`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`January 15, 2024
`
`
`
`
`Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
`Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
`888 First Street, NE
`Washington, DC 20426
`
`RE: Milford (FERC No. 2534), Orono (FERC No. 2710), and Stillwater (FERC No. 2712) Projects;
`2023 Diadromous Fish Passage Study Report
`
`
`Dear Secretary Bose:
`
`On behalf of the licensees for the Projects listed below, Black Bear Hydro Partners, LLC is filing this
`2023 Diadromous Fish Passage Study Report for studies conducted at the Milford, Stillwater, and
`Orono hydroelectric projects, which are located on the Penobscot River in Maine:
`
`
`• Milford Project (FERC No. 2534), licensed to Black Bear Hydro Partners, LLC
`• Orono Project (FERC No. 2710), licensed to Black Bear Hydro Partners, LLC; Black Bear
`SO, LLC; and Black Bear Development Holdings, LLC
`• Stillwater Project (FERC No. 2712), licensed to Black Bear Hydro Partners, LLC; Black Bear
`SO, LLC; and Black Bear Development Holdings, LLC (collectively, “Black Bear”)
`
`
`Background
`
`Pursuant to Commission Orders “Amending License and Revising Annual Charges” for the Orono
`and Stillwater Projects (both dated September 14, 2012) and “Approving Fish Passage Design
`Drawings Under Articles 407 and 408” for the Milford Project (dated October 9, 2012), and consistent
`with the June 25, 2004 Lower Penobscot River Multiparty Settlement Agreement (Settlement
`Agreement), aspects of which were incorporated into the Orono Project license on December 8, 2005
`and the Milford and Stillwater Project licenses on April 18, 2005, the licensees constructed and
`installed upstream and downstream fish passage systems at the Milford, Orono, and Stillwater
`(downstream only) Projects in 2013 and 2014 to facilitate the passage of diadromous fish species on
`the Penobscot River. Articles 409, 411, and 408 of the Milford, Orono, and Stillwater Project licenses,
`respectively, also require evaluations of the constructed fishways to determine their effectiveness at
`passing alosines (collectively American shad, blueback herring, and sea run alewives) and American
`eels. The Commission-approved Species Protection Plan (SPP) and National Marine Fisheries
`Service’s (NMFS’s) 2012 Biological Opinion (BiOp) outline the passage effectiveness requirements
`for upstream and downstream-migrating Atlantic salmon adults and outmigrating juveniles (smolts).
`
` A
`
` summary of the quantitative monitoring studies conducted to date on the upstream and downstream
`Project fish passages are provided in Table 1 below. Additional diadromous fish passage studies
`conducted by the licensees at these Projects since 2014 for Atlantic salmon have been reported1
`separately to the Commission, as have the results of ongoing upstream eel monitoring efforts on the
`lower Penobscot River2.
`
`
`1 Annual Atlantic Salmon Species Protection Plan Report of Activities for Milford, Orono, Stillwater, West Enfield and
`Medway Projects are filed annually by March 30th.
`
` 2
`
` Annual Upstream Eel Fishway Operation, Monitoring, and Maintenance Report for Milford, Orono, Stillwater and
`West Enfield are filed with the Commission and the MDEP annually by March 31st.
`BLACK BEAR HYDRO PARTNERS, LLC
`1 Bridge Street, Milford, ME 04461
` T + 1 207.827.2247 F +1 207.827.4102 brookfieldrenewableUS.com
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Species Stillwater
`Upstream
`Salmon –
`NA
`juvenile
`Salmon -
`adult
`
`NA
`
`Shad -
`juvenile
`Shad -
`adult
`Herring -
`juvenile
`Herring -
`adult
`Eel - adult
`Eel -
`juvenile
`
`NA
`
`NA
`
`NA
`
`NA
`
`NA
`2014; 2016;
`2017; 2022
`
`Stillwater
`Downstream
`2014-2018
`10 yrs
`following smolt
`enhancements
`By proxy -
`2020 alosine
`study
`2017; 2018
`
`2020
`
`2018
`2016; 2021
`reanalysis
`NA
`
`Table 1 - Diadromous Fish Studies Conducted by Black Bear
`at the Stillwater, Orono and Milford Projects
`
`Orono
`Upstream
`NA
`
`Orono
`Downstream
`2014-2018
`10 yrs
`following smolt
`enhancements
`By proxy -
`2020 alosine
`study
`2017; 2018
`
`Milford
`Upstream
`NA
`
`2014; 2015
`
`NA
`
`2022
`
`2020
`
`2018
`2016; 2021
`reanalysis
`NA
`
`NA
`2015; 2019;
`2021
`NA
`2008 –
`2018
`
`Milford
`Downstream
`2014-2018
`10 yrs
`following smolt
`enhancements
`By proxy -
`2020 alosine
`study
`2017; 2018
`2020; 2021
`(sensor fish)
`2018
`2016; 2021
`reanalysis
`NA
`
`2014; 2015
`
`NA
`
`--
`
`NA
`
`2015; 2021
`
`NA
`2014; 2016;
`2022
`
`In addition, the licensees have conducted several years of qualitative fish passage evaluation and
`continued collaboration with the Maine Department of Marine Resources (MDMR) to collect upstream
`fish lift tallies of migratory fish at the Milford and Orono Projects in 2023 (see Table 2), including the
`trucking of river herring (collectively, alewife and blueback herring) upriver from Orono.
`
`Table 2 - Annual counts of American shad and river herring at the Milford and Orono Project
`fish lifts in the lower Penobscot River, Maine
`
`
`
`
`
`2014
`2015
`2016
`2017
`2018
`2019
`2020
`2021
`2022
`2023
`TOTAL
`
`Milford
`American
`River
`shad
`Herring
`812
`187,429
`1,806
`589,503
`7,862
`1,259,384
`3,868
`1,256,061
`3,958
`2,174,745
`2,522
`1,987,681
`11,276
`1,952,537
`11,581
`1,731,496
`7,582
`2,852,037
`4,154
`5,490,195
`55,421
`19,481,068
`
`
`
`
`Orono
`American
`River
`
`shad
`Herring
`
`0
`2,075
`
`1
`19,016
`
`6
`78,700
`
`0
`90,483
`
`6
`93,939
`
`9
`163,126
`
`2
`111,518
`
`2
`201,565
`
`2
`230,738
`
`2
`232,045
`1,223,205
`30
`
`BUSINESS GROUP NAME
`Street Address, City, State/Province, Zip/Postal Code
`T +1 123.456.7890 F +1 123.456.7890 brookfieldrenewableUS.com
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`2023 Evaluations
`
`Upstream passage studies of the Milford fish lift for adult river herring (2019 and 2021) and American
`shad (2022) have demonstrated a significant number of failed passage attempts, many of which occur
`in the vicinity of the floor diffuser and V-gate as the fish pass through the entrance flume on their way
`to the lifting hopper. As a result of discussions with the resource agencies and Penobscot Indian
`Nation (PIN) at fish passage study planning meetings held in late 2022, an ad hoc work group
`comprised of fish passage engineers from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish
`and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and biologists from the MDMR, PIN, and Black Bear, was established
`to explore options for modifying operational parameters of the Milford fish lift facility to potentially
`improve internal fish passage efficiency.
`
`Over the course of several virtual meetings held in early 2023, the ad hoc work group reviewed the
`Milford fish lift facility design and agreed that it is constructed and is being operated according to
`fishway engineering guidelines (USFWS 2019) and as intended. While the 180° turn in the fish lift
`entrance flume was an undesirable, but necessary, design feature, there is no evidence from the
`passage studies that the turn in the entrance flume is affecting fish passage at Milford. The work
`group considered laboratory and case studies focused on a variety of topics, including fish passage
`operations and reported passage results from other facilities with similar species, and they reviewed
`literature and best available science related to fish swimming abilities (burst, sustained, and long-
`term time periods). The group was not able to identify any other fish lifts with significantly or
`consistently higher passage results for alosine species of fish than what has been observed at Milford
`to date, including those with straight entrance flumes.
`
`Based on the results of the fish passage studies conducted at Milford for river herring and shad, and
`considering the extensive review and discussions, the work group came to consensus that using
`underwater cameras to qualitatively evaluate swimming behavior and responses of fish in the
`entrance flume of the Milford fish lift to various operating conditions (with a focus on injection of the
`supplemental auxiliary attraction flow upstream of the hopper and through the floor diffuser), including
`conditions outside of the recommended fishway operating guidelines, may provide valuable insight
`as to potential permanent changes in operating parameters of the lift to improve the overall
`effectiveness of the facility.
`
`As described in the study plan submitted to the Commission on March 8, 2023, an array of underwater
`cameras were installed in the entrance flume of the fish lift to monitor fish behavior in response to
`various attraction water, V-gate, and entrance gate settings. Real-time observations were made for
`each scenario, as well as reviews of recorded video. Based on observations from the 2023 study,
`Black Bear is recommending increases in the (1) maximum range of hopper flow to a velocity of 2.5
`ft/s, (2) the maximum range of flow and head differential at the entrance to 7 ft/s and 1.25 ft.,
`respectively, and (3) the width of the V-gate from 14.4 inches to 19.2 inches (i.e., changing the PLC
`setting for the V-gate from 6.0 to 8.0).
`
`The increased hopper velocity will provide for more attraction water flow injected upstream of the
`hopper, thus reducing the impact of flow emitted through the floor diffuser. The increased flow velocity
`at the entrance of the lift (from a range of 4-6 ft/s up to 5-7 ft/s), together with an increase in head
`differential at the entrance (from a range of 0.5-1.0 ft up to 0.75-1.25 ft.), were also found to improve
`fish passage conditions. And finally, Black Bear intends to change the V-gate setting from 6.0 to 8.0
`(from 14.4 to 19.2 inches) based upon the 2023 observations. However, Black Bear will defer to
`resource agency professional judgement if a different V-gate setting is preferred.
`
`
`
`BUSINESS GROUP NAME
`Street Address, City, State/Province, Zip/Postal Code
`T +1 123.456.7890 F +1 123.456.7890 brookfieldrenewableUS.com
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Please find attached a report covering the underwater video study conducted at the Milford Project
`in 2023. A draft of the report was distributed for agency and tribal review on November 14, 2023. A
`consultation meeting was then held virtually on December 13, 2023 with the resource agencies and
`PIN to present and review the study results and to answer questions. Responses to questions and
`comments received during the December 13th meeting are provided in Appendix B of the attached
`report, while correspondences associated with the agency reviews of the report and Black Bear’s
`responses are respectively provided in Appendices C and D. Finally, a copy of the PowerPoint slides
`prepared and presented by FishTec, Inc at the December 13th meeting are attached in Appendix E
`of the report. Where appropriate, the report has been revised based on the comments received.
`
`Please feel free to contact me by e-mail at Kevin.Bernier@brookfieldrenewable.com or by phone at
`(207) 951-5006 if you have any questions or comments.
`
`
`Sincerely,
`
`
`Kevin Bernier
`Senior Compliance Specialist
`
`Attachment:
`
`cc: S. Ledwin, M. Simpson, C. Clark, J. Valliere, L. Hammer; MDMR
`D. McCaw, C. Loring, Jr.; PIN
`H. Peterson, L. Rawlings; BIA
`B. Sojkowski, J. Rosset, A. Cross; USFWS
`J. Murphy, D. Dow; NMFS
`J. Perry, K. Dunham, K. Gallant; MDIFW
`L. Paye; MDEP
`S. Michaud, D. Bates, B. Brochu, C. Goodhart, R. Dill, R. Dorman, L. Macomber,
`D. Heidrich, S. Hill, R. Smith; Black Bear
`M. Sears, FishTec, LLC
`
`
`Black Bear Files:
`Black Bear/Licensing & Compliance/Milford 2534/01 Brookfield Corres
`Black Bear/Licensing & Compliance/Orono 2710/01 Brookfield Corres
`Black Bear/Licensing & Compliance/Stillwater 2712/01 Brookfield Corres
`
`
`
`
`
`BUSINESS GROUP NAME
`Street Address, City, State/Province, Zip/Postal Code
`T +1 123.456.7890 F +1 123.456.7890 brookfieldrenewableUS.com
`
`

`

`2023 Upstream Fish Passage Monitoring Study Report:
`Video monitoring of the entrance flume of the Milford fish li�.
`
`Milford Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2534)
`January 2024
`
`Prepared by FishTec, LLC
`
`Prepared for Black Bear Hydro Partners, LLC
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Contents
`
`Introduc�on ...................................................................................................................................... 3
`1.0
`1.1.1
`Background ............................................................................................................................... 3
`1.1.2
`Milford Fish Li� Working Group ............................................................................................... 5
`1.1.3
`Milford Dam Fish Li� Descrip�on ............................................................................................. 6
`2.0
`Study Objec�ves ............................................................................................................................... 7
`3.0 Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 8
`4.0
`Results ............................................................................................................................................. 14
`4.1
`Environmental Condi�ons ........................................................................................................... 14
`4.2
`Video Monitoring Observa�ons .................................................................................................. 16
`4.2.1
`High Hopper Flow Se�ng Observa�ons ................................................................................. 16
`4.2.2
`Even Flow Se�ng Observa�ons .............................................................................................. 18
`4.2.3
`Lower Hopper Flow Se�ng Observa�ons............................................................................... 19
`4.2.4
`V-Gate Se�ng Observa�ons ................................................................................................... 20
`5.0
`Discussion ........................................................................................................................................ 22
`6.0
`Reference Materials ........................................................................................................................ 23
`
`
`Appendices
`
`Appendix A – Milford Fish Li� Work Group Correspondence During the Spring 2023 Field Season
`
`Appendix B – Summary of Mee�ng Notes, Ques�ons and Responses from the December 13, 2023
`Consulta�on Mee�ng
`
`Appendix C – Correspondence Related to the Distribu�on of the Dra� 2023 Milford Entrance Flume
`Upstream Fish Passage Monitoring Study Report
`
`Appendix D – Responses to Writen Comments Received on the Dra� 2023 Milford Entrance Flume
`Upstream Fish Passage Monitoring Study Report
`
`Appendix E – Study Summary Presented by FishTec, LLC at the December 13, 2023 Study Report
`Consulta�on Mee�ng
`
`Appendix F – 2023 Observa�on Data Sheets and Fishway Inspec�on Forms
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`1.0
`
`Introduc�on
`
`Black Bear Hydro Partners, LLC (Black Bear or BBHP), an affiliate of Brookfield Renewable U.S.
`(Brookfield), is the licensee for the Milford Project (FERC No. 2534), which is located on the
`Penobscot River in Penobscot County, Maine, approximately 60 river kilometers upstream from
`Verona Island in Penobscot Bay. The Penobscot River provides habitat for several species of
`migratory (diadromous) fish, including Atlan�c salmon, alosines (i.e., blueback herring, alewives,
`and American shad), sea lamprey and American eels.
`
`Pursuant to the amended license for the Milford Project and a 2004 setlement agreement between
`the licensee, state and federal agencies, Penobscot Indian Na�on (PIN), and other stakeholders, the
`licensee developed a comprehensive upstream and downstream fish passage program to facilitate
`the passage of diadromous fish species on the Penobscot River. Since installa�on the Milford Dam
`fish li� facility has passed upstream nearly 9,300 Atlan�c salmon, an es�mated 19.5 million river
`herring, and over 55,000 adult American shad.
`
`By order dated April 18, 2005, FERC amended Ar�cle 409 of the Milford Project license to require
`the licensee to develop study plans to monitor the effec�veness of the fish passage facili�es.
`Subsequently the licensee has conducted qualita�ve and quan�ta�ve upstream passage efficiency
`studies for diadromous fish present at the facility since 2014. As explained in further detail in the
`sec�ons below, this study is a follow-up on previous studies and was designed to beter understand
`and improve upstream passage efficiency at the Milford Dam fish li�.
`
`
`1.1.1 Background
`Black Bear conducted radio telemetry studies in 2019 and 2021 to evaluate upstream passage
`effec�veness at Milford for adult river herring (alewife and blue back herring, combined), and for
`adult American shad in 2022 (NAI 2020, NAI 2022, NAI 2023). These studies indicated that the
`overall passage efficiency, efficiency at the entrance of the fish li�, and internal passage efficiency
`were all higher for river herring than for shad (Table 1).
`
`
`Table 1.
`
`Milford Fish Lift Passage Efficiencies and 95% CI Observed during Telemetry
`Studies.
`
`Passage Efficiency
`Nearfield
`Entrance
`Internal
`Overall
`
`River Herring
`2019
`94.5 (88.2-97.5)
`92.2 )85.1-96.0)
`74.7 (66.3-83.0)
`65.1 (56.9-73.8)
`
`River Herring
`2021
`
`--
`96.0 (89.9-98.5)
`89.9 (83.1-95.6)
`86.1 (79.0-92.8)
`
`Shad
`2022
`84.4 (73.4-91.4)
`71.6 (58.5-81.9)
`51.1 (34.9-66.6)
`30.9 (20.5-43.0)
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`For the 2021 river herring and 2022 shad passage studies, a fine-scale detec�on telemetry array1
`was installed in the entrance flume of the fish li�, which allowed for the collec�on of highly
`accurate �ming informa�on needed to evaluate detec�ons at the various antenna loca�ons.
`
`A significant number of failed passage atempts were observed for both species, the majority of
`which occurred in the vicinity of the floor diffuser and at the V-gate. Totals of 63 and 80
`unsuccessful passage atempts to move through the entrance flume of the Milford fish li� were
`recorded for river herring and American shad, respec�vely, during the two study years. Figure 1
`provides a comparison of the percentage of unsuccessful upstream passage atempts that did not
`reach the next upstream monitoring sta�on. The percentages reported at each sta�on are based on
`the number of successful passage atempts recorded at the adjacent downstream sta�on (e.g., the
`3% failure rate at the third detec�on sta�on for American shad is based on the successful detec�on
`of 77 of the 79 passage atempts which were recorded at the second detec�on sta�on).
`
`When compared between species, a similar patern is observed with 25% to 57% (river herring and
`shad, respec�vely) of the failed passage atempts occurring in the area of the floor diffuser. It is
`recommended that as much supplemental flow as possible from the auxiliary water system (AWS)
`be injected upstream of li�ing hoppers, as flow provided via diffusers in the entrance flume
`downstream of li�ing hoppers can create confusing currents (Larinier and Travade 2002; USFWS
`2019). Other important fish passage criteria, such as velocity of flow through the hopper and the
`swimming abili�es of the fish species to be passed, must be taken into considera�on. In order to
`meet recommended fish passage guidelines (USFWS 2019), the AWS flow for the Milford fish li� has
`been injected at a rate of approximately 40% of the flow upstream of the hopper and 60% of the
`flow through the floor diffuser located downstream of the hopper. This reduces the likelihood of
`exceeding the flow velocity criteria of 1.5 �/s through the hopper established in the USFWS 2019
`primarily for blueback herring.
`
`Based upon the observa�ons of the adult river herring passage studies conducted in 2019 and 2021
`and the adult shad study conducted in 2022, the highest fallback rate for alosine species when
`moving between two adjacent monitoring sta�ons occurred from the V-gate to the hopper blocking
`screens (i.e., 69% of the failed river herring atempts and 95% of the failed shad passage atempts
`occurred in this area of the entrance flume). However, it should be noted that there is a gap in
`telemetry coverage for the area between the upstream side of the V-gate and roughly the middle of
`the hopper, so there is uncertainty as to the specific point in this area at which the fish are falling
`back (i.e., at the V-gate or immediately upstream of the V-gate).
`
`A number of factors could be contribu�ng to the fall back behavior by alosines in the entrance
`flume, including; (1) high density of fish in the entrance flume in the vicinity of the V-gate or V-gate
`opening; (2) the mechanical opera�on of the V-gate as it opens or closes during a li�ing cycle;
`
`
`1 A Hermes Coordinator, which u�lizes a GPS signal to synchronize the internal clocks within a series of Sigma Eight Orion receivers to allow for
`the collec�on of the highly accurate �ming informa�on needed to evaluate detec�ons at the various antenna loca�ons.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`and/or (3) the mechanical opera�on of the li�ing hopper (the frequency of li�s ranges from a li�
`every 10 minutes to every 25 minutes in the spring, depending on fish density).
`It is also possible that adult alosines in the Milford entrance flume may merely be responding to the
`behavior of other fish in the flume (i.e., following other fish that are backing downstream). Or that
`the presence of predatory species of fish (e.g., black bass or striped bass) within the entrance flume
`could be at �mes influencing adult alewives or shad, as well.
`
`There was consensus to establish an ad hoc work group to further evaluate poten�al causes for
`unsuccessful upstream passage, and if there are any opera�onal adjustments, op�mized se�ngs, or
`other modifica�ons that may improve the internal passage efficiency in the lower flume of the
`Milford fish li� facility.
`
`
`
`
`Note: Percentages are based on the number of unsuccessful passage attempts confirmed at the adjacent downstream station (NAI 2023).
`Figure 1:
`Species Comparison of Upstream Passage Attempts at the Milford Fish Lift.
`
`1.1.2 Milford Fish Li� Working Group
`An ad hoc work group (work group) comprised of fish passage engineers from the Na�onal Marine
`Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and biologists from the Maine
`Department of Marine Resources (MDMR), PIN, and BBHP, was established in December 2022 to
`explore op�ons for modifying opera�onal parameters of the Milford fish li� facility to poten�ally
`improve internal fish passage efficiency. This group met virtually four �mes between December 22,
`2022, and January 26, 2023, as well as corresponded on a regular basis via e-mail and met one-on-
`one, as needed.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`The work group reviewed the Milford fish li� facility design and agreed that it is constructed and is
`being operated as intended and according to fishway engineering guidelines (USFWS 2019). While
`the 180° turn in the fish li� entrance flume was an undesirable but necessary design feature due to
`limita�ons of space, there is no evidence from the past passage studies that the turn is affec�ng fish
`passage at Milford.
`
`The work group reviewed laboratory and case studies focused on a variety of topics, including fish
`passage opera�onal parameters and reported passage results from other facili�es with similar
`species, and reviewed literature and best available science related to fish swimming abili�es (burst,
`sustained, and long-term �me periods). The work group was not able to iden�fy any other fish li�s
`with significantly or consistently higher passage results for alosine species of fish than what has
`been observed at Milford to date, including those with straight entrance flumes.
`
`The work group came to consensus that using underwater cameras to qualita�vely evaluate
`swimming behavior and responses of fish in the entrance flume of the fish li� to various opera�ng
`condi�ons, including condi�ons outside of the recommended fishway opera�ng guidelines, may
`provide valuable insight as to poten�al permanent changes in opera�ng parameters of the li� to
`improve the overall effec�veness of the facility.
`
`BBHP distributed a dra� a study plan developed by the work group for agency review on February
`7, 2023. Several mee�ngs were held to finalize the study plan, and the study commenced in April of
`2023. Appendix A includes the study plan and work group correspondence before and throughout
`the study.
`
`
`1.1.3 Milford Dam Fish Li� Descrip�on
`Upstream fish passage at Milford Dam is provided via a single entrance fish li� located immediately
`downstream from the powerhouse on the east side of the tailrace. A target of 190-210 cubic feet
`per second (cfs) is provided at the entrance of the fish li� through a combina�on of conveyance
`flow from the upper flume and the auxiliary water supply system, which adds supplemental flow in
`two areas: 1) upstream of the hopper, and 2) downstream of the hopper via a floor diffuser. The
`hopper can be operated manually or automa�cally (normal opera�ng condi�on) using a
`programmable logic controller (PLC). The entrance consists of a manually adjusted “overshot”
`atrac�on flow gate (also referred to as the “flap gate”), an adjustable V-gate, and a
`blocking/diffusion screen upstream of the li�ing hopper. The entrance flume is 10-feet-wide with a
`180 degree turn leading to a 12-�-wide by 17-�-long, 4,600 gallon li�ing hopper. The li�ing hopper
`rises using a mechanical hoist approximately 20 feet, and then it discharges into a 10-foot-wide by
`300-foot-long exit flume, which passes through the east end of the powerhouse to the headpond
`upstream of the outer trashracks. The opera�onal parameters for the Milford fish li� align with
`USFWS and NMFS engineering guidelines for fish li�s that pass diadromous fish, taking into
`considera�on the presence of alewife and blueback herring (river herring), including:
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`• 4.0 - 6.0 �/s flow velocity at the entrance while maintaining a differen�al of 0.5 – 1.0 �
`• 1.5 - 4.0 �/s entrance flume flow velocity
`• 1.0 - 1.5 �/s hopper flow velocity
`• 1.0 - 1.5 �/s exit flume flow velocity
`• 14.4-inch-wide V-gate se�ng (determined previously in consulta�on with the agencies)
`
`
`
`
`2.0 Study Objec�ves
`
`In the study plan, the work group proposed that the following fish li� parameters will be the ini�al
`focus of the 2023 evalua�ons:
`
`1. AWS flow distribu�on (hopper vs. floor diffuser)
`a. The majority of the AWS flow will be injected upstream of the hopper to
`reduce/eliminate undesirable flow characteris�cs in the area of the floor diffuser
`that may be confusing fish.
`b. The group will atempt to evaluate fish behavior across a range of AWS scenarios,
`star�ng with the baseline scenario (40% hopper / 60% floor diffuser).
`c. The velocity of flow through the hopper will be calculated for each scenario and
`recorded.
`
`2. Velocity at the Entrance
`a. The range of acceptable velocity of flow at the fishway entrance will be increased to
`5.0 – 7.0 �/s (vs. recommended 4.0-6.0 �/s for river herring) in an atempt to
`improve the fish li�’s entrance efficiency.
`b. A minimum water depth of 3.0 � over the flap gate will be targeted for all scenarios
`tested.
`
`Addi�onally, the work group agreed that other secondary parameters/condi�ons may also be
`assessed during the 2023 fish passage season including, but not limited to:
`
`a. Unit 6 being turned down or off
`b. V-gate se�ng
`c. Li� frequency
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`3.0 Methodology
`
`Run �ming data for river herring and shad since 2014 were used to determine the �ming for this
`study (Table 2). The following outlines the general underwater video monitoring strategy/schedule
`agreed upon by working groups members in the study plan:
`
`1. April 15th (or when river condi�ons allow) – the fish li� will be put into opera�on for the
`season.
`a. Opera�ng parameters – start with baseline (status quo)
`b. Conduct ini�al ocular assessment for a range of AWS and entrance flow se�ngs
`
`2. By May 1 (prior to fish arrival) - cameras installed/wired/tested
`a. Conduct range of AWS and entrance flow assessments via the cameras
`
`3. First week of river herring passage season
`a. Conduct video assessments of fish behavior across the range of AWS and entrance
`flow scenarios.
`b. Effort = the amount of �me spent observing per day/week is as long as is needed to
`understand what is going on
`c. Report back to the work group for discussion and consensus on approach going
`forward
`d. Adapt approach (and poten�al fish li� se�ngs) and conduct more video monitoring
`and assessments
`e. Second week of river herring passage season
`i. Implement work group sugges�ons/ make observa�ons / report back/ adapt
`
`4. Con�nue monitoring/assessments through the peak river herring and shad upstream
`passage periods.
`
`
`Table 2.
`
`Median Run Dates for River Herring and Shad at Milford since 2014.
`
`Year
`2014
`2015
`2016
`2017
`2018
`2019
`2020
`2021
`2022
`2023
`
`Median Run Date
`River Herring
`Shad
`Comments
`27-May
`16-Jun AWS - No bulkheads
`27-May
`18-Jun AWS - No bulkheads
`27-May
`15-Jun AWS - Bulkheads in place, but not effective
`23-May
`18-Jun AWS - Bulkheads in place and effective
`24-May
`15-Jun
`1-Jun
`20-Jun
`28-May
`5-Jun
`21-May
`1-Jun Very early spring - fish lift operating April 15
`21-May
`5-Jun Another early spring - fish lift operating April 15
`29-May
`22-Jun High water throughout passage season
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`A total of six Barlus-IP68 Underwater IP Cameras (Model: T5MP-1-1) with a 2.8mm lens, a 100°
`horizontal field of view and an image resolu�on of 5-megapixels were used for this study. The
`cameras were connected to the IP68 CCTV Underwater Security System Network Video Recorder
`(NVR) via power over ethernet (POE) cables.
`
`The cameras were installed during the first several weeks of April, and ini�al tes�ng was conducted
`on April 13th and April 20th, before the fish li� was opera�onal on April 24th. Further tes�ng and
`camera adjustments were conducted April 27th and April 28th, during the beginning of the river
`herring run. Tes�ng included visual inspec�on of the live video feed to verify that an adequate
`por�on of the water column was within view horizontally and ver�cally, as well an assessment of
`the viewing distance from the camera loca�on. The cameras were mounted to aluminum poles with
`custom made brackets, and the poles were mounted to the guardrails in a manner to allow for
`camera adjustments to be made as tailwater eleva�ons changed.
`
`Cameras were installed at the following loca�ons to observe fish behavior as they entered and
`passed through the lower flume, through the V-Gate and into the hopper.
`
`1. Camera 1 – located outside of the lower flume entrance, aimed slightly upstream.
`2. Camera 2 – located inside of the lower flume entrance, aimed slightly downstream.
`3. Camera 3 – located near the floor diffuser, aimed downstream.
`4. Camera 4 – located upstream of the floor diffuser, aimed across the flume.
`5. Camera 5 – located downstream of the V-gate, aimed slightly downstream.
`6. Camera 6 – located downstream of the V-Gate, aimed upstream.
`
`Figure 2 below shows these camera loca�ons and orienta�ons within the lower flume, with the
`floor diffuser loca�on depicted by the green-dashed area. Figure 3 through Figure 6 show
`photographs of all camera loca�ons. All six cameras were connected to a central temporary video
`viewing sta�on established on the walkway of the lower flume, which allowed for the viewing of
`live video feed from all six cameras simultaneously (Figure 7). The viewing sta�on (Figure 8) was
`protected from weather and housed a large monitor, the NVR, and an external hard drive that
`backed up the video data recorded onto the NVR during observa�ons throughout the study.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`Camera Locations and Orientation in the Milford Fish Lift Lower Flume.
`
`
`Camera Location 1: Outside of the entrance looking across the flap gate.
`
`Figure 2.
`
`
`Figure 3.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`Camera Location 2: Inside of the lower flume entrance looking downstream to
`the flap gate.
`
`Figure 4.
`
`
`
`
`Camera Locations 3 and 4: Looking across the floor diffuser.
`
`Figure 5.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`Camera Locations 5 and 6: looking across and upstream at the V-Gate entrance
`
`Figure 6.
`
`
`
`
`View of the Live Feed Monitor in the Temporary Viewing Station
`
`
`
`Figure 7.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`View of the Temporary Viewing Station Located at the Lower Flume.
`
`Figure 8.
`
`Observa�on efforts began once the first river herring began to show up in early May. This included
`ten total days spent observing anadromous fish between May 4th and June 15th over twenty-six flow
`combina�ons. Table 3 details the flow se�ngs tested on each day.
`
`
`
`Table 3.
`
`Lower Flume Flow Settings Testing during Study Period.
`
`Date
`4-May
`9-M