# Laboratory Evaluation of 

# Fish Protective Devices at 

# Intakes RESEARCH 

# REPORT 8.

Prepared By 

### ALDEN RESEARCH LABORATORY AND


### STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION FINAL REPORT
MA Y 1981



# EMPIRE STATE ELECTRIC ENERGY RESEARCH 

# CORPORATION

## Members of the



# Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation
1271 Avenue of the Americas, New York 

### , N.Y 10020



## CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELECTRIC CORPORATION 

## CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK , INC. 

## LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY NEW YORK STATE ELECTRIC & GAS CORPORATION 

## NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER 

# CORPORATION ORANGE AND ROCKLAND UTILITIES , INC. 

## ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATIONLABORATORY EVALUATION OF
FISH PROTECTIVE DEVICES AT INTAKES



### Alden Research Laboratory Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation

Research Sponsored by 

### Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation

George E. Hecker, Director

ALDEN RESEARCH LABORATORY


### WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
HOLDEN , MASSACHUSETTS

February 1981This report was prepared as an account of research sponsored by ESEERCO and conducted by the Alden Research Laboratory (ARL) and Stone 0 webster Engineering Corporation (SOW). Neither ARL, sow, nor any of its employees, contractors, or sub-contractors

a. Makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility

for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information , apparatus, product, process disclosed , or

for any consequential loss or damage as a result of its use,such as loss of profit, damage to the environment, or interest during construction, if any, irrespective of negligence.

b. or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION 

## 1.1

1. 2 1. 3 

### Background Development of the ESEERCO Study Program ESEERCO Study Program

SECTION 2 - FISH HOLDING FACILITY



## Alewives Striped Bass, White Perch, Atlantic Menhaden

SECTION 3 - ANGLED SCREEN TESTING - SALT WATER TEST FLUME



### In 

## troduction Description of the 

# Facility Biological Testing 

## Procedures Analytical Results


### SECTION 4 - ANGLED BEHAVIORAL BARRIERS



## Introduction Description of the Facility Biological Testing Procedures Resul ts

SECTION 5 - FISH PUMPS



## Introduction Peripheral Type Jet Pump Hidrostal Pump

SECTION 6 - OFFSHORE INTAKE - BEHAVIORAL BARRIER STUDY

REFERENCES 

## Introduction

Description of the Facility Biological Testing Procedures Analytical Results 

### Page No.



# iii

## Table 1.



## Table 2. Table 3. Table 3. Table 3. Table 4.

Table 4.

Table 5. 

## Table 5. Table 5. 

## Table 5.

Table 5. Table 6.

Table 6. LIST OF TABLES

Fish Protection Studies Conducted from 1973- 

### 1979

Collection Data
ESEERCO Angled Screen Results
Summary Statistics
ANCOVA - Angled Screen Study, Full Model
ESEERCO Behavioral Barrier Test Results, Salt 

### Water Facility
Summary of Behavioral Barrier, Test Results by Species, Salt Water Facility
Jet Pump Test Data, 1978 Juveniles
Analysis of Covariance, Jet Pump, 1978 Juveniles
Test Data Summary, Jet Pump 

### 1978 Hidrostal Pump Data 

## (White Perch, Striped Bass, Menhaden) 

## 1979 Hidrostal Pump Data, Alewives (9. 9 to lO. 

### 2cm)
Offshore Intake Model, 1978 Behavioral Barrier Test Results, Alewives
ANCOVA - Behavioral Barrier Study 

### Page No.

## Figure 2.



## Figure 3. Figure 3. Figure 4. 

## Figure 4. Figure 5. 

## Figure 5. Figure 5. 

## Figure 5. Figure 5. 

## Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 6. Figure 6. 

## Figure 6. Figure 6. Figure 6. LIST OF FIGURES

Fish Holding Facility
Salt Water Test Facility with 250 Angled Screen
Salt Water Flume with 250 Angled Screen
Hanging Chain Diversion Barrier



### Water Jet Diversion Barrier
Jet Pump Test Facility
Jet Pump Test Facility
Histogram of Jet Pump Mortality, All Species
96 Hour Jet Pump Mortality versus Temperature Difference, All Species 

## Hi stogram of Mortality Partitioned by Species, Jet Pump Tests Hidrostal Pump Test Facility
Offshore Intake Test Facility
Intake Segment Structure for Testing Behavioral Barriers
Intake Segment Structures
Hanging Chain Behavioral Barrier, Offshore Intake Study
Air Bubble Behavioral Barrier, Offshore Intake Study
Water Jet Behavioral Barrier, Offshore Intake Study 

### Page No.

### SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

### SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION



### From 1977 to 1979, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation and the Alden 

### Research Laboratory (ARL) of Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) conducted a program of biological testing for Empire State Electric Energy 

### Research Corporation (ESEERCO) to investigate the effectiveness of vari

### ous fish protective systems in terms of their possible development for 

### general application to power plant intakes in New York 

# state. This report presents the results of studies conducted specifically for ESEERCO
from 1977 to 1979. To aid in understanding the rationale for investi

### gating selected systems and operational variables in these studies, thefollowing discussion presents a brief summary of the various studies pre

### viously conducted by ARL and Stone & Webster which led to the ESEERCO study program.


### Background

The ESEERCO program was an extension of several independent intake design studies conducted for several utilities in New York state from 1973 to 1977. 

### During those investigations, physical models were constructed and were usedto develop selected fish protective systems for reducing entrapment and im

### pingement of juvenile fish on the Great Lakes and in the Hudson River. Sys

## tems which were evaluated included:

Fish diversion and bypass devices for application at onshore screen

# wells and offshore intake structures.

Fish transportation systems for returning bypassed fish to their natural environment.


# Fish deterrent devices (behavioral barriers) for preventing fish entrapment at offshore intakes.

### A listing of individual studies, species tested, dates of testing, utility

sponsors, and references for study reports are given in Table 

### listed are the ESEERCO studies presented in this 

## report. Also

As a result of past studies (excluding ESEERCO studies), a complete fish diversion, bypass, and transportation system was developed. This system was designed to use an angled, flush- mounted traveling screen for diverting fish to a bypass pipe for transportation back to their natural environ

## ment. The motive force for inducing bypass and transport pipe flows is a jet pump. Results of laboratory testing of this system showed that it washighly effective in diverting and transporting the relatively fragile ale

# wife (Alosa pseudoharengus) with low resultant mortality. The angled, flushmounted traveling screen was also shown to be nearly 100 percent effective 

### in guiding striped bass (Morone saxatilis), white perch (Morone americana), 

### and Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod) to a bypass with very low mortality.



### In addition to diversion and transportation systems, studies with behavioralbarriers indicated that such devices, when properly designed, might be par

### tially effective in reducing fish entrapment at offshore intake 

# structures. Devices tested included an air bubble curtain, a hanging chain barrier, and a water jet curtain.

Development of the ESEERCO study Program



### At the completion of these studies, it was possible to place varying degrees of confidence on the various systems investigated relative to their potential for effectiveness at different sites in New 

### York. 

# Since the angled, flushmounted traveling screen had been shown to be highly effective with lake and river species, it appeared that this device had good potential for general application in these water bodies. Experimental data on its effectiveness 

## f or guiding marine species were lacking, 

### however.The fish transportation system, incorporating pipe and jet pump elements, had been evaluated for a lake condition, the alewife being the primary species tested to date. 

### Since the hydraulic criteria (particularly total head) required for lake application with offshore intakes would be more stringent than those which would be required for application at shoreline intakes, it appeared that a piping and jet pump system would also offer a practical engineering solution to the problem of transporting fish at 

### river and marine sites utilizing shoreline 

## intakes. Al though this system had not been evaluated with key species from these environments, tests had shown that the alewife , a fragile species, may be transported with low mortality in this system. Therefore, it appeared that a jet pump and piping 

### arrangement might be effective in transporting other 

## species.

In summary, the greatest degree of confidence in fish protective systemsstudied up to 1977 had been placed on an angled traveling screen and trans

### portation systems with Lake Ontario fish, specifically the alewife. 

### The angled screen had also been shown to be highly effective in diverting the Hudson River fishes, but a transportation system had not been evaluated. 

### studies with marine species had not been 

## conducted. Finally, behavioral 

### barriers appeared to have some potential for reducing fish entrapment at offshore intake structures, but had not been studied extensively for use at shoreline intakes.



### ESEERCO Study Program

On the basis of the stages of development of the various fish protection 

### systems investigated up to 1977, systems and test parameters were selected for evaluation as part of the ESEERCO study program. Systems included an 

## angled, flush- mounted traveling screen, a jet pump, and three behavioral barriers to be evaluated with juvenile Atlantic menhaden , striped bass, 

### whi te perch , and alewife. The goal of these studies was to provide data on fish protection systems so that their potential for general application 

### for protecting juvenile fish at lake, river, estuarine, and marine sites could be determined with greater confidence.The specific objectives of the study were to:

Determine the effectiveness of an angled screen in diverting all test species to a bypass at previously untested screen angles and
veloci ties.

Evaluate the potential of fish pumps for transporting striped bass, 

### whi te perch , and menhaden with low resultant mortality.

Determine the effectiveness of air bubble , water jet, and hanging chain behavioral barriers in preventing alewife entrapment into an offshore intake model at low water temperatures.

Determine the effectiveness of hanging chain and water jet behavioral barriers arranged at an angle to the flow in guiding striped 

### bass, white perch, and menhaden to a 

## bypass.

This report presents the methodologies and results of this evaluation , conducted for 

### ESEERCO from 1977 to 

### 1979. Concurrent with this study, ARL and

stone & Webster conducted a related study program for ESEERCO in which finemesh screening systems were investigated to determine their potential 

## for protecting fish larvae at power plant intakes. The results of this program 

### will be presented in a separate report (ESEERCO, 1981).Fish Protection SystemI. Fish DiversionA. Louvers1. 3-ft flume2. Salt water flumeB. Angled Screen1. 3-ft flume2. Full Scale Model3. System Demonstration Model4. Double Jet Pump5. Salt water flume(1975-1976)6. Salt water flume(1977-1978)7. Larval DiversionAngled Screen8. Angled BehavioralBarriers(chains,water jets)TABLE 1. 1Fish Protection Studies Conducted from 1973 - 1979Species TestedAlewifeCoho salmonRainbow smeltWhi teperchStriped bassAlewifeAlewifeAlewifeAlewifeStriped bassWhi teperchTomcodStriped bassWhi teperchMenhadenWinter flounderAlewifeStriped bassMenhadenStriped bassWhi teperchTesting PeriodAug. - Oct. 1973Jan. - Apr. 1974July - Oct. 1974Sept. 1975 - Jan. 1976SponsoredReferenceNMPCS&W, 1975aCon EdS&W, 1975b, 1976cJuly - Nov. 1974NMPCS&W, 1975aJune 1974 - Jan. 1975NMPCS&W, 1975aOct. 1975 - Oct.1976NMPC/RG&ES&W, 1976a, 1976b, 1977aJuly - Aug. 1976NMPCS&W, 1977bMay 1975 - Jan. 1976Con EdS&W, 1975b, 1976cJuly 1977 - Mar. 1978June - July 1978Oct. 1978 - Mar. 1979ESEERCOSee TextESEERCOSee TextESEERCOSee TextFish Protection SystemII.Behavioral BarrierA. 3-ft Flume - AirBubbles, Chains,Visual KeysB. Offshore IntakeModel-Air, Chains,Water Jets(1976)C. Offshore IntakeModel-Air, Chains,Water Jets(1978)III.Fish PumpsA. Jet Pump1. Core-type2. Peripheral Type(1974)3. Peripheral Type(1978)4. Hidrostal PumpSpecies TestedAlewifeRainbow smeltAlewifeAlewifeCoho salmonSmeltAlewifeCoho salmonSmeltAlewifeStriped bassWhi teperchMenhadenAlewifeWhi teperchStriped bassMenhadenAlewifeTABLE 1.continued)Testing PeriodSept. - Dec. 1975Apr. - May 1976June - Aug. 1976Aug. - Dec. 1978Feb.1974Feb.1974July -Aug.1974Jan.- Feb.1974Jan.- Feb.1974July -Oct.1974Sept. 1978 - Feb. 1979Oct. 1978 - Nov. 1979SponsoredNMPC/RG&ENMPC/RG&EESEERCONMPCNMPCESEERCOESEERCOReferenceS&W, 1976aS&W, 1976bSee Text0'\S&W, 1975a, 1977aS&W, 1975a, 1977aSee TextSee TextNMPC = Niagara Mohawk Power CorporationRG&E = Rochester Gas & Electric CorporationS&W = Stone& Webster Engineering Corp.Con Ed= Consolidated Edison Co. of New York,Inc.ESEERCO = Empire State Electric Energy Research Corp.NOTE:t-rj::r:::r:t"it-rjt"'0-,3tIJt-3!'oJ

### SECTION 2
FISH HOLDING FACILITY

All fish used during the study program were collected by individuals contracted by ESEERCO and were delivered to ARL by these individuals. 

### The holding systems utilized for each species were initially designed to meet 

### the specific requirements of that 

## species. However, since the laboratorywas remote from the natural habitat of all species tested, some modifications to the holding system design or operation were found necessary to enhance survival and were, therefore , implemented during the study. To account for any differences in behavior or survival of test fish which might have occurred during the two- year study as a result of changing the holding techniques, separate groups of control fish were held for all tests in which latent survival was the variable of interest. Controls were handled in an identical manner as the test fish except that they were not exposed to the 

### particular test device under 

## study.



## Table 2. 1 presents, for each species, the total number of fish obtained for 

### testing and their length 

## range. All species were collected by beach 

## seine. In this report 

### , lengths reported are overall ranges (not mean lengths) of a subsample of fish measured each day that tests were conducted. Since this study was designed to determine the effectiveness of protection devices ona particular life stage, no attempt was made during data analyses to determine the effect of specific lengths within that life stage on effectiveness.



## Alewives

In 1978 , alewives were held in two 2500 gallon circular tanks measuring 12 

### ft in diameter and 3 ft in 

## depth. They were held in a semi- closed system 

### whereby filtered stream water (salinity = 0 ppt) was pumped into each tank 

### during the day at a rate of about 50 

### gpm. 

## At night , the system was isolated from the stream by turning off the feed pump and aerating the water with 

### powered aerators to maintain the desired dissolved oxygen 

# levels. The fish 

### were maintained exclusively on pulverized trout pellets during the entire 

## 1978 study.

### In 1979, alewives were held in the same facility as in 1978. The mode of

operation was changed to once-through rather than semi-closed. The holding system was a once-through design whereby stream water was pumped into 

### each tank at a continuous rate of about 50 gpm. The fill pipe was angled 

### to provide a circular flow to which the fish could 

# orient. The discharge drained out an overflow pipe. 

### The water, as it was pumped from the 

## stream,was not filtered so that the alewives would have a source of natural plankton to feed upon. The natural food source was supplemented with pulverized trout pellets which were readily accepted by the alewives. During the 96 hour mortality holding period, both test and control groups were held in circular tanks, 3 ft across by 2. 5 ft deep, with netting covering the bot

### tom. The tanks were floated in a sump utilizing the same water source 

### used in the stock holding tanks and test 

### model. Test and control fish 

### were fed identically to those in the stock holding 

## tanks.

Daily measurements of pH, dissolved oxygen , and ammonia-nitrogen were taken to monitor water quality. 

### Since many juvenile alewives were held (1 fish/ 2L) and the BOD was high, powered aerators were used to keep the dissolved 

### oxygen level at or near 

# saturation.

The alewives used in 1978 and early 1979 were collected and transported to ARL by a wholesale bait dealer from Wanaque, New Jersey. The fish , which 

### were landlocked alewives from local New Jersey lakes and 

## reservoirs, arrived in two batches; the first in August and the second in October 1978. Over the course of the study, fish lengths ranged from 5. 9 to 12. 4 cm.



### Alewives tested in the fall of 1979 (Hidrostal pump tests) were obtained 

### from the same source in a single batch, and ranged in length from 9. 

## 9 to 10. 2 cm. A total of 27 000 alewives were delivered to the laboratory 

### during the study program; upon arrival, the fish were in good condition; 

### little mortality occurred during 

# transport.Striped Bass, White Perch, Atlantic Menhaden

Striped bass, white perch, and Atlantic menhaden were held separately in 2500 gallon circular tanks measuring 12 ft in diameter and 3 ft in 

## depth. The stock holding tanks were closed- cycle systems each with a biological 

### filter, physical absorption filter, and rapid sand pressure filter (see Fi

## gure 2. 

## 1). The biological filter removed ammonia- nitrogen from the water 

### thereby maintaining ammonia at a low 

# level. The physical absorption filters removed dissolved organics and aided in maintaining water clarity. The rapid sand pressure filter removed solid fish wastes from the water column and provided a flow to which the fish could orient.

The use of closed- cycle systems for these species allowed the addition of synthetic sea salt, since previous experience at the laboratory had shown 

### that salinities of 2 to 7 ppt enhanced stock holding 

## survival. 

## Atlantic menhaden were held in 3 to 5 ppt salinity since it was necessary for their 

## survival.

While it was possible to conduct laboratory tests under slightly saline conditions, the large volumes of water used made it impractical to achieve values above 3 ppt in the test facility. Therefore, the holding tanks were maintained at 3 to 5 ppt to obtain conditions similar to those in the test facili ty.

Monitoring of pH , ammonia nitrogen, dissolved oxygen, and salinity was made in order to maintain good water quality. A 10% to 25% water change was made frequently as part of routine maintenance.

The striped bass and white perch were fed two to four times a day depending 

### on their acceptance of feed which was contingent on water 

## temperature. temperature decreased and the fish became lethargic, the number of feedings decreased. The bass and perch were fed ground frozen squid, ground euphausid 

### shrimp, or frozen brine 

## shrimp. The Atlantic menhaden were fed dry flake food 4 to 6 times a day depending on water temperature.The striped bass and white perch were collected from the Hudson River by 

## Texas Instruments, Inc. They were held at the Indian Point fish hatchery prior to transport to ARL by S&W personnel. 

# Striped bass were obtained in two batches (3501 fish) in November and December 1978. OVer the course of testing, fish lengths ranged from 6. 6 to 12.



### cm. Whi te perch were obtained in two batches; the first in October and the second in November 1978. A total of 3811 fish were delivered. 

## Lengths ranged from 5. 1 to 9. 2 cm.



### A total of 4500 Atlantic menhaden were collected and were transported from 

### Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts, by Sea Plantations, Inc. of Salem, Massachu

# setts. They were held at Salem prior to shipment by Sea Plantations to ARL. While at Salem, the menhaden were conditioned to accept artificial food and the salinity was gradually lowered from 28 ppt to a level of 3 to 5 

## ppt.

Menhaden were shipped in August and September 1978. The fish ranged in length 

## from 3. 9 to 8. 0 cm over the course of the study. During the course of the study, it was sometimes necessary and desirable to reuse fish which had been 

# previously tested , where the category " previously tested" includes fish used for any purpose, i. e., test or control individuals. During a test period, all fish utilized for testing purposes were subsequently placed in a separate tank and were never used further unless, or until, all untested fish had been 

# utilized. At times, the number of fish available for testing was small , and it was, therefore, desirable to make use of these previously tested fish to expand the data base. Previous studies have shown that testing fish several 

### times does not influence test results (Stone & Webster, 1976c). 

# port , all tests with previously tested fish are identified. In this re-

### TABLE 2.

Collection Data



## Species Total No. Collected 

## Length Range (cm) 

## Alewife Striped bass 

## 27, 000 501 9 - 12. 

### 6 . 6 - 12. 

## White perch Menhaden 811 500 

## 1 -



## 9 -

## ... --- '-'



### FIGURE 2. FISH HOLDING FACILITY

### SECTION 3

ANGLED SCREEN TESTING - SALT WATER TEST FLUME

### SECTION 3
ANGLED SCREEN TESTING - SALT WATER TEST FLUME



### In 

## troduction

From July 1977 to March 1978, ESEERCO sponsored studies designed to optimize the angled screen system. 

### The saltwater test flume and angled screen testdevice incorporated all of the structural details which would exist in a power plant system.

As previously discussed, past angled screen studies had yielded diversion efficiencies of nearly 100 percent at an approach velocity of 1 fps and a 

### screen angle of 25 degrees to the flow (Stone & Webster, 1976a and c, 

### 1977a 

## and b). These results indicated that higher velocities and greater angles, 

### both of which would reduce the cost of an angled screen system in a power plant, might also yield acceptable diversion efficiency. 

## Accordingly, veloci ty and angle were the primary variables of interest in the ESEERCO 

## study.

The test parameters given below were selected on the basis of previous results and input from the member utilities of ESEERCO:

Approach Velocity 

## Screen Angle (deg. 1. 0 fps 2 . 0 

## fps
Menhaden 

### Menhaden Striped bass Whi te 

## perch Striped bass Whi te 

## perch

In addition, two tests were conducted with striped bass and white perch, respectively, at an angle of 25 degrees and a velocity of 1. 

## 0 fps for comparison to previous studies 

## (see Table 1. 

## 1).Description of the Facility

Diversion studies were conducted using 3/8 inch wire mesh screens mounted on steel supports similar to prototype screen 

## panels. The screens weremounted in a 6 ft wide flume at an angle of 25 or 45 degrees to the direction of flow. The test screens were 13 ft 1/8 inch and 7 ft 9-3/8 inches long at angles of 25 and 45 degrees, respectively. At both angles, thescreen led to a 6 inch wide bypass channel. A water depth of 6 ft was maintained for all tests. The test facility is shown in Figures 

### and 3.

A diesel powered pump located in the return line circulated water through
the flume. The flow entered the 35 ft long test section through a flow 

### straightener and upstream containment 

## screen. The flow was divided at the test screens such that the velocity in the bypass channel was approximately 

# equal to the veloci ty in the approach channel. The operating speed of the 

### pump controlled the velocity in the test section, while gates proportioned 

### the flow between the bypass and the screens. The bypass channel expanded toform a collection area. The fish remained in this area while the flow exit

### ed at low velocity through a containment screen. The collection area incorporated a lift basket to remove bypassed fish while the test progressed.

Prior to the start of each test , there was no flow while the fish were ac

### climating to the 

## flume. At the start of a test, the flow was increased to the desired condition by bringing the diesel pump speed to a predetermined 

# setting. A traverse of velocity measurements was obtained in the approach 

### and bypass channels at the conclusion of each 

# test.

Velocity data indicated that the flow in the approach section was distributed nearly uniformly at a cross- section 10 ft upstream of the angled screen. A traverse of velocity measurements obtained 4 inches upstream of the screen face indicated velocities of the same magnitude and direction as those in the upstream cross- 

## section.Biological Testing Procedures



### From August 1978 through March 

### 1979, Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus 

### white perch, alewife, and striped bass were tested in the salt water test 

## flume. A summary of the test program is given below. 

## Species Length 

# (~)

Test Period 

## Salini ty (ppt)

Atlantic menhaden 

## August - October

Whi te 

## perch 

## 1 - 

## October - February 0 or 

## Alewife 12. November 

## Striped bass 

## 6 - 12. December March 0 or

Prior to the start of each test, 100 to 200 fish of a single species were 

### transferred from the stock pools to the 

## flume. Fish were seined and dip

### netted into buckets for transportation to the 

## flume. 

## A separate group of control fish were simultaneously placed in a holding 

## tank.

Before the introduction of fish to the flume, a removable fish crowder was 

### placed approximately 5 ft downstream of the upstream containment screen to restrict fish movements during acclimation and thereby prevent premature entry into the bypass. Fish were then placed in the flume and the lights 

# turned off. Fish were allowed approximately 15 minutes for acclimation to the darkened conditions. As the flow was initiated, the crowder was simultaneously removed so that the fish could orient to the flow without contact
wi th the crowder. Tests were conducted in the dark to simulate conditions 

### which would occur in power plant intakes where low light (or no light) conditions, and possibly high turbidity, would largely preclude visual response to an angled screen.

During each test , the fish collection area was checked hourly and all fish 

### present were removed to holding tanks. The screen was also checked (with dimlight) for impingement, but impinged fish were not removed until the comple

# tion of the test. These fish were included in calculations of diversion ef

## ficiency. Tests were conducted under artificially darkened conditions and

### generally ran until the majority of the fish had been bypassed 

## (approximately

4 to 7 hours after start of the test). Fish were removed from the bypass collection area with a lift basket device, netted into buckets, and transferred 

### to a holding tank for observation of daily mortality to 96 hours. Non-bypass

### ed fish (those still swimming in the flume) were removed from the flume at the end of the test , but were not held for mortality studies; however , they 

### were included in calculations of 

# efficiency.

The tanks used to hold test and control fish for mortality studies consisted of plastic cylinders, 3 ft across by 2. 5 ft deep, with nylon netting covering
the bot toms. 

### The tanks were submerged to a depth of at least 2 

# ft.

For 96 hours following each angled screen test, all test and control tanks were checked daily and dead fish were removed and recorded by tank.

Environmental factors recorded at the beginning and end of each test included test flume and holding pool temperatures, dissolved oxygen concentration , pH, salinity, conductivity, ammonia- 

## nitrogen level , and time of day. test, the approach velocity and bypass velocity were measured. For each

Analytical Results 

# Fifty- eight tests were performed: 13 tests with menhaden, 4 tests with alewife, 24 tests with striped bass, and 17 tests with white perch. 

### Angled

screen test parameters and results are summarized in Table 

## Five tests were omitted from the statistical analysis. Alewives were not originally 

### included in the scope of the angled screen 

## study. However, since they were available at a time when other species were not being tested, four tests 

### were run to make use of available fish and time. While the results of these tests are presented in Table 3. , they were not included in the data analy

# sis. In general , the results were consistent with those from past alewife 

## diversion studies (see Table 1-1). In addition to the alewife tests, one 

### menhaden test (no. 6) was eliminated from the analysis. Water in the testflume had been changed just prior to the test resulting in a high chlorine concentration. Therefore, it is believed that the chlorine exposure during 

### a period of increased respiratory activity (swimming) led to the high mor

# tali ty observed.

Therefore, 53 of the 58 tests conducted were subjected to statistical analy

# sis. The angled screen was tested at angles of 25 and 45 degrees to the flow 

### under a variety of environmental 

## conditions. The environmental variables 

### which would naturally fluctuate during testing of the angled screen included species, water temperature, salinity, and pH. As stated above,. tests with three species were analyzed. During the study, the water temperature in the test flume ranged from OO C to 23. Oo The salinity of the water was either a ppt or approximately 3 ppt, depending on test 

## species. The pH ranged from
0 to 7. Approach velocities of 1 fps and 2 fps were tested. The summary statistics for the three species are presented in Table 3.

The criterion for success of a device in diverting fish without damage or stress is the Total Efficiency (E 

# ). It is a combination of the efficiency (E) of the device in diverting fish into the 6 inch wide bypass (which was 

### typically 100 percent) and the mortality (m), which is attributable to the passage through the system. The functional relationship is summarized as:


# T = E (lNumber Bypassed where E = 

### (No. Tested) - (No. Non-Bypassed)

The mortality attributable to the system is determined by comparing the mortality of the test fish diverted (M ) to a control group of fish ).



### The only difference between the test fish and the control fish was the passage of the test fish through the system which also involved additional handling 

# during collection. Previous studies indicated that removal of fish from the collection area did not influence mortality. Therefore, in order to expedite testing, control fish were not placed in and recovered from the collection

## area. The differential mortality (m) is: 

# m=M -M

The differential mortality is assumed to be zero when the mortality of the control fish is greater than that of the test fish mortality.

The test results were statistically analyzed by an analysis of covariance.An analysis of covariance enables the inclusion of categorical and contin

### uous independent variables and is, therefore, a blend of an analysis of 

## variance and a regression analysis. This type of analysis was chosen toconform to the experimental design. The computer program used for the analysis of covariance was a least- squares procedure which allows an unequal num

### ber of observations per cell 

### (Kemp, 1972).

The dependent variable used in the analysis was the total efficiency. 

### The categorical independent variables included batch, previous use, species, 

## and screen angle. Since white perch and menhaden were delivered to the laboratory on two dates, the variability introduced by possible differences in date of delivery was analyzed by the batch variable. The covariates in

### c luded approach velocity, water temperature, salinity, and pH of the water. Interactions of the independent variables were also 

## included. The analysis of covariance enabled the simultaneous testing of independent variables. Thus, it was possible to investigate the relationship between the dependent variable and a single independent variable corrected for the effects of the other independent variables.

The results of the angled screen analysis are presented in Table 3. 

### The rejection level of the null hypothesis for each source of variability is also presented. Based on convention in fisheries science, independent variables and/or interactions which had an a ~ 0. 05 were considered signi

# ficant.The angled screens were so highly efficient that there was very little vari

# ability in the data (refer to Table 3. 

## 1). In 50 of the 53 tests analyzed diversion efficiency was 100 percent. Total efficiency ranged from 72 to 100 percent with a mean of 96 percent and a median of 98 percent over all 

# conditions tested.

Based on the analysis of covariance 

## (Table 3. 3), Total Efficiency seemed to be influenced by species and the salinity of the water. The striped 

# bass was the most effectively diverted species (97. 

# 8 percent; s. d. = 5. and white perch was the least effectively diverted species (91. 8 percent; d. = 6. 

## 7). Menhaden were intermediate, with a total efficiency of 96. 

# percent and a standard deviation of 4. 04.

The salinity of the water also influenced the total 

# efficiency. As the salinity of the water increased, the total efficiency of the device increased as a result of lower latent mortality. As previously mentioned, alewives were not included in this analysis. 

## Al though there was an apparent relation

### ship between efficiency and salinity, inspection of Table 3. 1 does not reveal 

### any substantial differences in efficiency at different salinities. Therefore 

### while the relationship is statistically significant, it does not appear to be 

## important.

Wi thin the range of independent variables examined , it appears that approach veloci ty, 

### angle of the device, 

## gpecies, water temperature, previous use, batch, and pH of the water did not significantly affect total efficiency.

The data were partitioned by species and analyzed by t-tests to clearly studythe relationship between the dependent variable and certain independent vari

## ables. Menhaden were studied to determine if the angle of the screen influenced the total efficiency, while striped bass were studied to determine the relationship between approach velocity and total efficiency. 

## The environmental variables (pH , salinity, and flume temperature) were not included in these analyses since , wi thin each species, the pH , salinity, and flume tem

### perature did not seem to vary siqnificantlv (refer to Table 3. 

## 2)-The results of the analyses indicated that screen angle did not influence

the total efficiency for menhaden tests. 

### The total efficiency 

## (and standard deviation) of tests conducted at 25 and 45 degree angles were 96. 

# 2 I

3 and 97. 3 I 4. , respectively. Since menhaden were only tested at an 

### approach velocity of 1 fps, the results do not apply to the relationship 

### between total efficiency and angle at 2 

## fps.

Striped bass were tested at both approach velocities and, therefore, were studied to determine the relationship between approach velocity and total 

# efficiency. Data indicate that the approach velocity does not influence striped bass total efficiency of the device. The total efficiency of tests
conducted at 1. 

## 0 and 2. 0 fps were 98. 9 I 1. 1 and 97. 1 I 7. 36, respectively. These results also indicate that the tests conducted at 2. 0 fps were more variable than those tests conducted at 1. 

## 0 fps. Although the total effi

## ciency of striped bass tested at 2. 0 fps ranged from 72 percent to 100 percent, only one test had a total efficiency less than 95 percent.

wi th respect to white perch, mean total efficiency of the screen appeared 

# higher at 2. 0 fps than at the 1. 0 fps velocity, averaging 97. 0 percent and 

### 91. 

## 7 percent , respectively.

In conclusion, the test results indicate that , within the range of variables studied, species differences in total efficiency were significant; however, 

# these differences were not substantial. On the average, 98. 0 percent of the 

# fish (all species) were diverted efficiently. In addition , the salinity of the water appeared to influence total efficiency, with efficiency increasingas salinity increased; however, this relationship did not appear to be impor

## tantoTABLE 3.ESEERCO Angled Screen Results96-HOUR...J...J-;;96-HOUR TESTCONTROL...J-:t0..-:tf- ~- )-0 )-MORTALITYMORTALITY-:tf- f-f- U-:tz -a: Z0..a::ci:ci:w...J:!:a: -:t:J ~II)w f-0 ~0.. Z 00.. Z 0...J...J0::(~ 2 ~...J0::(0::(u. a:J: u.~ 00.....J0::(0 w0 wa: - wW u.enZ J:Z 00.. f- 0Z J:Z 00.. f- 00:2'" wMenhaden1.020.200171171006100100Menhaden1.020.205184184000100100Menhaden1.023.221212212014100100Menhaden1.022.205177177100100Menhaden1.021.0214191191100100Menhaden1.016.200170170100I\.)Menhaden1. 017.204195195100f-'Menhaden1.018.200182181100Menhaden1.017.200189189100Menhaden1.017.200187186100Menhaden1. 012.200182179100Menhaden1. 012.209187186100100Menhaden1.015.207188188100Whi teperch1.013.200156155100White perch1. 012.204178178100100White perch1.012.20818818810017*Alewife1.014813413410018*Alewife1.020019519510019*Alewife1.020019719710020*Alewife1.0200198198100White perch1. 0100. 91Striped bass1. 0200102100White perch1.01. 8100Striped bass1.01. 7200149100100White perch1.0100TABLE 3. 1(continued)96-HOUR...J-;;96-HOUR TESTCONTROL...J...Jf- ~:2rJ)MORTALITYMORTALITY;.-;.-rJ)f- f-f- U;.-Z -;.-a: ZrJ);;:ri:ri:w...JrJ);'-a: ~:J ~tI)w f-0 UrJ)"- Z 0II,. Z 0u. a::r u:rJ)a:...J:J...J...J0 0 ~...J. ~~ 0...J0 Wa: - w0 w0 wa: - wto u.rJ)rJ);:'rJ)z:rz 0"- f- 0z:rz 0II:. f- 00:2(J) WWhite perch1.01.6100Striped bass1.01.9200175175006100100Striped bass1.01.2200188188100Striped bass1.0200112100Striped bass1.0224166100White perch1.0100White perch1.0100I\.)I\.)White perch1.0100Striped bass1.0200146100100Striped bass200179179100100Striped bass200165165100Striped bass200159158006100100Striped bass200169169006100100Striped bass200174174006100100Whi teperch100Whi teperch100White perch100Whi teperch100Whi teperch10045**Striped bass20019019010010046**Striped bass20019219210010047**Striped bass20017017010048**Striped bass20019619610049**Striped bass20016916910050**White perch1.8100TABLE(continued)96-HOU R13.-;;96-HOURTESTCONTROLoetD..oetI- ~::i:CJ)::i:MORTALITYMORTALITY;..0;..oetCJ)I- I-;..oetI- U;..::i:z -II: ZCJ)CJ)D..II:II:w oJ::i:II: oet:J ~::i:CJ)D.. zD.. ZWI-0 UCJ)II:::::ioetoetu. II:oet, oJ00oetD..oetII: - w0 w0 wII: - w~ 0to u.CJ)CJ);::OCJ)Z IZ 0D.. I-Z IZ 0D.. I-o::i:en w51**White perch1.810052**Striped bass1.020013910010053**Striped bass1.020015610054**Striped bass1.020015110055**Striped bass20015315300710010056**Striped bass10.20012812801610057**Striped bass11.0200110100I\.)58**Striped bass12.200127100TotaEff~c~ency = Diversion x(1 - Differential Mortality) ,where Differential Mortality =Test Mortality minus Control Mortality*Not included in analysis.**previously tested fish.

## Species TABLE 3. Summary Statistics


## No. Tests Velocity Range Mean T 

### (T ) ('X) E 

### (n) 

### Angle 

## (fps)

1. 0 

### 89-100 

### 97.
1. 0 

### 93- 100 

### 96. 

## 1.0 85- 100 

## 91.8 

## 1.0 73-99 

## 91.9

1. 0 

## 97- 100 

### 98.
1. 0 

### 100



### 72- 100 

### 97. Menhaden

Whi te 

## Perch

Striped Bass

Total n = 53 Test #6 and tests 17- 20 (alewife) not included in analyses.



### TABLE 3. 3 ANCOVA - Angled Screen Study

Full Model

Sum of 

### Mean Source of Variation 

## Squares Squares F Ratio a prob. 

## Species 325. 162. 0042* 

## Batch 6257* 

### Angle 6913 Previously Tested 

### 7491 

## Velocity 5486 Flume Temperature x Species 

### 97. 

### 48. 

## 1.88 166 

## Flume Temperature 16. 

### 16. 4238 

## Salini ty 128. 128. 031 * 

### 79. 79. 11 

### 088 

## Error 1063. 25. 

## Total 2007. 

# *Significant since a ~ 0.:IJ:IJ:IJ(3:IJ..J:IJ:IJa:: 11,. 8PUMPFLOWSCREEN PANELSFLOWBYPASS CHANNELBYPASS COLLECTION AREAFIGURE...C1II\.)FLOW STRAIGHTENERSALT WATER TEST FACILITYWITH250ANGLED SCREEN"T1:JJCo.)'1.re .)::-(J)(J)('))::-);:.:JJ"T1I\.)0'\:I:U'I);:.(I)("):JJ

### SECTION 4 ANGLED BEHAVIORAL BARRIERS


## In troduction

From October 1978 to March 1979, a study was conducted to determine the effectiveness of angled behavioral barriers in diverting juvenile striped bass, white perch, and menhaden to a bypass. The use of such barriers has 

### been suggested for bypassing fish within power plant 

## screenwells. The mode of action is, therefore, di version, as compared to the barriers described in Section 6, which are designed to deter fish passage. The bar

### riers investigated included hanging chains and water jet curtains 

## (Figures 1 and 4. 

## 2). The study was conducted in the salt water test flume with the barriers set at 250 to the flow leading to a 6- inch wide bypass. 

### Approach and bypass velocities were equal and were set at 1 fps in all 

# tests.

Description of the Facility

Angled behavioral barrier testing was conducted by installing hanging chains or water jets in place of the 25 degree angled screens in the salt water 

# test facility. The facility was operated in the same manner as it was for 

# the angled screen testing.

The angled barriers led to the same six inch wide bypass and collection area 

### as used in the angled screen testing. In addition , an inclined screen led to a second collection area downstream of the test device to collect fish which penetrated the barriers.

The hanging chain barrier consisted of vertical lengths of 3/16 inch chain 

### mounted at 2 inch intervals and supported above the water 

## surface. The lower ends of the chains were attached to a rod which extended to the bypass. This allowed the chains to move with the flow without being carried into the 

### bypass channel.The water jet curtain test device was constructed of eleven 3 inch diameter



### vertical pipes, each separated by a 10 inch open 

## space. The water jets are 

### produced by a row of 1/16 inch holes drilled every 1/2 inch along the length of each pipe below the water surface. the direction of flow. These nozzles were oriented 550 to

The operation of the water jets caused a non- uniform flow through this bar

# rier. The orientation of the jets produced a force across the flume which 

### concentrated the approach flow into the bypass side of the 

## flume. An eddy was formed behind the barrier with flow directed upstream at the side of the flume opposite the bypass. This flow pattern produced high velocitiesin the flow along the wall approaching the bypass and through the downstream sections of the barrier.

Flow for the barrier was supplied by a 40 HP pump which fed each vertical pipe from above through a manifold. The flow was controlled by a valve and adjusted to provide a 60 psi gauge pressure in the manifold.

Biological Testing Procedures

Testing of juvenile menhaden, white perch, and striped bass was conducted 

### from October 1978 to March 

### 1979. A summary of the testing program is given 

## below: 

## Species Length (cm) 

## Test 

## Period 

## 6 - October

October - January 

## 4 - 12. December - March 

### Menhaden
Whi te 

## perch Striped bass

Biological testing procedures for the angled behavioral barriers were essentially the same as for the angled screen testing, with the exception that 

### bypassed fish were not held for mortality 

## studies. Fish which had passed 

### through the barriers were subsequently diverted to a surface collection net
and enumerated.

### SECTION 4

ANGLED BEHAVIORAL BARRIERSWater quality of the flume was monitored for each 

# test. Parameters recorded included pH , dissolved oxygen , salinity, and temperature. 

### Approach and bypass velocities, along with the start/stop time were also recorded for
each test.

Resul ts

The results of behavioral barrier testing are presented in Table 4. 1. With

the exception of menhaden tested at warmer temperatures (14. 

# 8 to l6. C), the chains and water jet curtain did not effectively divert the test fish to the bypass under the conditions tested. It is not possible to draw firm conclusions on water jet curtain efficiency due to the small number

of tests conducted. However, visual observations clearly showed that the 

### test fish did not respond to the water 

# jets.

Hanging chains appeared to be more effective in diverting menhaden to a by

# pass than water jets. Mean percent diverted and standard deviations for hanging chains and water jets were 74. 8 111. 

### 8 and 15. 2 11. 7, respectively 

## (Table 4. 2). A t-test indicated that the results were significantly different at a ~ 0. 

### 05. However , only three tests were conducted with the 

### water jet curtain (two with menhaden and one with white perch), since visual observations showed that fish did not react to this barrier. Those relatively few fish which entered the bypass never approached the water jets but rather followed the flume wall directly into the bypass.


## Table 4. 2 also presents the summary results of the striped bass and white 

### perch testing. With respect to the chains, mean percent diverted and standard deviations for striped bass and white perch were 40. 0 114. 

### 1 and 18. 110. 7, respectively.In summary, with the exception of menhaden, it does not appear that hanging chains or water jets are effective barriers in diverting fish to by

# passes under the conditions tested. It is conceivable, given the moderate success with menhaden, that hanging chains could provide some assistance in diverting other species of fish to bypasses. However, additional studies over a wider range of temperatures would be necessary to quantify the effectiveness of this device.TABLE 4. 1ESEERCO Behavioral Barrier Test ResultsSalt Water FacilityNo.No.TestTemp.SalinityFishNo.ThroughNo.PercentNo.Barrier(ppt)SpeciesTestedSwimmlngBarrierDivertedDivertedChain14.Menhaden20011462.Chain14.Menhaden20014377.Chain16.Menhaden20013285.Chain11. 2White Perch20032.Chain11.6White Perch20426.Chain12.White Perch20013.ChainWhite Perch100i-'ChainStriped Bass20016020.Chain1. 3Whi tePerch10010.Water Jet10.Menhaden15012914.Water Jet11. 5Menhaden15012216.Water JetWhite Perch10013*ChainStriped Bass20046.14*ChainStriped Bass20014728.15*ChainStriped Bass20014637.16*ChainStriped Bass20014451.817*ChainStriped Bass20011556.*Previously tested fish.

### TABLE 4. 2
Summary of Behavioral Barrier Test Results by Species Salt Water Facility



## No. of Test Mean Mean Percent Diverted 

## Species 

## Tests Device and Standard Deviation 

### Menhaden 

## Chains 15. 74. :t 11. 

### 79* 

### Menhaden Water Jet 

### 10. 15. 1. 69* Striped Bass 

## Chains 40. :t 14. 11 White Perch 

## Chains 18. :t 10. 72 

### White Perch Water jet

*Significantly different at a ~ 0.

### 6" 

# BYPASS a CHANNEL

2" (TYP.

FLOW J( 3/16" CHAIN

250



### FIGURE 4. HANGING CHAIN 

### DIVERSION 

### BARRIER

# 16"

BYPASS CHANNEL 

### 1/2" 

## TO FISH COLLECTION AREA

13- 1/2" YP,



# NOZZ TER 

### LES AT 1/2" INTERVALS 

# PI PES A LONG

3 INCH VERTICA PIPES



### FIGURE 4. WATER JE T DIVERSION BARRIER

### SECTION 5

FISH PUMPSSECTION
FISH PUMPS


## In troduction

Fish diversion systems, specifically angled screens, require a transportation system for returning fish to their natural environment. 

## Because the system must move fish from a lower to a higher elevation , a pumping unit is required to supply the energy needed to overcome static and dynamic head 

# losses. Accordingly, two pump types were evaluated in the laboratory for this purpose: 

### a jet pump and a Hidrostal (screw impeller) pump.

Peripheral Type Jet Pump

Peripheral type jet pumps have been used to transport live fish in hatch

# eries. A program was designed to evaluate both the hydraulic characteristics of the pump and its ability to pass fish without injury under conditions which would simulate its operation within a power plant bypass system.

Description of the Facility

Testing was conducted using a peripheral jet pump mounted in an outdoor sump 

## (Figure 5. 1). In this type of pump, a high velocity jet is formed at a nozz le around the end of the 3 inch suction tube. The jet flow entrains water from the suction tube and discharges through a 3-1/2 inch mixing 

## tube. Hydraulic characteristics of this pump have been previously reported (Smith 

### 1977) .

During testing, a 6 inch valve and flow meter controlled the flow through an introduction box which was mounted to the pump suction 

## tube. The pump was located below the water surface allowing the mixing tube to discharge 

### directly into a netted collection 

## area. 

## Figure 5. The test facility is shown inBiological Testing Procedures

Menhaden, alewives, white perch, and striped bass were tested in the jet 

### pump from September 1978 to February 

### 1979. gram is given below: A summary of the testing pro

## Species Length (cm) Test Period 

### No. 

## Tests Performed
Menhaden 

## 3 - September - October 

## Alewives 

## 7 - October

Whi te 

## perch 

## 6 - October - February Striped bass 

## 9 - 12. December - February

Eight of nine tests conducted with menhaden employed fish which had been previously tested in other laboratory studies due to a limited supply of this species. Similarly, 2 of 8 tests with striped bass and 4 of 13 tests 

### with white perch employed previously tested 

# fish.

A seine was used to remove fish from the stock 

## pools. 

## Fish were then dipnetted into a bucket and transferred to the jet pump model for 

# testing.

The test procedure consisted of placing 50 test individuals into the flume upstream of the suction pipe and then crowding them toward the suction pipe until they were pulled into and through the pump. Tests were conducted at a jet nozzle velocity of 34 fps resulting in a suction pipe velocity of 

## about 8. 5 fps and a mixing tube velocity of 12. 

## 3 fps.

Fish which passed through the pump were discharged into a rectangular collection area. Set into this area was a removable basket into which the fish usually swam or were crowded. The basket was then lifted and floated to the holding area.
tali ty Fish were held for 96 hours to determine latent mor-Salini ty, dissolved oxygen, pH, and temperature of the holding pools and flume were recorded for each test, along with the start/stop time. Holding 

# pool (tank) temperatures were generally different from flume temperatures since the pools were located in a building while the test flume was outside. To account for possible temperature effects on mortality, control fish were held in the flume along with the test fish and were subjected to the same handling except for actual passage through the 

### pump.

Analytical Results

Observations during testing showed that all fish passed through the jet pump 

### without obvious signs of injury, stress, or disorientation. The results of the testing program are presented in Table 5. Two alewife tests were conducted since this species was available at the time of testing. 

### Howeversince alewife pump testing was not included in the scope of the ESEERCO studies, these tests were not included in subsequent analyses. However , the 100 percent survival values obtained were consistent with past pump tests with 

# alewives (Stone & Webster, 1977a). Therefore, while 32 tests were performed, 

### only 30 tests were analyzed by an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) to study the relationship between the dependent variable, the percent mortality after 96 hours, and the independent variables which would naturally fluctuate during the operation of the device: species and temperature. The ANCOVA enabled the simultaneous testing of independent variables. 

### Thus , it was possible to investigate the relationship between the percent mortality and species corrected for the effect of temperature.

The tank and flume temperatures were not included in the ANCOVA since the 

### temperatures were correlated with the 

## species. If these temperatures had been included in the analysis, it would not have been possible to separate 

### the effects due to temperature and species. Therefore, the temperature dif

### ference between the tank and flume 

## (Table 5. 1) was used in the analysis.


### A histogram of the mortality data (excluding alewives) from the entire testing period is presented in Figure 5. Graphical analysis of the residuals indicate that a natural logarithmic transformation stabilized the varianceof the error terms and satisfied the statistical assumptions needed to perform ANCOVA.The results of the jet pump analysis presented in Table 5. 

# 2 indicate that

species and temperature difference significantly influenced the mortality 

# rate of the fish. It appears from the analysis that the mortality rates 

### increased as the temperature difference 

## increased. However, the interaction between species and temperature difference was also significant. 

## Figure 5. 4 depicts temperature difference versus the observed mortality 

# rate (excluding alewives). The plot suggests that the three species are influenced differently by the temperature difference. The mortality rates 

### of menhaden did not increase as the difference increased; the mortality rates of striped bass appeared to decrease as difference increased; and 

### the mortality rates of white perch increased as the difference 

## increased.Since the species were not tested over the same range of temperature differences, the effect of temperature could not be statistically separated from the effect of species.

Further analyses were conducted to study the mortality rates for each spe

# cies. Descriptive statistics and histograms of the test and control mortalities for each species are presented in Figure 5. 5. White perch had the highest average test and control mortalities followed by striped bass and 

### menhaden.

The distributions depicted in Figure 5. 5 are not normal and are quite different from one another. Therefore, non- parametric tests that do not require strict assumptions about the underlying distributions were employed.

The Wilcoxon signed rank test was performed to test for differences between 

### test and control mortalities for each 

## species. These analyses indicated 

### that there was not a significant difference (p ~ 0. 05) between the test and control mortalities wi thin each species.Additional analyses were conducted to determine if the control mortalities



### differed between species. The Kruskal-Wallis test, the non- 

### parametric analog 

# to an analysis of variance (ANOVA), indicated that the control mortalities 

### for white perch were significantly different (p ~ 0. 05) than the menhaden 

# control mortalities.

In conclusion, the statistical analyses indicate that passage through the jet pump did not stress fish. 

## Al though the ANCOVA model found differences 

### between species, this difference was due, in part , to the mortality rates 

## from holding and handling. observed for white perch. The highest test and control mortalities were

Hidrostal Pump



### In addition to the peripheral type jet pump, the Hidrostal (screw impeller) pump was evaluated in the laboratory. This centrifugal screw impeller pump had been used for pumping fish without damage in the processing industry and for handling fruits and vegetables. To evaluate the potential effectiveness 

### of the Hidrostal pump, ESEERCO sponsored a study in 

### 1978. Preliminary testing of menhaden, striped bass, and white perch, however, resulted in instan

### taneous mortality and high latent (96 hour) mortality 

## (see Table 5. 4). Since the Hidrostal pump tested had not been specifically designed for protection 

### of live fish , it was believed that a modified Hidrostal pump operating at 

### lower speeds (rpm) would offer better potential for fish survival. 

### Thus,a new Hidrostal pump was installed in 1979 and a testing program was con

## ducted.

Description of the Facility

In 1979 , testing was conducted using a Hidrostal L12F pump. This pump has a screw-type impeller which is contained in a shroud to decrease potential of damaging fish. The intake and discharge pipes were 12 inch diameter.The Hidrostal pump drew water from a sump through a netted fish introduction box. The discharge was directed upward to a collection area. 

### The 12 inch discharge pipe was straight and included a plexiglass section for 

### observation of the 

# fish. A containment screen in the collection area confined the fish while the water returned to the sump through a valve and
flow meter. The pump was driven by a variable speed motor. The facility is shown in Figure 5.

The facility was operated by setting the pump speed and filling the collection area to the desired depth. The valve in the return line was then adjusted to match the inflow and outflow rates for that pump speed and nethead. The net head was the vertical distance between the water surface elevations in the introduction and collection boxes. By varying the depths of 

### water in the sump and collection box, the pump could be operated within a 

### range of net head from 10 to 16 

# ft.

Biological Testing Procedures



### Juvenile alewives were tested from September through November 

### 1979. 

## Prior to testing, a seine was used to remove fish from the stock pools. Fish were 

## dip- netted into a bucket and transferred to the Hidrostal pump for 

# testing.

At the start of each test, 50 fish were placed in a specially designed introduction box and then passed through the pump which was operated at a 

### speed of approximately 430 

### rpm. Fish were discharged into a low velocity 

## head tank. The majority of the water in the head tank was then drained and fish were dip- netted into a bucket and removed to a holding tank for 96 hours to determine latent mortality.



### Control groups, each consisting of 50 fish, were placed in the head tank removed by dip- 

## net , and then placed in holding tanks for 96 hours. 

### Temperature and water surface elevation of the tank and test flume were recorded for each test , along with the speed of the pump.

## Results

Forty tests were conducted from September through November 

## 1979. The length of alewives tested ranged from 9. 9 to 10. 2 cm. Holding tank and flume tem

## peratures ranged from 4. 7 to 22. 

### C and 3. 8 to 21. C, respectively. Results of the 1979 Hidrostal pump study are presented in Table 5. Mortality of 

### fish passing through the pump was very low, ranging from 0 to 10 percent. Control mortality ranged from 0 to 4 percent. In the majority of the tests (27 out of 40), 100 percent survival was obtained. Mean test and control mortality were both 1. 

### 25%. Since the mortality values and the variability around them were low, statistical analyses were not deemed necessary.TABLE 5.Jet Pump Test Data1978 JuvenilesTankFlumeTemp.No.96 hr Test96 hr ControlMortali tyMortali tTestSalinityTemp.Temp.Diff.FishNo.SpeciesTestedNo.PercentNo.PercentMenhaden15.15.Menhaden15.14.1.0Menhaden14.14.Menhaden14.14.Menhaden16.15.1.8Menhaden16.15.1. 7Menhaden16.15.1. 7I\.)Menhaden17.15.Menhaden11. 810.1.310*Alewives11. 510.1.011*Alewives11. 510.White perch12.10.White perch12.10.White perch12.10.White perch12.10.White perchWhite perchWhite perchWhite perchWhite perchWhite perchWhite perchWhite perchWhite perchTABLE 5. 1(continued)TankFlumeTemp.No.96 hr Test96 hr ControlTestSalinityTemp.Temp.Diff.FishMortalitMortali tNo.SpeciesTestedNo.PercentNo.PercentStripedbassstripedbassStripedbassStripedbassStripedbassStripedbassStripedbassStripedbass*Not included in statistical analysis.

### TABLE 5. 2
Analysis of Covariance - Jet Pump

1978 Juveniles

Sum of 

### Mean Source of Variation 

## Squares 

## Squares F Ratio CI. 

## prob. 

## Species 3. 844 1. 922 993 

### 0154* Temp. Differences x Species 

### 580 

### 290 547 

### 0016* Temp. Difference 

### 663 

### 663 

### 918 

### 0147* 

## Residual 238 

## Total 18. 981 

# *Significant since CI. ~ 0.



### TABLE 5. 3
Test Data Summary Jet Pump



## No. of No. of Range in Test Mean Test 

## Control Mean Control 

## Species 

## Tests Mortali ty (%)

Mortali ty (%)



## Tests Mortali ty (%)



### Menhaden 2 - 20 

### White Perch 2 - 60 

### 24. 

### 25. Striped Bass 4 - 28 

### 15.TABLE 5. 41978 Hidrostal Pump Data(Whi tePerch, Striped Bass, Menhaden)Temperature,96 HrTotalMeanNo.Initial96 Hr TestControlLengthFishMortalityMortalityMortali tyTest No.SpeciesTankFlume(cm)Tested(%)(%)(%)Menhaden17.15.18.44.Menhaden17.15.10.34.Menhaden12.11.866.Menhaden12.11.827.Menhaden11.126.Menhaden10.22.Menhaden10.10.Striped bass42.White perch66.Striped bass16.22.White perch36.Includes initial mortality."TI:JJc:..."TI;t:.())C/)o::J::;:.C/)u..n = 30,(::0.0 -5 - 1015 - 2025 - 3035 - 40- 4550 - 5560 - 6570 -75 - 80 -85 - 90- 95-9 14,9 19.9 24,9 29,9 34,9 39,9 44,9 49,9 54,9 59,9 64,9 69,9 74,9 79,9 84,9 89,9 94,9 99,96-HOUR MORTALITY(PERCENT)FIGURE 5.HISTOGRAM OF JET PUMP MORTALITYALLSPECIES

### 60 I56

MENHADEN 

### 48 t-- WHITE PERCH



## (!J STRIPED BASS

I-- 40

a..

I--
c:i 

## 28 ~ I--

:2:



### 20 

# B!J :r:
CJ')


### 16 I12 t--

TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE O



### FIGURE 5.4 96 HOUR JET PUMP MORTALITY VERSUS TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE

ALL SPECIESMENHADEN TEST DATAMENHADEN CONTROL DATA3 ~MEAN 9,MEAN 6,2 r-MEDIAN 8.0%MEDIAN 5,n = 9n = 6:;:.WHITE PERCH TEST DATAWHITE PERCH CONTROL DATAL.UMEAN 24,MEAN 28.8%MEDIAN 22,MEDIAN 28.0%IIILI..n = 13I n = 5L.Ui-':2:STRIPED BASS CONTROL DATA3 ~MEAN 9,~.IMEDIAN 10,n = 3STRIPED BASS TEST DATAMEAN 15,MEDIAN 12,n = 8% MORTALITYFIGUREHISTOGRAMS OF MORTALITYPARTITIONED BYSPECIES,JET PUMP TESTSRETENTION SCRE EN CUT AWAY VIEW OF SCREW IMPELLER PUMP

COLLECTION AREA

DISCHARGE PIPE 

### FLOW METER WATER LEVEL DIFFERENTIAL

VARIABLE SPE ED MOTOR -~" 

# --~ ~------ 

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

----w---- 

# ---

--- ------- --- 

# ----
-- - - 

# --- - - 

## -- -- - -------- - 

# ------ - --



### -~_w_--

FIGURE 

### HIDROSTAL PUMP TEST FACILITY

### SECTION 6

OFFSHORE INTAKE - BEHAVIORAL BARRIER STUDY

### SECTION 6
OFFSHORE INTAKE - BEHAVIORAL BARRIER STUDY



### In 

## troduction

Beginning in the fall of 1975, studies were conducted for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation and Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation to determine the 

### potential effectiveness of behavioral barriers (air bubbles, hanging chains, 

### visual keys, and water jets) for reducing fish entrapment at offshore power plant intakes. 

### While it was known that such barriers would not prevent the passage of all fish, it was believed that reductions might be achieved which might warrant the installation of these devices in certain cases. The following is a brief description of the past studies that led to the ESEERCO 

# studies described later.

Preliminary studies involved exposing alewives and smelt to air bubble, 

## chain , and visual key devices placed perpendicular to the flow in a 3 ft 

### wide by 3 ft deep flume facility (refer to Table 1- 

## 1). Resul ts 

### showed that none of the barriers significantly reduced passage relative to a 

## control condition (no barrier). However, since the flume did not incorpo rate escape routes which would exist at an offshore intake , the results 

## were considered inconclusive.

To better evaluate the barriers, a large offshore intake model was built 

### which more closely simulated field 

## conditions. In this facility, visual keys were dropped from consideration and a water jet barrier was added. 

## Tests were conducted with alewives and smelt. Variables included test de

# vice, intake velocity (0. 5, 1. , 2. 

### 0 fps), number of fish tested (200, 400, 600, 800, 1 

### 000), test species, water temperature 

## (6. 7 to 26. 1 D C), and intake 

## segment. (Two intake segments were tested simultaneously in the model.

The results of the study were statistically analyzed and showed that significantly fewer fish were entrained into the intakes when the barriers were 

# in place (relative to a control). However, the individual barriers were not 

### significantly different from one another (stone & Webster , 1976b).Testing with alewives, which was the primary test species, was conducted

at relatively warm water temperatures. Preliminary flume studies had indicated that the effectiveness of the barriers might decline at lower tem

# peratures.

Accordingly, in 1978, ESEERCO sponsored an additional study to evaluate the effectiveness of water jet, chain, and air bubble curtains at reduced water temperatures. other test parameters were selected to be consistent 

### with the previous studies, described 

## above.

Description of the Facility

Behavioral barriers were tested with alewives in a large outdoor basin, as shown in Figure 6. The fresh water test facility included two segments of an offshore intake structure, as shown in Figures 6. 

## 2 and 6. 3. Each seg

### ment had a 5 by 2 ft opening which tapers to a 20 inch 

## pipe. The pipe contained a pitometer for flow metering and discharged into a flow control and fish collection area. The water passed over a control gate, through a fishcollection screen, and was returned to the sump which supplies the circulating water pumps. The pumps supplied water to screened areas upstream of each intake segment.

The hanging chain barrier was constructed of vertical lengths of 3/16 inch chain mounted at 2 inch intervals. The chains were hung at a level even
wi th the top of the intake and 1 ft 7 inches in front of the opening. Wing 

### walls were installed to extend the sides of the intake structure to the chain barrier. This barrier is shown in place in Figure 6.



### The air bubble curtain was produced by a 2 inch pipe mounted to the 

# floor. The pipe extended 3 ft 7 inches along both sides and across the face of the 

## intake. Wing walls were installed extending the sides of the intake inside the air bubble curtain. the intake. The walls kept air from the barrier from enteringAir compressors supplied the barrier through a flow meter and control



## valves. The barrier, shown in Figure 6. 5, consisted of a row of 1/32 inch 

# holes spaced every 1/2 inch along the pipe. The system was operated at a flowrate of approximately 20 cfm free air and a pressure slightly greater than the water pressure at the barrier depth.

The water jet barrier is shown in Figure 6. Five vertical lengths of 2-1/2 inch pipe were mounted at the face of the 

## intake. The pipes were sized to achieve uniform flows at all locations along the barrier. 

### Each pipe was drilled with two rows of 1/16 inch diameter holes spaced at 1/2 

## inch intervals. The water jets were produced at both sides of each pipe 

### at an angle of 600 to the approach 

## flow.

Flow for the barrier was supplied by a pump which fed each vertical pipefrom above through a manifold. The flow was controlled by a valve and adjusted to provide a 60 psi gauge pressure in the manifold.

Biological Testing Procedures

The behavioral barrier devices were tested with alewives from August through 

### December 1978. Alewives ranged in length from 5. 9 to 12. 4 cmi mean length 

### was 8. 2 cm. The velocity at the intake face was either 0. 5 or 1. 

## 2 fps.

Two tests were run simultaneously: one in each of two intake segments of the model. Tests were conducted with each segment equipped with either the 

### hanging chains, the air bubble curtain, the water jet curtain, or without a 

## device as a control. At the beginning of each test, the desired flow was set, and the appropriate hydraulic conditions were documented. After themodel flows were stabilized and the test was ready to begin, the tempera

### tures of the holding pools and the model basin were 

## recorded.

Fish were then removed from holding pools using a seine and a shallow dip 

## net. To minimize stress due to handling, no more than five to ten fish 

### were removed in 

# anyone netting. These fish were then placed in 3 gallon 

### buckets and were transferred directly into the test basin by immersing the 

### bucket and allowing the fish to swim 

## out.During the first several tests, the number of alewives that entered the

intakes was recorded continuously. It was found that entrainment peaked 

### during the first few hours following sunset with few (if any) fish being 

### entrained during the daylight hours. In subsequent tests, therefore, the collection areas were monitored at half-hour and quarter-hour intervals (depending on the rate of entrainment in the collection areas), beginning 

## about one-half hour before sunset.

Da ta were recorded on the number of fish that entered each intake structure during each time interval. On a weekly basis, fish remaining in the basin at the end of each test were left in the model and were considered 

### to be part of the total for the next 

# test. This was necessitated by thefact that it was not possible to drain the contents of the large test basin following each test and still complete the required number of tests in the time available.

In general, up to four pairs of tests were run during each working week.Tests were begun in the late afternoon and ran through the evening, lasting five to seven hours on the average. At the end of each working week (Friday), water was drained from the model and all fish remaining in the basin were removed.



### A total of 44 tests were 

## run: 12 air bubble, 10 hanging chain, 11 water 

### jet, and 11 control 

## (Table 6. 1). Test velocities were 0. 5 fps and 1. 

## 2 fps. The water temperature ranged from 3. 9 to 12. were utilized in each test. Approximately 100 fish

Analytical Results

The results of behavioral barrier tests were statistically analyzed by an analysis of covariance.

The percent of fish which passed through the intake was used as the dependent variable to correct for the differences in numbers of fish introduced during each test. Results of previous analyses conducted by stone & Webster indicated that under the conditions tested, the number of fish tested did 

### not significantly affect the number of fish entrained (stone & Webster, 

### 1976) .The categorical independent variables included the intake segment and the behavioral barrier devices. The covariates included approach velocity and water temperature. The interactions of independent variables were also included in the analysis. Since the analysis of covariance enabled thesimultaneous testing of independent variables, it was possible to investigate the relationship between the dependent variable corrected for the effects of the other independent variables. Independent variables and/or interactions which had an a 2 0. 05 were considered significant. 

## Graphical analysis of the residuals indicated that an angular transformation of the dependent variable was necessary. The transformation stabilized the variance of the error terms and satisfied the statistical assumptions needed to perform ANCOVA.



### The analysis (Table 6 2) indicated that , as found in previous studies, the use of behavioral devices significantly affected fish entrainment. The behavioral devices were effective in reducing fish entrainment; however, in most cases, the individual devices did not differ significantly in their relative performance.

The analysis of covariance accounted for 59 percent of the variability in the percent of fish entrained. Based on the analysis, an average of 87percent of the fish were entrained in the control segments, with a 95 percent confidence interval of 73 to 97 

## percent. In the segments incorporating a water jet curtain , 59 percent of the fish were entrained on the average, 

### with a 95 percent confidence interval of 40 to 76 

## percent. The average percent entrained with an air bubble curtain was 56 percent with a 95 percent confidence interval of 39 to 72 percent. Segments incorporating hanging chains entrained 53 percent of the fish on the average with a 95 percent confidence interval of 29 to 76 

## percent.

The behavioral barriers did not differ significantly in their relative performances at an approach velocity of 0. 

## 5 fps. 

## At 1. 2 fps, the rate ofentrainment with the hanging chains was significantly greater than the entrainment rates recorded for the air curtain and water jet at this velocity. Overall, the percent of fish entrained was greater at 1. 2 fps than at 0. 

## fps.In conclusion, the test results indicate that, within the range of variables studied, a water jet curtain, an air bubble curtain, and a hangingchain barrier reduce fish entrainment in a model intake relative to a control situation. An average of 56 percent of the fish were entrained whenthe behavioral barriers were used as compared to 87 percent without a de

# vice (control). Therefore, while the reduction in entrainment was significant with the use of the behavioral barriers, more than 50 percent of the fish were entrained. 

## Veloci ty was the only significant covariate. Although the number of fishentrained increased at the higher velocity, a larger volume of water passing through the intake per unit of time might be responsible for the in

# creased rate. It was not possible to separate the effects of flow and velocity since velocity increases proportionally to flow into an intake 

## opening of fixed si ze . 

### Previous studies (Stone & Webster, 1978) which were 

## conducted speci fically to address differences in flow and velocity indicatethat the total flow volume entering an intake may be a more important factor in fish entrainment than velocity.

### TABLE 6.

Offshore Intake Model 1978 Behavioral Barrier Test Results



## Alewives

Wa ter 

### Temp. No. 

## Test 

## Intake Intake Test 

## Fish No. 

## Fish 

## Percent No. 

### Segment Tank Model 

## Velocity Device 

## Tested 

## Entrained 

## Entrained

11. 7 1. 2 

## Control 250 245 11. 7 

## 1.2 Chains 250 231 

## 92. 10. 1. 2 

## Chains 100 

### 10. 1. 2 

## Control 100 

## 11.1 10. 

### Chain 100 

## 11.1 10. 

## Control 100 

### 12. 10. Air bubble 

### 100 

### 12. 10. 

## Chains 100 Water jet 

### 145 

## 30. Air bubble 

### 145 

## 30. 10. Water jet 

### 100 

## 10. Air bubble 

### 100 

## 10. 1. 2 Water jet 

### 100 

## 10. 1. 2 

## Control 100 

## Control 100 Water jet 

### 100
1. 2 Air bubble 

### 100
1. 2 Water jet 

### 100 

### 10. 

## Control 100 

### 10. Water jet 

### 100 

### 10. 1. 2 

## Chains 100 

### 10. 1. 2 Air bubble 

### 100 

### 10. 1. 2 Air bubble 

### 100 

### 10. 1. 2 

## Chains 100 Air bubble 

### 100 

## Chains 100
1. 2 Water jet 

### 100
1. 2 Air bubble 

### 100 

## Chains 100 

## Control 100

### TABLE 6. 

## (continued)

Wa ter 

### Temp. No. 

## Test 

## Intake Intake Test Fish No. Fish 

## Percent No. 

### Segment Tank Model 

## Velocit Device 

## Tested 

## Entrained 

## Entrained

8. a 1. 2 

## Control 100

1. 2 

### Water jet 

### 100

1. 2 

## Chains 100
1. 2 Air bubble 

### 100 

## 10. Water jet 

### 100 

## 10. 

## Control 100 

### 7. a 6. a 

## Chains 100 

### 6. a Air bubble 

### 100

Air bubble 

### 100 Water jet 

### 100
1. 2 

## Control 100 103 

### 100
1. 2 Water jet 

### 100
1. 2 Air bubble 

### 100 

## 1.2 

## Control 100

### TABLE 6.
ANCOVA - Behavioral Barrier study

Sum of 

### Mean 

## Source of 

## Variation Squares 

## uares F Ratio CI. 

## Prob. Segment 

### 262. 262. 51 

## 1.132 2967 

## Device 3, 246. 08 

### 082. 667 

### 0094* 

### Segment x Device 

### 246. 

### 188. 812 

### 4982 Velocity x Device 

### 234. 

### 78. 377 O. 7986 

## Temperature x Segment 

### 535. 

### 535. 310 

### 1402 

## Temperature x Device 

### 096. 365. 1. 577 2179 

## Velocity 958. 958. 132 

### 0520* 

## Temperature 

## 71.16 71.16 307 O. 5842 

## Residual 260. 231. 86 

## Total 14, 244. 

## *Significant 

# since CI. .::: 0.

Mean Percent of Fish Entrained Per Test Corrected for Effects of Other Variables

(Predicted from ANCOVA)



## Device Mean Percent per Test 

## Control 86. 59. Wa ter jet curtain Air curtain 

### Hanging chains 

### 55. 52.'t:

I:c " " .."",",,

FLOW

PUMPS



### FIGURE 6. - ,



## - - - - 

# ~~~!!~~~~!:~~~-



# ~--- 

# ----------

r------ - - - 

# --- -- 

# --- :,- 

# - --

SCREENS



### 27. 

# 5' - - 

### - - - .,.

INTAKE SEGMENTS '0\

.1- o. . , 

### " .



## -, 'I

1\1 - . ' . "' ,. " ,. ,



### FLOW CONTROL AND FISH COLLECTION AREAS



### PLAN VIEW



### OFFSHORE INTAKE TEST FACILITYFISH COLLECTIONSCREENADJUST AB LEHINGE GATEPI TOTTUBEFLOW METER20" DIA,FLOWFALSE FLOORINTAKESTRUCTUREOW CONTROL & FISHCOLLECTION AREA10'10'SECTION AFIGURE 6.INTAKE SEGMENT STRUCTURE FORTESTING BEHAVIORAL BARRIERSTESTr DEVICE---r24"12"~O I0'1l.JREMOVABLE,WING WALL"T1!J')::0(")0'\

# . -

'\J
SIDE VI

WING WALL 3/16" CHAIN FLOW 

### 36"



# ....-

FLOW 

### 3/4" """" .'. """""

"0.', ":"':" """

PLAN VIEW

FIGURE 

### HANGING CHAIN BEHAVIORAL BARRIER



### OFFSHORE INTAKE STUDYSIDE VI EW

,:", ,,=,::' :::::::: :::::,,:':':,:;:: ::: ::':':;::, ::,::::,::::,:,:,: ::, :.:.: ::::':,, :.:-:":.:..::::. :.:. ....

FLOW :.::, ::::::,': ,::.:::.:.:.:..::

:.:. y:::::::::'::::":"":::::::: :::::':':' :':""" :::::

;(1

PLAN VIEW , , , , , , , , ,. , , 

### , . , , , , , , . . , , , , , ..



### FIGURE 6. WING WALL



### 36"

BARRIER LOCATION .... .... .... .... ",, 

# : , 

# : ,

FLOW



### AIR BUBBLE BEHAVIORAL BARRIER 

### OFFSHORE INTAKE STUDY 1/32" DIA.


# 1- 1/2" (TYP,SIDE VI '::, ;,:, :::', ::: ::'

"::i':.':::::::'::::':':" :::' ;': :::::.':::" :',:" ':'::;':;;::"::':' :;':"' :': 

### " . 

# ..-

FLOW 

### """ """""""" 

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

.,. 

## ~ '

PLAN VIEW

FIGURE 

### 24" 1/2" (TYP,

1/2" PVC PIPE 

# -.-

FLOW 

### 1/16" NOZZLES



### WATER JET BEHAVIORAL BARRIER 

### OFFSHORE INTAKE STUDYREFERENCESREFERENCES

Conover, W. J., 1971 Practical Non-Parametric Statistics , John Wiley & 

## Sons, Inc.

Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation 

### (ESEERCO), 1981,
Laboratory Evaluation of Fine-Mesh Screening for the Protection
of Fish Larvae at Intakes, Prepared by Alden Research Laboratory 

### and Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, May 

### 1981.
Kemp, K. 

# E., " Least Squares Analysis of Variance, A Procedure, A Program, and Examples of Their Use, " Kansas Agricultural Experiment 

## Station , Contribution 168, Res. Paper 7, 1972 , p. 26.


## Smith, P. J., " Peripheral Jet Pump Study, " Alden Research Laboratory 

### Report No. 7l-77/M10UF, May 

### 1977.

Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation , 1975a, Studies to Alleviate Potential Fish Entrapment Problems - Summary Report , 1973- 

### 1974 Efforts, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station unit 2 , Prepared for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, February 1975.

Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation , 197 5b, First Progress Report - Indian Point Flume Study, Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company 

### of New York, Inc., August 1975.

Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1976a, Studies to AlleviatePotential Fish Entrapment Problems at Lake Ontario Power Plant Intakes, First Interim Progress Report , Prepared for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation and Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation, April 

### 1976.

Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation , 1976b, Studies to AlleviatePotential Fish Entrapment Problems at Lake Ontario Power Plant Intakes, Final Report, Prepared for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation and Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation , November 1976.Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1976c, Final Report - Indian



### Point Flume Study, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, 

# Inc., July 1976.

Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977a, Final Report - Studies to Alleviate Potential Fish Entrapment Problems at Nine Mile Point 

### Nuclear Station, unit 2, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation , Volumes
1 and 2 , May 1977.

Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977b, Studies to Alleviate Potential Fish Entrapment at Unit No. 6 - Oswego Steam Station Prepared for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, May 1977.

Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation , 1978 , Offshore Intake Velo

## ci ty Study, prepared for Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation, April 1978.