Tetra Tech, Inc.

10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340

Fairfax, VA 22030

phone 703-385-6000

fax 703-385-6007

TO: Record

FROM: Christine Wong, Tetra Tech, Inc.

DATE: April 15, 2009

SUBJECT: Notes from teleconferences

Oceans staff

Background

To complement existing information on cooling water intake structures and intake 

technologies, EPA directed Tetra Tech (Tt) to 

structures and intake technolo

EPA and contractor personnel.

Methodology

Based on previous correspondence with personnel from Canada’s Department of 

Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), the government agency responsible for ove

programs and services that support the

aquatic resources, Tt did not attempt to contact national

cooling water intake structures and intake technologies, because such in

typically not aggregated at the national level. Instead, based on the recommendation of 

previous contacts, Tt staff directly contacted personnel in the provincial governments of 

coastal provinces and those adjoining the Great Lakes, 

place at the provincial level. 

(provided at http://www.dfoArctic, Gulf, Maritimes, and 

case, Tt inquiries were referred to personnel from the Fish Habitat Management Program. 

Tt made contact with Fish Habitat Management Program personnel from the Vancouv

British Columbia; St. John’s, Newfoundland; and Burlington, Ontario regional offices. 

The discussion below summarizes the information gathered from these staff.

MEMORANDUM

10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340

Christine Wong, Tetra Tech, Inc.

, 2009

teleconferences with Canada Department of Fisheries and 

To complement existing information on cooling water intake structures and intake 

technologies, EPA directed Tetra Tech (Tt) to research Canadian cooling water intake 

structures and intake technologies that might be of potential interest for site visitations by

EPA and contractor personnel. 

Based on previous correspondence with personnel from Canada’s Department of 

Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), the government agency responsible for overseeing

ervices that support the use and development of Canada’s waterways and 

aquatic resources, Tt did not attempt to contact national-level DFO staff about individual 

cooling water intake structures and intake technologies, because such information is 

not aggregated at the national level. Instead, based on the recommendation of 

vious contacts, Tt staff directly contacted personnel in the provincial governments of 

coastal provinces and those adjoining the Great Lakes, since the permitting process take

 Tt made telephone inquiries to the general information lines 

-mpo.gc.ca/contact-eng.htm) at the Pacific, Central and

and Newfoundland and Labrador regional DFO offices. In each 

case, Tt inquiries were referred to personnel from the Fish Habitat Management Program. 

Tt made contact with Fish Habitat Management Program personnel from the Vancouv

British Columbia; St. John’s, Newfoundland; and Burlington, Ontario regional offices. 

The discussion below summarizes the information gathered from these staff.

1

Fisheries and 

To complement existing information on cooling water intake structures and intake 

research Canadian cooling water intake 

gies that might be of potential interest for site visitations by

Based on previous correspondence with personnel from Canada’s Department of 

rseeing

waterways and 

level DFO staff about individual 

formation is 

not aggregated at the national level. Instead, based on the recommendation of 

vious contacts, Tt staff directly contacted personnel in the provincial governments of 

permitting process takes

Tt made telephone inquiries to the general information lines 

Central and

regional DFO offices. In each 

case, Tt inquiries were referred to personnel from the Fish Habitat Management Program. 

Tt made contact with Fish Habitat Management Program personnel from the Vancouver, 

British Columbia; St. John’s, Newfoundland; and Burlington, Ontario regional offices. 
2

****************************

Terry Fleet (709-772-5597), Habitat Management Engineer in Newfoundland

Mr. Fleet knew of two examples of fish protection technologies on water intake 

structures, but did not know of any large-scale or widespread implementation of such 

technologies. He knew of one example indirectly – a hydroelectric project in Great Falls, 

Newfoundland, for a pulp and paper mill has been using a louver system to guide fish 

away from the intake structure. Mr. Fleet indicated that the louver is known to be 

approximately 75-80% effective at fish deterrence (specifically salmon deterrence), and 

suggested more information about the project is available on the Internet from Mr. Leon 

King (709-292-5197). 

Mr. Fleet spoke at length about another water intake project under his supervision. A 

municipal drinking water intake on the salmon-bearing Shoal Harbor River in 

Clarenville, Newfoundland, has a fine-mesh traveling to protect the fish from uptake. He 

stated that the mesh is 1.3 mm and the intake velocity at this facility is typically less than 

0.15 m/s (0.5 ft/s). He noted that the environmental assessment for this project is likely

available on the Internet.

Mr. Fleet stated that there are no requirements for fish protection at intakes in non-fish 

bearing waters, but noted that it is common to have some types of screens (generally, 

stationary screens) on water intakes (most are drinking water intakes) in fish-bearing 

water to prevent impingement, as well as debris buildup. He indicated that there are no 

nuclear facilities in Newfoundland, but there are a number of geothermal and 

hydroelectric facilities. Mr. Fleet noted that hydroelectric facilities do not necessarily 

have or are required to have screens on their intakes, and such requirements are made by 

regulatory personnel on a case-by-case basis. 

****************************

Al Johnson (604-666-0226), Habitat Management and Enhancement Branch for the 

Lower Frazier area in Vancouver, BC

Mr. Johnson stated that fish protection technologies at water intake structures in the 

greater Vancouver area are only implemented at very small scale intakes; for example, on 

farms. He stated that this is very likely true of all of British Columbia. 

Mr. Johnson noted that all of the fish protection technologies at water intakes that he is 

aware of are being implemented in the United Stated in Washington state and California. 

****************************

Derrick Beach (905-336-4435), Habitat Management Engineer for the greater Ontario 

area
3

Mr. Beach stated that Canada is still trying to catch up with the United States in terms of 

fish protection technologies on water intake structures. He stated that he is working with 

some nuclear power plants on the Great Lakes to negotiate the potential installation of 

fish protection technologies on their intake structures. He stated that these projects are 

still in the biological assessment stage; the facilities are studying the number of fish 

impacted by water intakes in the affected waterbodies.

Mr. Beach stated that most facilities do not have any kind of fish protection technologies 

on water intake structures, though many might have debris screens. He noted one

municipal drinking water facility that does have stationary fish protection screens, but did 

not know the mesh size of the screens. He suggested that the mesh size is determined 

according to the size of the local fish intended to be protected. Mr. Beach stated that 

habitat management personnel are most interested in preventing entrainment, noting the 

difficulty with maintenance (i.e., for deep intakes) in the Great Lakes. He indicated that 

regulators in the area are interested in designing structures that can be retrofitted with 

screens and allow for continuous monitoring. 

Mr. Beach indicated that all the intake screening that he knew of were all stationary

screens; he did not know of any traveling screen technology being used on water intakes 

in the Great Lakes. He stated that regulatory personnel were also looking into 

implementing requirements for reducing the intake velocity to protect fish. He 

emphasized that all of the tools were being discussed, but none, to his knowledge, were 

being implemented yet.

Mr. Beach confirmed that the requirements and authority for protecting fish at water 

intakes comes from several different parts of the Fisheries Act, and that the language in 

those regulations is very general and does not contain specific implementation 

requirements. He suggested that Habitat Management offices in British Columbia and 

the other maritime provinces might have more information on fish protection 

technologies. 

During a follow-up conversation, Tt personnel spoke with Mr. Beach to confirm whether 

he knew of or was requiring any facilities, specifically nuclear generating facilities, to use 

closed-cycle recirculating systems (CCRSs) or changes in flow regimes for the purpose 

of fish protection. He was chosen for these follow-up questions because his area has the 

highest concentration of power plants in Canada, which mainly derives its electricity 

from hydropower.

Mr. Beach stated that he does not know of any facilities that are using CCRSs or targeted 

flow regimes (i.e., seasonal changes, variable speed pumps, low intake velocity) for fish 

protection or other purposes. He indicated that his department has been in negotiations 

(for many years) with facilities that may have intakes in biologically rich areas, but those 

talks have not yielded anything past discussions about what types of aquatic organism 

protection screening might be used at those intakes, per the Canadian guidelines for fish 

protection at intake structures, and has definitely not led to the installation flow-based 
4

technologies. He noted that those negotiations have included some discussion of flow 

regime changes or CCRSs, but no facilities have yet used or been required to use those 

technologies or methods. He mentioned that there has been a rumor circulating around 

SFO staff that the Fisheries Act, which contains the current guidelines for fish protection 

at intake structures, might be rewritten in the near future, but that is the extent of his 

knowledge about national rulemaking on this topic.