Saccarappa Fish Passage
Selection of Final Fish Passage Design
October 12, 2015
1.0 Background
On March 14, 2014, S.D. Warren Company (Warren), dba as Sappi North America, entered into
an agreement (Agreement) with the U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (DIFW), the Maine
Department of Marine Resources (MDMR), the City of Westbrook, the Friends of the
Presumpscot River (FOPR), and the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) (collectively, the
“Parties”) to request from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) an extension of
the fish passage deadline for the Saccarappa Project and a stay of the license surrender
application filed by Warren on December 31, 2015. The purpose of the Agreement was to allow
the Parties time to engage in a collaborative, open, and joint process to evaluate two fish passage
design alternatives at the Saccarappa Dam site.
The Agreement was approved by FERC on July 30, 2014 and became final on September 2,
2014.
The Agreement includes the following provision:
“2.2.2.1 Unless the Parties agree that it is not necessary, Warren will prepare a written summary of its
evaluation of both design alternatives, based on the Information. In its evaluation, Warren will provide its
determination, made in its sole discretion but in consultation with the other Parties, of whether it will
proceed with the Denil Alternative, the Two-Channel Alternative, or some combination of those designs.”

This document is the written summary of Warren’s evaluation of the design alternatives, and
provides Warren’s determination of the design it will propose in its revised FERC surrender
application and related regulatory approval applications. Warren’s determination was made
following an extensive and careful evaluation of all the factors related to the two designs that
were developed and considered during the extension period. Both designs that were considered
are different from the original design submitted with the December 2013 FERC Surrender
Application, and, as a result of this collaborative effort, the final recommended design is an
improvement over the original submission.

1

 During the extension period a series of technical meetings were held. These meetings were
attended by the Parties and their respective technical consultants for the purpose of carefully
exploring several alternatives for fish passage at the Saccarappa Dam site, post surrender.
Warren’s consultants, as well as the consultant selected by FOPR and CLF, developed
alternative designs that came to be referred to as the Western Channel Design and the Two
Channel Design. On September 21, 2015 and September 22, 2015 respectively, the USFWS and
MDMR provided written feedback based on the two designs. In addition to the numerous
technical meetings held by the Parties to develop and discuss these two designs, Warren also
held two public meetings in Westbrook during the extension period to solicit comments on the
designs, and received voluminous written comments. In making its decision, Warren carefully
considered the features of the two designs, the agency feedback, the comments and suggestions
of those who attended the public meetings, the submitted written comments, and the likelihood
of a successful and predictable outcome.
Warren would like to thank all of the Parties to the Agreement for their hard work and
involvement in this process.
1.1 Summary of the Two Designs
The Saccarappa site consists of two falls, the upper falls and the lower falls. Both final designs
propose solutions for fish passage over both falls, but the two proposals differ in their approach
to elevation changes, as follows:

Proposal Designation

Western Channel Design

Two Channel Design

Upper Falls Design

Lower Falls Design

Provide fish passage in the
western channel only, while
retaining the original bedrock
and elevations of the upper
impoundment to what existed
prior to original hydro
construction.

Provide a 180’ double Denil fish
ladder within the existing hydro
tailrace, with a counting station
at the outlet.

Provide fish passage in both the
western and eastern channels by
reshaping the original bedrock of
the eastern channel and lowering
the impoundment above the falls
to below the pre-hydro elevation
level.

Provide a 500’ riffle/pool
fishway within the existing hydro
tailrace. In order to obtain the
required length and slope, this
design includes a 180
“switchback” within the tailrace.
Fish counting is not included.

2

 2.0 Lowering the Hydraulic Control Elevation and Water Levels Upstream of Saccarappa
The Two Channel Design calls for lowering the water level in the river upstream of Saccarappa
by removal of bedrock in the upper eastern channel to elevation 62 in the eastern channel and
relying on the existing hydraulic control in the western channel at elevation 60. The Western
Channel Design leaves the existing bedrock in the eastern channel at elevation 64 and the fill in
the western channel at elevation 64, and leaves the river impoundment above the site closer to
pre-dam conditions.
The Two Channel Design would cause the water levels in the river upstream of Saccarappa, post
dam removal, to be approximately 1.7 feet lower at average flow rates (900 cfs) and up to 3 feet
lower at low flow rates than the Western Channel Design. Any potential impacts to
environmental, cultural, fisheries, soils, embankments, wetlands, and man-made resources
related to lowering of water levels in the river will be exacerbated by the Two Channel Design.
With the Western Channel Design, the water level in the river upstream of Saccarappa will be
returned to the levels that existed prior to construction of the first Warren hydroelectric facility at
the site. All of the impact studies that have been done based on a control elevation of 64 would
need to be re-done to reflect the lower control elevation in the proposed Two Channel Design,
causing delays and potential complications in the permitting process. Examples of studies that
would have to be redone include the following: (1) wetlands assessment, (2) erosion and
sedimentation, (3) water quality (mostly related to potential erosion), (4) archeological resources,
(5) historic structures, (6) irrigation system intakes, and (7) docks and retaining walls.
In addition to the potential impacts upstream, excavation of bedrock in the eastern channel will
alter the aesthetics of water flow over the upper eastern falls. The appearance of the water flow
over the falls will be altered by flattening the falls. Additionally, several landowners on the river
commented during the public meetings that they preferred that Warren try to minimize the drop
in impoundment water levels.
Warren’s conclusion is that the impacts associated with lowering water levels in the river
upstream of the Saccarappa site required by the Two Channel Design would be significantly
greater than the impacts associated with the Western Channel Design, and not necessary to
accomplish the objectives of timely and effective fish passage.
3.0 Recreational Considerations
The final two designs considered by Warren differ substantially in their consideration of
recreation, specifically water craft recreation. Over the past several years, the City of Westbrook
has expressed an interest in enhancing recreational opportunities for boaters. The potential
enhancements could include substantive structural modifications at the site, as long as those
enhancements do not impede or interfere with fish passage at the site. The City’s recreational
consultant has indicated that the opportunities for enhancements in the eastern channel are only
3

 limited by one’s imagination. Warren believes that the expressed interests of the City are better
served by allocating the western channel for fish passage and leaving the eastern channel
available for other non-conflicting interests.
The Two Channel Design includes substantive modification to both the eastern and western
channels for fish passage. In addition, with the Two Channel Design, Warren would need to
install barriers to watercraft upstream of the western channel to exclude boats from entering the
western channel because watercraft could be drawn into the riffle / pool fishway in the tailrace.
The riffle / pool fishway area is not appropriate or safe for recreational boating activities,
especially in the area of the 180° switchback and during times of heavy river flow. The 20-foot
wide opening to the riffle / pool fishway area could encourage boaters to try to navigate the
fishway. An option might be to install a boating barrier at the entrance to the tailrace area, but
such a barrier at that location poses complications and challenges. Therefore, Warren is very
concerned about the safety risks of this design.

The Western Channel Design concentrates the modifications to enhance fish passage in the
western channel. The Western Channel Design does not necessitate any restrictions to boating
activities in either channel. Both channels are available for recreational boaters (predominantly
kayaks). It will not be practical, however, to implement structural modifications in the western
channel because any structural enhancements could adversely impact the success of fish passage
in the western channel. Warren’s modeling in the western channel shows that it will provide safe
and effective fish passage, so modifications in the eastern channel to promote or enhance fish
passage are not necessary and are not being proposed; hence the eastern channel is available for
structural enhancements for recreational boating without adversely impacting fish passage.
On the other hand, the Two Channel Design does include substantive modification to both the
eastern and western channels. Therefore, any structural modifications in either channel solely for
the purpose of enhancing recreational boating could negatively impact the modifications
proposed for fish passage.
Warren’s conclusion is that the Western Channel Design is preferred because it does not limit in
any way potential future opportunities for recreational enhancements in the eastern channel, and
the Western Channel Design allows boats to use both the eastern and western channels for
recreational boating.

4

 4.0 Cost Comparison
An opinion of potential construction and post-construction costs was prepared for both options.
The summary of the cost opinions is presented below.
Item Description

Western Channel Design

Two Channel Design

Construction Cost

$4,500,000

$5,300,000

Post Construction Capital Cost

$70,000

$225,000

Post Construction Annual O&M
Cost

$85,000

$150,000

Warren’s conclusion from the cost comparison of the two options is that it will cost substantially
more to build and operate the Two Channel Design than the Western Channel Design.
5.0 Provisions to Count Fish
The ability to count fish at the Saccarappa site is important because the licenses for Mallison
Falls and Little Falls, the next two stations upstream from Saccarappa, include triggers for fish
passage that are tied to fish counts at Saccarappa. The Western Channel Design includes
provisions to view and count fish at the exit of the Denil fishway. Viewing and counting are
important because the triggers are species specific. Warren has not been able to devise a reliable
and proven method of counting and identifying fish species with the Two Channel Design.
Warren’s conclusion is that the Western Channel Design is preferable to the Two Channel
Design because the Western Channel Design includes provisions for counting fish at Saccarappa
as required by the FERC licenses for Mallison Falls and Little Falls.
6.0 Performance Evaluation
6.1 Performance Evaluation by Alden Labs
Tailrace Switchback Channel (Two Channel Design) versus Denil Fishway (Western Channel
Design)
The lower roughened channel in the Two Channel Design is approximately 580 feet long, at a
2% slope. The lower 280 feet of the channel occupies the full tailrace width at approximately 30
feet and then transitions to a variable 10 to 20 foot wide switchback section for the remainder
300 feet to the middle pool. The channel includes 13 boulder sills, creating a step pool channel.
The normal tailwater elevation ranges between 41 to 42 feet and the middle pool elevation
ranges between 53.5 to 56.5 feet. The total head from the tailwater to the middle pool ranges
between 12 to 15 feet. The lower two boulder sills are submerged, thereby providing a total of
5

 11 boulder sills for the full head, creating 14 to 18 inch drops between pools. The flow through
the channel ranges from 152 cfs to 557 cfs for corresponding river flow of 300 cfs and 3,000 cfs,
respectively. HEC-RAS model results of the proposed design provided by FOPR predict
velocities of 2 to 6.7 ft/sec, as shown below.
Switchback Channel Velocities
Max
Switchback
Channel
Total River
Channel
Velocity
Flow (cfs)
Flow (cfs)
(ft/sec)
300
152
4.9
1500
379
6.0
2250
476
6.4
3000
557
6.7
The Two Channel Design switchback channel fishway proposed for the lower falls is a one-of-akind design without known precedent. The expected hydraulic conditions within the irregular
channel are complex and not easily predicted without sophisticated analysis, and there is
insufficient information to predict the ability of fish to pass up this channel. One dimensional
modeling has been completed, which is appropriate and useful to predict water levels through the
channel and can provide an approximation of average velocity, but it does not provide adequate
information to assess fish passage.
The following considerations are important relative to fish passage success for the lower falls:


The switchback channel is over 500 feet long, at a 2% slope with velocities ranging from
2 to 7 ft/sec. Shad passage effectiveness decreases as the length of fishways increase.
The Denil ladder is about 1/3 the length of the switchback channel and can provide more
timely passage than the switchback channel due to its shorter length.



There are significant uncertainties and risks with the hydraulic design of the switchback
channel. The average velocities predicted by HEC-RAS approach and exceed fish
passage design threshold recommendations of 6 ft/sec. The one-dimensional modeling is
not adequate to understand the three dimensional irregularity of the proposed channel. In
particular, the proposed 180 degree switchback pool has potential to create adverse flow
conditions such as eddies, which are known to delay fish and hinder passage. By
contrast, the hydraulics of the Denil ladder are well understood and effective. The Denil
ladder configuration has been carefully designed to optimize internal hydraulics (no 180
degree turning pools) to eliminate the potential for adverse conditions (such as eddies)
that may delay or hinder passage.



The switchback channel includes 10 pools with a hydraulic drop of 14 to 18 inches
between pools. Typically, step pool fishways for shad and herring are designed with
drops of less than 6 inches (a drop that produces a plunging flow of about 6 ft/sec). The
Two Channel Design will create plunging flow velocity of up to 10 ft/sec.
6

 

Average velocity predicted by HEC-RAS modeling is greater than 6 ft/sec for river flows
greater than 1,500 cfs. Maximum channel velocity will be considerably higher than 6
ft/sec and fish passage will be challenging for river flows greater than 1,500 cfs.



The switchback channel lacks a means to limit flow into the channel. As the river flow
increases, the switchback channel flow also increases. Flood flows are of particular
concern, which could damage and move grade control features such as the boulder sills
and also deposit large debris within the channel (especially in the switchback area, where
the flow changes 180). Debris and trees have potential to become trapped within the
tight turns of the channel, and there are no means of accessing the channel with heavy
equipment to remove large debris. The channel is constructed of fill material that will
require periodic inspection and adjustment to maintain proper sill elevations and
hydraulic conditions.



The as-built conditions of the switchback channel are very important to the ultimate
success of the design. Considerable uncertainties exist with the design, which are
compounded by the challenges associated with constructing irregular rock structures at
the design elevations and widths. Great care will be needed to document as-built
conditions and final hydraulics.
Adaptive management and additional channel
modifications will likely be required after initial construction.



Hydraulic conditions at the entrance of the switch-back fishway will be substantially
altered by the cascade of water over the lower falls. Currently, a 10 foot deep plunge
pool exists where the water flows over the lower falls. The plans call for the depth of
water to be approximately 1 to 1.5 feet deep. This cascade of water into this shallow area
may cause confusing hydraulic conditions which may delay or hinder the ability of fish to
find the entrance to the switch-back channel.

Upper Western Channel
The upper western channel in the Two Channel Design is approximately 520 feet long, at a 2.5%
slope with velocities ranging from 3 to 8 ft/sec.


The upper western channel in the Two Channel Design is similar to the Western
Channel Design, but the Two Channel Design includes pools and riffles to assist in
dissipating energy. The Western Channel Design includes sculpted bedrock features
to dissipate energy. Relative to fish passage, the two designs in this location are
expected to be similarly effective.

7

 6.2 Performance Evaluation by MDMR and USFWS
On August 26, 2015, Brett Towler from the USFWS provided all parties to the Agreement a
copy of a model intended to evaluate and compare three performance parameters for the Western
Channel Design and the Two Channel Design. The three parameters are:


Survivorship Analysis: The proportion of fish successfully passing a velocity barrier.



Fatigue Analysis: Fatigue and distance relationships.



Work-Energy Analysis: Estimate of the energy that it takes a fish to move through a
fishway.

Warren compared the results of the model outputs for both of the designs. The results of the
comparison clearly indicate that the Western Channel Design fared better than the Two Channel
Design. Warren also concluded that if some resting pools could be added into the western
channel upstream of the Denil exit, then the model results for the Western Channel Design would
be even better, so Warren asked its consultants to modify the Western Channel Design to add
some resting pools. The site plan for the modified design is attached to this document along with
the results of the performance passage model developed to reflect the modified design of the
western channel.
Warren’s assessment of this information is that with relatively minor modifications to the design
submitted to the agencies at the July 14, 2015 technical meeting in Hadley, Massachusetts and
the August 26, 2015 public meeting in Westbrook, Maine, the predicted effectiveness and
efficiency of the Western Channel Design’s nature like passage in the upper western channel can
be improved. The passage model results for the revised Western Channel Design are
dramatically better than the passage model results for the Two Channel Design.
Therefore, based on the independent evaluation of potential fish passage performance by the
agencies and the modifications proposed by Warren to the Western Channel Design, Warren
believes the Western Channel Design will provide safe, timely, and effective passage over the
lower and upper falls at Saccarappa.
7.0 Formal Comments by MDMR and USFWS
On September 22, 2015, Warren received written comments from both MDMR and USFWS on
the Western Channel and Two Channel designs. Both of the letters from the resource agencies
included an extensive summary as well as recommendations. The following are the
recommendations copied from each letter. Each of the letters and the recommendations were
discussed and reviewed extensively during the September 22, 2015 technical meeting in
Westbrook.
8

 “MDMR RECOMMENDATIONS
1. To pass upstream migrants over the lower falls, MDMR recommends that Sappi change
the Denil fishway design to a double Denil. This design consists of two side-by-side
Denil fishways. The additional flow of the second fishway will allow Sappi to eliminate
the attraction water supply system.
2. Retain the fish counting facility that was included in the Denil design. With the double
Denil, the two fishways should be designed to exit into a common pool with a counting
window and a removable crowder.
3. Provide passage on both the east and west channel using the nature-like fishways
proposed by FOPR. MDMR believes that for this project to be successful both channels
must be passable.”

“SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS

1. To pass upstream migrants over the lower falls, the Service recommends that Sappi
change the Denil fishway design to a double Denil. This design consists of two side-byside Denil fishways. The additional flow of the second fishway will allow Sappi to
eliminate the auxiliary water supply system.

2. Retain the fish counting facility that was included in the Denil design. This facility is
needed in order to determine when triggers are met for fish passage construction at
upstream sites. With the double Denil, the two fishways should be designed to exit into a
common pool with a counting window and a removable crowder. (Note: The Service is
willing to discuss a date certain for construction of fish passage at the next upstream
Projects in lieu of constructing counting facilities at the Denil fishway. This letter does not
address the jurisdictional difficulties that may arise from the current structure, which
triggers fish passage at upstream projects based on counts at Saccarappa, when
Saccarappa is no longer a FERC-licensed Project.)

3. Construct a nature-like fishway in the west spillway channel to provide passage over the
upper falls. As the design progresses, incorporate appurtenant in-stream structures
(e.g., retain suitable ledge features, construct rock vanes, or place boulder clusters) to
further improve passage effectiveness.
4. Modify ledges in the east channel spillway section to improve passage over the upper
falls and reduce the potential for false attraction and stranding.”

Warren has carefully considered the input received during the meeting and the written material
provided by the agencies. Representatives from both agencies are very familiar with the site, and
their comments and recommendations were based on a careful and thorough evaluation of all the
information provided by Warren and others.

9

 Following a detailed review of the comments and recommendations from the agencies, Warren
decided to modify the Western Channel Design to include a double Denil fishway in the tailrace,
as recommended by the agencies. Both of the letters include the same recommendation for a
double Denil fishway instead of the single 4-foot wide fishway. Warren understands the
agencies’ rationale for the double Denil fishway and believes that the second fishway can be
added without adding significantly to the cost of the project.
The letter from MDMR includes a recommendation that Warren provide passage on both the east
and west channels using the nature-like fishways proposed by FOPR. The USFWS letter
included a recommendation that Warren modify the ledges in the east channel spillway section to
improve passage over the upper falls and reduce the potential for false attraction and stranding. It
is unclear precisely what the USFWS recommendation would involve, but the recommendation
by MDMR is clear because 30% design drawings of the proposed modifications in the eastern
channel were provided by Princeton Hydro.
8.0 Conclusion
The Two Channel Design for the modifications in the eastern channel call for removing bedrock
to reduce the elevation of the hydraulic control from elevation 64 to elevation 62 +/-. The
elevation of the hydraulic control in both the eastern and western channels was at or near
elevation 64 prior to hydroelectric development at the site. Water levels in the river segment
upstream of the falls were controlled by the bedrock at the falls at elevation 64. The Western
Channel Design calls for removal of the spillways and replacement of excavated material in the
upper western channel, allowing the river above Saccarappa to return to conditions that existed
prior to hydroelectric development at the site. The available evidence indicates that the wooden
crib and masonry dams that preceded Warren’s activities did not involve structural modifications
to the bedrock that created the hydraulic control of river water levels upstream.
Warren has studied the potential environmental, recreational, and social impacts related to
removing the spillway but leaving the hydraulic control at elevation 64 feet and has determined
that the impacts associated with returning river water levels to pre-hydro development levels are
minimal. Warren has not studied the potential impact of lowering water levels below the predevelopment levels, but Warren is concerned that potential impacts related to wetlands, soil
erosion, embankment stability, and cultural and historic resources could be greater – and
potentially significantly greater than with the Western Channel Design.
Additionally, Warren estimates that the cost associated with modifying the eastern falls as
proposed by in the Two Channel Design will add a minimum of $600,000, or 25%, to the cost of
fish passage at Saccarappa.

10

 Warren’s conclusion from its evaluation of all the available data, facts, and opinions is that the
potential negative impacts to environmental, recreational, cultural, and social resources upstream
of and at the site, as well as the cost of construction, associated with the Two Channel Design are
not worth the potential negligible or de minimis benefits to fish passage at the Saccarappa site.
Warren concluded that its efforts and resources should be directed toward making safe, timely,
and effective fish passage in the western channel as successful as possible.
Warren agrees with the No. 3 recommendation from the USFWS related to modifications to the
passage in the upper western channel and has incorporated changes into the design, as attached to
this document and described in Section 5.
Based on Warren’s careful consideration of all of the facts, data, and opinions described above,
Warren has determined that the Western Channel Design, as modified following the September
22, 2015 technical meeting, is its preferred design, and Warren will therefore proceed with the
process of implementing the surrender of its FERC license based on that design. The Surrender
Application will include Warren’s proposal to implement fish passage at the Saccarappa site
based on the Western Channel Design depicted in the attached site plan.

Attachments:
Passage Model for American Shad - Fatigue Analysis
Double Denil Site Plan

11

  

 
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
    
    
  
   
     
     
  

 

Data based on ?eld surveys by Plisga Day Land Surveyors 26 September, 2011, 14 November,
2011, 13 December, 2011 and 18 August, 2014 using a Trimble S6 robotic total station and a
TDS Ranger data collector; and by Harry R. Feldman, Inc 13 December, 2012 using a digital

scanner. Elevations shown are based on NGVD 29 Datum.

 

NOTES:

(1) ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE NGVD 29 BASED UPON NGS

I DISK R121 WITH PUBLISHED ELEVATION OF 54.14'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

       
  
  
 
  
   
   
  

15?22'22" (2) CONTOURS SHOWN ARE1 FOOT INTERVALS.
(3) DATA BASED ON FIELD SURVEYS BY PLISGA DAY LAND
GRID NORTH SURVEYORS 26 SEPTEMBER, 2011, 14 NOVEMBER, 2011,13
MAINE WEST ZONE  DECEMBER, 2011, 19 MAY, 2013, 20 JUNE, 2013, AND 4
DECEMBER, 2013 USING A TRIMBLE 86 ROBOTIC TOTAL
NAD 83 sheet the Topography of the ground surface and the Bathymetry of the surface of the STATION AND A TDS RANGER DATA AND By
sediment, soil and/or bedrock below the water at the time and date of the survey. HARRY R- DECEMBER, 20? USING A
DIGITAL SCANNER.

(4) COORDINATES ARE ORIENTED TO STATE PLANE, MAINE 
WEST, ZONE 1802, WITH GROUND DISTANCES. 
8



a

SYMBOLS LEGEND 
a:
A SURVEY CONTROL POINT 
232x SPOT ELEVATION 
4?94 HYDRANT
UTILITY POLE

CATCH BASIN 
MANHOLE 39;
CONTOUR OF LAND BOTTOM OF RIVER BATHYMETRY 
INDEX CONTOUR OF LAND BOTTOM OF RIVER BATHYMETRY 
BUILDING WALL LINE 
9 OVERHEAD WIRES . - .
A . A

. :55? BEDROCK BATHYMETRY S:
1! PI 
(so 0 PROPOSED BEDROCK BATHYMETRY IN WESTERN CHANNEL 
I . I) 
9 a A:
?5959m?5?

5 STORY BRICK \0 'g a
ROCK FILL E, In
DANA ARP MILL 4 Q:



NATURAL FISH PASSAGE

PROFILE CENTERLINE

Engineering, Environmental Geologic Consultants


ACHERON ENGINEERING SERVICES

 

3%
Q9
c2313,
.Eldo?;











MAGNAIL AND WASHER
TOP OF ABUTMENT
ELEV. 61.18'

 
     
  
    
 
 
   
      
   
   

PROVIDE RIP-RAP D50 24H:

DEAD TREE

48

   

49

50
51

4 FT RADIUS TO REDUCE TURBULANCE  

    
  

6?5 54

5 7 FISHWAY EXIT

A9 to 61/ 
2 i - 
BRICK  SCREEN SLIDE 47 AR 63 
SILL ACCESS F0
DOOR - -  I 1} 6r, MAGN OF

. \t IEWI WINDOW
ROCK FILL 51v so OTHERS

ESPY 45.05SCALE: 30' A A
30" DBH MAPLES We


(A 79 1 STORY WOOD

 
     
 

   

Saccarappa Falls
Westbrook, Maine

 

Sappi Warren Release Papers

 
   

sc SWINGGATE 
.
 



Eastern Falls
Bedrock Control at 64.0?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Saecarappa Falls ish Passage Project

 

Job Number:
4 9 2 65

Drawing NoSheet I of 5

 

Passage Model for American shad
Sappi (Acheron) Design
Fatigue Analysis
8/27/2015

ZOP/Path

Section

Fish swim
River flow Passage
Fish size
mode
condition
model

Upper
Ramp
Segment
B
(Station
376 - 490)

Upper
Ramp
Segment
C
(Station
490 - 650)

Prolonged

Western channel

Sappi (Acheron)

Upper
Ramp
Segment
A
(Station
300 - 376)

small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large

Avg @
300 cfs
Avg @
600 cfs
Avg @
900 cfs
Avg @
1200 cfs
Avg
@1500
cfs
Avg @
300 cfs
Avg @
600 cfs
Avg @
900 cfs
Avg @
1200 cfs
Avg
@1500
cfs
Avg @
300 cfs
Avg @
600 cfs
Avg @
900 cfs
Avg @
1200 cfs
Avg
@1500
cfs

Work - Energy

Alternative

K. Ball (Acheron)

Vf
(ft/s)
9.1
11.5
13.3
9.1
11.5
13.3
9.1
11.5
13.3
9.1
11.5
13.3
9.1
11.5
13.3
9.1
11.5
13.3
9.1
11.5
13.3
9.1
11.5
13.3
9.1
11.5
13.3
9.1
11.5
13.3
9.1
11.5
13.3
9.1
11.5
13.3
9.1
11.5
13.3
9.1
11.5
13.3
9.1
11.5
13.3

Vw
(ft/s)
3.16
3.16
3.16
3.53
3.53
3.53
3.69
3.69
3.69
3.84
3.84
3.84
3.98
3.98
3.98
2.83
2.83
2.83
3.52
3.52
3.52
4.03
4.03
4.03
4.42
4.42
4.42
4.86
4.86
4.86
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.91
3.91
3.91
4.51
4.51
4.51
4.97
4.97
4.97
5.39
5.39
5.39

Model Inputs
TL
S0
(in)
(ft/ft)
15.2
0.0500
19.1
0.0500
22.1
0.0500
15.2
0.0500
19.1
0.0500
22.1
0.0500
15.2
0.0500
19.1
0.0500
22.1
0.0500
15.2
0.0500
19.1
0.0500
22.1
0.0500
15.2
0.0500
19.1
0.0500
22.1
0.0500
15.2
0.0317
19.1
0.0317
22.1
0.0317
15.2
0.0317
19.1
0.0317
22.1
0.0317
15.2
0.0317
19.1
0.0317
22.1
0.0317
15.2
0.0317
19.1
0.0317
22.1
0.0317
15.2
0.0317
19.1
0.0317
22.1
0.0317
15.2
0.0269
19.1
0.0269
22.1
0.0269
15.2
0.0269
19.1
0.0269
22.1
0.0269
15.2
0.0269
19.1
0.0269
22.1
0.0269
15.2
0.0269
19.1
0.0269
22.1
0.0269
15.2
0.0269
19.1
0.0269
22.1
0.0269

T
(C)

D
(ft)

t
(s)
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160

Model Outputs
D
E
(ft)
(cal)
86
168
261
93
180
278
96
185
285
99
191
292
102
195
299
118
234
367
137
267
412
153
293
447
166
314
476
182
338
509
171
339
528
209
401
614
237
446
676
260
483
725
282
518
773

Evaluation
S
(%)

D to pass

Pass ?

Comments

 Passage Model for American shad
Sappi (Acheron) Design
Fatigue Analysis
8/27/2015

Section

Fish swim
River flow Passage
Fish size
model
mode
condition

Upper Ramp
Segment B
(Station 376 - 490)

Upper Ramp
Segment C
(Station 490 - 650)

Prolonged

Western channel

Sappi (Acheron)

Upper Ramp
Segment A
(Station 300 - 376)

small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large

Avg @
300 cfs
Avg @
600 cfs
Avg @
900 cfs
Avg @
1200 cfs
Avg
@1500
cfs
Avg @
300 cfs
Avg @
600 cfs
Avg @
900 cfs
Avg @
1200 cfs
Avg
@1500
cfs
Avg @
300 cfs
Avg @
600 cfs
Avg @
900 cfs
Avg @
1200 cfs
Avg
@1500
cfs

Survivorship

Alternative ZOP/Path

K. Ball (Acheron)

Vf
(ft/s)

Vw
(ft/s)
3.16
3.16
3.16
3.53
3.53
3.53
3.69
3.69
3.69
3.84
3.84
3.84
3.98
3.98
3.98
2.83
2.83
2.83
3.52
3.52
3.52
4.03
4.03
4.03
4.42
4.42
4.42
4.86
4.86
4.86
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.91
3.91
3.91
4.51
4.51
4.51
4.97
4.97
4.97
5.39
5.39
5.39

Model Inputs
TL
S0
(in)
(ft/ft)
15.2
19.1
22.1
15.2
19.1
22.1
15.2
19.1
22.1
15.2
19.1
22.1
15.2
19.1
22.1
15.2
19.1
22.1
15.2
19.1
22.1
15.2
19.1
22.1
15.2
19.1
22.1
15.2
19.1
22.1
15.2
19.1
22.1
15.2
19.1
22.1
15.2
19.1
22.1
15.2
19.1
22.1
15.2
19.1
22.1

T
(C)

D
(ft)
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18

t
(s)
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160

Model Outputs
D
E
(ft)
(cal)

Evaluation
S
(%)

D to pass
96%
97%
98%
95%
97%
97%
95%
96%
97%
95%
96%
97%
94%
96%
97%
94%
95%
96%
91%
94%
95%
89%
92%
94%
87%
90%
93%
84%
88%
91%
88%
92%
94%
82%
87%
90%
77%
83%
87%
71%
79%
84%
65%
75%
81%

Pass ?

Comments

 Alternative

ZOP/Path

K. Ball (Acheron)
8/27/2015

Section

Fish swim
River flow Passage
Fish size
mode
condition
model

Upper Ramp
Segment B
(Station 376 - 490)

Upper Ramp
Segment C
(Station 490 - 650)

Prolonged

Western channel

Sappi (Acheron)

Upper Ramp
Segment A
(Station 300 - 376)

small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large
small
average
large

Avg @
300 cfs
Avg @
600 cfs
Avg @
900 cfs
Avg @
1200 cfs
Avg
@1500
cfs
Avg @
300 cfs
Avg @
600 cfs
Avg @
900 cfs
Avg @
1200 cfs
Avg
@1500
cfs
Avg @
300 cfs
Avg @
600 cfs
Avg @
900 cfs
Avg @
1200 cfs
Avg
@1500
cfs

Fatigue

Passage Model for American shad
Sappi (Acheron) Design
Fatigue Analysis

Vf
(ft/s)
9.1
11.5
13.3
9.1
11.5
13.3
9.1
11.5
13.3
9.1
11.5
13.3
9.1
11.5
13.3
9.1
11.5
13.3
9.1
11.5
13.3
9.1
11.5
13.3
9.1
11.5
13.3
9.1
11.5
13.3
9.1
11.5
13.3
9.1
11.5
13.3
9.1
11.5
13.3
9.1
11.5
13.3
9.1
11.5
13.3

Vw
(ft/s)
3.16
3.16
3.16
3.53
3.53
3.53
3.69
3.69
3.69
3.84
3.84
3.84
3.98
3.98
3.98
2.83
2.83
2.83
3.52
3.52
3.52
4.03
4.03
4.03
4.42
4.42
4.42
4.86
4.86
4.86
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.91
3.91
3.91
4.51
4.51
4.51
4.97
4.97
4.97
5.39
5.39
5.39

Model Inputs
TL
S0
(in)
(ft/ft)
15.2
19.1
22.1
15.2
19.1
22.1
15.2
19.1
22.1
15.2
19.1
22.1
15.2
19.1
22.1
15.2
19.1
22.1
15.2
19.1
22.1
15.2
19.1
22.1
15.2
19.1
22.1
15.2
19.1
22.1
15.2
19.1
22.1
15.2
19.1
22.1
15.2
19.1
22.1
15.2
19.1
22.1
15.2
19.1
22.1

T
(C)

D
(ft)

t
(s)
33.6
43.6
43.7
33.6
43.6
43.7
33.6
43.6
43.7
33.6
43.6
43.7
33.6
43.6
43.7
33.6
43.6
43.7
33.6
43.6
43.7
33.6
43.6
43.7
33.6
43.6
43.7
33.6
43.6
43.7
33.6
43.6
43.7
33.6
43.6
43.7
33.6
43.6
43.7
33.6
43.6
43.7
33.6
43.6
43.7

Model Outputs
D
E
(ft)
(cal)
200
364
443
187
348
427
182
341
420
177
334
413
172
328
407
211
378
457
188
348
427
171
326
405
157
309
388
143
290
369
205
371
450
175
331
410
154
305
384
139
285
364
125
267
345

Evaluation
S
(%)

D to pass
76.0
76.0
76.0
76.0
76.0
76.0
76.0
76.0
76.0
76.0
76.0
76.0
76.0
76.0
76.0
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160

Pass ?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y

Comments