### 1974 WALUATION OF THE GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT FISH SCREENYY

Ronald 

### J. Decoto

# Y Bay-Delta Fishery Project

ABSTRACT
Marked hatchery-reared king salmon were released and recaptured 

### to observe their responses 

### to trashracks and the fish screen, and 

### to determine bypass and screen effectiveness. Some salmon released between the trashrack and drum screens found culverts downstream from the screens on bypass flows less than 

### 5 percent 

### of the channel inflow. Eighteen ercent of the marked salmon used the bypasses, 

### 3

# f percent used a pair of culverts installed in the diversion dam. Fate of the remaining 

### 82 and 

### 66 percent 

### is unknown. Nets behind selected dmm screens and in the irrigation canal below the pumps caught salmon. Hence, an unknown number of salmon 

### are 

### lost through the screens. 

### Most fish were captured during twilight and dark.



## r/ This study

### was conducted as

### part of the Znteragency Ecological Study.Program 

### for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary whose members include: California Department 

### of Fish and Game, Califor

### nia Department of' Water Resources, U. S, 

### Bureau of Reclamation, and U. 

### S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Anadromous Fisheries Branch Administrative Report No, 

### 78-20. September, 

### 1978. PPresent address: Route 1, Box 

### 249, Westwood, CA 

### 96137 9-2-
INTRODUCTION King salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) spawn in the upper Sacramento River and 

### its tributaries. Du

### ring their downstream migration, large numbers of young salmon are diverted 

### from the Sacramento River 

### via a side channel 

### to the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District's canal intake. The intake is screened by a series of horizontal rotary 

### drum screens, which incorporate a bypass system 

### to transport screened fishback 

### tothe channel below the diversion dam, which then returns 

### to the Sacramento River. Fish movements at the facizitywere monitored 

### from May 

### 15 to July 25, 

### 1974. Objectives were 

### to: (i)observe response of juvenile salmon 

### to the screens, (ii)evaluate ability of salmon 

### to move down tream below the diversion intakeunder 

### low channel flows 

### E.5 m

# 5 /see 

### (90 cfs)] 

## , (ifi) determine response of salmon 

### to the trashrack and screens, and (iv) determine efficiency 

### of the bypasses in salvaging salmon.

DESCRIPTION OFAREA AND DIVERSION FACILITIES
The Glenn-Colusa fish screen 

### is 

### 5.6 Icm 

### (3.5 mi) northwest 

### of Hamilton City, Glenn County, California (Figure 1)

# . The screen is on an oxbow formed by an island on thewest bank 

### of the Sac-. ramento River. About 

### 10-18percent of the river flow passes through the.oxbow. During irrigation season, usually lateMarch through October, a dam 

### is installed downstream from the fish screen 

### to provide head 

### for the pumps. A pair 

### of culverts 

### 0.9 m 

### (3 ft)in diameter were installed inthe diversion dam specifically 

### for this study (Figure 2). The fish screen complex consists of a concrete structure 

### 145 m 

### (475 ft).long, 

### 9 m 

### (30 ft)high, and 

### 9 m 

### (30 ft)wide. The structure houses 

### 40 horizontal rotating drum screens each 5.2 

### m



### (17ft 

### in diameter and 

### 2.4 m 

### (8ft)wide. The drums are covered with

### #

# 2 woven stainless steelwire cloth. Open space between the 2.03 

### mm (0.08 inch) diameter

### wire is

### 4.3 mm 

### (0.17 inch). There 

### are ten 

### 15.2 em 

### (6 inch) wide bypasses, one located 

### at the downstream end 

### of every fourth screen. These alljoin and lead to the bypass outlet (Figure 2). A trashrack keeps large debris from enteringthe screenwells. The screens are rotated by 10hydraulicpumps that move the 

### drums at 

### 1.4 m 

### (4.5 ft>per minute. The scree s operate during the irrigation season and divert up 

### to 

### 76.5 m

# 3/s (2,700 cfs) from the river. Design approach velocity

### at the screens is 0.2 

### m 

### (0.8 ft)per second. The drums are removed inw'inter.IRRIGATION CANAL

TO HAMILTOM CITY 

# 1,- 

# LOCATION 

# OF STUDY 

# AREA.

### -4-



## RIVER I ___t

fRRlOATION DIVERSION CHANNEL

# ISLAND

NORTH
DRUM SCREENS

NElTiNG SITES 

# \'
FIGURE 2.- 

# STUDY 

# AREA (NOT BRAWN TO SCALE

### -5-
METHODS
Fish Marking Fingerling king salmon 

### (16,430) were obtained from the Feather River Salmon and Steelhead Hatchery and marked by clipping single fins. For culvert tests an upper-lobe caudal clipwas used for fishreleased between the trashrack and screens, and 

### a lower- “ lobe caudal clipwas used for fishreleased in the channel oppositethe screens. During bypass monitoring 

### a right ventral fin clip

### was used 

### for fishreleased between the trackrack and screens and 

### a left ventral fin clip for fish released in the channel. Fishwere anesthetized in

### a 0.01 percent solution of M.S. 222 (tricaine methanesulfonate) 

### tofacilitate marking. Fishwere held at the hatchery for 

### at least two days aftermarking 

### to 

### reduce 

### use of “sickllfish. Measurements of fork length (FL) were taken, and are used throughout this report.
Bypass Monitoring Between May 

### 15 and July 

### 25, 

### 1974, the bypass outlet was sampled with 

### a rigid frame fyke net attached directly 

### to the outlet structure (Figure 2). The 

### net was 

### 2.7 

### m high by 

### 3.0 

### m 

### (9.7 ft)wide at the opening and 20.0 

### m ( long. The mesh was 

### 3.2 rnm 

### (1/8 inch) bobbinet. A livebox was attached 

### to the cod end of the net 

### to collect fish

### from the bypass. Three paired tests were conducted 

### to evaluate ability.of salmon 

### to move past the drum screens and enter the bypasses, and 

### to test the effect 

### of the trashrack on the returns. A total of 

### 2,992 marked salmon were released between the trashrack and screens and 

### 2,903 were released in the channel opposite the screens (Figure 2). During each bypass 

### test the culverts in the diversion dam were closed and the bypass 

### was monitored for

### 48 hours following 

### a release The fyke net was checked every two hours and fishwere removed from the livebox. 

### All. species were enumerated and the salmon

a were examined 

### for marks. Daily, three collections of salmon 

### were measured 

### to the nearest even millimeter. Between tests the bypasses 

### were monitored to 

### estimate the number

i* of wild downstream migrant salmon passing the facility.

Culvert Monitoring B.0different-sized nets were used tomonitor the culverts.

~i Both were attached directly 

### to a frame at the c.ulvert outlet.

### -6-
Culvert monitoring began June 12 and continued until June 

### 14 witha 

### 2.9 

### m (9.5 ft)square opening fyke net 

### 15.2 m (50 ft) 

### inlength. This net was replaced on June 

### 14 to facilitatehandling of the live 

### box upon retrieving 

### a sample. The 

### latter net 

### was 

### 3.0 m 

## (9.7 ft)wide by 

### 2.7 m 

### (8.7 ft) high 

### at the mouth and 

### 65.5 ft)long. Both culvert nets were constructed of 

### 1/8 inch) bobbinet. From June 12 through July 

### 19, the culverts were monitored alternatelywiththe bypasses. Five paired 

### tests were conducted to determine if salmon would locate the culverts and move downstream through them on 

### 3-5 percent of the inflow. A total of 

### 5,399 marked salmon were released in the channel and 

### 5,136 between the trashrack and screens. During each culvert 

### test the bypasses were closed and the culverts

### were monitored 

### for 

### 48 hours following a release. Monitoring and enumeration methods were the same as those in the bypass monitoring.
Comparison of Bypass and Culverts One test was conducted July 

### 16, 

### 1974 todetermine preferences for the bypasses 

### or culverts during four

### hours inwhich both systems were open. Catches of 

### culve 

### t and bypass nets were enumerated hourly. Flows were 

### 2.5 m

# 5 /s 

### (90 cfs) through the bypasses and 

### 2.3 

### m3/s 

### (80 cfs) through the culverts.
Rotary Drum Screen Evaluation 3etween May 21and June 

### 4, two nets of different sizes were fished continuously for 

### 168 hours in the irrigation canal directly downstream from themain pump house (Figure 2). The purpose 

### was 

### to study the adequacy of rotary drum screens in salvaging young salmon. The 

### flrst net 

### was fished for two days. 

### It was 

### 2.6 m 

### (8.5 ft)high by 

### 2.9 

### m 

### (9.5 ft) wide 

### at the opening and 15.2 

### m 

### (50ft)long. The mesh (stretched)

raduated from 

### 7 cm 

### (2-75inches) 

### at the mouth 

### to 

### 4.4 cm 

### 1.75 inches) 

### at the cod end. The second net measured 

### 3.2 

### m 10.5 ft) high by 

### 4.9 m 

### (16 ft)wide 

### at the openin and 

### 18

### rn 

### 59 ft) long. 

### Its mesh 

### was graduated from 

### 7.6 cm

# 73 inches) 

### to 

### 1.3 cm 

### (0.5 inch). A fyke net 

### was fished behind three separate screens for five days in September, for a total of 

### 76.5 hours. This net was the same as 

### first used to monitor the culverts. The net was attached 

### to a rigid frame placed inguide slots directly behind the screen.

### -7-
RESULTS Bypass and Culvert Monitoring Marked Salmon During bypass tests, an average 

### of 

### 18percent of the fishreleased were recovered from the bypass outlet. Twenty percent of those released between the trashrack and screens were recovered, while 

### 16percent of the fish released in the channel opposite the screens were recovered (Table 1). A chi square test revealed the difference in recoveries between the 

### two release sites was significant at the 0.01 level (chi square = 

### 16, d.f. 

## - 1). During culvert 

### tests, an average 

### of 

### 34 percent of the fishreleased were recovered inthe culverts. Thirty-eight percent of those released 

### in the channel opposite the screens were recovered, while 

### 30 percent 

### of the fishreleased between the trashrack and screens were recovered (Table 2). The differencewas 

### a ain significant 

### at the 0.01 level (chi square = 

### 68.1, d.f. = 

### 17. Marked salmon moved through the bypass and culvertsmainly during reduced light periods (2000-0600hours) (Figure 

### 3).

Wild Salmon Downstream migration 

### of wild salmon 

### was inprogress when bypass monitoring began May 

### 15, and 

### was continuing when monitoring ended July 

### 25. These salmon used the bypasses, except when the culvert tests were being run. From May 

### 15 to July

### 25, 13,299 wild 

### salmon were captured 

### at 

### the bypass outlet. Peak catches occurred during May when the 

### averper 24-hour trapping period yielded 

### 1,300 salmon (Table e maximum 24-hour catch of 1,821 salmon occurred the week of May 

### 13-19 (Figure 

## 4; Appendix Table 1). Bypass catches declined afterMay 

### 19 (Figure 

### 4). The lowest catchwas the week 

### of July 15-21, which averaged 

### 97 salmon per 24-hours of' trapping (Figure 

## 4; Appendix Table 1). A diurnalmovement identical 

### to that described forthe marked salmon was observed 

### inwild salmon. Movement was mainly during reduced light periods (2000 

### to 0600 .hours), and totals 

### of 

### 73 and 

### 81 percent 

### of the king salmon recovered moved through the culverts and bypass during this period (Figure 

### 3). Bypass-caught wild salmon ranged from 

### 28-120mm 

### 11.1-4.7 inches) FL, Monthly mean fork lengths varied rrom a high of 82 mm 

### (3.2 inches) inJune, 

### to a low of 

### 72 mm 

### (2.8 inches) 

### inJuly (Figure 

### 5; Appendix Figure 1)-

### -8-

TABLE 1 

### Bypass Recoveries of 

### Marked 

## King Salmon 1974 Area of

# I Total Marks Total Marks 

### 'Percent Percent Release Released Recovered Recovered 

## Not Recovered !Iehind 

### Trash- 

# I 2992 588 19.65 

## 8035

Channel
' 

# I 454 15.64 84.36

1042

## r/ 1168 

## 8232

TABLE 2 

### Culvert Recoveriesof 

### Marked 

## King 

## Salmon 1974 Area of

# I Total Marks

# I Total Marks Percent 

## Percent Release Released Recovend Recovered 

## Not Recovered
30.06 69.94

I 

### 37.11 

### 62.29

Totals 

# I 18,535 

# I 33.98 66.02

### -9-

BY PASSES 

### 0 CULVERTS

## -aBI-HOURLY 

### MOVEMENT OF 

### DOWNSTREAM MIGRANT KING 

## SALMON THROUGH 

### THE BY-PASSES 

### AND 

## CULVERTS (COMBINED DATA FOR 

### 7 DAYS OF 

### COMPLETE SAMPL 

### ING FOR 

### THE BY-PASSES AND 

### 3 DAYS 

### FOR THE CULVERTS) I 

### 1974.

### -12­

> 4 3 7

W 

### z 3 3



### > 

### a 

### n

n-11-

CULVERTS BY- PASSES

### -0­ 

# .,q
I 1 1 1 1 J 1 2500- I 1 I I I I I 

### zoo0 i I I 1 1 I I I 500- i f I I 1 I I t QOO

500

I : I I 1 000 I 13-19 19-26 2f-2 3-5) 10-16 17-23 2430 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 

### M

### BY dUNE JULY 

### FIGURE 4. 

### WEEKLY CATCH OF 

### DOWNSTREAM 

### MIGRANT 

### KING SALMON.
21 A FRESHET 

### OCCURRED OURIMG JULY 8 14, 

### RESULTING 

### IM A HIOH CATCH.-10-

TABLE 

### 3 Bypass 

## Catches of

### Wild 

## Hifig

## Salmon 1974 

## Numberof 

## Month 

# ITrap 

## Hours May 98.8 

## June 226.9 July 

### 263.2 

## Totals 

# I 588.9 

# I WildSalmon 

## Cailaht

5352 5075 2872 Catch 

## Per 24

## -TrapHours
1300.1

536.8 261.9 13,299 

# I

I

TABLE 

### 4 

## Culvert CatchesofWild King

## Salmon 1974 

## Catch Per 24-Trap 

## Hours
June 

# I 163.8 

# I 5116 

# I 749.6 136.5 7352 

### 1292.6

# L/

Totals 

# I 300.3 

# I 12,468 

# I

­
r/ A freshet occurred July 

### 8-14, resulting in a high catch,

### -13

## ­
3etween June 12 and July 

### 19, 12,468 wild salmon were captured 

### at the 

### culvert outlets. The peak occurred 

### in July, when average catchper 24-hour trapping period was 

### 1,293 salmon (Table

### 4). The highest 24-hour catch 

### (3,434) occurred following a freshet in the week 

### of July 

### 8-14. The lowest catch occurred the week 

### of July 15-21 (average of 247 salmon 

### per 2bhours) (Figure

### 4; Appendix Table 2). These salmon ranged from 32-110 mtn (1.2-4.3 inches) FL, Monthly mean fork lengths varied 

### from a hi h of 

### 83 mrn 

### (3.3 inches) in June 

### to a low of 

### 74 mm 

### (2.9 inches inJuly (Figure 

### 5; Appendix Figure 1). The 

### diurnal migration observed in the bypass tests also occurred in the.culvert study.
Comparison of Bypass and Culverts During a four-hour test on July 

### 16, bypasses and culverts were opened simultaneously 

### to assess fishmovements. Mean catchper hour of wild salmon was 

### 18 and 

### 8 through the culverts and the bypasses, respectively. This duplicated the 2:l ratio 

### of recoveries of marked and wild salmon obtained 

### in the independent tests.
Rotary 

### Drum Screen Evaluation

.. . Nets fished inthe irrigation canal caught 

### 18 wild salmon 

### in 

### 168 hours of sampling. Salmon captured 

### in the canal ran ed from 56-92 mm (2.2-3.6 inches) 

### FL, ,witha mean size 

### of 

### 76 mm $3.0 inches) 

### FL, Of' the three bays inwhich fyke net sampling was conducted behind the screens, only one net caught fish, This net caught 

### 55 salmon during 

### 38.5 hours 

### (1.4 salmon per 

### hour). These salmon ranged 

### from 

### 28-34 mm (1.1-1.3 inches) FL with a mean of 32 

### mm

(1.2 inches) FL.

DISCUSSION


### Bypass System Downstream migrant salmon 

### are reluctant 

### to use the bypasses. The narrow width of' the bypasses 

### B5.2 em 

### (6inchesg

## , the gravity operation, and sediment accumulation 

### in the bypasses may be 

### limiting its efficiency. 

### Also, bypass entrancevelocities may not be unifoym across the screen structure due 

### to differences 

### in head 

### from sediment deposits,Ruggles and Ryan 

### (1964) concluded that guiding efficiencyincreased from 

### 51 to 67.percentwhen bypass width increased from 

### 15.2 em (6 inches) to

### 30.5 cm (12 inches). The pair 

### of culverts in the diversion dam were twice as effective

### as the bypasses 

### inpassing salmon below the diversion dam, The wider opening at the entrance to

### tne culverts and the whirlpool caused by the diversion dam may have contributed tothe greaterutilization 

### of the culverts.

Trashrack Marked salmon released between the trashrack and screens moved out and located the culverts, however the difference 

### in

### return rates for both the culvert and bypass tests indicate the 

### trashrack 

### is having an effect on salmon movements (Tables 1and 2).

Salmon Survival The fate of the 

### 66-82 percent of marked releases that did 

### not utilize the b 

### asses 

### or culverts 

### is undetermined. Four explanations are: 

# (3 they returned upstream and out tothe 

### river, (2) they were eaten by predators, 

### (3) they escaped through the drum screens via the screen mesh and seals, and 

### (4) combinations of the first three,
Migratory Behavior The greatest numbers of salmon passed through the bypasses and culverts during darkness, This agrees with studies of entrainment of fishfingerlings 

### at various water intake structures (Pavlov 

### 1969). Pavlov concluded that during low illumination, the fishes’ abilitytovisually orient in

### a stream of 

### water is 

### reduced, thereby reducing their swimming abilityand causing them tobecome passive,

CONCLUSIONS

1. More fishpassed through a pair of culverts than through the 10 bypasses incorporated intothe fish screen. 2. The fate of 

### 66-82 percent of the test fishnot recovered in the bypass and culvert systems 

### is unknown. 

### 3. The presence of 

### a trashrack has an effect on salmon movements.

### 4.



### 5. Fish entrained between the trashrack and screens are able 

### to move 

### out and locate culverts downstream from the screens under 

### low bypass 

### flow conditions, although with 

### a lower return rate than fish in the channel in front of the trashrack. 

### Most outmigrant salmon moved during twilight and dark.

ACKNOWLEDGEDENTS

I thank John Skinner and WilliamHeubach who designed and supervised the study. Special thanks 

### to JerryWise who was invaluable 

### in the collection of data and construction of equipment used in the study. Robert Clark and his staff from the Glenn-Colusa 

### Irrigation District and Russell Franson and his staff from the Depart

### ment of Water Resources provided continuing support. The Feathey River Hatchery supplied marked salmon for the study. Thanks also toDan Odenweller and Glenn Delisle for criticallyreviewing th5s 

### report.

### -16-
LITERATURE CITED Pavlov, 

### D, S. 

### 1969. Entrapment of fishfingerlings 

### inpumping installations as related tofeatures of theirbehavior and orientation 

### in the stream of water. Prob. of fchthyol. g(2)

### ~237-243. Ruggles, C. P. and P. Ryan. 

### 1964. An investigation of louvers as 

### a method of guiding 

### juvenile Pacific 

### salmon. The Canadian 

### Fish Culturist, 

### (33)~6%.

### -- 

### -17-

APPENDIX TABLE 

### 1 Bypass Recoveries

Number 

### of 

### trap 

### hours 

### 24.5 36.0 45.8 88.2 39.0 

### 44.2 48.0 

### 65.5 68.5 64.5 64.7
588.9 of 

### Wild King Salmon

Recoveries of Catch per

wild salmon 

### 24-trap hours 

### 1859 1821.1 

### 2627 1751

# .3 1016 

### 532

## -4 1815 493.9 1566 96307 

### 1145 621.7



### 399 761 

### 278 8 1506 

### 527.6 199 5

261 

### 97.1 344 127 

### 6 13,299 Week 

### May 

### 13-19

d 

### 19-26 May 

### 27-June 2 June 

### 3-9 10-16 17-23 24-30 July 

### 1-7 

### 8-14 I 

### 15-21 22-28
Totals

APPENDIX TABLE 2 Culvert Recoveries of Wild 

### King Salmon

Week

J June 

### 10-16 

### 17-23 24-30
JU~Y

### 1-7 8-14 15-21 Totals 1 I I 

# I f



### 667 

### 5 Number of 

### trap hours Recoveries of 

### wild salmon Catch per 

### 24-trap hours 

### 34.8 632 435.9 64.0 

### 2649 t 

### 993.Q 

### 65.0 

### 1835 45.5 705 

### 371.9 43.0 6153 

### 3434.2 48.0 

### 494 247.0 300.3 

# I 12,468 

# I

-



# I 150 40
30 20
10

-J 5 0 Q 

### k 

### 0 40

### I30 

### -18- APPENDIX FIGURE 1. 

### LENGTH 

## FREQUENCIES OF WILD DOWN 

### STREAM MlGRANT KING SALMON C&P 

### TURED THROUGH THE 

## BY PASSES AND

CULVERTS.

JUNE

BY-PA SSm

## &=82mm. 

### cULVERT 

## 3=83mm.

BY-PASS@ 

## ~~72 mm, 

# CULVER^ =74

## m

## m,

22 32 42 52 62 72 92 102 112 12 

### FORK LENGTH 

### hm.1