BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF BRAYTON POINT STATION UNIT 4 ANGLED SCREEN INTAKE
Robert W. Davis , John A. Matousek, and Michael J. Skelly

Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers One Blue Hill Plaza , P. O. Box 1509 Pearl River

## , New York 10965



### and
Mi 1ton R. Ande rson New England Power Service Company

25 Research Drive 

### Westborough , Massachusetts 01581

ABSTRACT
An 18-month (October 1984 - March 1986) biological evaluation study sponsored by New England Power Company (NEP) was conducted at the Brayton Point Station Unit 4 angled screen intake system located on Lee River/Mount Hope Bay, Massachusetts , the 

# northeast portion of Narragansett Bay. The objectives of the testing program,which incorporated weekly sampling covering a complete diel period, were to determine (1) the numbers , species, and initial and extended survival of fish impinged on the modified intake screens or diverted from the angled screen intake; and 

### (2) the diversion efficiency (DE) of the angled screens. During the study period, a total of 79, 206 fish were entrapped (based on comparable samples between angled screens and diversion 

### flow): 18 791 from the angled screens 

### and 60, 415 estimated from the diversion flow. Diversion efficiency 

### was 76. 3%. with a corresponding impingement efficiency (I-

## DE) of 23.

# 7%. Initial survival classification of impinged and bypassed fish was conducted immediately following collec

## tion; 'extended survival observations over a 48-h period were conducted on a repre

### sentative subsample of fish initially classified as live or stunned. 

# Initial diversion survival for all species combined was 57. 

# 8%. Extended diversion 

## survival observations indicated 63. 

### 4% survival. Initial and extended (48-h) impingement survival was 24. 

### 3 and 77. 7%, respectively. Total angled screen system efficiency

### was 32. 4%, increasing to 55. 3% with the exclusion of bay anchovy, which constituted



### 41. 1% of the tota 1 entrapment.
Collection and handling mortality estimates were determined for the numerically 

### dominant taxa. Impingement collection and handling mortality for selected fish taxa was not indicated by the testing procedure; diversion bypass collection and handling mortality was observed to be species specific, with a total taxa 

## overall value of 24. 2% and ranging from 51. 6% for Atlantic silverside to zero for tautog.
The angled screen intake system was found to be effective, i. e., exhibited high 

### diversion in mitigating fish impingement. Initial and extended survival varied by species, but in general there was a " 

## sensiti ve" group composed of a few numeri 

## cally dominant taxa (mostly bay anchovy and Atlantic silverside) with calculated 

## survival below 25. 0% and a " 

## hardy " group (mixed taxa dominated by winter flounder and northern pipefish) with survival values greater than 65. 0%.

I NTRODUCT I ON
The amount of water used by industry each year, especially the nonconsumptive use by electric utilities for condenser cooling, represents a significant portion of 

### the total fresh water available. In the evaluation of environmental impacts related to power plant operation, the initial concern over nonconsumptive use of water was with thermal discharges and their potential to alter the nearfield tem

### perature regimes. Attention was also directed to the cooling water intakes and their potential for entraining small planktonic organisms and entrapping larger organisms, with subsequent impingement on the intake traveling screens.

Du ri n9 the ea 

## rl y 1970s, pub 1 i c awa

## reness of the need to protect the envi ronment 

### res u 1 ted in the passage and imp 

### 1 ementa t i on of the Federa 1 Water Po 

## II ut ion Contro Act of 1972 

### (Publ ic Law 92-500) and the Clean Water Act amendments of 1977 (PL 

### 95- 

# 217). This legislation features sections pertaining to cooling water 

## intakes, notably Section 316(b) of PL 92- 500, which requires that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental 

## impacts.
The incorporation of fish protection devices into the design of an intake is one way to minimize the impact of the cooling water intake and thus achieve the goals

### of Section 316(b) (1). Protective devices fall into three general categories: 

### (1) collection and removal, (2) deterrence (behavioral and physical barriers), and 

### (3) 

## diversion (f-Q).
Vertically oriented traveling screens, the primary method for collecting and removing debris from the condenser cooling water, impinge the organism and then return it to the receiving water following removal from the screen by means of a pressure 

# wash. Because these systems were designed for debris removal and not protection of 

### organisms, organism survival is a major problem. Several modifications to increaseintake screen survival have been tested; the best results have come from the addition of lip troughs to the screen baskets that maintain the fish in water during the screen rotation cycle and from continuous screen rotation schedules.
Deterrence and diversion devices depend on behavior of fishes, and rely on the ability of fish to perceive and react to an external 

# stimulus. Deterrent devicesused with varying degrees of success are electrical barriers, air or bubble curtains, chain and net barriers, lights, and sound 

# (1, 2-11). The two primary diversion systems that have been evaluated for impact mitigation are louvers and angled 

## screens.
Initial evaluation studies on the use of diversion systems at pumped cooling water intakes closely followed studies initially conducted at hydroelectric facilities. The idea of guiding fish to a diversion transpor~ system was first evaluated in test flumes during the early 1970s 

# ).

Results from these tests were promising, leading to the decision in 1979 to construct a full-scale demonstration angled screen intake to permit continued evaluation under actual environmental conditions 

### and with normally occurring fish populations. The Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation (ESEERCO), a research group that comprises the New York State electric utilities that sponsored many of the laboratory studies on angled 

## screens, sponsored the study at the Danskammer Point Generating Station on the Hudson River 

# , ~).

At approximately the same time, Niagara Mohawk Power Company incorporated an angled screen intake system at their Oswego Steam Station Unit 6 on Lake Ontari 0 

# (~).

In 1981 New England Power Company (NEP) proposed converting its Brayton Point Unit 4 from closed-cycle cooling to once-

## through cooling ( 

# ).

Following a review of studies conducted on several intake mitigation systems including porous dikes and angled screens, NEP recommended an angled screen intake system incorporating modi-fied traveling screens for Unit 4 open-cycle cooling as best technology available.

The new system went into operation in July 

### 1984. An 18-month (October 1984 - March 1986) biological evaluation study sponsored by NEP was conducted at Unit 4 to evaluate system effectiveness at returning, alive , the fish impinged on the angled vertical traveling screens or diverted through the Hidrostal pump flow- 

### induced bypass sys

### tem (

STUDY SITE AND UNIT 4 ANGLED SCREEN INTAKE DESCRIPTION The Brayton Point Generating Station, located on the shore of the Lee River just 

## north of the confl uence wi th the Taunton Ri ver on Mount Hope Bay, Massachusetts, in the northeast portion of Narragansett Bay, is a four-unit, fossil- fired (oil and coal) facility with a total rated capacity of 1590 MW (Figure 

# 1). Unit 4, completed in 1974, is a 460 MW oil- 

### fired cycling unit. The river in the general vi

## c in i ty of the intake is more than 500 m (1640 ft) wi de, wi th an 

### a ve rage

## depth of 3 m (7. 5 ft) at mean sea level. 

## Tidal height averages f1.3 m (f4. 3 ft). Sal inities are generally 75- 85% of normal oceanic values, averaging 27 parts per thousand 

### (ppt). Water temperatures range from 0 to 29QC (32 to 84Q

## F).
Cooling water enters the structure through eight openings 3. 3 m (11 ft) wide by 4. m (14 ft) high that extend from elevation - 

## 4 m (- 18 ft) to the bottom of a skimmer wall at elevation - 

## 2 m (-4 ft) (Figure 2). The openings are shielded by trash racks with a bar spacing of 7. 

## 5 cm (3 in. ) on center. Over 10 m (33 ft) into the mouth of the screenwell, the width constricts to 12. 3 m (41 ft) approaching a 

### 5-m- thick (5- 

### ft) center wall that divides the structure in half. Each half is equipped with three 3. 

## 0-m-wide (10- ft) flush-mounted modified vertical traveling 

### screens set at 250 to the approaching flow. 

## After passing through the traveling screens, the cooling water flow exits the angled screen structure into a cooling 

## canal.
The design flow of 17. 28 m3/s (610 ft3/s) is drawn through the bar racks at an average approach velocity of 15 cm/s (0. 

### 5 ft3/s). As the structure constricts, the design velocity increases to 30 cm/s (1. 0 ft3/s) approaching the travel 

### ing 

# screens. Approximately 97% of the design flow (16. 77 m3/s (592 ft3/sJ) is drawn through the screens; the remaining 3% (0. 51 m3/s (18 ft3/sJ) is pumped through the 

### fish bypass. Of the flow passing through the screens, 0. 4 m3/s (14 ft3/s) is service water used for screen cleaning. The other 16. 37 m3/s (578 ft3/s) continuesinto the cooling canal, is pumped by the two circulating water pumps through the

turbine condenser, and combines with the Units 1, 2, and 3 discharge that flows into Mount Hope Bay.
Fish entrapped in the cooling water flow either divert into the fish bypass/return system or become impinged on the modified traveling screens (Figure

# 2). Impinged fish are washed off the back of the screens by a low-pressure spray into a fish trough that runs behind the screens and joins together at the bypass end of the 

# screen rows. The fish are carried along the trough and into a 35-cm (14-

## in. ) diameter fiberglass pipe , then to the Lee River approximately 91 m (300 ft) south of 

### the Unit 4 intake structure. Each screen panel is modified with a bucket to maintain the impinged fish in water as the screen 

### rotates. The 

## screens are designed to 

## allow the interchange of standard (9. 5-mm (O.

### 38-

## in.J) and fine (1. 0-mm (O. 

### 04-

## in. mesh screeni ng panel s. 

### The fi ne mesh screens were employed from March through September 1985 for the ichthyoplankton evaluation program.
At the apex of each screenwell is a fi sh bypass (Figure 2). 

### Each bypass has a rectangular opening 15. 

## 2 cm (6 in. ) wide by 5. 1 m (17 ft) high that constricts to a 

### 46-cm (18-

## in. ) diameter bypass pipe. The bypass slot is sized such that two 

### shrouded 30-cm (12-

## in. ) diameter screw impeller centrifugal pumps (Hidrostal Model L12F) can induce a velocity of 30 cm/s (1. 0 ft3/s) at the slot' 

### s entrance. The 

### bypass velocity at the slot was scheduled to be the same as the screen approach 

### velocity. Flow entering either of the two separate bypasses is carried into a 46- 

## cm (18-

## in. ) diameter fiberglass pipe that branches into two 30-cm (12-

## in. ) diameter pipes, then passes through the Hidrostal pumps and back into a 46-cm diameter pipe that discharges to the Lee River at the same location as the impingement 

## return.

DESCRIPTION OF BIOLOGICAL PROGRAM
The objectives of the testing program were to determine (1) the numbers, species, 

### and i ni tial and extended survi 

# val of fi sh impi nged on the modi fied intake screens or diverted from the angled screen 

# intake; and

# (2) the diversion efficiency (DE) of 

## the angled screens. Impingement abundance and survival collections were conducted simultaneously with bypass abundance and 

### survival collections. The program 

## incorporated weekly sampling covering a complete diel period. The bypass return system was monitored during each impingement collection period (8- or 12- h survey) using 

### subsampling procedures with each subsample approximately 1 h in duration. 

### Impinge-ment collections were made from two 1. 

## 5-m (5-ft) diameter built- in fiberglass col

### lection tanks. Each tank receives the screen washings from three angled screens. Collection tank water level was maintained at 0. 

## 8 m (32 in. ) by means of an overflow standpipe that was surrounded by a taller, larger diameter, removable fiber

### glass pipe. The 

## outer pipe was uniformally perforated with 6. 4-mm (0. 

### 25-

## in. ) diam

### eter holes to permit water drainage during sample collection. Bypass collections were made using nets attached to a sampling port on each 46-cm (l8-

## in. ) fish bypass 

### return line. The collection nets were constructed of 6. 

### 4-mm (0. 

### 25-

## in. ) square 

# delta mesh netting attached to 1.8-m (6- ft) diameter fiberglass hoops and suspended 

# in the water. Fish from both screenwells (north and south) were sampled simultaneously to monitor spatial distribution patterns. 

## The abora tory faci 

### 1 i tywas equ i pped wi th three types of fl ow-

### th rough extended su rvival holding containers. Juvenile or young-of-

## the-year fish were held primarily in 19- 

## 1 (5-gal) plastic buckets. Larger fish or large numbers of individual species were held in 568- 1 (150-gal) linear polyethylene holding tanks fitted with a central standpipe arrangement that permi tted a uniform exchange of water throughout 

## the water column and/or hol

## di ng nets constructed of 0. 32 cm (0. 

## 13 in. ) square ace 

### mesh suspended in the cooling canal. Water was supplied to the bucket and tank holding containers through a header system and regulated by valves to maintain ambient conditions for the extended survival period.


### Diversion efficiency (DE) of the angled screen intake system is defined as the proportion of fish entering the bypass in comparison to the number entering the 

### screenwell. The number of fish entering the screenwell (total entrapment, TE) is calculated as the sum of the angled screen impingement (Screens 1-

# 6) and the estimated number of fish diverted during the corresponding impingement 

## period:

TE = IMP + DIV (1 ) 

### where IMP = impi ngement on Screens 1- 3 and 4- DIV = estimated fish diversion in north and south bypass



### ""-

Estimated diversion (DIV) was calculated by obtaining the diversion rate, DIVR (number of fi sh diverted per hour), and mul 

## tiplyi ng the rate by the time of the corresponding impingement period.

# LNo. fish in diversion samples



### DIVR = 

## 2: Diversion sample times (h) (2) 

## ThereforeDIV

- TE (3 )
Impingement efficiency (IE), the complement of DE, is defined as the proportion of 

## fi sh impi nged in compari son to the 

## number enteri ng the screenwell:

IE = 1 - DE (4 ) Initial survival was determined by observing fish from the diversion flow and 

### impingement screenwash immediately following collection. 

## Fish were identified and classified (live, stunned, dead), with the classification conditions defined 

## as follows: Live - swimming normally, no orientation problem Stunned - swimming erratically, swimming on thei r side, struggl ing Dead - no vital life signs, no body or opercular movement, no response to gentle probi
Initial survival was calculated by dividing the number determined to be initially live (L) and stunned (ST) by the number initially determined to be live, stunned, 

### and dead (D). The initial survival formula 

## is:
Initial survival (Sr) = 

### ~;~:D (5 )
Extended survival (SE) observations were conducted over 48 h for the Brayton 

### Point Unit 4 program. Extended survival was calculated by dividing the number of fish classified live at the end of the observation period (L48) by the total number of fish examined for extended survival (L+ST): 

### Extended survival (SE) = 

### ~~~

( 6)
Survival for diversion and impingement was the proportion of initially live 

## (live and stunned) fish that survived the 48- h test period: 

# Survival (S) = SI x SE 

### (7)Total system efficiency of the angled screen system is basically a determination

of the probability that a fish entering the angled screen system will survive some 

### period of time after entry and diversion or impingement. The four probabilities previously estimated - diversion efficiency (DE), impingement efficiency 

## (IE), diversion survival (SDIV), and impingement survival (SIMP) - can be used to calculate the total Unit 4 angled screen system efficiency 

### (TSE).
Let P(x) represent the probability of x, and P (x if y) represent the probability 

### of x given y. 

### Then: Diversion efficiency (DE) = Pd = P (fish is diverted) Impingement efficiency (IE) = Pi = P (fish is impinged) = (I-DE) 

### Diversion survival 

## (SDIY) = Psd (fish survives 48 h if diverted) Impingement survival (SIMP) = Psi (fish survives 48 h if impinged) 

### Tota 1 sys tem

## effi ci

## ency (TSE) is defined as:
Pe = P (fish survives 48 h if diverted or impinged)
and can be computed from the 

# conditional probabilities as:
Pe = (Pd x Psd)+(Pi x Psi) or TSE = (DE x SDIY) + (IE x SIMP) 

### (8)

Thus, for each of the fish return systems, diversion or impingement, a separate system efficiency (SE) is computed from the respective conditional probabilities, the sums of each yielding the total system efficiency.
A fish control study was incorporated to determine collection and handling mortality associated with the diversion and impingement 

## survival program phases. Control fish were collected with a variety of devices from the Lee River. Prior to placement in the ho 

## ding conta 

## i ners, the fi sh were fi n-c 1 i pped to separate them from 

### abundance/survival fish collected during a regular sampling event. Fish that were 

### alive after 24 h were then subjected to the three test conditions. Diversion and impingement control fish were placed in their respective collection devices and 

## routine sampling was conducted. Control fish not selected for either diversion orimpingement testing were left in the holding container for evaluation of finclipping mortality from mortality associated with the collection process. 

# All fish were held for extended survival observations (48 h).EVALUATION PROGRAM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The angled screen evaluation program resulted in the collection of 57 fish species 

### of 36 families. Abundance, percent composition, and diversion efficiency for the 

## major taxa (95. 4% of the total) and total fish collected during the 18-month study 

### period are presented in Table 1. During the study period, 79, 206 fish were entrapped (based on comparable samples between angled screens and diversion flow): 

### 18, 791 collected from the angled screens and 60, 

## 415 estimated from the diversion 

# flow. Diversion efficiency 

## (DE) was 76. 3%, with a corresponding impingement efficiency (1 = DE) of 23. 

### 7% for all species combined. Exclusion of the dominant bay 

## anchovy, primari ly young-of-

## the-year coll ected wi th the fi 

## ne mesh screens duri August and September 1985, increases the DE to 89. 

# 7%. Over 93% of the total bay 

## anchovy entrapment , with mean total length of 2. 

## 7 cm (1. 

## 1 in. ) (range 1. 9 cm 

## (0. 

## 3 in. )), occurred during this two-month period. The majority of the bay anchovy during this period were of entrainable size and would have passed through 

## the standard mesh screens into the cool 

## i ng canal

# (fl). Ni ne of the top 12 taxa exhibited diversion efficiencies greater than 83. 2%, to a maximum of 99. 

## 4%. Diversion efficiencies for bay anchovy, northern pipefish , and tautog were 57. 0, 52. 

### and 62. 2%, respectively. Diversion efficiency was 86. 7% for the other 45 fish species combined.
Initial survival (Sr) observations of 28, 186 fish collected from the diversion flow (Table 2) ranged from 5. 6% for bay anchovy to 99. 

### 7% for American eel. 

# Initial survival was 57. 8% for all taxa combined , increasing to 82. 6% with the exclusion of 

# bay anchovy. Extended 48-h su rvi va 1 observa t ions 

### (SE) we re made on 9209

## fi sh and 

## resulted in an overall , extended survival value of 63.

# 4%. Extended survival trends for the major taxa were similar to initial survival and were variable among species, ranging from 0% for bay anchovy to 99. 

### 6% for tautDg. For the top 12 taxa 

## the lowest survival (5) (0. 0%) was calculated for bay anchovy, followed by Atlantic 

## menhaden (2.

# 8%), butterfish (6. 6%), and Atlantic silverside (23. 

# 2%). The remaining taxa had survival greater than 66% (seaboard goby), ranging to 98. 8% for tautog. Overall diversion survival was 36. 6%, increasing to 53. 2% with the exclusion of bay 

# anchovy. In general, the fish were divided into a sensitive group comprising bay anchovy, Atlantic silverside, Atlantic menhaden, and butterfish, and a hardy group containing a majority of the fish species tested, including winter flounder, northern pipefish, threespine stickleback, fourspine stickleback, tautog, American eel, hogchoker, and seaboard goby.Initial survival (5I) observations of 18, 831 fish collected from the angled vertical traveling screens (Table 3) ranged from 1. 7% for the dominant bay anchovy to 

### 99. 1% for hogchoker. Initial survival was 24. 3% for all taxa combined, increasing to 89. 

### 6% with the exclusion of bay anchovy. Extended 48-h survival observations (SE) were made on 3855 impinged fish and resulted in an overall extended 

## survival va 1 ue of 77.

# 7%. Extended su rvi va 1 trends for the maj 

## or taxa were 5 imi 1 ar 

## to in itial survival and were variable among species, ranging from 1. 7% for bay anchovy to 

### 98. 4% for tautog. For the major taxa the lowest survival (5), ~O. 

## l%, was calculated for bay anchovy, followed by Atlantic menhaden (3. 2%), Atlantic silverside 

## (18. 2%), and butterfish (32.

# 4%). The remaining taxa had survival greater than 74% (seaboard goby) , ranging to 96. 

### 3% for tautog. Overall impingement survival was 

### 18. 9%, increasing to 74. 0% with the exclusion of bay anchovy.


### Total system efficiency (TSE) of the Unit 4 angled screen intake, not adjusted for collection and handling mortality, was 32. 

### 4% (Table 4). The diversion system accounted for 27. 9% and the impingement system for 4. 

### 5% of the TSE. Total system efficiency increased to 55. 

### 3% (47. 7% diversion plus 7. 6% impingement) with the exclusion of bay anchovy, which constituted 41. 1% of the total estimated entrap

### ment. TSE 

## values for the major taxa exhibited an extremely wide range, from -:0. for bay anchovy to 97. 9% for tautog, but generally fell into

## ' two groups: a hardy group with TSE values greater than 65% and a sensitive group with TSE values of 

### 1 ess

## than 25%. The low reported bay anchovy survi va 1 is not un 

### i que to Brayton Point. Bay anchovy survival was less than 1% (ll), increasing to 12. 4% when the collection procedure was modified to minimize collection and handling mortality ) at the Danskammer Point angled screen demonstration faci 1 ity. Eight of the 12 

### major species were classified as hardy: tautog (97. 

## 9%), threespine stickleback (96. 9%), hogchoker (96.

## 0%), fourspine stickleback (89.0%), winter flounder (88. 4%), Ameri can eel (84. 

## 4%), northern pipefi sh (80. 2%), and seaboard goby (67. 7%). The remaining four major species - Atlantic silverside, butterfish, Atlantic menhaden, and bay anchovy - were classified as sensitive species, with TSE values of 23. 8, 2. 8, and ~O. 

## l%, respectively.
The primary contributors to lower total system efficiency were low 

# initial (SI) survival and/or extended 

## (5E) survival for the sensitive species. Atlantic silverside (29. 7% of the total with 96. 9% DE), a representative of the sensitive group with a TSE of 23. 1%, exhibited high initial survival from both impingement 

## (82. 1%) and diversion (81. 8%), but low extended survival, 22. 2 and 28. 

## 4%, respectively. A substantial part of Atlantic silverside mortality was the result of the

# diversion collection and handling procedures. Collection and handling mortality

estimates for both ang 

### 1 ed

### screen impi

## ngement and the di

## versi on bypass coll ecti ons were determined for the available, numerically dominant taxa (Table 

# 5). No impingement collection and handling mortality was observed. 

## Diversion bypass collection and handling mortality was observed to be species specific, with an overall value for total taxa of 24. 2%, ranging from zero for tautog to 51. 6% for Atlantic 

### silverside. Atlantic silverside control survival (90. 

### 8%) was 51. 6% greater than diversion control survival (39. 2%) and slightly less than impingement control survival (92. 

# 3%). The remaining dominant sensitive taxa (bay anchovy, Atlantic menhaden, and butterfi sh) were not tested.

CONCLUS IONS The critical factor in assessing the effectiveness of a mitigative intake system is the cond 

## it i on of the

## fi sh diverted or returned to the source wa 

# te r body. Co llection and handling mortality has been determined to be significant for the diver

## sion survival program phase. At Brayton Point nets suspended in the water are used to intercept the bypass flow , water depth at the collection site is minimal, and turbulence in the collection net substantially increases the stress placed on the 

### organisms collected for survival observations. In the actual operation of an angled screen intake system the fish would not be collected and observed, but returned di rectly to the 

### source water body. Thus , the true measure of system efficiency should not include mortality associated with collection and handling.
System efficiency values for the Brayton Point Station Unit 4 angled screen intake 

### were hi ghe r than va 1 ue s for the angl ed screen intake at Oswego Steam Stat 

### i on Un it 6 and comparable to values for the Danskammer Point demonstration facility 

# ).

The angled screen intake system was found to be an effective device for mitigating fish 

### impingement and has a high diversion capability. Initial and extended survival varied by species , but, in general, there was a " sensitive" group composed of a fewnumerically dominant taxa (mostly bay anchovy and Atlantic silverside) with calculated survival below 25. 0% and a " 

### hardy " group (mixed taxa dominated by winter flounder and northern pipefish) with survival values greater than 65. 0%.REFERENCES


### C. H. Hanson, J. R. White, and H. W. Li. " 

### Entrapment and Impingement of Fishes by Power Plant Cooling-

### Water Intakes: An Overview. 

## Marine Fisheries Review , MFR Paper 1266, 39(10):7-

# 17. 1977. Y. G. Mussalli, E. P. Taft, and P. Hoffman. " Biological and Engineering Considerations in the Fine Screening of Small Organisms From Cool ing Water 

## Intakes. In Proc. Workshop on Larval Exclusion Systems for Power Plant Coolinq Water Intakes , R. K. Sharma and J. P. Palmer (eds.

# ).

Argonne National Laboratory. ANL/ES-

# 66. 1978. J. B. Cannon, G. F. Cada, K. K. Campbell, D. W. Lee, and A. T. Szluha. 

## Fish Protection at Steam- 

### Electric Power Plants: Alternative Screening 

## Devices. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. ORNL/TM-

# 6472. 1979. 138 p. OesiQn of Water Intake Structures for Fish Protection 

# Civil Engineers. 1982. 

# 5. Stone and Webster Engineering Company (SWEC). Advanced Intake Technoloqies 

## Study Electric Power Research Institute Project 2214- 2 EPRI CS-

# 3644. 1984. American Society of

D. J. Zweiacker , J. R. Gaw, E. Green, and C. Adams. " Evaluation of an AirBubble Curtain to Reduce Impingement at an Electric Generating Station. Proc. Annual Conf. S. E. Assoc. Fish and Wildlife Aqencies , 31:343-

# 356. 1977.

P. H. Patrick. Responses of Fish to Light Report No. 78-

### 516-

# K. 1978. Ontario Hydro Research Div.


### S. J. Edwards and J. B. Hutchison. " Effectiveness of a Barrier Net in Reduc

## ing White Perch (Morone americana

## ) and Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis ) Im- 

## pingement. Environ. Sci. Tech. 

## 14(2):210-

# 213. 1980. 

## P. A. M. Stewart. "An Investigation into the Reactions of Fish to Electrified Barriers and Bubble Curtains. Fish. Res . 1(1981/1982):3-

# 22. 1981. R. J. Hadderingh. " Experimental Reduction of Fish Impingement by Artificial Illumination at Bergum Power Station. Int. Revue ges. Hvdrobiol . 67(6):887- 

# 900. 1982. 10.

11. Q. J. Stober, R. W. Tyl er

## , and C. E. Petrosky. " Barrier Net to Reduce Entrainment Losses of Adult Kokanee From Banks Lake, Washington. North Amer J. Fish. Manaqe 

### . 3(4):331-

# 354. 1983. 

### 12. 

# V. J. Schuler. " Experimental Studies in Guiding Marine Fishes of Southern California With Screens and Louvers. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Entrainment and Intake Screening , L. D. Jensen (ed.

# ).

Electric Power Research Institute, Rep. 

# 15. 1974. 

### 13. V. J. Schuler and L. E. Larson. " Improved Fish Protection at Intake Sys

## tems. Am. Soc. Civil Eng., J. Environ. Eng. Div . 101(EE6):897-

# 910. 1975. E. P. Taft, P. Hoffman, P. J. Eisele, and T. Horst. " An Experimental Approachto the Design of Systems for Alleviating Fish Impingement at Existing and Proposed Power Plant Intake Structures. In Third National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement , L. D. Jensen (ed.

# ).

EA Communications, Melville, NY. 1976, pp. 343-

### 365. 14.

### 15. E. P. Taft and Y. G. Mussalli. " Angled Screens and Louvers for Diverting Fish at Power Plants. 

## Am. Soc. Civi 1 Eng., J. Hydraul. Div . 104(HY5) :623-

### 634. 1978. 16. E. P. Taft, R. H. Berger, J. Larsen, J. G. Holsapple, and L. Eberley. Laboratory Evaluation of Larval Fish Impingement and Diversion Systems. Proc. Workshop on Advanced Intake Technoloqy , Apr. 22- 24, 1981. 

### Lawler , Matusky & Skelly Engineers 

## (LMS). Fish Protective

# Intake Test Facili- 

# ty: Angled Screen Diversion Study. Report prepared for the Empire State El ectri c 

### Energy Research Corporation. 

### 1985. 17.



### 18. Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers 

## (LMS). Evaluation of Fish

## Diversion Efficiency and Survival Related to Varying Angled Screen Approach to Bypass Veloc- 

# ity Ratios. Report Prepared for Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation. 

### 1986. 19. Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers 

## (LMS). Evaluation of the Angled Screen Fish Diversion System at Oswego Steam Station Unit 6. Research Project No. 

### EC 104. Apri 1 1981 - 

### March 1983. Report prepared for Niagara Mohawk Power 

# Corporation. 1984. Marine Research, Inc. (MRI), and New England Power Co. 

# (NEP).Brayton Point Generating Station, Mount Hope Bay, Somerset, Massachusetts. Final Environmental Impact Report and Sections 316(a) and 316(b) Demonstrations With the Proposed Conversion of Generating Unit No. 4 From Closed-

## Cycle Cooling to Once-Through Cool i ng. 

### 1982. 

### 20.

21. Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers 

## (LMS). Brayton Point Station Unit No. 

### Angled Screen Intake Biological Evaluation Program. 1984- 1986 Summary Re- 

# port. Report prepared for New England Power Company. 

### 1987. 

### 22. J. A. Matousek, R. W. Davis, and S. J. Edwards. " Results of Biological Evaluation Studies Conducted at Power Plants With Angled Screen Intakes. 

## Paper presented at Southeastern Workshop on Aquatic Ecological Effects of Power 

## Generation

## , Sarasota, FL. 3-5 December 1986.Dorchester BayQuincy Bay 

# ~Merrlmack River

Parker River

:I' Essex Bay ' ,



### Annisquam River :;, 

### ;~'



## P;\;;

# ;:;:'

:~"b.'



# 0 16.km

### Figure 1. Location of Brayton Point Generating Station and coastal areas of Massachusetts and Rhode 

## Island.

### LEE RIVER

INTAKE 

### 45.7 cmDI A.BYPASSED STRUCTURE 

### FISH RETURN 

### PIPES SOUTH SCREENWEL 

### NORTH SCREENWELL



### 35.6cm DIA. 

### 30.5cm DIA. 

### COOLING CANAL 

# (a)

LEE RIVER


## INTAKE 35.

### 6cm DIA. IMPINGED

### STRUCTURr FISH RETURN 

# PIPE TRA VELING

SCREENS FISH BYPASS



### COOLING CANAL 

## (b) Figure 2. Brayton Point Station Unit 4 angled screen intake structure , impinged (a) and bypassed (b) fish return systems.Tabl e 1
SPECIES ABUNDANCE, PERCENT COMPOSITION, AND DIVERSION EFFICIENCY OF MAJOR TAXA AND TOTAL FISH

Brayton Point Station Unit 4 October 1984 - March 1986

Number ColI ected Collection by Location 01 version



### Percent Est i mated 

### Efficiency Common Name Scientific Name Abundance Composition Impi ngement 

### Diversion (%)

Bay anchovy Anchoa 

### mitchilli 563 

### 41.1 13,986 577 57. 

### Atlantic Menidia menidla 504 29. 727 22,777 96. 

### sllverside

Wi nter 

### flounder PseudoPl euronectes 284 10. 021 263 87. ameri canu s 

### Northern pipefi sh nathus 

### fuscus 284 548 736 52.
Threespi ne 

### Gasterosteu s 481 

### 1.9 113 368 92. 

### stickleback aculeatus
Atlantic menhaden 

### Brevoort i a t 

### rannus 279 

### 1.6 124 155 90. 

### Fourspine Ape I tes uadracu s 108 

### 1.4 183 925 83. 

### sti ckl eback Tautog Tautoga onitis 843 

### 1.1 319 524 62.

Ameri can eel AnQui 11 a 

### rostrata 837 

### 1.1 832 99.

Butterfi sh 

### Peprilus tri acanthu s 819 

### 1.0 782 95. Hogchoker Trinectes maculatus 811 

### 1.0 117 694 85.
Seaboard goby Gobiosoma ginsburgi 750 126 624 83. 

### Others (45 taxa) 643 485 158 86. 

### Total fi sh 206 18,791 60, 415 76. 

### Total excl udi ng 643 805 

### 41,838 89. bay anchovyTab 1 e DIVERSION SURVIVAL INFORMATION Brayton Point Station Unit 4 October 1984 - March 1986

Initial Survival 

## Extended Survival Diversion 48- 

# SE- Survival Number Number 

### Taxon Ana 1 yzed 

# --'!L Ana 1 yzed 

# --'!L Bay anchovy 

### 095 144 

## Atlantic si lverside 10, 338 

## 81.8 742 

### 28. 23. Wi nter 

### f1 ounder 114 

### 96. 409 

### 91. 88. Northern pipefish 

### 837 

### 96. 799 

## 71. 68. 

## Threespine stickleback 621 

### 98. 600 

### 98. 97. Atlantic menhaden 

### 606 

### 16. 

### 17. Fourspi ne 

## stickleback 448 

### 98. 439 

### 91. 90. 

### Tautog 256 

### 99. 253 

### 99. 98. 

## American eel 391 

### 99. 

## 85. 84. Butterfi sh 

### 381 

### 49. 189 

### 13. 

### Hogchoker 326 

### 99. 322 

### 96. 96. Seaboard goby 

### 294 

## 91.2 265 

### 72. 66. 

## Others (44 taxa) 479 

### 64. 923 

### 50. 32. 

## Total fi sh 28, 186 

### 57. 209 

### 63. 36. Total excluding 

### 19, 091 

### 82. 065 

### 64. 53. bay anchovyTab 1 e IMPINGEMENT SURVIVAL INFORMATION Brayton Point Station Unit 4 October 1984 - March 1986

Initial Survival 

## Extended Survival Impi ngement 

### 48- 

# SE- Survival Number Numbe r 

### Taxon Ana 1 vzed 

## --ID- Ana 1 vzed 

## --ID- (%)

Bay anchovy 

### 13,987 

## 1.7 235 

## (0. 

# Atlantic silverside 745 

## 82. 491 

### 22. 18.
Wi nter 

## flounder 025 

### 95. 787 

### 95. 

## 91.0 

## Northern pipefi sh 551 

### 98. 134 

### 95. 93. 

## Threespine stickleback 113 

### 93. 105 

### 96. 90. Atlantic menhaden 

### 126 

### 38. Fourspi ne 

## stickleback 183 

### 86. 155 

### 96. 83. 

### Tautog 329 

### 97. 317 

### 98. 96. 

## American eel 60.
Butterfi sh 

### 56. 

### 57. 32. Hogchoker 117 

### 99. 115 

### 96. 95. Seaboard goby 

### 126 

### 87. 109 

## 85. 74. Othe rs (30 taxa) 

### 487 

### 70. 338 

## 80. 56.

Tota 1 

## fi sh 18, 831 

### 24. 855 

## 77. 18. Total excluding 

### 844 

### 89. 620 

## 82. 74. bay anchovy 

# ..,Table 4
SURVIVAL INFORMATION AND CALCULATED TOTAL SYSTEM EFFICIENCY

Brayton Point Station Unit 4 October 1984 - March 1986



### Diversion Impi ngement 

### Total Di versi on Di versi on System Impi ngement Impi ngement System System 

### Efficiency Survival 

### Efficiency Efficiency Survival 

### Efficiency Effi ci ency Taxon (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Bay anchovy 57. 43. 

### (0. (0. (0. 

### Atlantic silverside 96. 23. 22. 18. 23.
Wi nter fl 

### ounder 87. 88. 77. 12. 

### 91.0 11.2 88. 

### Northern pipefi sh 52. 68. 36. 47. 93. 43. 80. Threespi ne st i ckl aback 92. 97. 90. 90. 96. Atlantic menhaden 90. 

### Fourspine stickleback 83. 90. 75. 16. 83. 13. 89. Taut:og 62. 98. 

### 61.5 37. 96. 36. 97.
Ameri can eel 99. 84. 

### 84. 84.
Butterfi sh 95. 32. 

### 1.5 Hogchoker 85. 96. 82. 14. 95. 13. 96. Seaboard goby 83. 66. 55. 16. 74. 12. 

### 67.7 

### Others (45 taxa) 86. 32. 28. 13. 56. 35. 

### Total 

### fj sh 76. 36. 27. 23. 18. 32. 

### Total excl udi ng 

### 89. 53. 47. 10. 74. 55. bay anchovyTable 5
CONTROL TESTING SUMMARY Brayton Point Station Unit 4

1984 - 1986


## Percent

Total No. No. Live 

## Survival
Test T 

### Taxon 

## Tested 48-

Divers; on 

# Atlantic silverside 372 146 

### 39.



## Fourspine stickleback 100. 

## Northern pipefi sh 86. Sea boa rd 

### goby 

### 73. Tautog 100. 

## Winter flounder 173 151 

### 87. 

## Others (5 taxa) 156 

### 145 

### 92.

Tota 1 

### 838 572 

### 68. Impi ngement 

# Atlantic silverside 182 

### 168 

## 92. Seaboard goby 

### 100. 

### Tautog 100. Wi nter 

## flounder 100. 

## Others (5 taxa) -1.Q 

### 100. 

## Total 390 376 

### 96. 

## Control 

# Atlantic silverside 196 

### 178 

### 90. Seaboa rd goby 

### 95. 

### Tautog 100. 

## Winter flounder 95. 

## Others (5 taxa) 97. 

## Total 281 

### 260 

### 92.

--J