 3000 10/09 1900 181 10. 250 1800 3000 10/09 2000 177 10. 250 1800 3000 10/09 2100 174 250 1800 3000 10/09 2200 173 250 1800 3000 10/09 2300 174 250 1800 3000 10/09 2400 204 250 1800 300 10/10 100 215 250 1800 300 10/10 200 226 250 1800 300 10/10 300 220 250 3900 300 10/10 400 215 250 4700 300 10/10 500 212 250 4700 300 10/10 600 200 250 4700 300 10/10 700 228 250 2300 300 10/10 800 233 250 1600 300 10/10 900 241 250 1600 300 10/10 1000 247 250 1800 300 10/10 1100 249 250 1600 300 10/10 1200 253 250 1800 300 10/10 1300 257 250 1600 300 10/10 1400 260 250 1600 300 10/10 1500 267 250 1600 300 10/10 1600 267 250 1600 300 10/10 1700 257 250 1600 3000 10/10 1800 257 250 1600 3000 10/10 1900 264 250 1400 3000 10/10 2000 270 250 1600 3000 10/10 2100 254 250 3600 3000 cana~loAppendix D. Continued POND GENERATION Mw. DISCHARGE CFS DATE I TIME I ELEV. I HADLEY 1 HADLEY 2 CANAL I BASCULE HADLEY CANAL 10/10 2200 250 250 4700 3000 10/10 2300 220 250 3200 3000 10/10 2400 212 250 8300 500 10/11 100 221 250 7900 500 10/11 200 231 250 8300 500 10/11 300 234 250 7900 500 10/11 400 232 250 8300 500 10/11 500 234 250 8300 500 10/11 600 229 250 7900 500 10/11 700 260 250 6400 300 10/11 800 263 250 5600 300 10/11 900 260 250 5600 300 10/11 1000 253 250 5600 300 10/11 1100 290 250 3300 300 10/11 1200 292 250 2100 300 10/11 1300 295 250 1800 300 10/11 1400 296 250 2100 300 10/11 1500 300 250 1800 300 10/11 1600 306 250 1800 300 10/11 1700 293 9.2 250 2100 3100 10/11 1800 285 250 1800 3100 10/11 1900 284 250 2100 3100 10/11 2000 280 250 1800 3100 10/11 2100 277 250 1800 3100 10/11 2200 275 250 2100 3100 10/11 2300 250 250 3000 500 10/12 2400 211 250 7900 500 10/12 100 194 250 8300 500 10/12 200 175 250 7900 500 10/12 300 197 250 5400 500 10/12 400 218 250 5200 500 10/12 500 224 250 5200 500 10/12 600 220 250 5400 500 10/12 700 220 250 5200 500 10/12 800 220 250 5000 500 10/12 900 210 250 5200 500 10/12 1000 208 250 5200 500 10112 1100 244 250 2600 500 10/12 1200 248 250 1600 500 10/12 1300 252 250 1600 500 10/12 1400 257 250 1600 500 10/12 1500 262 250 1600 500 10/12 1600 266 250 1600 500 10/12 1700 253 250 1600 3000 10/12 1800 253 9.4 250 1600 3000 10/12 1900 250 250 1600 3000 10/12 2000 247 250 1600 3000 10112 2100 243 250 1600 3000 10/12 2200 240 250 1600 3000 10/12 2300 235 250 2100 500 10/12 2400 235 250 4100 500 10/13 100 238 250 4100 500 10/13 200 240 250 4100 500 10/13 300 236 250 5200 500 10/13 400 232 250 5200 500 10/13 500 238 250 4700 500 10/13 600 238 250 4700 500 10113 700 250 250 4100 500 10/13 800 260 250 1600 500 10/13 900 261 250 1600 500 10113 1000 265 250 1600 500 cana~loAppendix D. Continued POND GENERATION MW. DISCHARGE CFS DATE I TIME I ELEV. I HADLEY 1 HADLEY 2 CANAL BASCULE HADLEY CANAL 10/13 1100 270 250 1400 500 10/13 1200 270 250 1600 500 10/13 1300 272 250 1600 500 10/13 1400 277 250 1600 500 10/13 1500 277 250 1600 500 10113 1600 260 250 1400 500 10/13 1700 254 10. 250 1600 3300 10/13 1800 251 10. 250 1600 3300 10/13 1900 248 10. 250 1400 3300 10/13 2000 248 10. 250 1600 3300 10/13 2100 274 250 1600 1500 10/13 2200 281 250 1600 500 10/13 2300 225 250 5900 500 10/13 2400 206 250 8300 500 10/14 100 196 250 7900 500 10/14 200 191 250 7900 500 10/14 300 219 250 5600 500 10/14 400 246 250 5200 500 10/14 500 274 250 5400 500 10/14 600 298 250 1800 500 10/14 700 308 250 2100 500 10/14 800 321 250 2100 500 10/14 900 308 250 3900 500 10/14 1000 304 250 4700 500 10/14 1100 300 250 4700 500 10/14 1200 293 250 4700 500 10/14 1300 285 250 4700 500 10/14 1400 276 250 4700 500 10/14 1500 264 250 4700 500 10/14 1600 253 250 4700 500 10/14 1700 243 10. 250 3000 3300 10/14 1800 238 10. 250 2100 3300 10/14 1900 230 10. 250 2100 3300 10/14 2000 223 10. 250 2100 3300 10/14 2100 218 10. 250 2300 3300 10/14 2200 212 10. 250 1800 3300 10/14 2300 224 250 2100 500 10/14 2400 241 250 2300 500 10/15 100 245 250 2100 500 10/15 200 253 250 2100 500 10/15 300 260 250 2300 500 10/15 400 267 250 2100 500 10/15 500 278 250 2100 500 10/15 600 280 250 1800 500 10/15 700 280 250 1800 500 10/15 800 282 250 1800 500 10/15 900 283 250 1800 500 10/15 1000 285 250 1800 500 10/15 1100 287 250 1800 500 10/15 1200 289 250 1800 500 10/15 1300 288 250 1800 500 10/15 1400 288 250 1800 500 10/15 1500 289 250 1800 500 10/15 1600 281 250 1800 2500 10/15 1700 246 12. 250 1800 4500 10/15 1800 235 13. 250 1800 4500 10/15 1900 221 13. 250 1800 4500 10/15 2000 210 13. 250 1800 4500 10/15 2100 201 13. 250 1800 4500 10/15 2200 190 13. 250 1800 4500 10/15 2300 196 10. 250 1800 3300 cana~loAppendix D. Continued POND GENERATION MW. DISCHARGE CFS DATE I TIME I ELEV. I HADLEY 1 HADLEY 2 CANAL I BASCULE HADLEY CANAL 10/15 2400 205 10. 250 1800 3300 10/16 100 212 10. 250 1800 3300 10/16 200 218 10. 250 1800 3300 10/16 300 233 10. 250 1800 3300 10/16 400 251 10. 250 1800 3300 10/16 500 268 250 1800 3300 10/16 600 285 250 1800 3300 10/16 700 295 10. 250 1800 3300 10/16 800 300 10. 250 1800 3300 10/16 900 301 10. 250 1800 3300 10/16 1000 302 10. 250 1800 3300 10/16 1100 298 10. 250 1800 3300 10/16 1200 297 10. 250 1800 3300 10/16 1300 291 10. 250 1800 3300 10/16 1400 286 250 1800 3300 10/16 1500 276 250 1800 3300 10/16 1600 263 250 1800 3300 10/16 1700 245 250 1800 4500 10/16 1800 236 13. 250 1800 4500 10/16 1900 227 14. 250 1600 4500 10/16 2000 217 250 1800 4500 10/16 2100 207 13. 250 1800 4500 10/16 2200 196 13. 250 1800 4500 10/16 2300 230 250 1800 500 10/16 2400 248 250 1800 500 10/17 100 258 250 1800 500 10/17 200 264 250 1800 500 10/17 300 274 250 1800 500 10/17 400 278 250 1800 500 10/17 500 283 250 1800 500 10/17 600 289 250 1800 500 10/17 700 289 250 1800 500 10/17 800 289 250 1800 500 10/17 900 292 250 1800 500 10/17 1000 295 250 1800 500 10/17 1100 296 250 1800 500 10/17 1200 296 250 1800 500 10/17 1300 297 250 1800 500 10/17 1400 294 250 1800 500 10/17 1500 294 250 1800 500 10/17 1600 294 250 1800 500 10/17 1700 284 250 2100 500 10/17 1800 274 250 1800 4500 10/17 1900 245 14. 250 1600 4500 10/17 2000 231 13. 250 1800 4500 10/17 2100 217 14.2 250 1800 4500 10/17 2200 204 14. 250 1800 4500 10/17 2300 242 250 1800 500 10/17 2400 255 250 1800 500 10/18 100 256 250 1800 500 10/18 200 277 250 1800 500 10/18 300 285 250 1800 500 10/18 400 293 250 1800 500 10/18 500 310 250 1800 500 10/18 600 311 250 1800 500 10/18 700 305 250 1800 500 10/18 800 308 250 2700 500 10/18 900 309 250 1800 500 10/18 1000 310 250 1800 500 10/18 1100 310 250 1800 500 10/18 1200 310 250 1800 500 canatfloAppendix D. Continued POND GENERATION Mw. DISCHARGE CFS DATE I TIME I ELEV. I HADLEY 1 HADLEY 2 CANAL I BASCULE HADLEY CANAL 10/18 1300 310 250 1800 500 10/18 1400 310 250 1800 500 10/18 1500 310 250 2100 500 10/18 1600 298 250 1800 4500 10/18 1700 260 14. 250 1800 4500 10/18 1800 244 14. 250 1800 4500 10/18 1900 223 14. 250 1600 4500 10/18 2000 208 14. 250 1800 4500 10/18 2100 187 14. 250 1800 4500 10/18 2200 172 14. 250 1800 4500 10/18 2300 199 250 1600 500 10/18 2400 207 250 1800 500 10/19 100 213 250 1800 500 10/19 200 222 250 1800 500 10/19 300 229 250 1800 500 10/19 400 237 250 1800 500 10/19 500 246 250 1800 500 10/19 600 250 250 1800 500 10/19 700 252 250 1800 500 10/19 800 255 250 1800 500 10/19 900 257 250 1800 500 10/19 1000 260 250 1800 500 10/19 1100 260 250 1800 500 10/19 1200 262 250 2100 500 10/19 1300 263 250 1800 500 10/19 1400 265 250 1800 500 10/19 1500 275 250 1800 500 10/19 1600 261 250 1600 4500 10/19 1700 242 14. 250 1800 4500 10/19 1800 237 14. 250 1800 4500 10/19 1900 235 14. 250 1800 4500 10/19 2000 230 14. 250 1800 4500 10/19 2100 224 14. 250 1800 4500 10/19 2200 219 14. 250 1800 4500 10/19 2300 229 250 1800 3300 10/19 2400 238 250 1800 3300 10120 100 244 250 1800 3300 10120 200 251 10. 250 1600 3300 10120 300 264 10. 250 1800 3300 10120 400 281 10. 250 1800 3300 10120 500 294 10. 250 1800 3300 10120 600 308 10. 250 1800 3300 10120 700 319 250 1800 3300 10120 800 306 250 3900 3300 10120 900 300 250 4100 3300 10120 1000 294 250 4100 3300 10120 1100 285 10. 250 4100 3300 10120 1200 289 10. 250 2800 3300 10120 1300 295 10. 250 1800 3300 10120 1400 295 10. 250 1800 3300 10120 1500 298 250 1800 3300 10/20 1600 293 10. 250 1800 4500 10/20 1700 289 14. 250 1600 4500 10/20 1800 287 14. 250 1800 4500 10/20 1900 285 14. 250 1800 4500 10120 2000 283 14. 250 1800 4500 10/20 2100 280 14. 250 1800 4500 10/20 2200 268 14. 250 1800 4500 10120 2300 286 250 1800 4500 10/20 2400 317 250 1800 500 10/21 100 322 250 3900 500 cana~loAppendix D. Continued POND GENERATION MW. DISCHARGE CFS DATE I TIME I ELEV. I HADLEY 1 HADLEY 2 CANAL I BASCULE HADLEY CANAL 10121 200 317 250 4700 500 10121 300 317 250 4100 500 10121 400 318 250 4700 500 10121 500 327 250 4700 500 10121 600 325 250 4700 500 10121 700 333 250 4700 500 10121 800 330 250 4100 500 10121 900 323 250 8300 500 10121 1000 319 250 8300 500 10121 1100 311 250 8300 500 10121 1200 303 250 8300 500 10121 1300 290 250 7900 500 10121 1400 288 250 8300 500 10121 1500 294 250 2800 500 10121 1600 295 250 2600 3300 10121 1700 264 12. 250 2300 4500 10121 1800 264 14. 250 1800 4500 10121 1900 268 14. 250 1400 4500 0121 2000 270 14. 250 1600 4500 10121 2100 270 14. 250 1800 4500 10121 2200 266 14. 250 2300 4500 10121 2300 263 10. 250 3600 3300 10121 2400 275 250 4700 3300 10/22 100 280 10. 250 4700 3300 1 0/22 200 291 10. 250 4100 3300 1 0/22 300 302 250 4700 3300 1 0/22 400 315 250 4100 3300 10/22 500 330 250 4700 3300 1 0/22 600 328 250 4100 3300 1 0/22 700 337 250 4700 3300 1 0/22 800 329 250 4100 3300 1 0/22 900 321 250 4400 3300 1 0/22 1000 308 250 4100 3300 1 0/22 1100 304 250 4400 3300 1 0/22 1200 277 250 4100 3300 1 0/22 1300 292 250 4400 3300 1 0/22 1400 292 250 4400 3300 1 0/22 1500 286 250 4100 3300 1 0/22 1600 267 250 4400 3300 1 0/22 1700 264 250 4100 4500 1 0/22 1800 262 14. 250 4100 4500 1 0/22 1900 255 14. 250 4400 4500 1 0/22 2000 253 14. 250 4100 4500 1 0/22 2100 249 14. 250 4100 4500 1 0/22 2200 235 14. 250 4400 4500 1 0/22 2300 272 250 4100 500 1 0/22 2400 290 250 4400 500 10123 100 287 250 5000 500 10123 200 290 250 6100 500 10123 300 300 250 5600 500 10123 400 307 250 6100 500 10123 500 311 250 5900 500 10123 600 311 250 5600 500 10123 700 310 250 6100 500 10123 800 307 250 5600 500 10123 900 294 250 5900 500 10123 1000 289 250 5600 500 10123 1100 312 250 3900 500 10123 1200 296 250 3900 500 10123 1300 297 250 4400 500 10123 1400 295 250 4100 500 cana~loAppendix D. Continued POND GENERATION MW. DISCHARGE CFS DATE I TIME I ELEV. I HADLEY 1 HADLEY 2 CANAL I BASCULE HADLEY CANAL 10/23 1500 298 250 4100 500 10/23 1600 288 250 4100 500 10/23 1700 262 10. 250 4100 4500 10/23 1800 245 14. 250 4100 4500 10/23 1900 250 14. 250 2300 4500 10/23 2000 245 14. 250 1800 4500 1 0/23 2100 235 14. 250 1600 4500 10/23 2200 233 14. 250 1400 4500 10/23 2300 250 250 1600 500 10/23 2400 262 250 1600 500 10/24 100 272 250 1800 500 10/24 200 282 250 1800 500 10/24 300 292 250 1600 10/24 400 295 250 1800 10/24 500 297 250 1800 500 10/24 600 300 250 1600 500 10/24 700 310 250 1800 500 10/24 800 312 250 1800 500 10/24 900 308 250 2600 500 10/24 1000 305 250 2600 500 10/24 1100 304 250 2800 500 10/24 1200 303 250 2600 500 10/24 1300 300 250 2600 500 10/24 1400 298 250 2800 500 10/24 1500 293 250 2600 500 10/24 1600 260 250 2600 2300 10/24 1700 248 250 1600 4500 10/24 1800 237 14. 250 1800 4500 10/24 1900 218 15. 250 1600 4500 10/24 2000 206 250 1600 4500 10/24 2100 206 15. 250 1600 4500 10/24 2200 190 250 1600 4500 10/24 2300 197 250 1600 500 1 0/24 2400 207 250 1600 500 10/25 100 214 250 1600 500 10/25 200 224 250 1800 500 10/25 300 236 250 1800 500 10/25 400 250 250 1600 500 10/25 500 255 250 1800 500 10/25 600 260 250 1600 500 10/25 700 272 250 1800 500 10/25 800 276 250 1600 500 10/25 900 281 250 1800 500 10/25 1000 284 250 1600 500 10/25 1100 287 250 1800 500 10/25 1200 289 0.4 250 1600 500 10/25 1300 290 250 1800 500 10/25 1400 290 250 1600 500 10/25 1500 220 250 3600 4500 10/25 1600 195 13. 250 4100 4500 10/25 1700 203 13. 250 1800 4500 10/25 1800 203 13. 250 1600 4500 10/25 1900 198 13. 250 1800 4500 10/25 2000 195 13. 250 1600 4500 10/25 2100 196 13. 250 1600 4500 10/25 2200 233 250 1600 500 10/25 2300 240 250 2800 500 10/25 2400 256 250 3100 500 10/26 100 280 250 3100 500 10/26 200 290 250 3300 500 10/26 300 306 250 3100 500 cananloAppendix D. Continued POND GENERATION MW. DISCHARGE CFS DATE I TIME I ELEV. I HADLEY 1 HADLEY 2 CANAL I BASCULE HADLEY CANAL 10/26 400 323 250 3100 500 10/26 500 322 250 4100 500 10/26 600 327 250 4100 500 10/26 700 334 250 4100 500 10/26 800 295 250 7300 500 10/26 900 320 250 5200 2500 10/26 1000 302 250 4700 2000 10/26 1100 250 250 7900 2000 10/26 1200 247 250 8300 2000 10/26 1300 243 250 8300 500 10/26 1400 237 250 8300 500 10/26 1500 201 250 7900 3600 10/26 1600 167 250 7900 3600 10/26 1700 144 250 7600 3600 10/26 1800 127 250 7600 3600 10/26 1900 110 250 7600 3600 10/26 2000 108 250 7000 3600 10/26 2100 107 250 7000 3600 10/26 2200 250 6700 3600 10/26 2300 125 250 6700 500 10/26 2400 133 250 7000 500 10/27 100 164 250 7600 500 10/27 200 180 250 7600 500 10/27 300 195 250 8300 500 10/27 400 205 0.4 250 7600 10/27 500 213 250 7900 10/27 600 220 250 7900 10/27 700 226 250 8300 10/27 800 225 250 8300 10/27 900 223 250 7900 10/27 1000 219 250 7900 10/27 1100 212 250 7900 10/27 1200 210 250 7900 10/27 1300 210 250 7900 10/27 1400 210 250 7900 10/27 1500 212 250 7900 10/27 1600 213 250 7900 10/27 1700 218 250 7900 10/27 1800 223 250 7900 10/27 1900 226 250 7900 10/27 2000 233 250 7900 10/27 2100 229 250 8300 10/27 2200 226 250 7900 10/27 2300 235 250 7900 10/27 2400 243 250 7900 10/28 100 253 250 8300 10/28 200 257 250 7900 10/28 300 256 250 7900 10/28 400 258 250 8300 10/28 500 258 250 7900 10/28 600 258 250 7900 10/28 700 247 250 7900 10/28 800 235 250 7900 10/28 900 261 250 5600 10/28 1000 270 250 4800 10/28 1100 273 250 4700 10/28 1200 276 250 4100 10/28 1300 284 250 3900 10/28 1400 290 250 4100 10/28 1500 272 250 4100 5400 10/28 1600 240 15. 250 3900 5400Appendix D. Continued POND GENERATION MW. DISCHARGE CFS DATE I TIME I ELEV. I HADLEY 1 HADLEY 2 CANAL I BASCULE HADLEY CANAL 10/28 1700 228 15. 250 4100 5400 10/28 1800 219 15. 250 3900 5400 10/28 1900 216 15. 250 4100 5400 10/28 2000 218 13. 250 3900 5400 10/28 2100 252 250 3900 3000 10/28 2200 277 250 3900 3000 10/28 2300 262 250 7000 500 10/28 2400 247 250 8300 500 10/29 100 246 250 7900 500 10/29 200 246 250 7900 500 10/29 300 245 250 7900 500 10/29 400 245 250 7900 500 10/29 500 243 250 7900 500 10/29 600 239 250 7900 500 10/29 700 229 250 7900 500 10/29 800 183 250 7900 5400 10/29 900 14. 250 7600 5400 10/29 1000 159 15. 250 1800 5400 10/29 1100 180 15. 250 1400 5400 10/29 1200 212 250 2100 1000 10/29 1300 228 250 2100 1000 10/29 1400 243 250 2100 1000 10/29 1500 247 250 2100 5400 10/29 1600 232 15. 250 2100 5400 10/29 1700 237 15. 250 2100 5400 10/29 1800 243 15. 250 2100 5400 10/29 1900 230 15. 250 3000 5400 10/29 2000 230 15. 250 3300 5400 10/29 2100 254 11. 250 3300 5400 10/29 2200 293 250 3600 5400 10/29 2300 278 250 6100 400 10/29 2400 263 250 7900 400 10iGO 100 262 250 8200 400 10iGO 200 261 250 8200 400 10iGO 300 259 250 7900 400 10iGO 400 257 250 7900 400 10iGO 500 269 250 6700 400 10iGO 600 281 250 6400 400 10iGO 700 280 250 6400 400 10iGO 800 276 250 6700 400 10iGO 900 269 250 6400 400 10iGO 1000 258 250 6400 400 10iGO 1100 278 250 5200 400 10iGO 1200 295 250 2800 400 10iGO 1300 302 250 2600 400 10iGO 1400 314 250 2800 400 10iGO 1500 286 12. 250 2800 400 10iGO 1600 248 15. 250 2600 5400 10iGO 1700 260 15. 250 2600 5400 10iGO 1800 275 15. 250 2800 5400 10iGO 1900 277 15. 250 2600 5400 10iGO 2000 282 15. 250 2800 5400 10iGO 2100 314 14. 250 2800 5400 10iGO 2200 319 250 5200 5400 10iGO 2300 312 250 8200 400 10iGO 2400 312 250 8200 400 10iG1 100 316 250 8200 10iG1 200 319 250 7900 OiG1 300 320 250 8200 OiG1 400 321 250 8200 OiG1 500 324 250 8200 canatfloAppendix D. Continued POND GENERATION MW. DISCHARGE CFS DATE I TIME I ELEV. I HADLEY 1 HADLEY 2 CANAL I BASCULE HADLEY CANAL 10/31 600 323 250 8200 10/31 700 315 250 7900 10/31 800 310 250 8600 10/31 900 302 250 8300 10/31 1000 298 250 8300 10/31 1100 295 250 8300 10/31 1200 289 250 8300 10/31 1300 280 250 8300 10/31 1400 275 250 7900 10/31 1500 250 250 8300 5400 10/31 1600 209 15. 250 4100 5400 10/31 1700 207 15. 250 6100 5400 10/31 1800 202 15. 250 5600 5400 10/31 1900 193 15. 250 4800 5400 10/31 2000 190 15. 250 4800 5400 10/31 2100 226 12. 250 4800 5400 10/31 2200 246 250 5400 5400 10/31 2300 243 250 6700 10/31 2400 246 250 7000 11/01 100 256 250 6700 400 11/01 200 263 250 7300 400 11/01 300 270 250 7600 400 11/01 400 279 250 7100 400 11/01 500 283 250 7100 400 11/01 600 287 250 7100 400 11/01 700 294 250 7300 500 11/01 800 302 250 7100 500 11/01 900 291 250 7900 500 11/01 1000 292 250 8300 500 11/01 1100 291 250 8300 500 11/01 1200 290 250 8300 500 11/01 1300 287 250 8300 500 11/01 1400 284 250 8300 500 11/01 1500 232 250 7900 5400 11/01 1600 223 15. 250 5600 5400 11/01 1700 254 15. 250 3000 5400 11/01 1800 254 15. 250 2100 5400 11/01 1900 246 15. 250 2100 5400 11/01 2000 251 15. 250 1800 5400 11/01 2100 269 8.7 250 1800 5400 11/01 2200 281 250 1800 5400 11/01 2300 295 250 1800 400 11/01 2400 308 250 1800 400 11/02 100 294 250 3900 500 11/02 200 295 250 4700 500 11/02 300 292 250 4700 500 11/02 400 289 250 4700 500 11/02 500 281 250 4700 500 11/02 600 275 250 3900 500 11/02 700 266 250 4700 500 11/02 800 257 250 4700 500 11/02 900 266 250 2800 500 11/02 1000 271 250 2100 500 11/02 1100 267 250 1800 500 11/02 1200 268 250 1600 500 11/02 1300 269 250 1800 500 11/02 1400 277 250 1800 500 11/02 1500 239 250 1800 5400 11/02 1600 239 15. 250 1800 5400 11/02 1700 232 15.4 250 1600 5400 11/02 1800 227 15. 250 1800 5400 cana~loAppendix D. Continued POND GENERATION MW. DISCHARGE CFS DATE I TIME I ELEV. I HADLEY 1 HADLEY 2 CANAL I BASCULE HADLEY CANAL 11/02 1900 227 15. 250 1600 5400 11/02 2000 245 14. 250 1800 5400 11/02 2100 250 12. 250 1600 5400 11/02 2200 303 250 1800 500 11/02 2300 308 250 3600 11/02 2400 317 250 4700 11/03 100 285 250 7000 11/03 200 283 250 7900 11/03 300 278 250 7900 11/03 400 272 250 7900 11/03 500 266 250 7900 11/03 600 260 250 7900 11/03 700 268 250 6700 500 11/03 800 268 250 5900 500 11/03 900 264 250 5900 500 11/03 1000 258 250 5900 500 11/03 1100 252 250 5900 500 11/03 1200 254 250 5000 500 11/03 1300 254 250 5900 500 11/03 1400 260 250 4800 500 11/03 1500 232 250 5600 5400 11/03 1600 190 14. 250 5600 5400 11/03 1700 208 15. 250 4100 5400 11/03 1800 216 250 3000 5400 11/03 1900 222 15. 250 3300 5400 11/03 2000 246 14. 250 3300 5400 11/03 2100 283 13. 250 3000 5400 11/03 2200 314 250 3900 500 11/03 2300 299 250 5900 500 11/03 2400 299 250 7900 500 11/04 100 300 250 8300 500 11/04 200 305 250 8300 500 11/04 300 295 250 8300 2500 11/04 400 282 250 8300 2500 11/04 500 270 250 8300 2500 11/04 600 263 250 8300 2500 11/04 700 247 250 8300 2500 11/04 800 230 250 8300 2500 11/04 900 212 250 7900 3300 11/04 1000 190 250 7900 3300 11/04 1100 207 250 7300 11/04 1200 212 250 7300 11/04 1300 212 250 8300 11/04 1400 215 250 7900 11/04 1500 185 250 8300 5400 11/04 1600 133 250 7600 5400 11/04 1700 165 250 5200 5400 11/04 1800 158 13. 250 5400 5400 11/04 1900 137 250 7900 2000 11/04 2000 149 250 7900 2000 11/04 2100 150 250 7900 2000 11/04 2200 150 250 7900 2000 11/04 2300 180 250 7900 800 11/04 2400 195 250 8300 800 11/05 100 208 250 7900 800 11/05 200 220 250 8300 800 11/05 300 238 250 7900 800 11/05 400 255 250 8300 800 11/05 500 270 250 8300 800 11/05 600 285 250 8300 800 11/05 700 306 250 8300 800Appendix D. Continued POND GENERATION Mw. DISCHARGE CFS DATE I TIME I ELEV. I HADLEY 1 HADLEY 2 CANAL I BASCULE HADLEY CANAL 11/05 800 320 250 8300 800 11/05 900 298 250 8300 3300 11/05 1000 290 250 8300 3300 11/05 1100 277 250 8300 3300 11/05 1200 268 250 8300 3300 11/05 1300 262 250 8300 3300 11/05 1400 255 250 8300 3300 11/05 1500 257 250 7900 5600 11/05 1600 226 13. 250 8300 5600 11/05 1700 215 14. 250 7600 5600 11/05 1800 207 14. 250 7900 5600 11/05 1900 200 14. 250 7900 5600 11/05 2000 202 14. 250 8200 5600 11/05 2100 232 250 8200 5600 11/05 2200 228 250 7900 5600 11/05 2300 224 14. 250 7600 5600 11/05 2400 226 14. 250 7900 5600 11/06 100 236 20. 250 7900 5600 11/06 200 245 20. 250 7900 5600 11/06 300 252 20. 250 7900 5600 11/06 400 258 20. 250 7900 5600 11/06 500 248 14. 250 7900 5600 11/06 600 237 14. 250 7900 5600 11/06 700 211 13. 250 7900 5600 11/06 800 183 12. 250 7600 5600 11/06 900 186 250 5900 5600 11/06 1000 164 14. 250 5600 5600 11/06 1100 166 250 5200 5600 11/06 1200 181 14. 250 2100 5600 11/06 1300 186 14. 250 2300 5600 11/06 1400 186 14. 250 2100 5600 11/06 1500 202 14. 250 2100 5600 11/06 1600 214 14.4 250 2100 5600 11/06 1700 240 14. 250 2300 5600 11/06 1800 230 14. 250 3300 5600 11/06 1900 233 14. 250 4100 5600 11/06 2000 257 14. 250 4700 5600 11/06 2100 235 250 6700 5600 11/06 2200 223 14. 250 6400 5600 11/06 2300 206 14.4 250 7900 5600 11/06 2400 208 14. 250 7600 5600 11/07 100 211 13. 250 7900 5600 11/07 200 212 13. 250 7900 5600 11/07 300 208 13. 250 7600 5600 11/07 400 203 13. 250 7900 5600 11/07 500 198 14. 250 7600 5600 11/07 600 199 14. 250 6100 5600 11/07 700 225 13. 250 3000 5600 11/07 800 245 250 4100 500 11/07 900 280 250 4700 11/07 1000 288 250 4700 11/07 1100 288 250 4700 500 11/07 1200 292 250 4100 500 11/07 1300 283 250 4700 500 11/07 1400 280 250 4700 500 11/07 1500 256 250 8200 500 11/07 1600 250 250 8300 500 11/07 1700 250 250 7900 500 11/07 1800 250 250 7900 500 11/07 1900 243 250 8300 2500 11/07 2000 227 250 7900 2500 canatfloAppendix D. Continued POND GENERATION MW. DISCHARGE CFS DATE I TIME I ELEV. I HADLEY 1 HADLEY 2 CANAL I BASCULE HADLEY CANAL 11/07 2100 232 250 7900 2500 11/07 2200 235 250 7900 2500 11/07 2300 243 250 8300 3300 11/07 2400 240 250 7900 3300 11/08 100 246 250 7900 3300 11/08 200 251 8.7 250 8300 3300 11/08 300 256 250 7900 3300 11/08 400 260 250 8300 3300 11/08 500 261 250 7900 3300 11/08 600 249 250 7900 3300 11/08 700 244 250 7900 3300 11/08 800 238 250 8300 3300 11/08 900 230 250 7900 3300 11/08 1000 223 250 7900 3300 11/08 1100 210 8.4 250 7900 3300 11/08 1200 200 250 8300 3300 11/08 1300 188 250 7600 3300 11/08 1400 192 250 7900 3300 11/08 1500 179 8.2 250 7600 3300 11/08 1600 162 250 7600 3300 11/08 1700 150 250 7600 3300 11/08 1800 137 250 7900 3300 11/08 1900 124 250 7600 3300 11/08 2000 111 250 7300 3300 11/08 2100 250 7600 3300 11/08 2200 250 7600 3300 11/08 2300 250 7600 800 11/08 2400 117 250 7600 800 11/09 100 127 250 7300 800 11/09 200 120 250 7600 2000 11/09 300 114 250 7600 2000 11/09 400 109 250 7600 2000 11/09 500 250 7300 2000 11/09 600 250 7600 2000 11/09 700 140 250 5000 2000 11/09 800 162 250 3800 2000 cana~lo, ' - " . . r .

, - . I " r . r - l - Attachment PLAN OF STUDY, AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE AND NUSCO RESPONSES

, . , - i .

( "ATTACHMENT 1 CONTENTS Letter from NUSCQ to FERC dated June 30 , 1992 transmitting Plan of Study and functional design drawing of louvers Functional design drawing attached to transmittal letter dated June 30 , 1992 Plan of Study attached to transmittal letter dated June 30 , 1992 Comments on Plan of Study from: Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife , dated June 10 , 1992 S. Fish and Wildlife Service , dated June 11 , 1992 NUSCQ' s response to comments from Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife NUSCQ' s response to comments from U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Comments from State of New Hampshire Fish and Game Department , dated June 24 , 1992NORTHEAST UTILITIES General Offices. Selden Str~t. Berlin. Connecticut (ffiJ

'HiC"""'CTlCU'l oG"""O!""""COW"" WESTE"" MASSACHUSETTS ElEC""C COW"" "'" ,00\' ".'EA pow,A COY"'" "CO""'" "",,"IfS SElMa COW"" "COT""" ....co.," EHEAG' COW'"

O. BOX 270 HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06141-0270 (203) 665-5000 June 30, 1992 FERC Project No. 2004-- Massachusetts Holyoke D05667 Ms. Lois D. Cash ell , Secretary Federal Energy Regul atory Commi ssion 825 North Capitol Street, NE Washi ngton, DC 20426

Reference: Order Approving A Plan to Monitor the Effectiveness of a Fish Bypass Facility (C04251) issued August 13, 1991.

Letter (D05526) R. A. Reckert to G. E. Beckett et. al., dated May 15, 1992. Letter (C04656) J. O' Leary (MDFW) to R. A. Reckert, dated June 10, 1992. Letter (C04654) G. E. Beckett (FWS) to R. A. Reckert, dated June 11, 1992. Order Approving and Modifying Functional Design Drawings (C04154) issued June 5, 1991. Dear Ms. Cashell: Holyoke Project Holyoke Canal Downstream Fish Passage Facil ity 1992 Juvenile Clupeid Final Plan of Study and More Detai~unctiona1-Desicn Drawinc (Stace 2) Northeast Utilities Service Company (NUSCO) on behalf of Holyoke Water Power Company (HWP) submits the enclosed Holyoke Canal Downstream Fish Passage Facility 1992 Juvenile Clupeid Final Plan of Study. This plan of study is

required by Reference 1. NUSCO notes this study will be the first evaluation of the newly constructed louver array with the canal bypass and fish sampl ing

facility. A Draft Plan of Study was submitted to agencies for convnent on May 15, 1992, Reference 2. Letters of comment were received, References 3 and 4. These comment letters and NUSCO' s responses to comments are appended to the enclosed Final Plan of Study. OS34~2 REV 4-Lois D. Cashell D05667/Page 2 June 30, 1992 Also enclosed is a more detailed functional design drawing of the Stage 2 louver array construction previously approved by Reference 5, Attachment

This drawing documents the louver structure has the ability to provide full depth louvers and two inch minimum louver spacing as recommended by consulting resource agencies. The facility to be tested this fall for juvenile clupeids

will have 10 feet deep, 2 inch spaced louvers across the entire canal with full depth louvers at the bypass entrance. Future studi es may have di fferent configurations within the capabilities of the facility. Study data to date has indicated that juvenile clupeids are generally deeper in the

canal than previously bel ieved (1991 Study) and that salmon smolts have a generally high (90%) bypass efficiency (1991 Study and prel iminary 1992 results). If you have any questions, please call Mr. Richard W. Thomas, NUSCO Generation and Environmental Licensing, at (203) 665- 3719. Very truly yours, NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY As Agent for Holyoke Water Power Company FOR: R. A. Reckert Vice President BY: C. F. Sears Vice President Attachment I-- More Detailed Functional Design Drawing (Stage Enclosure-- Final Plan of StudyLois D. Cashell D05667/Page 3 June 30, 1992 cc: Mr. Ronald E. Lambertson, Chairman Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission c/o U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service One Hi gratory Way O. Box 71 Turners Falls, MA 01376 Mr. Wayne MacCa 11 um Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife 100 Cambridge Street, Floor 19 Boston, MA 02202 Chief Bureau of Fisheries and Wildlife Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection State Office Building Hartford, CT 06115 Donald A. Normandeau, Ph. Execut i ve Di rector New Hampshi re Fi sh and Game Department 2 Hazen Dri ve Concord, NH 03301 Mr. Timothy van landt, Commissioner Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department 10 South, Second Floor 103 South Main Street Waterbury, VT 05676 Mr. Kenneth Bea National Marine Fisheries Service One Bl ackburn Dri ve Gloucester, MA 01930 Mr. Gordon E. Beckett, Supervisor New Engl and Area S. Fish and Wildl ife Service Ecological Services 400 Ralph Pi 11 Marketplace, 4th Floor 22 Bridge Street Concord, NH 03301- 4901Lois D. Cashell D05667/Page 4 June 30, 1992 Mr. Kenneth Cox Di stri ct Fi sheri es Manager Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife Rura 1 Route 1, Box 33 North Springfield, VT 05150 Mr. Theodore F. Meyers Connecticut River Coordinator S. Fish and Wildlife Service One Migratory Way P . 0 . Box 71 Turners Falls, MA 01376 Martha Mather Ph. Massachusetts Cooperative Fisheries Unit University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 Mr. Angelo 1 ncerp i Vermont Fi sh and Wi 1 dl i fe Department 10 South, 2nd Floor 103 South Main Street Waterbury, VT 05676 Mr. Peter Mi nta Marine Division, Fisheries 22 Bridge Street O. Box 248 Waterford, CT 06385 Mr. Ben Rizzo S. Fish and Wildlife Service One Gateway Center Newton Corner, MA 02158 Mr. Charles Thoits 111 New Hampshire Fish and Game Department 2 Hazen Dri ve Concord, NH 03301 Henry Booke, Ph. Northeast Anadromous Fi sh Research Laboratory S. Fish and Wildlife Service O. Box 796 Turners Falls, MA 01376Loi s D. Cashell D05667/Page 5 June 30, 1992 Mr. John 0' Leary Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Field Headquarters Westboro, MA 01581 Mr. J. Mark Robi nson Division of Project Compliance and Administration Federal Energy Regul atory Coromi ssion 825 North Capitol Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 John Mudre, Ph. Division of Project Compliance and Administration Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 825 North Capi tol Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 Mr. Anton Sidoti, Regional Director Federal Energy Regulatory Commission New York Regional Office 201 Varick Street, Room 664 New York, NY 10014"\. 'ocr. ....."".".......,...-"",-::''H"",~HoC( or"'...,........-~=.~~:! !; i""""""....""","',,'c co.....00.001..-......" ,..." ",en..W!!-0 ~, ,ill""",...co..... oo.oa..-. 'Ol""""'"r.O"PlAN"'..,~""'0'"~:~ .:.':..l.., '..0". (P"" :.;?.';,' :":~'::.'.""""" '.-0" I,..,r"'Ul""'.o! "lI1." ,,i //iti~~;;:::~:~lliil!''" .. "..r::...'".10.0'1'r ~If"""~ :..t 1"""""""""'111*..(""""-,. .. ..t!.~;::::~.J~'h-!ill...,,~.o;,~i:1NOIIIIQST UIUIES..-.. oowDOWNSJIIEAM fISH pASSAGfSIDE ELEVATION - LOUVER SUPPORT FRAMEELEVATION - LOlNERS ANO SUPPORTFRAMEICOl'~""",lCo.. .H'"..~~~'t... ",.WUIIER FACIUTY AT meHOLYOKE CANALPIAN AND 5EC1ION$HOLYOKE CANAL DOWNSTREAM FISH PASSAGE FACILITY 1992 JUVENI lE CLUPEID FINAL PLAN OF STUDY FERC PROJECT NO. 2004 HOLYOKE PROJECT HOLYOKE WATER POWER COMPANY NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY P . 0 . BOX 270, HARTFORD, CT JUNE 1992Table of Contents Introduction Pl an of Study Literature Cited Appendix l-- Agency Comment letters Appendix 2-- NUSCO ResponseRESPONSE OF JUVENILE CLUPEIDS TO LOUVERS IN THE HOLYOKE CANAL, 1992 PLAN OF STUDY Introduction Northeast Utilities Service Company (NUSCO) has studied the downstream passage of American shad

(Alosa sapidissima) and blueback herring (A. aestivalis) Holyoke Canal on the Connecticut River since 1988. These studies have been perfonned in compliance with the Holyoke Project license (FERC No. 2004) articles and in response to a Memorandum of Agreement between state and federal resource agencies and NUSCO. During 1992, NUSCO will continue these studies in order to , evaluate the success of downstream passage facilities in the Holyoke Canal. American shad and blueback herring in the Connecticut River spawn from early May to mid- June depending on water temperatures. The juvenile clupeids remain

in the river throughout the summer and usually begin their downstream migration in September. Emigration begins when water temperature declines to 19O c, usually by midSeptember (O' Leary 1984; O' Leary and Kynard 1986). Emigration may continue into early November. Marcy (1976) noted that most juvenile clupeids had left the river prior to water temperatures reaching 6O Daily movements of juvenile clupeids in the Connecticut River occur primarily in late afternoon and evening, peaking between 1700 hours and 2200 hours (O' Leary and Kynard 1986; Harza and RMC 1992) with some movements occurring during late night and early morning periods. Juvenile clupeids appear to emigrate in schools (O' Leary

and Kynard 1986), utilizing the top two meters of the water column (Buckley and Kynard 1985). clbp C:\NUSCo\,o\r"oaI.POs J..... 16. 1992Project Features The Holyoke Project consists of Holyoke Dam, Hadley Falls Station, the threelevel 45- mile long Holyoke Canal system, and several generating stations located along the canal. Although a bascule gate located at Holyoke Dam is the primary alternative for bypassing fish downstream of the Hadley Falls Station, fish also will enter

the Holyoke Canal. The canal system is comprised of three canals at successively lower water surface elevations. The First Level Canal is at the same elevation as the Holyoke

Dam crest (El. 100 ft Holyoke datum); the Second Level Canal is at El. 80, and the Third Level Canal is at El. 675. The flow into the First Level Canal is controlled by a gatehouse having twelve bottom-opening gates, of which the middle ten gates

are typically used. Maximum flow into the First Level Canal

is about 7, 000 cfs. The first hydro plant downstream of the canal gatehouse on the First Level is Boatlock

Station. There is a fISh bypass at this station (installed in 1980) consisting of an electroshocker, an entrance at the trash racks, and a bypass pipe leading to the Hadley Falls Station tailrace. In 1991, a louver bypass structure was constructed in the canal, downstream of the gatehouse and upstream of the branch canal (Figure 1). The louver array

consists of floating louvers, 8- ft deep with slats with clear openings of 25 /1 inches, and tenninating at a 40-ft section of full- depth louvers with slats having one inch clear openings.

For the 1992 study, the partial- depth louvers will be extended down to a depth of ten feet.

The bypass structure contains an intake, a pipeline, and an outlet/fish sampling station. The

intake is located on the left bank (looking downstream) of the canal at the downstream

end of the louver array. The bypass entrance is approximately eight feet deep and five feet wide which results in an entrance velocity of approximately

4.3 ft/sec at a canal flow of 4 000 cis. The bypass entrance velocity is more than 15 times the canal velocity. A discontinuity in velocity occurred along the louver line in the vicnity of the region where the partial depth and full depth louvers join. The intake discharges into a 36- inch , 550-

dbp C:\NUSCO\JG\I"..\.POS JUDe 26. 1992long pipeline which in turn discharges into the outJet/flSh sampling structure ~ocated on the right bank of the Hadley Falls Station tailrace. The outlet structure has

provisions for separating the fish from the bypass flow and diverting them to a 5, OOQ-gallon holding tank. Prior Studies Several studies have been conducted to date evaluating the downstream fish passage facilities at Holyoke Canal. Recent studies included a radiotelemetry assessment of floating louver guidance efficiency of emigrating Atlantic salmon smolts. This

1990 study found the louvers guiding about 90% of the downstream migrants (NUSCO

1990). Another study in 1990, using visual observations and hydroacoustics, indicated

that the louvers guided large numbers of emigrating adult American shad (Harza and Biosonics 1991). A third study in 1990, also using hydroacoustics, provided mixed results on guidance of emigrating juvenile clupeids, and large numbers of fish may have passed under the louver (Harza and Biosonics 1991). In the fall of 1991, the effectiveness of the louver array in guiding juvenile c1upeids was further evaluated with the bypass structure operating (Harza and RMC 1992). Based on a mark-recapture study, the mean guidance efficiency was estimated to be 45%. Using the marked flSh captured in nets fished under the louvers to estimate net efficiency, the guidance efficiency for wild fish was estimated at 69%.

The catch in tyke nets, fished in a vertical array upstream of the louvers, indicated that approximately 80% of the juvenile c1upeids in the canal were at a depth greater than eight feet at the

location of the nets. db!' C:\NUSCO\JG\fl/laI.POS JulIO 26. 1992proposed Study The effectiveness of the permanent downstream passage facility will be evaluated for the first time in 1992. Prior to this study, NUSCO plans to construct a permanent structural steel support in the canal for the louver array. Also the partial-depth

louvers will be extended down to a depth of

ten feet. Following the installation of the permanent louvers, attempts will be made to remove any discontinuity in velocity that may occur in the region where the partial depth and full depth louvers join. The primary objectives of the 1992 study are to: Determine the proportion of juvenile clupeids guided by the louver array

into the bypass; Estimate the number of juvenile clupeids that pass under or through the louvers; and, Determine the vertical distribution of juvenile

clupeids in the canal as they approach the louvers. During the course of addressing these three primary objectives, it is NUSCO' s intent to also make the following three determinations: Determine the total number of juvenile clupeid movement through the bypass; Determine the diel pattern of juvenile clupeid movement through the bypass; and, Determine if guidance efficiency is affected by fish passing through the gatehouse. cIJp C:\NUSCO\JG\fonal.

POS J"... 26. 1992Plan of Study Collection, Holding and Marking of Juvenile Clupeids Similar to 1991 , a mark/recapture study will be conducted to detennine guidance efficiency of the louvers. Significant effort will be required to collect, hold

and mark juvenile c1upeids for these tests as well as concurrent studies at Hadley Falls Station.

The juvenile c1upeids for the mark/recapture studies will be collected from the Connecticut River upstream of the Holyoke Dam at suitable sites or will be obtained from the Holyoke Canal fish bypass collection facility. A holding facility will be established in the vicinity of the Holyoke Canal. The bolding facility will

consist of a

series of 2, 500 gallon pools with the water maintained between 2 and 4 ppt (parts per thousand) salinity, aerated, filtered and shaded by a wooden frame structure.

The fish will be transported to the holding facility from the collection

areas in 50-gallon tanks in water maintained between 8 and 12 ppt salinity and will be aerated. During holding, the fish will be fed ground trout chow and frozen brine shrimp

ad libitum. Fish will not be fed the day they are to be tested. All fish used in the mark/recapture tests will be held for at least 48 hours prior to being marked. Fish to be marked will be selected randomly and moved to a small tank, approximately 50 gallons, in where they will be fin clipped. Clipped fish will be held for a minimum of eight hours prior to release. Any fish exhibiting

signs of distress after marking will be eliminated from the study. Alternatively, staining techniques may be used (Bismark Brown Y or acradine orange) to mark the

fish. Temperature, dissolved oxygen, ammonia, salinity and pH of each holding pool will be measured and recorded on a daily basis. If any of these parameters exceed those known to stress juvenile clupeids, the water in the pool will be changed.

As an additional water quality precaution , the water in each pool will be changed weekly.

dbp C:\NUSCO\JG\lmal.POS June 26. 1992Estimating the Number and Diel Distribution of Juvenile Clupelds Bypassed At the outlet/fish collection facility, fish will be sampled

between 1700 hours and 2100 hours five days per week, increased to seven days per week during the peak migration period. For each day, the estimated number of wild fish bypassed during those hours, B, will be estimated: where B e: is the bypass catch during those evening hours and is the collection facility efficiency (estimated to be 87% in 1991). Sampling will be conducted for 24 hours ten times during the

study. For each of those ten days, the total number bypassed,

B24' will be estimated: 2 4

------- , where Bc:,24 is the 24- hr catch. The fraction bypassed between 1700 and 2100 on each of the ten days will be computed as the ratio of B to B24' Those daily ratios will be averaged to give a combined estimate, P, for the proportion of daily

passage occurring between 1700 hours and 2400 hours. For days when 24- hour collections were not taken,

the total number of clupeids bypassed (B24 ) will be estimated as the ratio of B to P. During the sampling efforts, the fish will be enumerated every hour

, with subsamples taken to identify fish species. These

data will be used to detennine diel migration patterns. Fish not used for later calibration

tests will be released to the river. cIbp C:\NUSCO\JG\lInaI.POS Juno 26. 1992Estimating Juvenile Clupeid Passage Under or Through the Louver Array An estimate of the number of juvenile c1upeids passing under and through the louvers will be determined using a series of trawl nets fished under and slightly behind the louvers, as was done in 1991, supplemented with gill nets suspended immediately behind the louvers. The trawl nets used in the 1991 study will be used again. The trawl nets will fish the entire water column from the bottom of the canal to the bottom of the

louvers. Three trawl nets will be fished along the length of the louver array (Figure 2). Because specialized hardware is required to deploy the nets, the trawl net locations

will be fIXed throughout the study period. The trawl nets will be approximately 10- feet wide and 12 feet deep and approximately 40 feet in length. Each net will consist of a 15- inch stretch

mesh outer liner and a 1/4- inch mesh inner liner covering approximately the posterio~

half of the net. A tyke will be located in the cod end of the net. Two panels will be attached to the mouth of the trawls, one on the side and one on the top. The top panel is triangular and will be added to the nets this year. The gill nets will fish the area immediately behind the partial-depth louvers, from

the surface to ten feet. Four experimental gill nets, forty feet wide and ten feet deep, will be fished between louver supports. Mesh

sizes will be O. 25- inch and 05- inch stretch mesh , alternating in tenfoot sections. The gill nets will be held in place

using a pulley system attached to the louver framing. The trawl and gill nets will be fished during the same time periods as the nets used in the vertical distribution study. The number of juvenile c1upeids collected in each net will be determined as well as the number of other species. Number of fISh passing the louver array (going under or through) each day during the collection period will be estimated as L: dbp C:\NUSCO\JG\IonaI.POS JWI' 26. 1992---E. ,where Lc is the catch in underlouver and gill netS and is the combined efficiency of

the under- louver and gill nets derived from marked fish as described in the following section. Determining Louver Array Guidance Efficiency During the wild fISh emigration period, marked juvenile clupeids, in groups of about 500, will be released upstream of the gatehouse from holding pens. Groups of fish will also be released downstream of the gatehouse in a determination of the effect of the release location on guidance efficiency. A goal will be to release marked fish at each location at least ten times during the emigration period.

All releases of marked fish will occur during the peak emigration period of

1700 hours to 2200 hours. Only one set of releases of marked fish will occur on a given day to minimize the potential for two or more releases of marked fish intermixing. Subsequent to the release of the marked fish, all fish entering the

bypass will be diverted into the collection facility for at least one hour after the last marked fish was collected. The juvenile clupeids collected during this time period will be examined for the mark and the marked fISh will be enumerated. Although the 1991 studies did not show canal flow to affect guidance efficiency, the studies will be performed under low (1, 000 cfs to 2, 000 cis) and high (greater than 000 cis) canal flows, as river discharges permit. We propose to study these flow ranges because of two reasons. Although the canal is operated at a wider range of

flows, from 000 cis to over 6, 000 cfs , autumn river flows tend to be relatively low. Additionally, louvers are known to be most efffective when velocities are betWeen one foot per second and five feet per second (Ruggles 1989). These velocities occur at canal discharges

.-.p C:\NUSCO\JO\final. POS

J..... 26. 1992greater than about 3, 000~. Data points outside this range are of lesser interest at thi~ time. For each flow condition, at least three groups of 500 fISh will be released at the

gatehouse. For each group of marked fish , the following values will be determined: M, the number of fish released; N, the number recaptured in vertically arrayed

nets upstream of the bypass; Rb' the number recaptured in the bypass collection facility;

is the collection facility efficiency; and Rio the number recaptured in the trawl and gill nets under and behind the louvers. The combined efficiency of the trawl and gill nets, E., will be estimated for each group of released fish: El M-NThose values will be averaged to derive the value of

~ used above to estimate the numbers of fish passing under or through the louvers during collection periods.

The equation used to determine the guidance efficiency of marked fISh (G ) is:

G = III X (MAppropriate statistical methods for proportions (e. g. Fleiss 1981) will be used

determine if guidance efficiency is significantly different among the two flow conditions

tested. An assumption of these tests is that all fish released enter the canal. Wild Fish. For each concurrent collection of wild fish (Le., unmarked) in thebypass and underlouver/gill nets, we win compute a guidance efficiency for wild fish

(Gill ) as: dbp C:\NUSCO\JO\I1naI.POS J..... 26. 1992... where B is the adjusted catch in the bypass collection facility and L is the adjusted catch in the under- louver and gill nets. Determining the Vertical Distribution of Juvenile Clupelds The vertical distribution of naturally emigrating juvenile c1upeids approaching the louver array will be determined using a series of five nets arrayed vertically (Figure 3). The nets will be located at the same location as in the 1991 study, approximately 100 feet downstream of the upstream end of the louver array and approximately in the middle of the canal (Figure 2). Each of the five vertical nets will be attached to a 35- foot deep by 53- foot wide metal frame to provide a fixed sampling area. The nets will be constructed of 1/4 inch bar mesh, contain a tyke and be approximately twenty three feet in length. With this arrangement three nets sample the portion of the water column intercepted by the louvers and two nets sample the portion of the water column beneath the louvers. Each net will have a flow meter attached to estimate the volume of water passing through each net. Net flow meters will be calibrated prior to use on the vertically-arrayed nets. The nets will be fiShed each night that the bypass is sampled. The number of juvenile c1upeids collected in each net will be determined for each time period fished. Subsamples will be taken to identify species. The actual time period fished will be determined in the field, based on the number of fish collected

and the amount of debris accumulating in the nets. The data from these catches will be used to determine the proportion of juvenile c1upeids approaching the louvers in the top ten feet of the water column at that location in the canal. cIbp C:\IrIUSCO\JG\flnaI.POS June 26. 1992Evaluating the Effect

of Marked Fish Release Location on Guidance Efficiency Marked fISh will be released above and below the gatehouse from the floating pens on alternating days. Data collected in the guidance efficiency tests, vertical distribution determination, and the passage under the louver tests

will be tested for significance using ANOV A. literature Cited Buckley, J. and B. Kynard. 1985. Part I. Vertical distribution of juvenile American

shad and blueback herring during the seaward migration in the Connecticut River. Report to Northeast Utilities Service Company.

Fleiss, J. 1981. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. John Wily & Sons, New York, NY. Harza Engineering Company. 1991. Response of adult American shad to floating louvers in the Holyoke Canal. Report to Northeast Utilities Service Company. Harza and BioSonics, Inc. 1991. Holyoke Canal downstream fish passage studies: Response of juvenile clupeids to louvers in the Holyoke Canal , fall 1990. Draft Report to Northeast Utilities Service Company. Harza Engineering Company and RMC Environmental

Services, Inc. 1992. Holyoke Canal downstream fISh passage studies: Response of juvenile clupeids

to louvers in the Holyoke Canal, fall

1991. Draft Report

to Northeast Utilities Service

Company. Marcy, J. R., Jr. 1976. Early life history studies of American shad in the lower Connecticut River and the effects of the Connecticut Yankee Plant. In: Merriman, D. and L M. Thorpe (eds. ) 1976. The Connecticut River Ecological Study: The impact of a nuclear power plant. American Fisheries Society Monograph No. 141- 168. Northeast Utilities Service Company. 1990. Studies of the migratory behavior of Atlantic salmon smolts ( Salmo

~) at the Hadley Falls Project, Connecticut River, Holyoke, Massachusetts during 1990. Part II: Response of Atlantic salmon smolts to floating louvers in the Holyoke Canal , Holyoke Massachusetts. d'I' C\NUSCO\JG\finaI.POS J..... 26. 1992Leary, J. A. 1984. Characteristics of the downriver migration of juvenile American. shad

(~ sapidissima ) and blueback herring (Al2sA ~estiva1is ) in the Connecticut M. S. Thesis , University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts. Leary, J. A. and B. Kynard. 1986. Behavior, length and sex ratios of seaward migrating juvenile American shad and blueback herring in the Connecticut River. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 114:430435.

Ruggles, C. P. 1989. A critical review of fish exclusion and diversion from hydroelectric turbine intakes, with special reference to Hadley Falls Station on the Connecticut River. Report prepared for NUSCO. dbp C:\NUSCO\JG\(mal.

POS June :16. 1992ell I !~

,. i i

: ;

~ ~i

~~~ 8:~ c w ~ Ion ~I~S~~:i ~o~ i:i tw ~ 5!! i:~ i ~p.

~ ~ Ii:.

. /

. .Net Body1/2 in. stretch mesh40 ft. longDetachable Codend2 ft. X 2 ft. mouth w/fyke3/4 in. stretch mesh16 ft. longStyrofoam floatsWing (left side only) and top3/4 In. stretch mesh40 ft. long............Mouth 10ft. wide X 12 ft. deepPlan of Holyoke CanalUnder Louver NetsFlowLouver PanelFish Bypass EntranceFigure 2.Schematic diagram of tyke nets for sampling juvenile clupelds passingunder the louvers inHolyoke Canal during 1992.Net Body1/21":~~:~~:esh -""-"""Detachable Codend2 ft. X 2 ft. mouth w/fyke1/2 in. stretch mesh8 ft. longMetal Frame \-..-""-"-"Plan of Holyoke CanalFish BypassEntranceFlow A~~Vertical DistributionNetsFigure 3.Schematic diagram of tyke nets for sampling the verticaldistribution of juvenile clupeids in Holyoke Canal during1992.Mouth5 ft. 4-1/2 In. wide3 ft. 6 In. deep..... 10. ft...... 20 ft.Sidevlew of net arrangement'""':T':T::J....-tt::J-tt"'1'""....::J':T"'1....c..::JIIU::J....-ttc..::JRiCF. -:

~-:-:"'\ Commonwealth of MassachusettS .J UN 1 . Di1liSiion 01

R.

fi~he..iel & WildEile Wayne F.

MacCa1h.un. Director June 10, 1992 Mr. R. A. Reckert, Vice President Northeast utilities service Company P. o. Box 270 Hartford, CT 06141-0270 Dear Mr. Reckert Thank you for providing me with a copy of the 1992 Plan of Study:

es onse of Juven . e C e ds to uve s ' n the Ho oke

1992. have reviewed the document and offer the following comments on the draft plan.

As you have stated in the review of prior studies, the effectiveness of the louver array as determined by the 1991 study showed different efficiencies for mark-recaptured fish (45%) and wild fish (69%), while the vertical distribution study showed that most fish (80%) were at a depth qreater than the louvers. Techniques used in the 1992 study should attempt to resolve these apparent differences. In the section J:stimat~na the Number and Diel Distribution 0 Juvenile Clupeids Bvcassed you state that the collection facility efficiency was estimated to be 87% in 1991. I am unclear as to the

fate of the remaining 13% of Juvenile clupeids. If 13% of the clupeids are being forced through the wedge-wire screening while it is in the sampling position, then this should be verified and the passage mortality of those fish determined before such an intense sampling schedule as you have proposed is made operational. In the section Determinina Louver Arrav Efficiency you state that the studies will be performed under low (1, 000 cfs. to 2, 000 cfs) canal flows and high (greater than 3, 000 cfs) canal flows if river flows permit. I recommend' that these studies be scheduled over a wide range of typical canal ~lows. Due to the relatively short amount of time necessary to recapture the marked fish it

seems possible to schedule these studies in advance, wi th the coordination of hydropower production. Division of Fisheries & Wildlife Field Headquarters, One Rabbit Hill Road, Westboro, MA 01581 (508) 366-4470 M Agency of the Department of Fisheries. Wildlife & Environmerntal Law EnforcementIn the section Evaluatina the Effect of Marked Fish Release ~cation on dance Efficiencv you state that marked fish will be released both upriver and downriver from the Gatehouse to determine if there is a difference in behavior 19uiding efficiency between the two groups. The purpose of this element of the study needs to be more fully explained since all

of the wild fish which will use the facility must enter the canal through the Gatehouse. If the purpose of this study is to determine behavioral differences which resul t from Gatehouse passage then perhaps various gate settings at the Gatehouse should be a component of the study. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to comment.

If you have any questions or require clarification on any of the points I have addressed please feel free to call me at my office

(508) 792-7270. fAcerelY' (JL 0':;' /1;Ohn O'l Anadromous Fish Restoration Project Coordinator JO cmh cc: Ted Meyers John Warner Ben Rizzo Charles Thoits Tom Savoy Ken Cox"IDE 111 1--

United States Department of the Interior RiCEIVE FtSH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

-=- ... 400 RALPH PIlL MARKETPlACE J U N 1 5 1992

22 BRIDGE STREET CONCORD. NEW HAMPSHIRE 03301-4901 A. Ref: FE1C No. 2004 Mr. R. A. Reckert Vice President NortheaSt Utilities service ~'1Y o. Box 270 Hartt ard , Q:r'JneCti

cut 06141-0 2 7 0

June 11, 1992 Dear Mr. Reckert : 'n'.iG 1."1 response tn yr:nr

May 15 ani May 14, 1992 letters request.i1q 0 .... an the 1992 draft plans of study for juvenile clupeids at the Holyoke Canal and Hadley Falls Statia1 fish passaqe facilities. We have the follC7trling cxmnents. HOL OKE CANAL xnt.roc!ucticm: Yo..1 cite studies that have identified that juvenile c lupE') n~ remain in the river thrcu;j1cut the

SI ani dal' t begin dCJwn,stream migration until mid-September. Recent studies by Aquatec in the Verncn ani 'Iumers Falls pools and the Q:r'JneCticut DeparbDent of

ProteCtion (CDEP) belCM Holyoke indicate that clupeids my \JI'dertake downstream. migratioo prior to the fall emigratia1 periods you irdicate:i. Dcpansion of downstream. passage monitaJ;'irg to earlier periods should be oonsidered . Prior studies: '!here were significant ciisc:repancies 1:Ie.~ 'the bypass effectiveness calculated usin3 different techniques in 1991. BypaSS efficiency varied between 45\ usin3 the marlc-rec:apture results and 69% usin; captures of marked fish in the nets fished urder the

lo.JYerS to estiJnate wild fish bypass efficiency. 'Ihese results are c:a'1fourded by the evidence fran vertical net:tin;J that 80% of the fish were fcurxi at a depth

greatE::": t:harr eight fe('.t. nata a1. dapth distribltion raises questi~c; regardiJ'g bath the

45% and 69% efficiency figures. Resolution of 'these disc:repancies and verificaticn of actual bypass efficiencies shcW.d be the primary focus of 'the 1992 . studies. P.ropcsed StuI!y: Ycu outline six objectives of the 1992 st'rlies . As stated above, the determination of a gcxx1, cansistent efficierv=y estimate (objective 4) shcW.d be the primary focus of your 1992

sbxli.es. Objective 3 and 5 relate directly to facility effectiveness ani are also tapartant. We Ll::CuW' erxl , haweVer, that replicate tests of various canal flows be nm to adequately test louver efficiency aver the full rarge of flews.-2- We are less concerned ebaut, am believe less eq:hasis shcUld be put a1 the other identified objectives. 'Jhe dial patterns of clupeid m::wements have been previOJSly researched, am we do not see the need far this study at

this tiJne. If characterizatiCl'1 of the do,mstream migraticm is 1:0 be conducted, we would reo .'.I an earlier PO"'~ start 1:0 m::ni.tarin; as explained aboVe. '!he last objective of. determiniJ'r;J the influence of gat:.eho.Jse passage on bypasS efficiency seem 1:0 be of questionable utility. '!his information may be of intereSt far use at other sites, b.1t at Holyoke,

gateha1se passage is neoe5S"ry as there are ro cpticms far emigratlrg fish.

Again, we that the majarity of, or all fish used:in mark-recapture studies be released upstream of the gatehcuse

1:0 pvim; ~.e data collect.ia'1

urder natural passage corm.tia1s. Plan of St1.dy: '!he evaluatia1 of variOJS mmdrg techniques is p1Mmed far

1992. '!his was conducted in 1991. Is there a need 1:0 repeat this evaluation again? '!he collection facility was fam 1:0 have an 87' efficiency in 1991. 'Jhe reason that all fish were not captured

an:1 the fate of fish not collected should be ;investigated. Will collection facility efficiency tests be repeated in 1992? DeteI:minin'; Louver Efficiency: '!he plan of . identifies the release of 10 groops each at locaticms both upstream an:1 do,mstream fran the gatehcuse am three tests each of two flow ccn:liticns. We int:.Epret the

total "'IIft~r of tests to be performed to be 20, with at least three test releases !ran each location urder lCM fla...'S and three tests !ran each location U1"der high fla...'S. Again,

we uen1. effort be concentrated

m releases ~l.&.eam !ran the gatehoose. HADLEY FAI.LS srATI Introc!uction: As stated a1xMa, recent studies by Aquatec :in the Vernon an:1 'I\1merS Falls ~ls an:1 the CDEP below Holyoke indicate that cl~id,!; urdertake downstream migratim priar 1:0 the fall emigration you Wicated. Expansion of downstream pa~S"ge mcnitorin; 1:0 earlier periods shcWd be considered . Proposed StuI!y: We canoIr with the objectives of determ.inin; the efficien:y of the floatm; bxm an:1 variOJS bypaSS cpenin:J cxmiguratias. Det~'""~"..~ the PrcpOrt:iaI1 of

tiab Bypa~sed

over the B"~. Gate aD1 Badley Falls StatiaD: 'Jhe various of the Hadley Falls

StatiCl'1 tm'bines are not addressed in the stu:!y ~ c.posa1 MJdel stDiies indicated that the bypasS was m:st effective in creatin; a directiCl'lal flCM 1:0 the belc:nJl e gate \t41en Unit 1 was cpratin;. As suci1, bypasS efficien:y should be enhanced by the cpraticm of unit 1

a1 a first-m-last-off basis. If such a protocol of unit cpraticn is to be inplemented, this shcWd be

tHc:I"'IlS~ in the plan. If not, the t::LD:bine set:t.in;s shculd be ~Qed , arxi efforts made to ccn1uCt a sufficient n~~.r of replicate releases at each

u..auu only used turbine ~tirr;J CXI1figuratim. In additiCl'1, for both sbJdies, a sc:bedule far data analysis am preparation

shc:W.d be specified.-3- 'Ihank you

for this -umity

to ,..1Ie11t . Please addreSS a:trj questions or .ments to Mr. Jcim wcu:ner of this office at (603) 225-1411. SincerelY yc:urs, ~r. J9~ Gardcm E . Beckett SUperVisar New En;J1Md Field OfficesAppend i x NUSCO ResDonse to Aaencv CommentsMs. Loi s D. Cashe'l DO5667/Appendix 2/Page 1 Res onse to Massachusetts Division f Fisheries and Wildlife 1992) ifferences in mates ctiv ess The 1991 study indicated that bypass efficiencies for mark-recapture fish was 45% while estimates of wild fish was 69%. We recognize and share your concern with the disparity between these two estimates. One exp 1 anat i on for the difference is that some of the marked fi sh may have failed to approach the louvers, thus reducing the estimated efficiency. The estimate based on unmarked fish, on the other hand, did not depend on knowing the number approaching the louvers, therefore, it may have been

more accurate. Our 1992 studies will attempt to reconcile that di fference and estab1 ish the true guidance efficiency. ection Faci1it v E ffici The 1991 study indicated a collection facility efficiency of 87%. There was no indication that fish were forced through or impinged on the

screen. This was evidenced by the lack of fish found during the cleaning of the screens. It is 1 i ke1y the 13% of fish passed through cracks associated with the guide vane and between the edge of the screen and the concrete. It is our intent to attempt to increase the samples effectiveness with juvenile c1upeids in 1992. NUSCO will make efforts to increase the efficiency of the collection facility by sealing the edges during the 1992 Juveni 1e C1 upeid Study. An efficiency test was repeated this spring with salmon smo1ts found 100% effectiveness. Canal Flows MDFW has recommended studies over a wide range of canal flows rather than the two flow ranges proposed in the Draft P1 an of Study. In general, our philosophy has been to test the louvers under conditions best suited for louvers to determine their initial effectiveness. Other ranges in canal flows cou1 d be tested in subsequent years.

tehouse RgJ e We genera 11 y agree wi th your comment that release poi nt above the Gatehouse is most real istic for fish entering the Holyoke Canal. Releases below the Gatehouse are intended to determine a general app1 icabil ity of the Holyoke Canal Facility to other louver facil ities whi ch may 1 ack a Gatehouse structure.Ms. Lo;s D. Cashell . DO5667/Appendix 2/Page 2 e to Fi s~e erv Let June 11. 1992) The comment letter notes that new information indicates that juven;1e c1upeids may undertake migration prior to the fall migration period. NUSCO wi 11 mon i tor the resu1 ts of other stud i es to determi ne monitoring periods need to be extended in future studies. ifferenc s in Ei!j mate ~tv ecti ess The 1991 study indicated that bypass efficiencies for mark-recapture fi sh was 45% while estimates of wild fish was 69%. We recognize and share your concern with the disparity between these two estimates. One exp 1 anat i on for the di fference i s that some of the marked fi sh may have failed to approach the louvers, thus reducing the estimated efficiency. The estimate based on unmarked fish, on the other hand, did not depend on knowing the number approaching the louvers, therefore, it may have been

more accurate. Our 1992 studies will attempt to reconcile that di fference and establi sh the true guidance effi ci ency. riorit Amon ectives We agree with your comments and intend to emphasize the points you identified as higher priority items. The Final Plan of Study has been

revi sed to refl ect thi s comment. atehouse R l ea se Point We generally agree with your comment that a release point above the Gatehouse is most realistic for the present Holyoke Canal Facility. Re 1 eases below the Gatehouse are i ntended to determi ne genera 1 appl icabil ity of the Holyoke Canal Facil ity to other louver facil ities which may lack a Gatehouse structure. Markin Techni ues The Plan of Study section on marking techniques has been revised. llection Facilit v E ffi The 1991 study indicated a collection facility efficiency of 87%. There was no indication that fish were forced through or impinged on the

screen. This was evidenced by the lack of fish found during the cleaning of the screens. It is likely the 13% of fish passed through cracks associated with the guide vane and between the edge of the screen and the concrete. It is our intent to attempt to increase the samples effectiveness with juvenile clupeids in 1992. NUSCO and its consultantMs. Lois D. Cashell . D05667/Appendix 2/Page 3 will make efforts to increase the efficiency of the collection facil ity by sealing the edges during the 1992 Juvenile Clupeid Study. efficiency test was repeated this spring with salmon smolts found 100%

effect i veness. khedule A draft report on the proposed study is targeted to start agency review in February 1993. Prel iminary data will be reported to the Technical Committee as it becomes available.State of Ne\\T Hampshire Fish and Gan1e Departn1ent 2 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301 (603) 271- 3421

Re lay 800- 735- 2964

Donald A. Normandeau. Ph. Executive Director

RF.CE't.l.~D JUN 1992 June 24, 1992 Mr. R. A. Reckert Vice President Northeast Utili ties Ser\Fice Company P . 0 . Box 270 Hartford CT 06141-0270 Dear Mr. Reckert : The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department has reviewed the draft study plan entitled " Responsive of Juvenile Clupeids to Louvers in the Holyoke Canal, 1992" and offers the following comments: General: Studies have been identified that juvenile clupeids remain in the ri ver throughout the summer and don' t begin downstream migration until mid-September. Recent studies by Aquatec in the Vernon and Turners Falls pools and the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CDEP) below Holyoke indicate that c~upeids may undertake downstream migration prior to the fall emigration periods you indicated. Expansion of downstream passage monitoring to earlier periods should be considered. There were significant discrepancies between the bypass effectiveness calculated using different techniques in 1991. Bypass efficiency varied between 45% using the mark-recapture resul ts and 69% using capture of marked fish in the nets fished under the louvers to estimate wild fish efficiency. These results are compounded by the evidence from vertical netting that 80% of the fish were found at a depth greater than eight feet. Data and depth distribution raise questions regarding both the 45% and 69% efficiency figures. Resolution of these discrepancies and verification of actual bypass efficiencies should be the primary focus of the 1992 studies. Proposed Study: You outline six objectives of the 1992 studies. As stated above, the determination of a good, consistent bypass efficiency estimate (Objective 4) should be the primary focus of your 1992 studies. Objectives 3 and 5 relate directly to facility effectiveness and are also important. We recommend, however, that replicate tests of various canal flows be run to adequately test louver efficiency over the full range of flows. ~(d Discover New HampshireHr. R . A. Reckert Page 2 June 24, 1992 We are less concerned about, and believe less emphasis should be put on the other identified objectives. The diel patterns of clupeid movements have been previously researched, and we do not see the need for this study at this time. If characterization of the downstream migration is to be conducted, we would recommend an earlier seasonal start to monitoring as explained above. The last objective of determining the influence of gatehouse passage on bypass efficiency seems to be of questionable utility. This information may be of interest for use at other sites, but at Holyoke gatehouse passage is necessary as there are no options for emigrating fish. Again, we recommend that the majority of or all fish used in mark-recapture studies be released upstream of the

gatehouse to maximize data collection under natural passage conditions. Plan of Study: The evaluation of various marking techniques is planned for 1992. this was conducted in 1991. Is there a need to repeat this evaluation again? The collection facility was found to have an 87% efficiency -

1991. the reason that all fish were not captured and the fate of fish not collected should be investigated. Will collection facility efficiency tests be repeated in 1992? Determining Louver Efficiency: The plan of study identifies the release of 10 groups each at locations both upstream and downstream from the gatehouse and 3 tests each of 2 flow conditions. We interpret the total number of tests ~o be performed to be 20, with at least 3 test releases from each location under low flows and 3 tests from each location under high flows. Again, we recommend effort be concentrated on release upstream from the gatehouse. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this study plan. Please address any questions or comments to Charles Thoi ts of this office (603) 271- 3511. ;;:1 Donald A. NO ~U' Ph. Executive Director DAN/CFT/ jel cc: B. Rizzo, USF&WS J. O' Leary, MADF&W T. Meyers, USF & WS K. Cox, VT F&WS T. Savoy, CT F&G J. Warner, USF&WS J. Robinson, FERC