Anadromous Fish Screen Program 

(AFSP)

By Dan Meier

January 17, 2013
Presentation Outline

• Program Authority and Purpose

• Program Organization 

• Coordination with the State of California 

• Program Summary 

• Recent & Current Projects

• Adaptive Management 

• Questions 
Program Authority

• CVPIA Section 3406 (b)(21) directs Interior to assist the State 

of California in efforts to implement measures to avoid losses 

of juvenile anadromous fish from diversions in Sacramento 

and San Joaquin watersheds and the Delta

• The AFSP was initiated in 1994 

• The cost share from Interior shall not exceed 50% of total fish 

screen costs
Program Structure 

Program Leads are:

• Dan Meier, USFWS

• Tim Rust, Reclamation

AFSP Technical Team includes representatives from:

• California Department of Fish and Wildlife

• California Department of Water Resources

• National Marine Fisheries Service

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

• Bureau of Reclamation
Coordination with 

State of California 

The CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program (ERP)during Phase I established the following fish 

screen priorities: 

• M & T Ranch/Llano Seco (Sacramento) Complete (1997)

• Princeton-Cordora Glenn Provident (Sacramento) – Complete (1999)

• Hallwood-Cordua (Yuba River) – Complete (2000)

• City of Sacramento’s diversions (American & Sacramento) – Complete (2004 & 2005)

• Sutter Mutual diversions (Sacramento) – Complete (2007, 2010 & 2011)

• RD-108 diversions (Sacramento) – Complete (2000, 2008 & 2011)

• Coleman NFH intakes (Battle Creek) – Partially Complete (2010) 

• Pleasant Grove-Verona diversions (NCC) (Feasibility Study completed)

• Meridian Farm diversions (Sacramento) Partially Complete (One of three intakes screened in 2009)

• Natomas Mutual diversions Partially Complete (Two of five intakes relocated and screened in 2012)

• RD 2035 (Sacramento) (Project at 100 % design)
Coordination with 

State of California 

The CALFED ERP Phase I Implementation Plan identified a critical need to conduct 

studies to assess the benefits of fish screening. Some key questions that were 

identified included: 

• Cost Benefits: Is there a point at which screen additional diversions no longer 

provides population level benefits for the fish of interest? Are the cumulative 

benefits of screen projects known?

• Selection Criteria: Is it more beneficial to screen some diversions than others, 

based on size, location, and mode of operation? 

• Alternatives to Screening: Are there alternatives to fish screens for many 

diversions? 
AFSP Projects Summary

• Sacramento River – 21 Projects = 4212 cfs 

• Butte Creek – 4 Projects = 257 cfs

• Yuba River – 1 Project – 65 cfs

• American River- 1 Project = 310 cfs

• Delta – 6 Projects – 113 cfs

• San Joaquin River – 2 Projects – 455 cfs

35 Total Projects Thru FY 2012 = 5412 cfs 
AFSP Key FY 2011 

Accomplishments 

Patterson Fish Screen – 195 cfs 

Key Partners: 

• California Department of Fish & Wildlife

• National Marine Fisheries Service 

• US Fish and Wildlife Service

• Bureau of Reclamation 

• Patterson Irrigation District 

Funding Sources:

• ERP (CDFW) 

• AFSP (Reclamation)

- CVPIA Restoration Fund

- Water & Related

- Bay Delta

• Patterson Irrigation District
AFSP Key FY 2011 

Accomplishments 

Sutter Mutual Portuguese Bend Fish Screen – 106 cfs 

Key Partners: 

• California Department of Fish & Wildlife

• National Marine Fisheries Service 

• US Fish and Wildlife Service

• Bureau of Reclamation

• Family Water Alliance 

• Sutter Mutual Water District 

Funding Sources:

• ERP (CDFW)

• AFSP (Reclamation)

- CVPIA Restoration Fund
AFSP Key FY 2012 

Accomplishments 

Bella Vista Fish Screen – 85 cfs 

Key Partners: 

• California Department of Fish & Wildlife

• National Marine Fisheries Service 

• US Fish and Wildlife Service

• Bureau of Reclamation

• Family Water Alliance 

• Bella Vista Water District 

Funding Sources:

• ERP (CDFW)

• AFSP (Reclamation)

- Water & Related
AFSP Key FY 2012 

Accomplishments 

On-going Projects 

West Stanislaus Irrigation District (347 cfs)

• Feasibility Study Completed

• Supplemental Feasibility Study Completed 

Meridian Farms Phase II (135 cfs)

• Design

• Environmental 

• Permitting 

Yuba City (74 cfs)

• Design, Environmental and Permitting Completed 

• Construction Initiated 

On-going Projects 

West Stanislaus Irrigation District (347 cfs)

• Feasibility Study Completed

• Supplemental Feasibility Study Completed 

Meridian Farms Phase II (135 cfs)

• Design

• Environmental 

• Permitting 

Yuba City (74 cfs)

• Design, Environmental and Permitting Completed 

• Construction Initiated Coffer Dam at Yuba City 
AFSP Key FY 2012 

Accomplishments 

Natomas Mutual Phase I 

Sankey Fish Screen

(389 cfs) 

• Fish Screen (Substantially Complete 

Fall 2012)

Funding Sources:

• ERP (CDFW) 

• AFSP (Reclamation)

- Bay Delta

- CVPIA Restoration Fund

- Water & Related
Sankey Fish Screen 
AFSP Key FY 2012 

Accomplishments 

RD 2035/WDCWA Joint Intake & 

Fish Screen (400 cfs)

• Design

• Environmental 

• Permitting 
AFSP FY 2013 Project Funding

Project Funding 

RD 2035/WDCWA Joint Intake & Fish 

Screen (400 cfs) Construction ~ $2 M

Fish Deterring Device Study 

at Sycamore Mutual

Fish Predation Study 

$185 K 

$50 K
Adaptive Management 

Adaptive Management: is a structured, iterative process of decision-making in the 

face of uncertainty, with an aim of reducing uncertainty over time using system 

monitoring.

• The AFSP in partnership with the ERP is using an adaptive management approach to assess the 

benefits of additional fish screens on the Sacramento River.

• The larger diversions over 150 cfs in size on the Sacramento mainstream have been screened or are 

currently proposed for screening. 

• There are many smaller diversions on the Sacramento River that remain unscreened. There is 

uncertainty about both the benefits of additional fish screens on the mainstem, and which 

diversions should be the highest priority for screening. 

• A fish entrainment monitoring program was implemented (2009-2012) to collect fish entrainment 

data at eleven Sacramento River diversion sites. 

• This monitoring will provide important information on the effect of site-specific physical, hydraulic 

and habitat characteristics and will help assess the benefits and need for of future fish screening. 
AFSP Key FY 2013 Activities 

• Final Fish Entrainment Monitoring Report (2009-2012) Due in March 2013

• Five Fish Screens at Sacramento River Diversions (Totaling 202 cfs)

1. Sanchez Farms

2. Alamo Farms 

3. River Garden Farms #3

4. Tisdale #2

5. Cranmore Farms #2
Sycamore Ranch Monitoring Site 

2009/2010

18
AFSP Key FY 2013/2014 

Activities 

Construct Four Fish Screens (Totaling 220 cfs)

• Feather Water District North & South Diversions

• South Sutter #1 

• Compton (CICC)

Funding Sources: 

• ERP (CDFW)

• AFSP (Reclamation) 

- Water & Related

Implemented through Family Water Alliance and Subcontractors 
AFSP Key FY 2013 Activities 

Complete Natomas Phase I Sankey Project (389 cfs)

Seasonal Verona Dam 

• Removal of Natomas Cross Canal 

Pumping Plants & Seasonal Dam 

Planned for Spring 2013 
AFSP Key FY 2013 Activities 

Complete Yuba City Construction (74 cfs)

Funding Sources: 

• Yuba City 

• ERP (CDFW)

• AFSP (Reclamation)

- CVPIA RF
AFSP Key FY 2013/2014 

Activities 

Initiate Natomas Phase 2A Project 

Pritchard Lake (160 cfs)

• Partners include SAFCA and CDFW 
UC Davis Hydraulic and Fish 

Behavior Tests 2010-2012

• Sacramento River – 16 Projects = 3692 cfs 

• Butte Creek – 4 Projects = 257 cfs

• Yuba River – 1 Project – 65 cfs

• American River- 1 Project = 310 cfs

• Delta – 6 Projects – 113 cfs

• San Joaquin River – 1 Project – 260 cfs

35 Total Projects Thru FY 2012 = ???? cfs 
Chinook salmon entrainment starting locations

0.5 ft/s sweeping, 20 cfs pipe diversion 

(2011 preliminary results, UC Davis) 

Front Side Top

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

-40 -20 0 20 40 60

-60-40-200204060

Z Data

X Data

Y Data -60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

-60 -40 -20 020 40 60

-40 -20 0 20 40 60

Z Data

X Data

Y Data

-60 -40 -200 20 40

-40 -20 0 20 40 60

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60 Z Data

X Data

Y Data

MMM

Mean distances from center of pipes inlet = 32.5 cm = 32.5 cm
Day experiments, 0.5 ft/s and 20 cfs

80 fish tested, 2-h experiments, n = 6

(2012 preliminary results, UC Davis)

80

70

60

ainedentr

50

fish 

40

Number of 

30

20

10

Perforated

cylinder

End

control

0

Initial

Control

Trash rack

box

Louver

Box
2012 Fish Deterrence Tests 

UC Davis Hydraulic Lab 
Presentation Questions? 

AFSP Contacts:

Dan Meier, Dan_Meier@fws.gov, 916-414-6725 

Tim Rust, Trust@usbr.gov, 916-978-5516