Fish Protection at Cooling Water Intake Structures:

A Technical Reference Manual

1014934

Technical Update, December 2007

EPRI Project Manager

0. Dixon

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

3420 H~l\llew Avenue. Palo Mo. Cahfomia 94304·1338 • PO Bo~ 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303·0813 • USA
800.313.3n4 • 650.855.2121 • [email protected] • www.eprl.com
 5
CYLINDRICAL WEDGEWIRE SCREENS

Introduction

Wedge~ ire screens have the potential to reduce both entrainment and impingement at water
intakes. \Vedgcwire screens. use V or wedge-shaped cross-set:tion wire weldc=d to a framing
system to form a slotted screening element (Figure 5- I). In order to effectivdy reduce:
impingement and entrainment. the following conditions must c:xist:
• Sufficiently small screen slot size to physically block passage of the smallest life stage to
be protected (typically 0.5 to 1.0 mm);
• Low through-slot velocity;
• Ambient currc.:nts that are ~uffic ienl for sweeping aquatic organisms and debris past a
screen

Wedgewire screens <Figure 5-2) have been effective in preventing entrainment and impingement
of ichthyoplankton and juvenile fis.h at different types of water intakes (mainly irrigation,
municipal water supply, and cooling water intakes) without any major maintenance problems.
However. as with any screening technology, the potentiaJ for clogging and biofouling i~ a
concern and needs to be addressed in the design and operation this technology. When all
conditions for effective operation are met, wedgewire screens can n:duce entrainment and
impingement to levels that usually meet existing regulations and resource agency criteria.
Furthermore. the now suspended EPA Rule identified submerged cylindrical wedgt!wire screens
in freshwater river under certain hydraulic conditions as a pre-approved technology to meet
impingement mortality. In othcr water body types. wt!dgewire screens would have met
compliance alternative I in the Phase II 3 16Cb) Rule because of the low through screen velocity
l0.5 ft/s) .

5-1
C ,·Jinclrict~l u·n/.~t·,,·irc Scrt·t•n .•·

Figure 5-1
Cylindrical Wedgewire Scr·een Panel Detail (Modified from EPRI)
 •••• - ~ &, . . . . "'"'
I':
• . lll"....... "'" __ ..... -
.. . ~ .......
• •. _.,. . _ ,
~

'"'~~~····.~~.... l ""if"4''1P,...., ~~~: ~~~~~~~. ~: .... ': .~.;, . . . . .: :

.,

Figure 5·2
Cylindrical Wedgewire Screen Intake (Courtesy of Johnson Screens)

Case Studies - CWIS Application

Logan Generating Plant

A study was conducted to evaluate the performance of I-mm (0.039 in.) slot wedgewire screens
at the logan Generating Plant (LGP; Ehrler and Raifsnider 2000) (Figure 5-3). The plant is
located on the Delaware River in Gloucc:ster County. New Jersey. Water is drawn from the river
to replace evaporative water losses from the plant's closed-cycle cooling system.

5-J
 Figure 5·3
Wedgewire Screen Intake at the Logan Generating Plant (Ehrler and Raifsnider 2000)

Sampks were collected from the Delaware River adjacent to the plant and from water that had
passed through the wcdgev.ire screens for compari~on of larval densities. River water was
sampled by towing a plankton net at water depths of 10.3, 8.5, and 6.7 m (34, 18, and 21ft).
Samples from the river were collected by towing a 30-cm ( 1-ft) diameter, 335-J.! mesh plankton
net at constanr speed. Three sampling transects were established: one was located upriver of the
station. another was alignc::d with the plant's fuel dock. and one was located downstream of the
plant Water that had passed through the screened intake was sampled by pumping water from
thc plant's intake wet well. A total of 30 towed net and entrainment samples were collected.

· The most abundant species collected during tow "amples in the deep stations (9.1 m [30 ftj) were
striped bass (39'K J. white pt:rch (1811- ). carps/min nows and sucker~ ( 19'k J. and herrings < 13 ~r ).
The moo;t abundantly collected spt:cies at the shallow stations (0.9 m [3 ftj) were river herring
} <80'k l. \'o"hite perch ( 17(,~ ). striped buss (1g. ). and minnows/carps and suckers (I fj().

A cnmpa1i'ion betwl!en thc densities of striped bass in the Delaware Ri,·er and in th~: plam·s
makcup watt!r was used to dett!rmine rhe effectiveness of rhe \NI!dgcwin: s~recn intake sy:.ll:m. It
wa'> estimated rhat an um.c.:rcencd intake would cmrain appro:dmatdy 0.03'1( of the Joc.:al striped
ba~.; lan·al population. The intake sc.:reens were expectcd to exclude 90';} of the striped bass
larra~ l Ehrler and Raifsnidl.!r ISl99l. The results of the ~ompari.~on stud~ resulted in an an:ragc
prop(lnional withdrawal of \triped hass Jan·ac of o.oo:vJ.

5-~
 Cylindrical We,f.t:c'\t·irc Scrn•ns

Cope Station

A c;.lindrical wedg~wire scr~~n intakt: syst~m is in operation at the 385 MW. coal-tir~d Ct1pe
Station located on the South Fork Edisto Ri\'er in Oran-geburg Coumy. South Carolina ((umhi~
;.~nd Banks 1997l. The station withdrav.:s 0..~ m 'Is ( 10 cfs) for closed-cycle L·ooling purposes.
Engineering and mode:! I studks w~rc:! conducted to demonstrate the !-o~ stem· s pOlentialto
minimize impingem~nt and entrainment of tish t including eggs. and lan·ae). Species of primary
intere~t included redbreast suntish. striped bass. and shortnos~ sturgeon.

The intake structure consist!' of two 2-mm !0.079 in. J slot cylindrical wedgewire "creens. The:
~creens are affixed to two 61-cm 12~-in.) diameter pipes that project out from a caisson intake
structure. They are arranged in line. with the ir long axis paralld to the river flow . Through-slot
velocities were found to be less than 0. I5 m/s !0.5 ft/s). It was concluded that potential negative
impacts of the screens on eggs and larvae was low because the cross-sectional area of the river
was large relative to area influenced by the intake (i.e.. probability of organisms encountering the
intak~ screens was low). The lateral distance over which the screens exert an entraining
intluencl! on the river was determined to be approximately 8% of the stream width at the intakl!
location. No data were presented with respect to the biological effectiveness of the screen (i.e ..
impingement or entrainment rates). ·

Eddystone Generating Station

Cylindrical wedgcwire screens were installed for fish protection purposes at the Eddystone
Generating Station located on the Delaware River (within the tidal influence) near Philadelphia.
Pennsylvania !Yeneziale 1992). The four-unit Eddystone station has a gent:rating capacity of
I .400 MW. The screens were installed in front of the cooling-water intakes of Units I and 2,
which have a combined flow of about 980 cfs (27 .8 m·'/s). The Eddystone Station originally had
trash racks and traveling water screens for collecting fish and debris. Impingement and
entrainment studies revealed that over 3.000.000 fish were impinged on the traveling screens
during a single 20-month period. It was concluded that Delaware Ri vcr resident and migratory
fish populations were being adversely affected by the Eddystone Plant. Consequently. resource
agencies requested that steps be taken to reduce fish impingement at Eddystone as part of the
facility's 316(b) requirements. After an extensive review of available fish protection
technologies. the facility chose cylindrical wedgewire screens to replace the existing screens on
the basis of past experience and low maintenance costs.

To o;upport the wedgcwire screens. a sheerpile bulkhead was installed at the intake . .Sixteen
q·lio(J.ri<.:al ~cr~n~ were placed in front of the L:nir l-2 intake structure and perpend~lar to the
bulkhead !Figure 5-~J. The screens are arranged in two rows: eight inboard screens extend 7ft
1.2. 1 m lout from the;: bulkhead and eight ou tboard screens extend 19ft !5.8 mJ our. The "creens
can be: removed for manual <.:leaning. and an air-burst cleaning system was instalkd to facilitate
lkhris llushing without removing the scrc;:ens. Sinl:e the screens have; been installed. minimal
uebris accumulation has occurred and there has been no vi~ibk damage. The air-burst <.:leaning
syst~m is used infreyuc:ntly and the screens have experienced no problems with ice buildup . It
has hec:.E_ concluded that fish impingement and screen fouling han: hc::en eliminated at Edd)stone
~zialc- llJ~ -- ·-- - -- ---· -­
~-- -~ ~ _ _.,.,

5-5
 Eddysto ne
L;nit 1 &. 2
Pumphouse

Screens

Flood ­
..__Ebb
Delaware River

Figure 5-4
Wedgewire Intake System at Eddystone Station (.Veneziale 1992)
i
Jeffrey Energy Center

A cylindrical wedgewire screen cooling water intake system has been operating since I982 at the
Jt!ffrey Energy Center (JEC) located on the Kansas River in Kansas cJohnson and Etrcma 1988).
Th~ JEC has three 670 MW units that employ a closed-cycle cooling system. Replacement water
for the cooling system is withdrawn from the Kansas River. The river intake system \\-as
designed to withdra"" up to l I I cfs (3.1 m'/s). remain free of floating debris. have a St!diment­
fn:e area around the screens. withdraw \Vater during low tlnw periods. and have low maintenance
requirements 1Figure 5-5).

Two screen types wc.::re considered for installation at the:! JEC int<Ike: traveling -;(-r~ens cactive
.-.creening ) and cylindrical wcdgcwire screens I passive scn:ening>. Through -t1ow traveling
:-.~:rccns have hctn installed at nthl!r Kansas Ri\er water intakes. These screens have operated
cfticicntly. however. "-Caring of ke~ parts has contributed to cxtensi\·e maintenance
n:quin:ments. Possi ve scrt!~n S} st~ms possc:-.s no moving parts that can wear or require c:xtensin:
lll<tintc.:nance. Also. low water velocity hctween screen wires of l·ylindrical screens reduces the
rotenlial for fhh impingem~::nE and entrainment. For thr.:~c reasons. the cylindrical wcdgewirc
..,~re~n:-. were ~hn-;cn for in-;tallation with the.: new intake 'Y't~m at JEC.

5-6
The ~crc~n sy~tem that was instal kd at JEC comprise:!> tlm:c cylindrkal wc.:dgewire screens
placed along the: fac~ of the: intakl..' :-true tun: (Figure 5-5 J. The: screen:- arc: -+ ft 1 I .2 m) in
diameter. about in .l-+ m ( ll ft) in length. have slot o penings of 10 m111 10.375 in.). and ha\'c: a
tlo'" capucit~ of I J J m/~ 137 ft/s). which maintains a 0.15 m/s <0.5 ftlsl through-slot \'docity.
The screens are capable of bdng rc:mo\'c:d for inspection and mainrena111.:e. An air backwash
..,~ srt:m wa~ instalkd for scrc:c:n cleaning. The: intake systc:m has ~en operating for se\'c:ral years
'' ith minimal problems. The screens have been free of sedimentation and debris accumulation.
~faintt:nanc.:e ha:-. consisted of daily sediment sluicing and air backwashing and annual sediment
basin dredging. No information was provided with rc:specr to the biological effectiveness of the
~crc:ens.

5-7
 Cl'lindri,·,t/ II ,·r/::,·u·;,.,. .), ·r<'<'ll.l'

S4'.()" (1 6 . 5 t.l)

40'·1 " 112. 2 Ml 1'·11" (l.6 t.l)

11'-6" !3.S MJ 11'·6" 13.5 M~

a·.c•
(2.-4Mlj JE':" UN£S

-_-L.-
',
\.J..----~:H-+=I...o:f:----4~:.;:....:;;:.~,--?-___...::;~~1 /
~---

\
"-~
r - - _ SfOIMl!NTATION BASIN __.A
PLAN

SCREEN l'ltOT£CTlO~
RAJUNCi

.
...

Sro!MEHT SLUICING
PIP£

Figure 5-5
Wedgewire Screen Intake System- Jeffrey Energy Center (Johnson and Ettema 1988)

5-X
 (\·lim/rica/ Wctlgcu·irc Scrct-"11 f

Chalk Point Station

A fie-ld t:Yaluation of ~:ylindrical wedgewire screens was conducted at the Chalk Point Station
frnm 198:! to 19H3. A modular barge h.:~ring fad lit) was placed in the intake canal of the station.
The hargc had two separate but identical intake pons on which 76-cm diameter cylindrical
wc:dgewin:: test SlTCens and an open por1 were attached <Figure 5-6). During testing in 1982. the
pumps withdrew approximately 7.7 m '/min (-t5 cfs J. whik in !98J. after refurbishing. the
pumps withdrew I:! m '/ min (7. 1 cfsl. The intat...es were positioned I m below the surface.
Screens with slot sizes measuring I. :!. and 3 mm were evaluated. Average through slot
Vt!locities for all of the.: scn!ens together in 1982 and 1983 were 13 cm/s (0.43 ft/s) and 20 cm/s
(0.66 ft/sJ resp<::ctively.

Figure 5·6
Drawing of a Bulkhead-Mounted Screen with Cut Away of Wedgewire Configuration

Samples were collected at night using a 505-Jl mesh plankton net located at the discharge from
each pump. A total of :!4 samples was collected during testing in 1982 and 88 samples were
c o llected in 1983. Ambient ichthyoplankton samples were collected just upstream from the
testing barge hy towing a hongo net measuring 0 .5 min diameter with a 505-J.J mesh at the
surface and at dl:pths of I and ~ m.

The most ahundant fish species collectt:d \\-We bay anchovy and naked goby. Bay ancho\·ies
\\,C:rc grouped hy kngth classes of :S 4 mm. 5-7 mm. 8-10 mm. I 1-1 ~ mm. and ~ 15 mm.
~akcd gobies were grouped by length classes of ~ 4mm. 5-6 mm. 7- 8 mm. and :::: 1.) mrn.
:":umbers of fish entrained are present~d in Table 5-1 .

5-9
 Table 5-1
Mean Densities (Numbers/1 ,000 m, of Water) of Bay Anchovies and Naked Gobies Collected in
the Bongo Net from the Canal, Through Each Wedgewire Exclusion Screen, and Through an
Open Port in 1982 and 1983 (Weisberg ~~ al. 1987)
Fish August 1982 July 1983
Class Screen Screen
Size Bongo Open Bongo Open
(mm) Net Port 2mm 1 mm Net Port 3mm 2mm 1 mm
Bay Anchovy
Eggs 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 19.610 2 ,341 1.707 18,435 10.966
•4 2.0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 60.0 9.6 13.6 21.0 9.2
5-7 4 .5 4 .1 0.0 0.0 37.6 20. 1 11 .3 9 .2 10.8
8- 10 6.2 1.6 1.5 0.0 11.2 7. 7 2.6 1.6 1.0
11 . 14 152.9 31.1 10.5 0.0 3.5 1.3 0.3 0.0 0 .0
• 15 2 ,469.4 57.3 15.0 1.5 9.3 3.3 0.5 f 0.4 0.0
Naked Goby
•4 95.3 17.2 13.5 1.5 223.5 535.7 557. 1 513.4 562.5
5- 6 11 7 .6 22.9 19.5 6.0 514.8 148.7 87 .6 81.6 66.5
7-8 95.5 38.5 16.5 5.8 370.5 49.7 11 .2 9.6 3.9
•9 342.3 201.5 64.6 35.8 243.7 49.1 7.8 4.4 1.9 .

For bay anchovy, the screens had no significant effect (i.e., exclusion) on eggs and larvae
measuring::; -+mm. Exclusion became apparent at the 5-7-mm length class in 1983, as nearly
twice as many anchovy wc:re entrai ned into the unprotected open intake than into any of the
i
screens. Exdusion increased in with increasing fish length. Although more fish were entrained
through the larger slot sizes. the differences were not significant. which may have been due to
the small sample sizes.

Although there was a tenfold decrease in entrainment of naked goby measuring~ -+mm between
the unprotected and I mm screen in 1982. the difference was not statistically significant.
Exclusion by the I mm screen became apparent at the 5-6 mm length in 1983. Further. both
years of sampling yielded a significant decrease in the entrainment of fish measuring 7-8 mm
and larger.

The:: author~ cite Rhysical ex~.·Jusion and hydrodynamic exclu~ion as the t\\-0 principal modes hy
which wedgewire screens protect ichthyoplankton from entrainment. Evidence for the physical
exclusion caused hy the ~creens i~ that the smallest slot size 1 I mm J excluded more fish than
cithc.:r the 2 or J mm screens. Further evidence of physical exclusion is that a head capsule depth
of I mm \1. as not n.:achcd unri I a length of 9 mm. and there were!' essentially no fish over I0 mm
entrained in the sumpks. Evidence for the hydroJynamic c.:xd us ion is that fish ofboth species
mca,uring 5 rnm in kngth \\ere no t c:ntraincd hy the 3 mm sc n:cn. indicating their anility to
S\1. im away from the low-,·docity !low near the s<.:rt't:ll.

5- 10
 . v,s:; c,fiudri,·ulll',·d"'"''" ·''" '' '"'

CharlesPointRecoveryFacility @ (4 S~
En,·ironml!nr~l monitoring studies were conductl!d at the Charles P<Jint Resource RecoYery
Facilit! to evaluate the number. species. and lite stage of organisms impinged and entrained by
the fa~.·ility · s cooling "'atcr system lEA Science and Technology IY86l. This wcdgewire scrct:n
facilit)' ha.; bc:en operating since the early 1980s with little maintenance required 1Radle pers.
comm. 1999>. The biological studies v,:ere perfom1ed as a requirement of Westchester RESCO' s
SPDES permit. The facilit:v is located on the east bank of the Hudson Ri\'er ncar Peekskill. i\ew
York.

The Charles Point Resource Recovery Facility has a design capacity of 60 MW generated by the
combustion of municipal solid waste. The once-through cooling system has a tlow rate of 2.-+
m 'Is 185 cfs). The cooling water system consists of an offshore (26. 8 m [800ft}) intake fitted
with four pairs of cylindrical wedgewire scree::ns mounted on T-stands approximately 1.5 m (5 ft)
above the river bottom. The cylindrical wedgewire screen are 1.4 m <4.6 ft) long. I A 1)):~
in diameter, and constructed of a copper-nickel alloy. The slot widt ou~creens is I()~

---
(0.02 in.). resulting in a design through-slot veloc ity of 0.15 mf · .5 ftls) . -

The monitoring study was designed to sample ichthyoplankton entrainment and impingement.
Entrainment monitoring was conducted using an Automated Abundance Sampler (AUTOSAM).
Six samples were collected on each date for a 4-hour duration at approximately I'k of the total
flow. A combined total of 15.287 ichthyoplankton was collected by the AUTOSAY1 from May
through October in 1985 and March through April in 1986. The most abundant species collected
during entrainment sampling from mid-June through September 1985 was bay anchovy (93.51k ).
Other ichthyoplankton collected were striped bass (4.2%). white perch <0.9£k), and Atlantic
tomcod <0.79C). The most abundant lifestage collected in entrainment samplc!s was eggs (67.3~)
and post-yolk-sac larvae (31.2'a).

!,_mpingement sampling was conducted from May 1985 through Apri I 1986. Organisms were
removoot rom the intake screens by a specially designed apparatus. A series of guide bars were
welded lengthwise across each of the screen intake structures to allow a vacuum head to move
ovc:r the screens and remove impinged organisms. The vacuum head was operated by a diver
and attached to a pump that transported impinged organisms imo a collection facility.
Vacuumed materials were screened though a 500-1-1 mesh net in order to separate impinged
organisms from those that had already passed through the wedge wire screens <Radle pers. comm.
1999).

A total of 175 organi~rns were collected during 37 samples. Ba! ancho" y wa~ the most abundant
specie~ (70J'ff J colkctcd. Atlanti c tomcod. <;tripcd bass. and white perc h compri-;ed '25. 7. 1.1.
and ON7f of the total impingements collected. respectively. Similar to entrainment samples.
eggs were the most abundant life stag~ {61.1 l,}) collected during impingement sampling.
followc::d by lan·ae L13 .7lk).

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station

A lield study wa~ ~onducted in 1978 to as-.es' th~ engineering and biological ~rformance of
~)·lindrical wedge:wire screens 1Brown IY7Yl at the Oy-;ter Creek Nudear Generation Station.

5- 11
 The t~st screens wt:rc mounted on a floating test facilit~ that was moored in the: intake canal of
the the 'tation. The test fa~ilit ~ had rwo ~.000-gpm (7.6 m ·/sl \C:rtic:.tl pumps. Scn.:en:- \Vith slot
widths of I. :2. :.tnd .> mm were tested. The saec:ns measured .:10 in. t 75.6 em) in diameter. \\"c~re
set at a dc:p'd1'o iJ.3 It c l m). :.t nd were designed to generate an U\'craee through sl0t vdocitv of
0.5 ft/s c 15.:2 cm/sJ during rhdr evaluation.y The s...·;eens v. ere al:-o o~Hiited~~ tth Jlr hackn~-;;ning
mechanisms that would activate when a set pressure differential occurred across the scret:n fa('t:.
If backwashing did not maintain a diffaential of less than 1.3 ft <-'0.6 em). the screens wcre
raiscd to the test facility·s ded• for high-pressure spmy washing.

Results of the engineering evaluation revealed that. despite high debris loads during the spring
and early summer. all the screens functioned well with res~ct to the removal of debirs hy air
bacldlushing. Overall down time associated with cleaning the screens was 0.02-1 .JOCK and
0.19-1 AO<K for the I and 2 mm screens. respecti n:l y. The author suggested that these estim:nes
would be decreased substantially by the addition of an automatic cleaning system.

The biological evaluation of the rest screens included entrainment and impingement sampling.
Entrainment samples were collected from the pump discharge pipes using 0.5 m diameter
plankton nets with 500 ).1m mesh. Impingement of larger organisms and fish behavior near the
screens was monitored concurrently to entrainment sampling .

Organisms were not entrained in large enough numbers to draw any significant conclusions.
However. the data that was collected did indicate that fewer target species wen~ entrained
through the I -mm slot screen than through the 2-mm screen and an unscreened intake . Also.
target species entrained through the 1-mm screen were generally smaller and .narrower than those
entrained through the :!-mm screen and the unscreened intake. and·densities of target species
entrained through the 2-mm screen were sometimes eq ual to and occasionally greater than

f
__
densities entrained through the unscreencd intake. Entrainment data for opossum shri mp are
presented in Table 5-2.
..
Yfonitoring of the screens in situ revealed that jmpin~ement was n~_ligible [9r ore:anisrns. near
!.ht:.s~~s. However. American eel elvers were observed impinged on the screens or entrapped
in the slots during observations made from January to April. Various invertebrates were also
found impinged on the screen face. though many crabs. amphipods, and isopods were also seen
moving freely along the screen face. possibly feeding on the other impinged organisms. Larval
fish C2~25 em TL>. such as si lversides. were also seen swimming in the immediate ~i!-=lni_tY...Qf
the-screen Trutmblt:ilt cl.~iit-; of 0.5-(J.T ft!s-( l5- 20 crT\7\J without any signs of difficulty.
F';Jrthcr. impingement_of adult fish did not appe~_!o be~a-ni~~e-:-·~-- ·--- · --- !

The amount of hiofouling on different screen material re\ealed that. of the four samples tested.
rhe 'ltcel containing the highest amount of copper possessed the best antifouling characteristics.

5-12
 Table 5-2
Density (No./m 3) Length (mm),, and Width (mm) of Mysidacea (Opossum Shrimp) in
Entrainment Sample Sets Collected January 3, 1979.

1·mm Screen 2·mm Screen No screen (control)

Sample Set 1

Density No./m· 8.9 22.4 19.3

Density relative to no screen
46.0 116.0 100.0
density(%)

Length range (mm) 3.2-7.8 3.3-9.7 3.8-10.1

Mean length (mm) 5.0 6.0 5.7
Width range (mm) 0.4-Q.S 0.4-1.1 0.4-1.2
Mean width (mm) 0.6 0.7 0.7
SampleSet2
3
Density No./m 16.2 26.6 20.0
Density relative to no screen
81.0 133.0 100.0
density '(%)

Length range (mm) 3.0-9.3 3.3-10.6 3.5--8.7

Mean length (mm) 5.2 5.6 5.2
Width range (mm) 0.3-1.1 0.4-1.2 0.4-1.0
Mean width (mm) 0.6 0.6 0.6

St. John's River, FL

A study similar to those conducted by Brown ( 19~9) was conducted by Lifton ( 1979) on the St.
John's River in northeastern Florida. The investigations were conducted as· a requirement of
St:ction 316<bJ during the construclion of a coal-fired electric generating station in Putnam
County. Florida. In this study. entrJinment through 1-mm and 2-mm (0.04 and 0.08 in.) slot
wedgewire screens was compared to entrainment through an open pipe·and concurrent plankton
tows. Entrainment collections were made from March through September for a tmal of 134
samples. The study was conducted in three phases. Phase I involved in-river sampling to
identify species and life stages 'ulnerable to entrainment. Phase II involved the collection of
data on the exclusion differences between I and ~-mm screens. and Phase U1 examined
npcrational feasibility . hiofouling. and entrainmt:nt mitigation.

IndiYidual egg and larvae fish colkction:-. for Phase I were conducted by net tow sampling using
a J6J-~ mesh plankton net. The wedgewire screen test fat:ility used in Phase II and Phase Ill
"as located on an existing dot:k at the power plant site. Sampling was t:onductcd on~r an 8-day
period. and included ,·isual observations of the '"edgt!wire screens. in-ri\'er lar\'al tows. and opcm
ripe cmrainrncnt tests to provide control data.

5-IJ
 The mujorit) l)f fish ~mrai neJ through the I and 2-mm ~cre~ns were uniJcnti tied Atherinidae
(~ihersitlt:J ~pede~. tiJe\\ater silverside:.. naked goby ~and down goby. The prc:Jominant sp~ck~
t:!Hrain~d through the open pipe: wc:rc ba~ ancho\·y. tidewater sih·ersiJe. sunfish. nakt!d goby.
and down goby. Fish t!gg~ and Ian at:\\ ere! colkcted in the 1-mm ~crl.!c:n ~ampks. The! 2-mm
''rc:en also entrained two juveniles and some adult tish \vere c:mrained through the open pipe.
Rt!su!ts of statistical analyses showed n0 significant difti:rence in entrainment betwt!en the I and
2-nun !'>Crt!cn with respect to organism densities for all spel'it!s and life stages. Comparisons of
rota! numbers c::ntrainl!d showed that the screened intake!-> entrained at kust 30 percent fewc:r fish
than the open pipe in 16 of 20 comparisons. In 13 of 20 compari~ons. the number of ft-.h
entrained was at least 50~~- less than the open pipe!.

J. H. Campbell, Unit 3

Consumer!> Energy' s J. H. Campbell tinit 3 screen system has functioned effectively since 1979.
Unit 3 withdraws 21 .5 m'/s 1757 cfs) from an offshore location ( l ,067 m from shore in I0.7 m of
water) through 28 fixed wedgewire screening units with 9.5-mm 13/8-in.) wide screen slots.
Cnits I and 2 withdraw cooling water from Pigeon Lake. which empties into Lake Michigan
adjacent to the ~ration. It was believed that locating the Unit J i make in the relatively
unproductive lake environmenc would decrease the potential for entrainment and impingement
When compared to Units I and 2. the Unit 3 screens have reduced impingement of gizzard shad,
smelt. yellow perch, alewife, and shiner species and have required minimal maintenance (Gulvas
and Zeitoun 1979). The screens are cleaned manually by water jets to reduce biofouling (algae).
The plant was forced to shut down once (spring 1984 J due to anchor ice. Because the screen
mesh is 9.5 mm (3/8 in.). this installation achieves no reduction in entrainment other than by
virtue of its deep offshore location in an area of low abundance of entrainable-sized fish.
Operating experience to date has been satisfactory. due to the large screen slot size and the
n:latively low debris loading in Lake Michigan.

Case Studies - Hydroelectric Application

Arbuckle Mountain Hydroelectric Project

A cyl indrical wedgewire screen system was installed in 1986 at the Arbuckle Mountai n
Hydroelectric Project located on the Middle Fork of Cottonwood Creek near Redding. California
<Ott et al. 1988). The project operates in a run-of-the-river mode, divt:tts a maximum of 115 cfs
(3 .3 n1'/s).'has a design head of 55ft r 16.8 m). and a generating capacity of about ~00 kW.
Cylindrical wedgewire screens were selected for Arbuckle Mountain to pre\·t:nt entrainment of
r~:-;ident and migratory fish and to pro\·ide for continuous cleaning to eliminate sedimem and
tkhri~ buildup. Also. a \'c!nical-axis configuration was selected because material and
construction costs were 1~:-.s than for a horizontal deployment.

The final design of the:: !'l~rcen sysh.:m instalkd at Arbuckle! !\ilountain consistl!d of eight screens.
\\ith an intake: tlow ofOA rn '/s ( 15.7 d·il per screen. At maximum capacity. the approach
,·c:Jocit) ~omponcnt tnormal to the 'tTccn f;.~ccl i~ 0.1 m/-; rO..H fU!-). The scr~en V -wirl! wa!'l I .~
em (0 .71 in.J v.:idc \Vith slot (lrcnings 2 mm (0.079 in.). yielding an open area of 57f;(. The:!
:-.<.:re<:!ns art: rnounteJ on a t'Oncrt:tc manifold/plc:num chamber and placed in the project fore bay.

5-14
 An internal tlow modulator was designed to create uniform tlo'v distribution a~ross the face of
the :.cn:~.:n -:ylinder:.. For <kbris management a pnc:umaticall~ operated pn.>grammable controller
was Je, eloped to automatically initiate cleaning of the eight C) lindrical screens with an air burst
ba<.:kwash s~ stem. :\n annular air distributor is mounted outside the flow modulator that
introdUI.:es air within a <.'ylinder to backtlush water for rl!moval of an) debri:. colkcted on the
exterior of the: cyli nder. Also. a ~-onical dc:tl~c:tor mounted internally at the top of ea~h cylinder
pro,·ides even distribution of the air' burst during the backflush cycle. After backtlushing.
ambient currents remove accumulated debris. Biological evaluations of the screen system have
not ~en performed. ·

Case Studies- Laboratory and Field Evaluations

Laboratory Test EPRVEPA, Alden Research Laboratory

The Electric Power Research [nstitute <EPRJ) with Water Quality Cooperative Grant
(#X829108010) support from the C.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sponsored the
biological evaluation of cylindrical wedgewire screens. The testing was conducted in a
laboratory flume with striped bass larvae and a surrogate egg type in 200 I and with eight
additional species in 2002. The tests conducted in ~001 were primarily designed to determine if
the test tiu:ility and procedures functioned as needed for accurately evaluating the relative
effectiveness of the wedgewire screens. These tests also provided the initial set of data on
relative impingement and entrainment rates of the organisms that were evaluated.

The section of the test facility flume where testing is performed has a maximum depth and width
of 2.1 m and 3.0 m. respectively. For 2001 testing. the width of the flume channel was about 1.5
m and water depth was 1.3 m. Flume width and water depth for 2002 tests were both 1.8 m ta
temporary. wall was removed and the plexiglass window was repositioned to widen the flume
prior to 2002 testing). Channel veracities up to 0 .9 rnlsec can be maintained at full depth. Flow
is re-circulated through the flume by a bow thruster that is driven by an electric motor.

The location of the screens was about I LA m downstream of where water is returned to the
flume from the bow thruster (Figure 5-7). At this location, one side of the flume consists of a
plexiglass window that allows for real-time vis ual and video observations to be recorded during
testing. The wedgewire screen test facility consists of a fish larvae and egg release system. the
wedgewire screens. an entrainment collection system. and a downstream collection system. The
design of the test facilities used in 200 I and 2002 arc presented in Figure 5-8and Figure 5-9.
rcspectively.

5-15
 · · T"'mocrer"y VIi.!!II

: :I
. '

I ~ ; '

•
l Pk-.,giAS$
·l t/."...~ow
·"'"

Figure 5-7
Fish Testing Facility and Approximate Location of Cylindrical Wedgewire Screens

' / : !
: ·=::.:.;.To ttr.~cur:me~: \
I V -wire T -screen
'
:•••••• •••• COiieciiOII net
\
Inclined collection screen _j'
I
(0.3 m '" d;ameter by
1 3 m 1n length: plan
\--Fish and egg
I release system
\ sectton dep1cts screen {supported by a
oriented parallel and
B \\ perpendiCtJiar to tlow)
I
i.7 m
moveable p tattorm)
\
.> ..·.·
' . I
•. .
J
;=~"'"<-J
I
I
l .-FJow

. .
fo. .. • I
I
'
.

Figure 5·8
2001 Wedgewire Screen Test Facility

5- 16
 A

-·- --·- -·-?- r ···· -·------·------·-----···-·-II ;u,_ ---

··.
i"T'I

,L o•mV _,,ow \
.1 .:•••••• \

I
I . V-wire T-screen - /
/
To encrarnment
:..•....:-:::!':' ooUectron net
\
'\
\
Downstream / (0 3 m in oiameter \ r- Fish and egg
Collection N e t \ by 1.3 m 1n length) \ \ release system
\ i !supported by a

B \\ \ \ moveable platform)

·..:··
. :· .,_ Flow

f:igure 5-9
2002 Wedgewire Screen Test Facility

The screens that were used for the laboratory evaluation were T- 12 ( 12-inch diameter [30.5 em])
cylindrical wedgewire screens supplied by Johnson Screen (Figure 5-10). The T-12 screens have
two 3 I-em long sections through whic h water is withdrawn. Three screens constructed with
different slot sizes 10.5. 1.0. and 2.0 mm) were evaluated to deter'm ine fish egg and larval
entrainment and impingement rates under different channel and scree n flow conditions. All three
~creens had I.5-mm wide wedgew ire bars. The porosities of the screens were 24.7Cfr for the 0 .5­
mm.s1ot screen. 39.6C'fr for the 1.0-mm screen. and 56.89( for the 2.0-mm screen. Design
information and flow rates at each through-slot velocity that was evaluated are presented in
Table 2-1.

5-17
 Figure 5-10
Johnson T-12 Cylindrical Wedgewire Screen (White Lines Delineate Sections of the Screen
for Which Impingement Locations Were Recorded)

5-IX
 Cl"ii11dri('(i/ ll't•.fucll'irc• 5, Tt'CII ,.
. ·'

Table 5-3
Wedgewire Screen Design and Operation Parameters Evaluated During the Laboratory
Study

Screen Channel Flow Rate

Screen Withdrawal
Slot Open Screen Slot Rate Channel 2001 2002
size Area Porosity Velocity Velocity
(mm) (m2) (%) (m/s) m'ls gpm (m/s) m'/s gpm m'/s gpm

0.5 0.15 24.7 0.15 0.023 363 0.08 0.15 2376 0.26 4039

0.15 0.30 4753 0.51 8078

0.30 0.60 9506 1.02 16,157

0.30 0.046 726 0.08 0.15 2376 0.26 4039

0.15 0.30 4753 0.51 8078

0.30 0.60 9506 1.02 16,157

1.0 0.24 39.6 0.15 0 .037 582 0.08 0.15 2376 0.26 4039

0 .15 0.30 4753 0.51 8078

0.30 0.60 9506 1.02 16,157

0.30 0 .073 1164 0.08 0.15 2376 0.26 4039

0.15 0.30 4753 0.51 8078

0.30 0.60 9506 1.02 16,157

2.0 0.35 56.8 0. 15 0.053 834 0.08 0.15 2376 0.26 4039

0.15 0.30 4753 0.51 8078

0.30 0 .60 9506 1.02 16,157

0.30 0.105 1667 0.08 0 . 15· 2376 0.26 4039

0.15 0.30 4753 0.51 8078

0.30 0.60 9506 1.02 16,157

The biological e\·aluation of cylindrical wedgewire screens successfully identified several

important rdationships associated with the various factors that effect impingement and
entrainment of aquatic organisms. However. these relationships were not always straightforward
or easily detc.:ctahle due: to interactions among the: test variables and the inability to collect data
for all spc.:cies and life :-.tages with all combinations of test conditions. The following are gc.:nc.:ral
conclusions from the anal} sis of the entrainment and impingc.:mc.:nt data that wen~ colkcted:
I. Impingement decreased with increases in slot size
1 Entrainmc.:m incrc.:a.~ed with incrc;.~ses in '>lot size
3. Emrainmc:m and impingeml.!nt in~.:reaseJ owith increa:-.c::-. in through-slot \'docities

5-19
 ( \-!in,/rinll II(·cfgt'l\ ire Scrc•,·n<

4. Enrrainmc:nt and impingement ~.kcrease \\ irh incn:asc:-. in ~.:hanncl \ ~kx:it)

This study idl!mified ...en~r~tl biological factor:-. that can intluence \\cdgewin! screen impingc:menr
and entrainment rates. in.:luJing lift! :-.rage. size. :llld S\\ imming ;.1bility. The'c fal.'tors appeared
to tK: strongly rdated: :.tlthough for larvae. life stage is probabl~ inconsequential compareJ to
-;izt' and swimming ;~bility. Spedtkally. as tisflrnature during e:trly life: stage:-. tht•y grov. larger
and swimming ability improves. allO\\ ing for greatc:r physical and beha,·ioral exclusion to o~c.:ur.
The most pronounced effect o f life stage is associated with differences betwcc!n passi\'c ~ggs and
actively swimming larvae. The enlrainment and impingement of eggs during our :-tudy were:
related to the size of eggs and hydraulic conditions that int1uenced downstream movement of
eggs along the screen surface. ~£!¥Jf~. v.. hich averaged 0. 7 mm in_diameter. q_id not
impinge on the 0.5 mm slot screen_h._u t ~·er£_l! ni'i1ii'rted at rj!le's-ot' ro to ~Q~ for the: two chan nc::l
vdlicitie-.; C\ alu.ItCtl. TTleentrainment rate at the lower channel velocity wmearly )(Y,f g-r~ater
than attlic1iTghl.!rvelocjty. In contrast to alew ife . v.;_~ite sucker .and surrogate..:~i£ed bass egg~
were not entrained but were sus~:eptible to impingement depend ing on the hydraulic condition~<;
being evaluated. Forb~~~ ..!.~~.:mecies. e8g i.!!!.Pinge~nt ratcsj~re~sed_ wit~ slot velocity aJ!d
decreased with channel velocity. ·-·-
---
Based on the estimates of entrainment and impingement for larvae and eggs. protection of
aquatic organisms using cyl indrical wedgewire screens will be optimized by minimizing slot size
and slot velocity and maximizing ambient cu rrents approaching a screen or screen array. Design
and operation criteria that result in optimization of these parameters will be dependent on the
target species and life stages. Older and larger organisms will not require as stringent criteria as
younger and smaller organisms that do not possess the size or swimming ability to avoid
impingement and entrainment Using less than optimum slot size and velocity criteria may he
appropriate if wedgewire screens are located where species and life stages thut are potentially
susceptible to entrainment and impingement are not abundant.

The datn that was gathered during the biological and C FD components this study geartx
~nstrate that this technology can effectively_Q[Otect early life st~ges of fish Jrq_m t:.~i~nt
and imeingement when desi~e..d.a~.or.ding to ;m.propriate biological and_!)_ydraul,ic.s.riCE!La. It
was concluded that future !>tudies. whether conducted in the laboratory or field. shou ld focus on
interrelationships among a smaller set of design criteria or for specific species and life stages.
Such studies are expected to provide more specific descriptions and a better understanding of the
rdationships between biological and engi neering design parameters that maximize tish
protection cft't!ctivene~s.

Laboratory Evaluation -Delmarva Power and Light

Lahorutory studies v.we conducted Delmarva P11wer and Light to assist in the development of a
su rface water intake using wedgc:wire screens that would he eff~:ctivc in protecting the early life::
stages of fishes CHanson er al. !977}. Thcsc studies were initially conducted to determine the
entrainment and impingement of strired bass eggs. lan·ae. anJjun:niks hut were: later expanded
to indude other fish species. tjdditj ooal studit'~ were also performed to investigate potential egg
mort:.J!ity as~ot·iateJ with screen contact and impingement. ·

5 -~0
 The majority of th~ experirnt:nrs wc:rc carrit:d out in a 9.1 b~ ~.6 m !30 by 15ft) oval flume
!Figure 5-1!). The:: flume was constrU<:tc:d of aluminum and plywood ami was ~Am !2.6 ft) wide
and 12.2 m ~~ ftl deep. The test scrt:t:ns wc:re placed in the flume and were evaluated under both
:-tatic rno flume !low 1 and d~ namic 1tlurnc tlow past the screens) conditions. A 5 hp horizontal
pump \\·as used to withdraw flow through the screens\\ ith a maximum pump rate of O.OJ rn "is
r 1.13 cfsl.

A"' Channel I
B= sump
C =Screen
0 a Intake Pump
E c Paddle Wheel
F = Paddle Wheel Drive
G = Hydraulic Bactcwash pump
H • Ajr Compressor

j
'

Figure 5-11
Schematic Diagram of Wedgew1re Test Flume (Hanson et at. 19n)

Egg mortality studies were conducted with a flat 30.5 em (I:! in.) square screen panel with a 0.5­
mm (O.O:W in.) slot width. The panel screen was placed on the tlum~ wall orientated
perpendicular to the flow. The test screens used to evaluate the exclusion of striped bass eggs.
larvae. and juveniles had slot widths of l mm !0.040 in.) or less. Tests with larval ~triped bass
employed cylindrical wedgewire screens with a diameter of 30.5 em ( 11 in.) and a length of 61
em!:!~ in.). The cylindrical screens were placed horizontally across the flume channel at about
mid-depth cFigure 5-11 ).

Striped bass ~ggs used in the monaJity studies were obtained from an onsite hatchery. The
experiments con!'.isted of 30-. 60-. and 120-sc:<.:ond impingement trials using live eggs. Trials had
one replicate and one control for each duration. Th~ number of dcad eggs was counted and
n:~.·orded every JO minute~. Egg impingemc:nt trials were conducted by rclt:asing a known
numher of live eggs into a 0.15 m/s <0.5 ft/s) current approximatdy 1.2 m 1~ fo upstream of the
test screen panel. After the eggs had been impinged for the specified duration. thcy were

5-21
 Cl'linclrinil lrnlgc"·ire Scrt·cn.\

siphoned off the ..;creen inro a jar and obsen·ed for mortality at 5. 20. -+5. and 60 minutes for the
tirst two tests and at 5. 30. and 60 minute~ for the remaining te~ts. A total of 6.945 striped bass
eggs were used in 26 tests. The eggs ranged in developmental stage from gastrula to fully
Ul!veloped embryo.

Statbti~al test:-. re\'ealed significant differ~nces between control and test mortalit~ at the 30· ,. ~
minute impingemenr observations. The gastrula and earl} embr~ o dc::\'c~lopmental stages suffered S-1'(\ ~ G
higher mortalit~ than other stage:-. in both test and control specimens. ~!ortalit) resulting from 1:::: \)e>.~
impim~ement ranged from none to 11.9~. Overall. mean morta!.l!y Jmmj.m.pin~ment w~~l_.-+IK. ;1tAfo ·
---- -- - - - ----- - ---- .._ __
~lo•a mortality occurred withtn the fi rst 30 minutes of impingement. '«7\ '

Experiments were performed to determine sv..imming ahility anu avoidance bcha\'iOr of striped
bass larvae exposed to a wedgewire screen in static mode 1i.e.. all flow withdrawn through test
screen with no channel cross-flow). Groups of 50 or less larvae were introduced into the flume
and allowed to acclimate for up to 3 hours. The specimens were then released into the test area.
which was formed by the screen and a cage that kept them in close proximity to the screen. For
eac..:h test. a velocity of 0.04-0..1-5 rnfs (Ot 13-0,50~ft/s) was established through the test screen and
subsequent behavior of test organisms was noted. The rests v.ere run until all of the larvae were
emrained. which generally occurred in less than 5 minutes. The larvae were recovered from the
screen discharge pipe in a 500 p mesh net. Condition and length of the recovered specimens was
then recorded and the surviving larvae were held separately for later experiments.

More than 1.000 larval striped bass were used in 42 tests. Swimming performance and ability to
avoid entrainment was rated on an individual and group basis. Avoidance behavior was
displayed in all the experimental trials. Many specimens exhibited resistance even when c..:ontact
was made with the screen. Specimens that did not contact the screen were entrai ned more
passively.
J
Larger fish were acquired in seine colle<.:tions from nearby sources. Some striped bass were also
supplied by the onsite hatchery. The larger test specimens were given 4-16 hours· to acclimate to
the test flume water and another 5-20 minutes to acclimate to the test cage. Two different
testing procedures were used for the tc:sts with larger fish. In the first procedure, the screen
vdocity was -;tarted at a set rate and then increased 0.06 m/s 10.2 ft/s) at 10-minute intervals until
the maximum rate was reached. The second procedure used a similar incremental increaSe: in
velocity. however. the velocities were held constant for 30-minute intervals. The specimens
were monitored continuously throughout the testing period for impingement. entrainment. and
behavior.

The major factors that influencc:d impi ngement included intake ,·clocity, fish size. and behavior.
The impingement study of IJ.rger fish used a total of 1.387 fish representing ::!0 species (Table
5--+ ). Intake velocities up to 0.5 m/s 1 1.53 ft/s l were tc:stcd v•ith the I0.2 mm (0.40 in) slot width
~~.-rcen. The majority of the experiments were wnducted in the static mode 1i.e.. no ~hannd
now l with fi~h contained in dose proximity ro the screen. The authors assumed that these were
\\·orst-case conditions due to constant c:~posure and Jack of hypuss currents to kssen entrainment
and impingcrnent. Fish intcra<.:tions with the sl'ret!ns were rare in tests conducted in the dynamic
mode 1i.e .. with channd tlov. ). lmpingem<.:nt and interaction of fi,h \\ ith the saeens varied hy
..;pt:cics. Of the 1.318 fish tested in the sraric.: mode. only :!W=( of the ::!6 I fish that be<.:arne
impinged failed to escape the sm:en after impingement. The authors suggest that handling stress
~ "!")
)·-­
may ha,·c: ~ontrihuted to fish that exp<:ri~n<.:~.:d prolong~d impingement. Thirt) -four specimens
dic:d as a rc:su!t of testing. The authors note that most of thc:sc: fish were: in poor ~ondition prior
tL> the impingement trials !Hanson et at. 1977J.

5-23
 y\\1\ ,/
,'.> \r I .) .,
vr ,~~
.J / v
) ) ·"'"·

Table 5-4
Impingement Occurrence (Hanson et al; 1978)
Mean
Intake Susceptibility
Species n FL (mm) 1.0: Escapes Fish-min! Impingement
Velocity (ftJs) Index•
Duration (min.)
•

alewtle 37 37·65 0.50·1 .50 0 -­ -­ -­ 0.0000

Atlantic menhaden 77 38-1 45 0.50-1 .50 15 12 34.25 2.28 0.0164
, bay anchovy 68 25-71 0.50-1.50 85 73 214.95 2.53 0.1202
carp 39 17·30 0.00-0 .79 7 7 26.00 3.71 0.0118
silvery mtnnow 4 30-31 0.50-1 .50 0 .. -­ -­ 0.0000
golden shiner 14 35-56 0 .21-1 .42 0 -­ -­ -­ 0.0000
~ spottail shiner 34 23-77 0.50-1.50 5 1 186.01 37.20 0.2989
banded killifish 10 34-89 0.96-1 .42 0 ·­ -­ ·­ --­ -
0.0000
mummichog 7 37-75 0.98-1.42 0 -· -­ -- 0.0000
tidewater silverside 44 27-81 0.41-1.50 5 5 0.29 0.06 0.0001
Atlantic silverside 136 34-95 0.50-1.50 7 7 0.09 0.01 T'
threespine stickleback 1 23 1.00 2 2 0.04 0.02 0.0013
white perch 96 21-41 0.50-1.$0 24 24 4.79 0.20 0.0017
~ striped bass 648 8 -151 0.31 -1.50 77 49 996.96 12.95 0 .0335
pumpkinseed 3 70-91 1.50 0 ·­ -­ -· 0.0000
bluegill 30 25-98 0.20-1 .50 0 -­ -­ -- 0.0000
~
yellow perch 18 34-40 0.50-1.50 0 ·­ -- -­ 0.0000
bluefish 4 64-135 0.41-1.25 0 -­ - -­ ( 0 .0000
weakfish 53 31-93 0.50-1 .50 13 13 0.70 0.05 0.0004
-,a:. spot 64 36-98 0.50-1.50 23 19 71.65 3.12 0.0427
·u l_ = lruprll!!<'llll'nl 1knrrr,·n,·.:
h'h-urin '~ th,· '"nr 11l lh1' pnl\hr..:h 111 th..: numt>..:r of fish an<.lth<· tirn.: cxpn:-...:..1 H> any <'I'Cilt
Stt>..:,·pubiht) ln1k~ ~ 11.0. I· .S./1.0. + lllt'.M.fr.I:.M . l
wh.-r,·:

1.<l. j, th..: number nf 1111ping.:m•·nt un:urrcnn:s

L:.s. i,. th,· rnrtnh,·r ,,r ,.,,.a1x,,.
1: .i\1 . "' lr,h-nu n imptng,·J
T . l · .~l "l•>l.rl fhh ·mrn '''I'"M'd

T..:O OCll lll)

.S-2-l

-
 Th<::-.c.: laboratory •audies w~rt! fo!lo\\-ed b~ in ~ itu tt!~t.\ tm the Chc:sap~ake and Oc:Jawan: Canal.
A re~t facility was installc!d with a ..;ingk 1-mm slot ,..,edgcwire snc::en ~apabk of withdrawing up .
tn -+...+ m /s t 15-+ cf:-. l with a corresponding slot ,.c: locity of 0.2-+ m/s !0.8 ftls ). A sc:rko; l)f 2-+-hr
:-;rudies wa~ cond01:tc:d once each momh from Junc through Sept~m bcr. Samples wl!n.· takc:n
t:\'ery 3 hour:-. in conjun~tion with concurrent ichth) oplankton tov.:s at a nearby station. The
rnajorit~ of t!ggs c.:olle1.'tc!d were bay anc.:hovy. Whitt! perch and ha) anchovy accounted for the
majority of lan·ae collected. Stat istical analysis showc:d that the density of prolan at!. po:-.t­
larvae. juvenile. and all life stages combined '"·as significantly lower in entrainment ~amples than
in towed ichthyoplankton samples 1Hanson et al. 1978).

Field Evaluation -Narragansett Bay, Rl; Portage River, OH; and Chesapeake Bay,
VA
EPRI conducted field evaluations of narrow-slot wedgewire scree ns to examine entrainment
rates of naturally-occurring fish species and life stages at three sires with unique hydraulic and
environmental conditions. The previous EPRI laboratory study (EPRI 2003) identified key
aspects of design and operation that affect the biological performance of narrow-slot wedgc:wire
screens. The subsequent EPRI field studies were conducted as follow-up testing to quantify th~
effects of environmental variables. such as non-uniform tlows, debris. and biofouling. on
entrainment of ichthyoplankton. Specifically. the initial objective was to estimate entrainment
rates of naturally-occurring fish species from one <:stuarine site and one freshwater site through
0.5 and 1.0-mm wcdgewirc screens. A second estuarine site was selected for testing after the
tirst year of study was completed at the first two sites.

A tloaring barge test facility was constructed specifica lly for the:: field evaluations of wedgewire
screens <Figure 5-8). The barge had intakes for two wedgewire screens and an open port on the
bow. The port-side intake was capped with a 0.5-mm slot cylindrical screen and the starboard­
side intake was capped with a 1.0-mm slot cy lindrical screen. The open port was capped with a
9.5-mm (3/8-inJ coarse debris screen and was located between the two wcdgewire screen intakes.
Two hydraulically driven fish pumps were used to withdraw water through the open port
(control) intake and either one of the two wedgewire screen (treatment) intakes. Water was
discharged into 330-J.l mesh plankton nets to collect entrained ichthyoplankton . Ambient
ichthyoplankton density was determined by sampling from the side of the barge with a 335-J.l
mesh plankton net.

S-25
 NE:TS (TYP}
,r- PUMPS
,.-- 0.5 mm
I SCREE"'

9.5 mm
DBARGE"
D '3CUARE: r.AE:SH

- FLOW
1.0 mm
5CREEN

PLAN

5AMPLING NET

SAMPLI N G PIPE
(TYP)

-FLOW

EU!VATION

Figure 5·12
Test Facility in Plan and Elevation View. Note That Flexible Hoses Connecting Pumps to
Sampling Pipes Have Been Omitted from Both Views For Clarity.
 The two test ~cr~ens were L'Onstructed of ~in!!lc -~crecn. ~rainless sted. wcd!:!e\vire dohnsun
S-.:n:en~). The control intake simulated the c~nical intakes found ar the maiurity of conventional
tr:.m::ling water screens. The 0.5-mm screen was 41 em j 16.1 in) in diameter and ~6 em ( 18.1 in)
in length with a discharge diamct~r of20 em (7.9 in). The 1.0-mm screen was JO em ( 11.8 in) in
diameter and 36 ~:m ( 14.2 in) in length \vith a discharge diameter of I 5 em ( 5.9 in). Porosities of
the 0.5-mm scn:cn. 1.0-mm screen. and the 9 .5-mm mesh-covered control pon were 23.8. 38.5.
and 70.6(: u n:specti,·ely. Sizing of the wedgewire screens and control intake wc:n: such that
respective through-slot velocities were equal at a given flow rate.

The tirst estuarine site seletcted for testing was on the Sakonnet Rivc:r within !'iarragansett Bay
and was selected for its abundance of target species and absence of dredging activity. Testing
was conducted tive to seven days per week in April and May of 2004. The barge was moored
approximately 100m from the eastern shore of the river in 15.7-m deep water. The intakes were
positioned at a depth 1.5 m (on center) below the water surface. Six trials averaging 55 minutes I
.;
in duration were completed daily. Sampling was conducted from one hour after high tide until ;
one hour after low tide. I
f

The independent variables evaluated· in this study included slot width (0.5 and 1.0 mm), screen
slot velocity (0.15 and 0.30 m/s). and ambient velocity (0 to 1.1 rn!s). Each combination of
·treatment conditions was replicated I0 times. All collected larvae were enumerated. identified to
species when possible, and preserved for subsequent analysis. A subset of individuals was
measured for length and head capsule depth (HCD). An ambient sample averaging 60 m ' was
collected with a plankton net towed 20m downstream of the test facility at a depth of 1.5 m.
This ambient sample served to characterize species composition and densities. Comparative
densities of entrained eggs and larvae between paired test and control intakes provided relative
cffectiwness measurements of entrainment reduction.

The freshwater site was located on the Portage River approximately 600 m upstream of Lake
I
Eric. This site was selected for its high concentrations of target great lakes species. Testing was
conducted seven days a week in May and June of 2004 and is procedurally similar to the
Sakonnet River site unless otherwise noted. The barge was moored in 2.4-m deep water. The
intakes were positioned 1.2 m below the water surface. Unlike the tidal estuarine sites, the
effects of ambient water velocity could not be ascertaint:d due to the absence of any predictable
variation in water velocities. Therefore. two trials. averaging 4 hours in duration. were
conducted daily to maximize sample sizes. Each pair of trials evaluated the same slot size. ou t
different slot velocities. Each test condition was replicated 10 times. To minimize mechanical
damage to larvae, entrainment nets were rinsed hourly during each 4-hr trial. All collected
larvae were enumerated. identified to spccii.!S \\.:hen possible. and preserved for subsequent
analysis. An ambient ichthyoplankton sample averaging 60 m' was collected for each trial by
towing a plankton net 20m behind a john boat. Comparisons between treatment and control
entrainment dt!nsities were analyzed as described above for the Sakkonet River site.

5-27
 .-\ wtal of II specie!:\ of larval tish were collected during the Sakonnct Rin:r :-;ampling. Sand
lanct:. winter tloundt:r. and grubby cnmprised 51. 34, and IY:C. respedi,·ely. of all larval tish
wlk~ted. These \\'ere the only species colh!cwd in ~ufticient quantit) for statistical analysis. A
tOtal of 15 spt:cics of larval ti~hes \\ere collected d uring the: Portage Rin!r sampling. While 93q
of alllan·ae collected at this frc:shwater site wt!rc: shad spt:cies !Ciupeidael. sufficient numbers of
Carp fCyprinidaeJ. frc:~hwater drum. and tempt:rate basst:s t\1orone spp.l were collected to allow
statistical analysis.

I The mean densities of all larvae and eggs collected in treatment. control. and ambient samples
during Sukonnet River testing are presented in Table 5-5 through Table 5-8. For grubby, the 0.5­
mm screen signiticantly reduct:d entrainment by more than 9:!'« for all length ..::lasses combined.
For larvae gn:ater than 7 mm in length, the reduction increased to IOOllc. The 1.0-mm scrt!cn
significantly reduced entrainment of grubby over 7 mm by 8-lt}. The 0.5-mm screen
significantly reduced the entrainment of sand lance by 80 and 93% for all length classes
combined. The I.0-mm screen offered no significant reduction in entrainment for sand lance.
For winter flounder. which were considerably smaller than other species. the 0.5-mm screen
significantly reduced entrainment of all combined length classe~ by 44 -56lfi:-. The 1.0-mm
screen did not offer any significant reduction in entrainment to winter flounder. Both the 0.5­
and 1.0-mm screens significantly reduced entrainment of 4 to 6-mm shad by 62 and 47lfi:-,
respectivdy. at the higher slot velocity !O.JO mls). but not at rhe loWer slot velocity 10.15 m/s).
Overall, the 0.5-mm screen reduced the entrainme nt of all larvae at the Sakonnet River site by 82
and 7:!'K at the 0.15 and 0.30 m/s slot velocities. respectively. For all larvae combined, the 1.0­
mm screen offered no significant reduction in entrainmt.:nt at either slot velocity. The 0.5-mm
screen significantly reduced the entrainment of eggs by 93 and I QQS( at slot velocities of 0.15
and 0.30 m/s, respectively (Table 5-13). Although mean densities were lower in treatment
samples. no significant reduction in the entrainment of eggs was observed with the 1.0-mm
screen.

The mean densities of all larvae and eggs collected in treatment. control. and ambient samples
during Portage River testing arc presented in Table 5-9 through Table 5-14. For shad. the 0.5­
mm screen only produced a significant reduction in entrainment (98lfi:- reduction) at a s lot
velocity of 0. I5 mls for fish between i and 9 mm. Similarly. the l.O-mm screen only produced a
significant reduction in entrainment under one test condition. a 4.7<;t reduction at a slot velocity
Of 0.30 m/s for fish between 4 and 6 mm. For carp, the 0.5-mm screen produced no significant
reduction in entrainment. while the 1.0-mm screen did at 0.30 rnls. For freshwater drum. there
were no significant reductions in enrraimnent at any test condirions despite large differences
bet~een treatment and control densities. For temperate basses. despite reductions o\·er controls
tlf over 65c;( for each test condition. the statistical analy~is n.:vcaled no significant differences in
dcnsities. The pauciry of carp. freshwater drum. and temperate bass collected during this study
(lc:ss than 5\-r of the total J limited the statistical power of the anal)'sis. The 0.5-mm screen
signifi~..:antly reduced the entrainmenr of eggs by 98 and 939( at s lot veloci ties of 0.15 and 0.30
m/s. respectively !Table 5-1-ll. Although the:! mean den~it} of eggs at 0. I 5 m/s with the 1.0-mrn
.;ereen \\as considcrahly lo~ er. no ~igni fie ant reduction \\as dch.:ctcd in the analy~is.

5-::!R
 Table 5-S
Meah density and standard deviation (SO) of grubby .larvae collected at the Sakkonet River
site in ambient, control. and test samples during trials with 0.5 and 1.0 mm screens at slot
velocities of 0.15 and 0.30 m/s. C-T is the percent difference between test and control
densities.a Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between test and control
densities (p<0.05}.
! I I
Slot I' Slot , Larval Mean Number Entrained per 100 m' (SO) C-T Percent i
Width Velocity Length Difference f
(mm) (mls ) 1 (mm ) Amblent Cont roI Test (V81
r d T.
nals) i
I i !
l
li
I
i
0.5 I 0.15
.i S3 I
!
0.7 (2.4) 0.9 (2.4) 0.1 (0.4) 92.5 (7)

! i 4-6 12.2 (15.5) ! 8.9 (14.0) 0.4 (0.9) 9s.e (19r !

i i
I
!
l 7-9 I
;
I
I
5.9 (7.9) 3.2 (7.2) 0.0 (0.0) 100.0 (10t

~10 ; 0.8 (1 .3) 0.7(1.7) 0.0 (0.0) 100.0 (St

All I 19.5 (23.2) 13.7 (23.2) 0.4 (1.2) 96.7 (19t

I
;

0.30 ::;3 ! 0.0 (0.0) I 0.1 (0.5) 0.0 (0.2) 77.8 (4)
l
I
! 4-6 ! 8.9 (9.2) 7.6 (1 3.8) 0.7 (1.1) 90.2 (23)*

7-9 j 1.6 (3.3)

I 2.3 (4.9) 0.0 (0.0) 100.0 (12t

L ~10 !
I
0.5 (0.7) 0.4 (0.8) 0.0 (0.0) 100.0 (7).

I All
r 12.5(11.4)
I 10.4 (18.0)
I
0.8 (1.1) 92.5 (23t

1.0 0.15 $3 0.6 (2.0) I 1.5 (3.9) 0.8 (2.5) 44.6 (13)
I
4-6 I 6.5 {5.8) 7.3 (16.6) 4.8 (9.3) 33.7 (26)

f. ·7-9 !
I
1.8 (4.8) 1.8 (4.4) 0.3 (1.6) 83.8 (9t I
i
~ 10 i 0.8(2.1)
I 0.2 (0.9) 0 .0 (0.0) N/Ae
'
I
I i All I
9.9 {10.3) 10.8 (22.8) 6.0 {11.8) 44.5 (26)*
! 0.30 I
'
~3 !' 0.3 (0.9) 0.5 {0.9)
I 0 .2 (0.4) 63.2 (7) '

l
!
4-6 i
I 3.7 (6.4)
'
5.2 (12.0) 3.3 (6.2) I
I
35.9 (18)

I 7-9 I 2.6 (5.6) .J

i
1.7(3.5)
I
0.2 (0.9)
i
I
89.1 (1 0)*
I
I

~1 0 2.0 (4.9) 0.0 (0.2) 0 .0 (0.'0)

All 8.6 (16.5) 7.3 {15.3) 3.7 (7.0) 50. 1 (21t

:1 "C-T Pacem Diff.:rl!ncc" i~ ..::~kulatcd as [r .:~mlrol densit)' minus te~1 (knsily) di\'idcd !'l) ~:ontrol density!. Thu~.
r(>,i li\'t: \'aluc' indi.:;u.: lo\\t:r dcn~ilics in t.:st ~ample~ .
h ln., ut'tki.:nt Jma Ji1r meaningful ~·omp:trison
 Table 5-6
Mean density and standard deviation (SO) of sand lance larvae collected at the Sakkonet River
site in ambient, control, and test samples during trials w ith 0.5 and 1.0 mm screens at slot
velocities of 0.15 and 0.30 mls. c-r
is the percent difference between test and control
densities: Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between test and control
- densities (P<O.OS).
i Slot Slot I Larval Mean Number Entrained per 100 m' (SO) C-T Percent !
j Width
J
1 i
Velocity Length
. Difference j
I
(mm) I (m/s) (mm) Ambient ! Control i Test (Valid Trials) ,
I

:
0.5 0.15 ~5 '
'
:
0.0 (0.0) 0.8(1 .7)
l 0.2 (0.6) 78.6 (6).
J
I
i

6-10 57.6 (80.2) 43.6 (102.9) 2.9 (7.5) 93.4 (16). r

'
I

i 11-15 ' 34.9 {45.0) 4.7 (13.6) 0.1 (0.3) 98.8 (8)"
! '
.
I

~16 0.7(1.4) 0.1 (0.5) 0.0 (0.0) 100.0 (2)

All ' 91.6 (114.6) 47.5 (112.6) 3.2 (7.5) 93.3 (17)"

i 0.30 !>5
' 0.0 (0.0) 1., (3.0) 0.9 (1.9) 15.0(11)
' I
6-10
'
i
I
38.5 (56.0) 20.0 (35.9) l 4.0 (9.1) 80.0 (20)" I
11-15 ~ 28.8 (97.4) 1.3 (2.4) 0.1 (0.2) 95.9 (12)"

~16 I 5.8 (17.4) 0.3 (1.0) 0.0 (0.0) 100.0 (4 )

All ' 87.5 (134.4) 24.9 (38.9) 4.9 (9.8) 80.2 (23)*
L '

I 1.0 0.15 ::;s i 0.0 (0.0) 0.9 (2.1 ) 1.0(3.1) -15.3 (8)
I
6-10
i 41.5 (49.3) 10.3(16.1) 13.4 (20.0) -·2 9.8 (23) I
, 1-15 l 32.6 (49.8) 1.4 (2.9) I
i , .1 (3.6) 23.9 ( 11) 1
-~ 16 7.6 (25.3) 0.2(1.1} 0.0 (0.0) N/A"'
I I

I
All I
!
81.8 (89.8) 12.8 (1 8.8) 15.5 (23.0) -20.8 (24)

:;s
I
I
0.30 II 0.0 (0.0) 0.8 (1.7)
J 0.9 (2.3) -13.2 (9) '

!
i '
II i
I
6-10 ' 61.0 (88 .4) 20.0 (40.1) i 19.5 (33.3) I
2.5 (14) i
;
i
! II I , 1·15
I

'
50.1 (51.9) 1.0 (1.6)
l 1.4 (2.5) -43. 7(~~
I
I
J
I
I I 100.0 (4)
2 16 29.8 (39.5) 0.2 (0.3) 0.0 (0.0)
i I I
! I
i
i i . All : 111.8 (122.1) 1 19.0 (35.4)
'
iI 18.6 (33.1) 2.2(21 ) I
I

··c -T Pcrc.:nt Difkr.:nct'·· is t:akui:Hco a~ If control tknsit:v minu~ lt.!S( tkn~ity' di \ iu.:o hy control o.:n.-.il:V '· Thus.
po.;iti\~ \:llu~-. inoi.:alc: l.mc:r •kn:-.iri~, in l..:'t :-.ampk.;.
· ln~u ftkio..:nt data l(lr m.:aningful ..:ornpari~•ln
 Cylindrical \l"t•d:/t'"·irc Scrt't'll.t

Table 5-7
Mean density and standard deviation (SO) of winter flounder larvae collected at the Sakkonet
River site in ambient, control, and test samples during trials with 0.5 and 1.0 mm screens at
slot velocities of 0.15 and 0.30 m/s. C·T is the percent difference between test and control
densities: Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between test and control
densities (pc:O.OS).

I
'
Slot
Width .
II Slot
Velocity
Larval
Length
! Mean Number Entrained per 100 m• (SO) C·T Percent I
Difference I
i
(mm) (mm) Ambient Control Test (Valid Trials) :
l I (m/s) I
i 0. 5 0.15 :>:3
I
I 13.5 (12.9) . 12.3 (12.0) ! 8.2 (11 .8) 33.6 (24)" I
I

t
. 4·6 ' 16.0 (14.0) 13.4 (18.3)
i
I
3., (5.4) 76.9 (20)"

7·9 i 1.9 (2.3) 0.0 (0) ! 0.0 (0.0) N/Ac

' '
~ 10 ! 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0.0) N/Ab

All I 31.4 (19.5) 25.7 (26.0) 11.3 (14.7) 56.2 (24)"

I

0.30 !3
l 17.5 (16.9) 6.0 (5.3) 5.3 (5.9) 10.9 (26)
j

I 4-6
l 45.6 (82.5) 11.4 (12.4) 4.4 (6.6) I 61.2 (24)* !
7-9 i 5.0 (13.5)
I 0.0 (0.2) 0.0 (0.2) -30.6 (2)

I <:10 I
'
I
0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)
i N/Ab

All 77.0 (89.9) 17.4 (15) 9 .8 (11.0) 43.8 (26)"

1.0 0.15 ~3
I 30.0 (22.0) 10.1 (8.8) 12.0 (9.0) -1 8.6 (30)

I 4-6 i 34.5 (19.8)

!
10.0 (10.2) 9.4 (12.0) 5.8 (31)

I '
7-9 ! 3.1 (8.0) 0.3 (1.1) 0 .3 (1.5) -16.4 (4)

~ 10
I 0.1 (0.4) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) N/Ab
i

All ! 67.7 (29.8) 20.4 (16.2) 21 .7 (17.0) -6.7 (3'1)

I

i 0.30 S3
'
j 18.2 (1 6.5)
i
5.9 (6.1} 4.3 (4.9) 26.6 (24)

I 4-6 '
I 14.7 (12.6) I 9.0 (8.8) 8.0 (11.0) 11.0 (22)

I I 7-9 I
I
0.7 (1.4)
l 0.2 (0.6) 0 .1 (0.3)
I 44.2 (4)
!
i ! I
NiAb j
l ~ 10 ' 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)
! 0.0 (0.0)
I

! I I All 33.3 (20.6) 14.5 (14.7) I

I
12.1 (13.1)
i 16.9 (25)
l
"'C-T P.:n:cnt Dift'cn!IK'<!.. is c:tkula!cd as [C<.:omrol densit y minus (<!S( ucn,ityJ divided hy o.:onrml dc:n,it) [. Thus.
pmitin: ,·aJu.:' indio.:arr.: ln".:r dc1bi!~o.:s in 1o.:"t 'ample~.
· llhufticicm Jaw li>r mc:111rngfu l ,·,llnpun.;on

5-31
 Table 5-8
Mean density and standard deviation (SO) of larvae {all species) collected at the Sakkonet
River site in ambient, control, and test samples during trials w ith 0.5 and 1.0 mm screens at
slot velocities of 0.15 and 0.30 mls. C-T is the percent difference between test and control
densities: Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between test and control
densities (p<0.05).

Slot Slot j Larval 1 Mean Number Entrained per 100 m' (SO) I C-T Percent !
I Width j Velocity Length
' Difference j
1

!
(mm) (mls)
I (mm)
'
'
Ambient I Control Test (Valid Trials} J
I i I I
0.5 0.15
I :S3
' 13.5 (11.7) 12.7 (12.2) 7.7 (11.1 ) 39.2 (28t !

' I i
4·6
!
:
32.7 (28.6) · J 24.6 (30.6) II 4.6 (7.2) 81.2(25).

' I

I
7·9
I 39.8 (56.4) 28.1 (69.5) 1.7 (5.3) 93.8 (18r
I 98.8 (13)*
~10 49.5 (70.4) 15.8 (46.0) 0.2 (0.8)
'
I
I
I All l 135.5 (133.5) 81.1 (144.8) 14.5 ( 19."6) 82.2 (29)*

0.30 S3 ' 18.1 (16.4) 6.1 (5.5) 5.0 (5.7) 17.2 (29)
I

I 4·6 52.1 (82.0) I 23.8 (29.5) 6.4 (9.1) 73.2 (27)*

7·9 ) 30.0 (45.0) 17.3 (28.3) 2.6 (6.6) 85.2 (23)*

<!:10
'
I 88.6(177.5) . 5.3 (8.1) 0.1 (0.6) 97.2 (19)*
' I 14.5 (17.7)
AIt 1 21?.5 (194.7l 52.6 (65.2) 72.4 (29)*

1.0 0.15 .s3

I 30.2 (21.9) 11.7 (9.8) 12.7 (9.5) -8.4 (31)

I 4-6 I 41.6 (18.6) 18.2 (21.2) 16.2 (20.0) 10.7 (32)

! 7-9 I 32.9 (43.2) 10.0(15.8)

'
i 10.1 (16.3) -0.3 (23)

i ~ 10 l 61.7(79.1) 3.6 (7.7) 3.1 (8.9) 14.5 (16) I

'
All i! 166.4 (96.8) 43.5 (44.7) 42.2 (42.1) 2.9 (32)
i
I 0.30 :5'3 18.8 (15.6) 5.8 (6.2) 4.7 (5.0) 18.9 (29)
I
i i
I '
! 15.1 (22. 1)
.I
4-6 I 18.0 (15.7) 18.5 (24.4) 18.5 (28)
I I

Ir 7·9 41.2 (79.1) 14.3 (27.8) i 12.4 (23.8) 13.0 (24)

i
I ' 75.1 (89.1) :
I I ~10
'
3.7 (4.1) 2 .8 (5.3)
I
1
23.1 (25)

i I All j 1s3.2 (147.o> 1 43.3 (56.5) 35.7 (49.3)

l 17.6 (30)

""C-T Pcn:..:nt Dilh:rcncc"" i~ cakulatcd a., !I cont rol dcn~ity minus test density) divided o~ c.:nntrol dcn.;ity 1. Th us.
pn~1ti'.:
'aluc:' indic.:atc ltmc:r tlcn~iti..:~ inlc:~t ,amrk~.
 Table 5·9
Mean density and standard deviation (SO) of carp spp. larvae collected at the Portage River
site in ambient, control, and test samples during trials with 0.5 and 1.0 mm screens at slot
velocities of 0.15 and 0.30 m/s. C-T is the percent difference between test and control
densities." Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between test and control
densities (pc:0.05).

I
II
I
Slot
Widt h
Slot 1 Mean Number Entrained P&r 100 m• (SO)
I
Velocity ;
I C T Percent
~ifference j
I (mm) . (m/s) : Ambient III Control Test (Valid Trials) 1

0.5 0.15 !
I
0.3 (0.9) i 2.2 (5.6) 2.7 (7.2) -22.1 (7)

I 0.30 I 0.0 (0.0) I 1.5 (2.9) 1.1 (1 .5) 22.3 {6)

I

I i
1.0 0.1 5
'
i
3.6 (7.4) Ii 1.3 (2 .5) 2. 1 (3.7) -65.5 (6)

0.30
l 12.4 (25.2)
I 6.0 {9.3) I 2.7 (5.1) 54.3 (7r

• "C-T Percent Diffcrenc.:c" is calculated as ((conrrol density minus test density I div ided by control dcnsity J. Thus.
positive: ,·alues indic:uc lower densities in test samples.

Table 5-10
Mean density and standard deviation (SO) of freshwater drum larvae collected at the Portage
River site in ambient, control, and test samples during trials with 0.5 and 1.0 mm screens at
slot velocities of 0.15 and 0.30 mls. C·T is the percent difference between test and control
densities." Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between test and control
densities (pc:0.05).

Slot
Width
(mm)

0.5
Slot
Velocity
(m/s)

0. 15

0.30
Mean Number Entrained per 100m' (SO)

Ambient

1.6 (4.2)

43.1 (131.5)
I
i
!
I
I
Control

2.5 {5.5)

14.2 (36.4)
Test

0.1 (0.2)

0.6 (1 .6)
C-T Percent
Difference
(Valid Trials)

96.4 (4)

95.9 {4)
'
1.0 0.15
r
I
19.7 (52.0) I 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.3) N/Ab

I 0.30 j 199.3 (549.6) 1 9.9(19.9) 2.8 {5.5) 71.7(2)

· ··c-T Pcn:c.:nt Diff.:rcm:c:" is cakulatc:d a~ (!l:onrrol l.lensity minus tc:st dc.:nsityl l.li"idc.:d hy control dc.:nsit> ). Thus.
ro~iti\'C:
\ aluc:s indicate.: lu\~l!r densities in test sampk~.

5-.~J