## 2 (020



# Fish Collections and Secondary Louver Efficiency 

# at the Tracy Fish Collection Facility: October 1993 to September

MARK D. BOWEN' 

### , SCOTT M. SIEGFRIED2 , CHARLES R. LISTON'



### LLOYD J. HESS. , AND CATHERINE A. 

### TRACY FISH COLLECTION FACILITY STUDIES,

CALIFORNIA, VOLUME 7



### UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION


### DENVER TECHNICAL SERVICES CENTER 

### Ecological Research and Investigations Group

AND



### MID- P ACIFIC

. 2 South Central California Area Office



### Tracy Office



### May 1998

### TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa2e



### ABSTRACT. . .
BACKGROUND AND FACILITY THE SECONDARY LOUVER SIEVE NET


### METHODS. . . . Data Collection. . . . Statistical Methods. . . . 

### RESULTS. . . . Sieve Net and Holding Length Frequencies. . . 

### Sieve Net and Holding


### DISCUSSION. . . . . . 

# RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................... Long Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .



### Short SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .



### ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . 

### LITERATURE CITED. .

TABLES

Table 1. 

### . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Table 2.

Table 3. 

### . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 4. 

### (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha) runs observed at Red Bluff Diversion Dam 

### . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

### TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page 

### FIGURES Figure 1. 

### Map of the Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta indicating the location of



### the Tracy Fish Collection Facility. . . . . Figure 2. 

### Schematic of the Tracy Fish Collection Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 3. 

### (b) chinook salmon taken in the holding tank (n=595) and sieve net

(n=94), and (c) chinook salmon taken during the day (n=482) and at 

### night (n=169) . . . . . . . . .
Figure 4.
Figure 5. 

### Figure 6. 

### Length frequency histograms for (a) all American shad (n=248),



### (b) American shad taken in the holding tank (n=104) and net (144), and (c) American shad taken during the day (n=199) 

### and at night (n=49) " . . Figure 7. 

### Length frequency histogram for all white catfish Figure 8. 

### Secondary louver efficiency at the Tracy Fish Collection Facility at three

times of day for (a) all species combined, (b) chinook salmon , and (c) splittail 

### Figure 9. 

### Secondary louver efficiency at the Tracy Fish Collection Facility at three



### times of day for (a) striped bass, (b) American shad , and (c) white catfish . . . 30 

### Figure 10. Secondary louver

at the Tracy Fish Collection Facility for (a) all 

### (b) chinook salmon , and (c) splittail ................................... 

### Figure 11. Secondary louver

at the Tracy Fish Collection Facility for (a) striped bass , (b) American 

### shad , and (c) white 

### Figure 12. Secondary louver

Facility for (a) all species combined , (b) chinook salmon 

### , and (c) splittail

### TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Pa/le

Figure 13. Secondary louver



### Facility for (a) striped bass, (b) American shad , and (c) white catfish . . . . . . . 34



### APPENDIX A - MAJOR SPECIES



### INFORMATION. . . . Chinook Salmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .



### Delta Smelt. . . . Splittail '" 

### Striped Bass. . . . 

### American Shad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .



### White Catfish. . . . White and Green Sturgeon. . . .


### APPENDIX B - REVIEW OF TRACY FISH COLLECTION FACILITY STUDIES: Volumes 1- 4 ........................................................... 39

### Fish Collections and Secondary Louver Efficiency 

## at the Tracy 

## October 1993 to September 1995

ABSTRACT 

## The of 

## this study were (1) describe the 

### through the secondary louvers and into the holding tanks at the Tracy Fish Collection 

### Facility (TFCF) and (2) 

## louver environmental and 

### We deployed a sieve net in the 

### channel behind the second louver array and collected 254 holding tank samples between October 1993 and September goal 

# we

composition and size of 

### fish passing through the secondary numeric dominant in the sieve net and holding 

# tank (79 percent) were made in 1995 , a wet year. Therefore 

# we

dominance was the result of 

### a strong spawn

and entrainment of many young-of- year fish (Mean TL = 31 rnm (1. 2 in) J to the TFCF. 

### second goal was to analyze secondary louver 

### efficiency. We

efficiency as the percentage of 

### fish directed into the holding tanks compared to the number 

### of fish entering the secondary concentrated our analysis of secondary louver 

### efficiency on three 

### secondary approach velocity index , debris load , and time of 

### approach velocity appeared to have any statistically significant 

### influence on secondary However 

### , the time of day had a 

### significant impact on efficiency in two cases. First , for all species combined , logistic regression

time of day was 

# efficiency Efficiency = 81 percent , Night = 67 percent ). 

### Second 

## , for , the time of 

### day was negatively correlated with efficiency 

### (Daylight Mean = , Night = 83 percent). We concluded that future research

should continue to focus on time of 

### day as a factor influencing secondary louver efficiency. In addition 

### , we improve fisheries protection at the TFCF. For 

### example 

### , in the high water year of 1995 , we obtained 99. 9 percent of 

### 371 splittail 

### between May contracted period of vulnerability, approach 

### velocity could be secondary louver channel to improve splittail 

### louver efficiency while we continue to meet all water and fish agreement obligations. 

## BACKGROUND AND FACILITY 

## DESCRIPTION

Since 1873 , the U. S. Government has assisted

the State of 

### California in water development in the Central Valley (U. S. Congress , 1874). Subsequently, Bennett' 

### s (1906) report for the S. Reclamation Service (now U. S. Bureau of Reclamation

number of 

## possible development of the Sacramento River basin. 

### Cooperative investigations by and the State Engineer 

### s Office resulted in a comprehensive plan for water development in the Central Valley (Anonymous , 1931). This

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study



## plan Project (CVP); a key transfer of water from the Sacramento River basin to the San Joaquin watershed. In 1933 

### the CVP was approved by State referendum. In 1935 

### , the U. S. Congress authorized the 

## CVP Reclamation began construction. 

### The water from the Sacramento River 

### system from the north and the San Joaquin drainage system from the 

### systems converge in the central portion of the state forming a huge natural estuary and Delta 

## (Figure San Francisco Bay- Delta are influenced by 

### many factors including tides , precipitation freshwater outflows, export 

### irrigation practices. irrigation have influenced the Delta ecosystem for decades. 

### Two important components of the CVP are a 

### pumping plant in the southern portion of the Delta (Tracy canal to move the water to the southern end of 

### the Central Valley (Delta (DMC)). These two components are central to 

### the export of water for irri ation domestic 

### and industrial needs. Now 

### , the TPP is one of 

### two large pumping plants in the south Delta (the other is the State-operated 

### Banks Delta Pumping Plant). The TPP draws water from the Old River channel of the lower 

### San Joaquin River into the intake channel of the DMC. Before the Old River water enters the DMC 

### , the water passes through the TFCF (Figure 2). The TFCF is a large fish diversion 

### and salvage facility that operates to prevent fish from being drawn into the Delta Mendota 

### Canal intake facilities are located about northwest of intake channel 

### , and a pilot structure (site of the completed in 1951. In 1952 

### , Reclamation and 

### the U.S. Fish and Wildlife assistance from the California Department of Fish and Game and the California Department of Water Resources , began testing various types of 

### Department of the Interior 

### , 1957) at the pilot 

### structure to reduce impacts of pumping on

striped bass (Morone saxatilis) and chinook

salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). After 

### 2 years of testing, it was system of louvers , bypasses and 

### collectionlholding tanks was diverting fish from the debris- 

### laden flow of the south completed in 1955 , and by 1957 , the current 

### fish facility was in decade , primary and secondary louvers , louver guides , trashrack , valves , other supporting 

### infrastructure , and 

### pumps were Collection Facility. 

### The fish diversion system at the TFCF uses a louver- bypass-collection system to divert fish 

### from exported flow sections are a framework of evenly (23. 4-rnm (O. 92- 

### in) openings) vertical slats that traverse the channel and allow water to pass to the pumps while creating turbulence which the fish can detect. Design of the louver system was based on observations that fish 

### orient upstream , into the flow , but when they encounter an obstruction , move laterally to be

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study

swept downstream (Bates and Visonhaler 

### 1956). Thus , the fish guide along the louver 

### face and eventually are carried into a bypass 

### opening. The probability that a fish will be louvered (or guided into a bypass opening) is strongly influenced by its swimming ability, size 

### , and the approach velocity (EPR! , 1986). 

### We define approach velocity as the average 

### velocity parallel to the rectangular upstream of independent factors than approach velocity 

### may influence louvering; these amount of debris blocking the louver spaces 

### bypass velocities , predator load 

### , and time of day among other variables. 

### Two louver systems screen fish at the TFCF. 

### The first or primary louver system is 97. 5 m 

### (320 ft) in length and 25. 

### 6-m (84- 

### ft) wide openings each 15.2 cm (6 in) in width (one occun1ng about every 22. 9 m (75 ft)) lead into 91.4-cm (36- 

### in) diameter pipes that water and fish to the secondary louver system. 

## The parallel lines of louvers (each 9. 3 m (30. 2 ft) 

### long) that span the 2.4-m (8. ft) wide secondary channel also at a 

### and material diverted by this system enter a common bypass opening which feeds into four large circular holding tanks (flows are directed 

### into only one tank at anyone 

## second concentrate the collected fish and reduce the 

### volume of water entering the holding tanks. Fish , and debris 

### , are regularly removed from the holding tanks and returned to the Delta. 

## The
surface trash 

### concentrates and directs floating debris to a conveyor belt for disposal , and by a trashrack 

## with 9-mm (2.1- in) intervals. The trashrack is located between the 

### surface trash deflector and the primary louver array. Together 

### , the deflector and trash rack function to keep large debris from entering and damaging the primary louver system. The 

### trashrack also prevents entering the facility. The trashrack and louvers 

### become heavily clogged with river (primarily macrophytes) at various

throughout 

## the trashrack and louvers are cleaned frequently, often daily, because debris accumulation may 

### negatively affect fish salvage efficiency. 

### The louver system at the TFCF was designed 

### to divert and collect young (~ 25-rnm (I- in) 

## total downstream migrating chinook salmon smolts from the exported flow (Bates and Visonhaler 1956). During the first few years of operation pumping was mostly restricted to the summer months , a time when young salmon were less vulnerable to entrainment by the pumps. This 

### period of peak pumping coincided with thepresence oflarge numbers oflarval and postlarval striped bass. However , Bates and Visonhaler postulated that the louver- bypass 

### system diverted most of these fish. The current practice of year-round pumping at high rates (and consequently higher velocities) 

## was s with 

### construction of San consequence of 

### relatively high rates is that the louver system 

## may originally designed. Under current operating procedures , discharges (Q) through the facility

range from 0 to 141.5 /s (0 to 4 

### 500 ff/s) in 

### the primary channel and from 0 to 3.

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study



### (0 to 175 ft3 /S) in the secondary channel 

### depending primarily on the number of pumps 

### operated. In addition to the pumps , flow 

### hydraulics and fish entrainment to the TFCF are influenced by the 

### water diversions and tides. The objectives of this investigation 

### describe the populations of fish observed in the holding tanks and passing through the 

### secondary re-evaluation of secondary louver efficiency (defined as the success of the secondaries at 

### diverting fish into the holding tanks) under current operating conditions include higher discharges 

### , greater channel approach velocities , and higher debris 

### accumulations than in previous decades. This 

### evaluation focuses on fish species of special concern or economic importance including

green (Acipenser medirostris) 

### and white 

## (Acipenser sturgeon

American shad (Alosa sapidissima), splittail

(Pogonichthys macrolepidotus), white catfish

(Ictalurus catus), delta smelt (Hypomesus
transpacificus), 

### chinook salmon , and striped bass. 

## THE SECONDARY LOUVER 

## SIEVE NET

In the 1950' 

## , the efficiency was 92 to 100 percent for chinook 

### salmon and 86 to 95 percent for striped bass (Bates et aI. 

### , 1960). In 1966- , efficiency in the primary louvers was 75 to 100 percent for 

### striped bass of 1967). From 1991 to 1992 

### , the range oflouver 

### efficiencies for chinook salmon was 72 to 100 percent in the secondaries. And , louver 

### efficiencies for striped bass 

## 96 90 percent in the secondaries (Karp et aI. 1995. We hypothesized that louver efficiencies have deteriorated at the TFCF. We investigated this hypothesis in the deploying a sieve net behind the second of the 

### two secondary louver principal objectives. First 

### , we studied the fish population passing through the secondary 

### louvers at the TFCF. Second 

## , we secondary louver efficiency with respect to environmental and operational parameters.

In this report , we evaluate the fish passing through the secondary louvers , determine 

### critical , and estimate sample sizes required for these future 

## trials. elucidate our understanding of the 

### influences on salvage efficiency.



## METHODS

Data 

## Collection We collected 254 October 27 , 1993 , and September 20 , 1995. 

### Each paired sample consisted of a sieve net 

### sample and a holding tank sample obtained simultaneously. The sieve net is 12. 

## 8 m secondary louver array and completely spans the secondary channel. The sieve net (mouth: 244 em 

### 6 m 3 mm deployed for the same length of time fish are 

### directed into a holding tank (effective mesh

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study

size: 3.2 mm (118 in)). From both the sieve net 

## and , all identified to species and the number recorded. 

### When possible , we measured individuals to 

### the nearest mm in fork length (FL). We found the secondary louvers/holding tank 

### system and salmon in the same size However , we felt it possible that other species 

## and life different effectiveness because the louvers and 

### sieve net are fundamentally different types of gear. Both of these methodologies capture individuals as small as 20 mm (0. 8 in) FL. We believe both gears to be most effective for fish greater than 30 mm (1. 

### 2 in) FL; therefore , we limited comparisons between the two methods 

### to fish greater than 30 rnm (1.2 in) FL.
Environmental and recorded in association with each paired (sieve 

### net/holding tank) sample: water temperature; depth in front of the trashrack and in the 

### primary and secondary channels; wet weight of debris in the sieve net and holding tank; ambient light conditions (day, dusk , night , and dawn); secondary bypass opening (0 to 600 

## and Occasionally, we recorded whether 

### water was on or off combination ofVC pumps in operation. 

### We used channel water depth and facility parameters to calculate primary discharge and 

### discharge. In addition 

### , we used primary and secondary depths , and the number of operating VC pumps to provide the secondary approach velocity index (SA VI). 

## Statistical
We defined tank fish catch/(holding tank fish catch + sieve 

### net fish catch)). We analyzed the dependent variable salvage efficiency through a four-step process.
First 

### , we coded three for the analysis. Debris load was coded " when less than 150 grams (0. 

### 33 lb) of debris was obtained in the holding tank , "

2" when the amount of (0. 

### 33 to 0. 771b) grams , and " 

### 3" when more than 350 grams (O. 77Ib) were observed. Time of day was coded " 0" for night , "



### 1" for crepuscular (dawn and dusk) periods , and " for day. SA VI intermediate velocity indices and intermediate and " 

### 2" for high. and SA VI were selected by expert opinion. 

## These information concerning the TFCF exists with which to improve them.
Second 

### , we conducted a 3- Way Analysis of Variance (ANOV A) with 

### independent variables and raw efficiency. If all assumptions of 

### (normality, homogeneity of variance , and 

### independence of observations), we analyzed and reported the ANOV A table.


### Third 

## , if an , we performed two 

### efficiency transformed the data so that we might meet the assumption of normality. Then , we could still use the robust ANOV technique. We then conducted a 3- Way ANOV A with each 

### transformed data set. If all

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study

ANOV A were met 

### , we analyzed and reported the ANOV A table.
Fourth , if an assumption was violated with the transformed data , we coded the raw efficiency as " 

### 0" when salvage efficiency was less than 75 and as " 

### 1" when efficiency was greater than 0. 

### 75. We regression. All 

### performed with Statistical Analysis Software Version 6. 11 (SAS Institute Inc. , c;ary, NC).



## RESULTS
Sieve Net 

## Collections 

## and Holding Tank

In 254 paired samples 

### , we collected a total of 

### 065 fish 

### sieve net and a 

## 408 representing 33 species in the holding tanks. 

### In both , the sieve net and holding tanks 

### , the numeric dominant was splittail (Table 1). For 

### all species combined , sieve net and holding tank catch rates (fish/minute) were greater 

### during light hours than during dark (Table 2). However , 201 of 254 

### samples were obtained during crepuscular periods. Furthermore 

### , during the period when catch rates tend to increase at the 

### TFCF (March through June), we 94 daytime and crepuscular samples and only 20 samples , the large daytime 

### catch rate we 

## have been daytime and crepuscular sampling. In addition 

### to catch rate , louver 

### statistically lower at night for combined (Table 3). We also examined the 

### paired sample collections for regarding the target species such as chinook salmon. 

### The fall run of abundant of the four 

### , we expected the number of smolts observed at the 

### TFCF to peak in May each year (see Table 4 

### and Appendix A). During May, the sieve net and holding tank retained chinook salmon 

### smolts at 1.75 to 6 times the rate of months of the year. For example in the sieve net 

### , chinook salmon smolts were obtained at 

### 0.161 fish/minute in all months except May, when the catch rate was 0. 282 fish/minute. In 

### sieve net and , we 

### observed catch rate for chinook salmon taken 

### during light hours was during dark hours (Table 2). However , like the daytime 

### combined , daytime chinook salmon rates could have been inflated due to when we did our most intensive sampling. The inflation 

### of catch rate as an artifact of our regime 

### , could explain why our results differ from that of Puckett et al. (1996). They found 

### catch generally higher at night. In this study with regard to chinook salmon , the catch rate at the 

### TFCF peaked in May and was slightly higher during light hours; the mean louver efficiency was 83 percent (Table 3). For chinook salmon we obtained sufficient 

### samples) to analyze seasonal and die! trends and secondary louver efficiency. But , this was 

### not the case for delta smelt. 

### We caught only two delta smelt during this 

### study. Both were within expected adult vulnerable to

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study

smelt was caught on February 2 , 1995 

### , and another on April 12 , 1995. These dates are 

### within the period we seeking spawning habitat (see Appendix A). 

## In , splittail routinely observed in the sieve net and holding 

### tank paired samples. Splittail abundance may have been high 

### , compared to other years , for 

## two , we 254 paired samples in 1995. Second , 1995 

### was a wet 

### spawn 371 splittail collected in this study, 99. 9 percent of these fish were obtained between July 13 suggesting 

### susceptible to entrainment to the TFCF when the young-of- 

### the- year appear in the However , the nighttime catch rate is unknown 

### because of limited Another interesting result was the mean catch rate in the sieve net 

### 9 splittail per minute while. the species combined was 1. 6 fish per minute. 

### Mean splittail catch rate was higher than that for all species combined because we discarded 

### 0:0 paired samples from this analysis , i. 

### , if 

### we caught no fish in the holding tank , we did not use sample in the calculation of catch rate because this observation provided 

### regarding catch rate. In this study with regard to splittail , the catch rate was six times greater 

### than that for all other species from May 

## July , the mean efficiency was 63 percent (Table 3). Unlike splittail 

### , striped bass were taken year

### round , the slowest catch 

### 369 fish/ 

### minute) compared to (1. 

### 657 fish/minute). This period includes the 

### typical spawning period (Moyle , 1976). We 

### theorize that striped bass eggs and larvae are too small for our gear during 

### April 6 to June 20 , and the previous year 

## progeny susceptible to entrainment. In holding tank samples , striped bass exhibited a higher catch rate during light periods than 

### during dark periods. Yet , in the sieve net , the catch rates during light and dark periods were 

### nearly indistinguishable (Table 2). The mean 

### louver 86 percent (Table 3). 

## Like , American shad show seasonal periodicity in 

### susceptibility. From May American shad young are moving downstream 

### to the ocean and are most entrainment. In the sieve net and holding tank 

### combined 

### , we found the catch rate , between 

## May I to , to be 0. 533 fish/ 

### minute in
year: 0. 

### 007 fish/minute. American shad also showed a significant diel trend; they are two 

### or more times as likely to pass through the louvers and into the sieve net during the light hours than during dark hours (Table 2). Mean 

### salvage efficiency was 52 percent. And , the salvage efficiency at night was significantly higher than during the day (Table 4). 

### White catfish showed little seasonality in the 

### sieve net and holding tank collections. This species was detected year-round. White catfish 

### catch rate in the holding tanks and sieve net 

### was higher (Table 2). Overall 

### , white catfish mean louver efficiency was 89 percent.

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study

In contrast to the white catfish' 

### s ubiquity, no 

### sturgeon were taken during this 

## paired

79.4 hours of the 16 

### 632 hours that transpired 

### during the course of this sturgeons ' rareness in the salvage at the TFCF , their capture was an extremely unlikely event in the study 

### s brief sampling period.
Length Frequencies 

### We found 96 measured in this study were between 70 and 130 mm (2. 8 and 5. 

### 2 in) FL (Figure 3a). As expected , chinook salmon at vulnerable to entrainment to the TFCF. Few salmon 30 to 70 mm (1. 2 to 2. 

### 8 in) FL were collected. Both the holding tank and sieve net 

### mesh sizes are small enough to capture these 

### smaller fish. smaller size range have traveled down river a sufficient distance to entrainment. 

### Length collected in the holding tank and the sieve net 

### are similar (Figure 3b). However , smaller 

## smolts (Figure 3c). 

### A few splittaillengths were recorded this study (n=74). Of these 74 observations young of the year (Mean FL = 31 mm (1.2 in)) dominated the catch (Figure 4). 

### The average FL of striped bass this study was 116 mm (4. 

### 6 in). The largest individual collected was 366 mm (14.4 in) FL (Figure 5). 

### The distribution of American shad lengths is bell-shaped (Figure 6a) and centered at a mean 

### of96 mm (3. 8 in) FL. When these data were partitioned by gear type 

### , we observed slightly larger fish in the holding tank than in the sieve 

### net (Figure 6b). When partitioned by time of 

### day, these data indicated slightly larger fish were collected during dark hours compared to 

### light hours (Figure 6c). 

### The distribution of white catfish lengths was 

### bimodal suggesting we often collect the first two year classes (Figure 7). In this study, we 

### collected fish from 33 to 14. 0 in) FL. This result suggests white catfish 

### may be vulnerable to TFCF their entire lives. 

# Sieve Net Statistical Tank

When an individual representing a fish species 

### was caught in the paired holding tank sample , we defined this as 

# an Conversely, when we obtained a species in the 

### holding tank but not in the paired sieve net sample , we defmed this as a salvage efficiency 

# of occurred. Therefore 

### , we found the secondary efficiency data were distributed bimodally. No 

## transformation distribution. Therefore , we relied upon logistic 

### regression , a non- 

### parametric (Hosmer and Lemeshow , 1989). 

### We observed only two 

## effects for louver Interestingly, they both involved time of day:

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study



### positive combined and a 

### American graphically to determine if diel 

### exist that were not (Figures 8- 

### 9). However 

### , it appeared variation 

### in the data would mask any real differences that might exist.

F or the (SA VI) , no 

### relationships to salvage efficiency emerged. 

## The efficiency, with regard to the SA VI , reflects 

### our inability to account for many sources of error in operational parameter measurement (Figures 10- 

# 11). exhibits a great deal of variability with regard to debris load (Figure 12- 

### 13). Our measure of 

## debris unmeasured operational parameters than was 

# the However , the variation in efficiency with 

### regard to debris was considerable.


### Three factors interact to make this less robust than desired. First , the required 

### non- 

### parametric analysis 

### , logistic regression may not be as effective at determining real 

### differences as a parametric technique would be. Second , there is a great deal of variability 

# in efficiency. Third 

### , operating conditions were not always reported with these samples , e. screen water. Thus , additional sources of 

### variation may be biologically significant effects. We concluded that the most conservative interpretation of 

### these data is they do not represent a sample of sufficient size to demonstrate statistically that time of , or 

### approach velocity are influencing secondary louver efficiency. 

## DISCUSSION
In the first assessment of the TFCF , Bates et al. (1960) reported chinook salmon secondary 

### salvage efficiency was 92 to 

### Karp et al. 72 to 100 secondary louver efficiency was 83 percent for 

### chinook efficiency may be lower for chinook salmon now than when the facility was constructed. 

### For striped bass. Bates et al. (1960) reported 

### the secondary salvage efficiency was 88 to 97 percent. Hallock (1967) reported striped bass louver efficiencies in the primaries were 75 to 100 percent. Karp et al. (1995) reported louver efficiency for striped bass was 40 to 96 

### percent in the primaries and 44 to 90 percent in the secondaries. We found secondary louver 

### efficiency was 86 overall facility efficiency for striped bass could be 82 percent (. 96 x . 857). Like chinook salmon 

### , overall TFCF salvage efficiency for 

### striped bass may now be lower than at the time of construction. Examination of the sieve net and holding tank 

### collections suggested that time of day was related to catch rate for all species combined chinook salmon , splittail , American shad , and 

### white catfish. For every species for which sufficient data were collected , except striped 

### bass 

### , time of day

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study

rate. In addition , time of day was a statistically 

### significant influence on salvage efficiency for all species 

### Furthermore , compared , larger 

### chinook salmon were smaller American shad 

### night. Thus , subsequent experiments could 

### focus on the relationship between time of day 

# and experimental approach to the between time of day and require a 

### observations. For such an estimated the required sample size. 

## To , we observations of variation in salvage efficiency to determine the 

### Way ANOVA independent variables we extensive variation (see Table 3 , column 3) observed in the suggested a large number of samples would be required to determine if the independent 

### variables of interest truly influence salvage efficiency. We calculated the required to discriminate the influence of time of day, debris , and approach 

### secondary louver efficiency. We wanted to detect a true difference of 10 percent between 

### means. We accepted a 20 percent chance that 

## we hypothesis and a 5 percent chance that we 

### might determined 

# for 210 observations would be required for each unique combination of the three independent 

### variables (Sokal and Rohlf , 1981). The estimated sample size (n) of 210 for each combination should be conducted a I- Way ANOV A with two or three 

### levels oftime of day. In contrast , in this study, we had 110 chinook salmon samples for three levels of light. 

### We suggested that our sample size was not sufficient to significant influence of debris on louver efficiency. Yet , debris causes extensive 

### logistical problems at the TFCF. Each year floating water- 

### hyacinth 

### Eichhornia 

### crassipes 

### and Egeria (or Brazilian Egeria densa 

### require hundreds of hours for 

### removal. These two species were not in the Delta when the TFCF was constructed. These 

### plants were cleaning of the louvers has 

### difficult in recent years. In addition to debris we also investigated the influence of approach 

### velocity on secondary louver efficiency. Because secondary velocity was not measured we developed an index of channel velocity, SA VI. However 

### , we effectively evaluate the influence of channel velocity on secondary salvage efficiency. Any 

### additional data including a measurement of channel velocity. 

### While back-calculating the average channel velocity may be helpful 

### , direct measurements 

### of secondary channel velocity may be more important because a complex flow field exists 

### in the secondary channel. In this study, we found time of day was related 

# to
influence of approach velocity was not detected. However 

## many independent influence louver

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study

anything affecting the amount of light in the 

### channel could influence what fish sense and therefore 

### , louver efficiency. Cloudy weather wind 

### , and water turbidity could all influence the amount of light in the channel and louver 

### efficiency. And , the cumulative factors unaccounted for by us 

### obscured the influences of any of the factors 

### we , debris load and 

### approach velocity might have a influence on louver efficiency and we did not 

### detect it because of variation. 

### The life coupled to entrainment to the 

### example , in the high water year of 1995 99. 9 percent of the 18 371 splittail observed in 

### this study was obtained between May 

### July 13. Chinook example. In May of each year , we captured chinook salmon smolts at 2. 

### 5 to 3 times the rate of that during the remainder of the year. In addition , Puckett et al. (1996) found the number of 

### holding tanks was correlated with time of day 

### and tides. We postulate that operations of the 

### TFCF could be better tailored to life history 

### traits of target species. An could determine feasibility of protecting more 

### fish through four , we would 

### consider a new Tracy system by using real- time monitoring and adaptive management. Second 

### , we would 

### make predictions of fish TFCF and test , we 

### could decrease impacts on fish while still meeting water and fish agreement obligations. Fourth 

## we experimental determine if we can improve salvage and still 

### meet our agencies. 

## RECOMMENDATIONS Long Term Salvage efficiency at the TFCF may declined over the changes have occurred in the Delta ecosystem over this period that could also be responsible
for this decline. could be due to the facility itself having aged; 

### the superior maintenance schedule met at the 

## TFCF term 

### exposure to brackish water and the weather. Furthermore 

### , new available in the last 4 decades. Future plans for the Tracy Fish Program (TFFIP) should include experimental 

### facilities with tests of new technologies and operational flexibility (Liston 1997). 

### Experimental designs should test louver and screen sequences in lab and field settings. The screen sequence could have an extremely leaky louver " as the first barrier encountered. 

### Predominantly, large fish would be louvered 

# by subsequent screens could be less leaky louvers 

### or positive barriers directing smaller fish to holding tanks. 

### Short Term 

## We salvage efficiency data set. The variation in efficiency obtained in this study was used to

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study



### calculate sample sizes required for a more robust analysis of the influences on secondary 

## salvage combination of 

### 210 collected. We suggest that a 1- 

### be undertaken for each independent variable 

### of interest addition 

### , this new data set could be used to 

### investigate louvering efficiency between day, crepuscular 

### periods , and night. Furthermore , new data 

### could contribute to our understanding of how 

### different life stages and louvered. 

### Whenever possible , direct observations of 

### current velocity should be 

### secondary channel. These data should be obtained simultaneously with paired sieve net 

### and holding tank samples. 

## Further should be , if the 

### velocity control pumps at the replaced , perhaps " fish friendly 

### " pumps such as those being tested at Red Bluff (Liston et aI. 

### , 1997) could be employed to improve fish survival.


## SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS We evaluated the influence of time of day, debris load 

### , and secondary approach velocity 

### index on secondary salvage efficiency. Time of day 

### commonly efficiency. We recommend additional study of 

### time of day and its This study may require a efficiency observations to 

### Approach velocity has long been recognized 

### as an protection. should be directly With quality velocity data 

### , we could evaluate the importance of channel velocity on fish 

### salvage and recommendations for improving fish salvage.
Previous studies and this research indicate that salvage efficiency may have declined over the last 40 years. We could optimize the current facility' s performance and we may not be able to attain the salvage efficiencies required to maintain critical fish species in perpetuity. We recommend a study of real- time monitoring and adaptive 

## salvage scheme developed that endangered and economically important fishes while water and fish agreement obligations are met at the TFCF. 

### Analysis of new sieve net and holding tank data taken , and 

### proposed lab and field further refine our 

### affecting louver experimental facility has been recommended (Liston 

### , 1997). An important new concept to 

### test would be a screens rather than a single type of barrier. We 

### postulate that screen criteria for Delta smelt and chinook salmon might be met with a 

### sequence of screens operated at one facility. 

### Results from the experimental facility would be used to 

### present facility, or replacement.

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study



## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was funded by Reclamation s Mid- Pacific Region (Sacramento 

### , CA) and the Denver Technical Service Center. Partial funding for this study was provided by Reclamation s Research and Technology Development Program , Study Number AE CO- 98. 0 16 (W A TR). Herb Ng, and the staff in Tracy, CA , for their support during this study. State of California personnel 

### worked with us on several technical problems and (Utah State University) and Johnson Wang (National Environmental Sciences, Inc. ) for assistance 

### with technical issues. Finally, we thank Ron Brockman and Jim LaBounty for program guidance.

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study



## LITERATURE CITED
AFS , 1991. Common and Scientific Names of 

### Fishes from the United States and Canada. 

### Fifth Edition. American Fisheries Society, 

### Bethesda , MD , USA. Anonymous , 1931. Reports of state water plan 

### prepared pursuant to Chapter 832 , Statutes 

### of 1929. Sacramento River basin. State of California 

### , Division of Water Bulletin No. 26.
Bates , D. 

### W. and R. Visonhaler. 1956. Use of 

### louvers for guiding fish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 86: 38- 57.
Bates 

### , D. , O. Logan 

### , and E.A. 1960. Efficiency evaluation , Tracy Fish Collection Facility, Central Valley Project California. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Seattle , W A 

### , USA. 67 pp.
Bell 

### , M. engineering requirements and biological criteria. U. 

### S. Army Corps of Engineers 

### North , OR 

### USA. 307 pp.


### Bennett , S. 

## G. and rights of way granted over public land in northern California for power purposes. 

### S. Geological Survey. Service. Washington , D. , USA. 52 pp. 

### Borgeson , D. , and G. 

### W. McCammon. 1967. 

### White catfish Ictalurus catus of the 

### Sacramento- 

### San Joaquin delta. California Fish and Game 53: 254- 263. 

### California Department of Water and U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1994. 

### Biological Assessment: Central Valley Project and 

### Project on delta smelt and splittail. U. 

### S. Fish and Wildlife Sacramento Field Office , Sacramento , CA USA. Caywood , M. L. 1973. Contributions to the life history of 

### Pogonichthys
macrolepidotus 

### (Ayres). M. 

# S. California State University. Sacramento , USA.


### Daniels 

### , R.A. and P. B. Moyle. 1983. Life 

### history of 

### Pogonichthys 

# in Sacramento- San Joaquin estuary. Fishery Bulletin: 105- 117.


### EPRl , 1986. Assessment of downstream 

### migrant fish hydroelectric application. Electric Power Research Institute , Report AP- 47 1 1. Palo Alto , CA , USA.


### Hallock , R.J. 1967. Efficiency 

### primary louver system , Tracy Fish Screen. 1966- 

### 67. California 

### and Game 

# Marine Administrative Report 

### , Number Sacramento 

### , CA , USA.


### Hiebert , S. Facility Studies , California 

### , Volume Continuous monitoring of fish eggs and larvae during 1991 and 1992. U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. Denver Technical Services Center , Denver , CO , USA.

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study

Hosmer , D. 

## W. and Applied Logistic Regression. John Wiley and Sons: New York , NY , USA.

Karp, C. , L. Hess , and C. Liston. 1995. 

### Tracy Fish California 

### , Volume 3: louver efficiencies for juvenile salmon and striped bass at the Tracy Fish Collection Facility, Tracy, California , 1993. S. Bureau of Technical Services Center , Denver , CO USA.
Liston , c. , C. McNabb , S. Borthwick W. Frizell 

### , and S. Atkinson. 

## and Research Pumping Plant program on the Sacramento River , CA. Proceedings ofFish Passage Workshop, Milwaukee , WI , USA May 6- , 1997.


### Liston 

### , C. 1997. Fish Facility Program. U. S. Bureau of 

### Reclamation , Denver 

### Center 

## Ecological Investigations 

### , Denver , CO , USA.


### Liston , C. 

### , C. Karp, L. Hess , and S. Hiebert. 1994. . 

### Tracy Studies , California , Volume 1: Summary of 

### the fish predator removal 

## intake , 1991- 1992. 

### U. S. Bureau Technical Services Center , Denver , CO USA.
Mecum 

### , W. 

# L.

operations for the federal fish collection 

## facility at Tracy, September 30. California Department of Fish and Game , Anadromous Branch Administrative Report 77- Sacramento , CA , USA. 

### Meng, L. 1993. Status report on Sacramento 

### splittail and longfin report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

## Service. Sacramento , CA , USA. 

### Meng, L and P. B. Moyle. splittail in the Sacramento- San Joaquin estuary. Transactions of the Fisheries Society, 124: 538- 549.
Miller , E. E. 1966. White Catfish. Pp. 430- 440

In A. Calhoun , editor , Inland Fisheries 

### Management , California 

### Fish and Game , Sacramento , CA , USA. Miller , L.W. 1972. White Sturgeon. Pp. 54-

In 1. Skinner 

### , editor 

### , Ecological Studies of the Sacramento- 

## San Report 8. California and Game 

### , Sacramento , CA , USA. Moyle , P. B. 1976. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press , Berkeley, , USA. Moyle 

### , P. 

### , B. Herbold , D. E. Stevens 

### , and L.W. Miller. 1992. Life history and status 

## of San 

### Joaquin American Fisheries Society 121: 67- 77. 

### Pelgen , D. 

### E. 1952. A preliminary analysis of 

### the catfish fishery of the Sacramento- San 

### Joaquin Delta. California Fish and Game , Inland Fisheries Branch Administrative Report 52- 23.

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study

Puckett , K. , C. Liston , C. 

## A.
L. Hess. Facility Studies , California 

### , Volume Preliminary examination of influence fish salvage estimates at the 

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility, California 

## 1993 Reclamation. Denver Technical Services Center , Denver , CO , USA.

Reclamation. 1992. Letter dated 7/17/92 from 

### USBOR , Mid- 

### Pacific Regional Director to 

### CFG 

### , Director. Agreement attached: 8 pp. S. Bureau of Reclamation 

### , Mid- Pacific 

### Regional Office , Sacramento , CA , USA.


### Scott , W. B. and Freshwater Fishes of Canada. 

### Research Board of Canada. Bulletin Ottawa , Canada.


### Skinner , J.E. 1962. An historical view of the 

### fish and wildlife Francisco Bay area. California Department 

### ofFish and Game. Water Projects Branch Report I.


### Sokal , R. R. and F. 

### J. Rohlf. 1981. 

### Second Edition. Freeman and San Francisco 

### , CA , USA. S. Congress , House of 

## 1874. commissioners on the San Joaquin , Tulare , and valleys of the Congress. House Executive Document 290. 91 pp. 

### S. Department of the Interior. protection at the Tracy S. Bureau of Reclamation 

### , Region 2 Sacramento , CA , USA.

S. Fish and 

### Sacramento- 

## San Fishes Recovery Wildlife Service , Portland , OR , USA. Vogel , D. A. and K.R. Marine. 1991. Guide to 

### Upper Sacramento River Chinook Salmon 

### Life History. CH2M Hill , Redding, CA USA. Wang, J. C.S. 1986. Fishes of the SacramentoSan Joaquin estuary and adjacent waters 

### California: A histories. Interagency Program for the Sacramento- San Joaquin 

### Estuary, Technical Report 9.

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study

Table 1. Species

collected in the sieve net was 065 while 21 

### 408 were collected in the holding tanks. Two species of specific interest in this study were not collected: green sturgeon and white 

### sturgeon. Species list follows order and accepted common names of AFS (1991).

Sieve Net 

### Holding Tank Species 

### Percent Composition 

### Percent Composition Pacific Lamprey 036 023
American Shad 14. 062 760 

### Threadfin Shad 14. 062 8.263 Goldfish 000 014 

### Common Carp 1.618 527 Red Shiner 009 000 

### Golden Shiner 181 504 

### Sacramento Blackfish 2.485 896 Splittail 56.193 56. 702 

### Sacramento Squawfish 018 037 

### White Catfish 582 212

Black Bullhead 000 005 

### Brown Bullhead 000 084 

### Channel Catfish 0.425 1.116 

### Wakasagi 000 005 

### Delta Smelt 009 005 

### Chinook Salmon 265 760 

### Mosquitofish 090 089 

### Inland Silverside 714 757

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study

Table 1 cont. Species composition of

fish collected in the sieve net was 11 065 while 21 

### 408 were collected in the holding tanks.

Sieve Net 

### Holding Tank Species 

### Percent Composition 

### Percent Composition Three-spine Stickleback 000 009 

### Prickly Sculpin 112 027 

### Pacific Staghom Sculpin 009 009 

### Striped Bass 283 218 Green Sunfish 009 005 

### Warmouth 009 037 

### Bluegill 913 653 Redear Sunfish 009 182
Smallmouth Bass 009 009 Largemouth Bass 262 705 White Crappie 000 005 Black Crappie 877 083 Bigscale Logperch 018 051 

### Yellowfin Goby 271 617 Chameleon Goby 0.470 631Table 2. Catch per minute at, day, and dusk samples combined into "Light" and night samples onlyin "Dark." "NED" = "Not Enough Data." Sample size (n) refers to the number of samples that contained target fish. Delta smeltwere not collected in sufficient detail to make any estimates of catch rate. Two species of specific interest were not collected: greensturgeon and white sturgeon. Species list follows order and accepted common names of AFS (I 99 I).i--oI1.0Sieve NetSieve NetSieve NetSieve NetHolding TankHolding TankHolding TankHolding TankSpeciesLightLightDarkDarkLightLightDarkDark(Fish/Minute)(n)(Fish/Minute)(n)(Fish/Minute)(n)(Fish/Minute)(n)AllSpecies28017690413.272194585AmericanShad035811629242S P littail11.158NED9.215NEDWhiteCatfish5771031.112151513ChinookSalmon205105322270StripedBass2492148541250.467-c::iii'.....;::;"-c::.....-c::Table 3. Secondary louver efficiencywere not collected in sufficient detail to make any estimate of efficiency. Two species of specific interest were not collected:grecn sturgeon and white sturgeon. Species list follows order andMeanStandardTotalRawLog,o ofArcsin ofLogisticSpeciesEfficiencyDeviationNumberEfficiencyEfficiencyEfficiencyRegressionObservationsDay =80.All Species71.126.254tCrepuscuIar =79.4"Night =67.Day =38.American51.545.Crepuscular =65.ShadNight =83.3eSplittail62.30.White88.24.208CatfishChinook83.31.1111SalmonStriped85.27.174Bass...-c:(ii'::rQ.....:::J;:+-c:fJ)...-c:Note: Independentvelocity index. Columns 5 through 8 represent statistical analyses: an empty cell indicates test assumptions were not met or novariable was significant. If group means are reported, this indicates statistical significance. Statistically similar groups are indicatedby a common lower case character.~Crepuscular = Dawn and dusk samples.

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study

Table 4. Characteristics of Sacramento River chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) runs 

### observed at Red Bluff Diversion Dam (Compiled from Moyle , 1976; Vogel and Marine 1991) .

Run 

### First Spawners Peak of 

### Downstream Downstream



### Reach Red Bluff Spawning Migration 

### Migration Peak (Month) (Month) (Range) 

### (Month) Spring Mar Sep Nov- May Feb Fall Jul 

### Nov Jan- Jun May Late- Fall Oct Feb Apr- Dec Aug 

### Winter 

### Jan Jun Jul- 

### Mar Oct

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study

Brentwood

w- ~ -

E. Skinner Delta

Fish Protective Facility Delta Mendota Canal

Tracy Fish Collection Facility
Tracy Figure 1. 

### Map of the Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta indicating the location of the Tracy

Collection Facility.

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study

Figure 2. 

### majority of water s flow.

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study

i 0. ~ 0.

Cii 0. '00.

8. 0.

~ 0. II) 

### 80.

Cii ~ 0. 50. ~0.

't:I ~ 0. fI) II) c3 0. 

### ~0. 50.
~O. Ilding Tank 

### Qve



## !ht Qrk

Figure 3. 

### Length frequency histograms at the Tracy Fish Collection Facility for (a) all chinook



### salmon (n=689), (b) chinook salmon taken in the holding tank (n=595) and sieve net (n=94), and (c) chinook salmon taken during the day (n=482) and at night (n=169). 

### Crepuscular observations (n=38) of chinook salmon were not included in (c).

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study



## ~ 0. . .....

0 0.4



### &.0.

a.. 

# 80

Fork Length(mm)

Figure 4.

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study



### "C 0.

m--e .4 

### (ij 0. ...



## '00. 

# ~ 0.
CL 0

Figure 5. (n=132).

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study

I:: Iii ~ 0.4

'50. 2 I

~ 0.

Ci 0. 

### 00.

8.0.

c..

~ 0.


### ~0.

'E 0.

r:t 

## 40 80

Fork Length(mm)

!Iding Tank



### Qve



## !ht Qrk



## 40 Fork Length(mm)

Figure 6. 

### shad (n=248), (b) American shad taken in the holding tank (n=104) and sieve net (144),



### and (c) American shad taken during the day (n=199) and at night (n=49).

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study



# ~ 0. .....



# 0 0.

Co 0. L.. 

### 0 0

Figure 7. (n=388).

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study

Figure 8. ,.., 1.

CI) 0 0. ~ 0. ::;,

...J ~ 0.

:5 0. CI)

,.., 1.

0 0. ~ 0.

...J ~ 0.4

:5 0.

,.., 1.

0 0. ~ 0.

...J ~ 0.

:5 0. 

# ----

-------



## --'---------

Time of Day

Ig t 1 = Crepuscular 2 = Day

Time of Day

Time of Day

Secondary louver efficiency at the Tracy Fish Collection Facility at three times of day for 

### (a) all species combined , (b) chinook salmon , and (c) splittail.

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study

:... 1. 

### 00.
~ 0.

::s ~ 0. Ig t

I = Crepuscular
:5 0. 2=Day

CIJ
Time of Day

:... 1. 

### 00.
~ 0.

::s ~ 0. I = Crepuscular 'tJ 

### 80. 2 = Day

CIJ
Time of Day

it 1.
0 0. ffi ~ 0.

::s ~ 0. I = Crepuscular 'tJ :5 0. 2 = Day

CIJ
Time of Day

Figure 9. Secondary louver efficiency at the Tracy Fish Collection Facility at three times of day for



### (a) striped bass , (b) American shad , and (c) white catfish.

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study

;:., 1. 0 0.
~ 0. 

# .3 t ..".

':-::1 -=-_

~ 0.4 

### 1 0. - I

Approach Velocity Index

,., 1. 0 0.
~ 0.
::J ...J ~ 0. 5 0.
II)
Approach Velocity Index

;:., 1. u 0.
~ 0.
::J ...J ~ 0.4 5 0.
II) 

## 8 0 0

8 0

8 e 0 0

s:;( 

## 12 Approach Velocity Index


### Figure 10. Secondary louver efficiency versus Secondary



### description) at the Tracy (b) chinook salmon , and (c) splittail.

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study

,., 1.

.~ 0.

€J I ~ 0.
:::J .....I ~ 0. g 0.

Approach Velocity Index

,., 1. 0 0.
~ 0.

.....I ~ 0.4 8 0.

Approach Velocity Index

~ 1. 

### c: 0

.~ O. ~ 0. 

### .3 0

2; 0.

Approach Velocity Index



### Figure 11. Secondary louver efficiency versus Secondary Approach Velocity Index

description) at the Tracy Fish Collection Facility for (a) striped bass , (b) American shad 

### and (c) white catfish.

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study

:0-. 1.

III Ii:

::::J
~ 0.4 111

III
5000 10000 15000

Holding Tank Debris (g/10 Min.

:0-. 1. 

## U un --e- ~ 08 . 0 0 

### w ~~' 8 0 ~ 0.
:::I 1\1 0 

### 80. ~ - -

:0-. 1. '00.
~ 0.
:::I
~ 0.4 1\1 5 0. C!D 0 

# 000 crID:) 0 ceP



# 5000

Holding Tank Debris (g/10 Min. 15000



# 5000

Holding Tank Debris (g/10 Min. 15000

Figure 12. Secondary louver



### (a) all species combined , (b) chinook salmon , and (c) splittaiI.

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study 

### ~ ,.



# f"'" '''''''''''

. ~ 0 

### .:::;0 0 CI) 0 0. 

# ~ 0
~ 0.

0.4 g 0. 2 P co:o "7D



# 5000

Holding Tank Debris (g/10 Min. 

# --i
15000

~ 1. 

## ~ 08 . 0 ~ 0.
~ 0.
III 

### 50.
CI)
15000

5000 10000 Holding Tank Debris (g/10 Min.

:-. 1.

:~ 0. ~ 0.
~ 0. 

### 50. CI)
5000 10000 15000

Holding Tank Debris (g/10 Min.



### Figure 13. Secondary louver efficiency versus debris load at the Tracy Fish Collection Facility for

(a) striped bass 

### , (b) American shad , and (c) white catfish.

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study



## APPENDIX A



## MAJOR SPECIES OF INTEREST AND LIFE HISTORY INFORMATION Chinook Salmon 

### The San support the world' s southernmost (38 O 

### native spawning salmon Four runs of chinook occur in these 

### Central Valley rivers: fall and winter. While all of 

### important to managers 

### , two stand out. First the winter run is listed as endangered by the State and Federal governments. Therefore , by 

### law , managers must 

### might influence the nwnber of these Second , the run 

### individuals , and thus of most economic 

### importance 

### , occurs in the fall. 

### The runs are identified by the time of year 

### ~y .

mIgratIOns (Table 4). The adults Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers to spawn. 

### Some individuals hold in the rivers several 

### months before , in most years fall-run adults begin arriving in the 

## upper spawni 

### ?g does not begin until October. Eggs 

## hatch m 40 to , and the 

### continue development in the redds for 2 3 weeks (Scott and Crossman , 1973; Moyle 1976), depending on water temperatures. The fry then swim up and smoltification may occur 

## before emigrants begin their migration in January with a peak in May (Vogel and Marine , 1991). 

## The incubation and migration vary with run 

### , type of water year discharge regime , temperature 

### , turbidity, and other factors. Therefore , the timing is difficult 

# to between years. 

### Salmon smolts migrating to the sea are the most susceptible life stage to entrainment to the southern Delta pwnping facilities. The probability of entrainment increases when the 

### Delta- Cross Channel Gates are open and 

### Sacramento River water can travel to 

## south Mokelumne River. Since the faIl run produces the most progeny, chinook salmon smolts 

### observed at the TFCF usually peak in May each year. From November , the TFCF is operated to minimize take of chinook 

## salmon Reclamation criteria suggested by agreed upon with the California Department ofFish and Game (Reclamation , 1992). There 

### are four criteria. First , the primary channel approach velocity shall be maintained between 

### 91 to 1.07 m/s (3. 0 to 3. fils). Second, 

### primary bypass ratio 

### between 6. Third , secondary approach velocity shall be maintained between 9 and 1. 07 m/s (3. 0 and 3. fils). Fourth, 

### secondary bypass ratio shall be maintained between 1.2 and 1.6. 

## Delta Smelt

Delta smelt is a threatened , euryhaline 

### osmerid endemic to the Delta that lives only

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study



### year. Delta smelt have extremely volatile population sizes (U. S. Fish 

### and Wildlife Service 

### , 1995) and experienced 

### severe decreases in numbers that with high Delta outflows (Moyle et aI. , 1992; 

## but see Resources and U. S. Bureau of Reclamation 1994). However , Delta smelt have 

### exhibited resiliency. The species rebounded strongly after the 1986 to 1992 drought 

### , for a 

### short time reaching pre- 

### drought numbers and recolonizing Suisun Bay where they had been extirpated. 

### Delta smelt are most likely to be entrained to 

### the TFCF during two 

### history: spawning downstream migration. Adults spawn from January to 

### spawning at temperatures from 7 to 22 o (45 to 72 O 

### F). In years with low outflow spawning usually occurs from late March through mid- 

### May (U. 

### S. Fish and Wildlife Service , 1995). Shallow sloughs are the areas where most spawning occurs. Therefore 

### , adults may be entrained to

the TFCF when these fish move out 

### of open water habitat in the Delta and Suisun Bay to 

### seek these shallower spawning habitats. The 

### larvae are become entrained to the TFCF when they are moving toward open-water adult habitat. 

## Splittail Splittail is a large Central Valley and is the sole extant species of 

# the Pogonichthys. Splittail have 

### experienced population size due to reductions in Delta outflow. In , the 

### relationship between large net export years and large splittail year classes appears to be

less strong than it once was (Meng, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service , 1995). 

### Splittail live may begin to spawn at 180 to 200 mm (7. 1 to 9 in) standard length (SL) (Daniels and Moyle 

## 1983; personal 

### communication). Female splittail do

spawn until the second year of life (Caywood 1973); usually a female is at (7. 

### 9 in) SL by this time. Splittail greatly depends on water year but may begin 

### in January (Wang, 1995), continues through July, and usually peaks between February and May (U. 

### S. Fish and Wildlife Service , 1995). Splittail are most susceptible to entrainment to the TFCF at two 

### times. First , when 

### spawning sites 

### , they may become entrained. Second young of the year most commonly appear at the south Delta pumping facilities in 

### May through July (Meng and Moyle , 1995). 

## Striped Bass Striped bass is a large- bodied , piscivorous 

### percichthyid exotic to , but 

### considered an important game fish in the estuary. The striped bass smaller now than in the early 1960' s (Moyle 1976). 

### Three habitat requirements that provide for a 

### highly productive striped bass fishery are a

large body of 

### water with sufficient forage for 

### adult populations 

### , a river in which to spawn and an production for juvenile growth. Moyle (1976)

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study



### suggested most adults spend much of their lives in San Pablo and San Francisco Bays. In 

### the fall , striped bass begin a mass migration 

### east to the Delta. By April , adults move to spawning grounds. Spawning begins when the water temperature exceeds 14. 4 o c (58 O F) and therefore usually peaks in May and early June. 

### The eggs are slightly negatively buoyant and 

### require some current to keep them off the substrate. In the Sacramento River , eggs and 

### newly hatched larvae are transported to the Delta and Suisun Bay. In the San Joaquin 

### eggs and larvae remain near spawning areas 

### because outflow and balanced. If the eggs and larvae never reach the productive waters of the estuary, they may not survive. Thus , striped bass abundance may 

### be correlated with the proportion of summer 

### outflow that is (Moyle , 1976). And in low water years , young 

### striped bass survival may be lower than in years with higher net outflow. Striped bass eggs , larvae 

### , and small juveniles are highly susceptible to entrainment during and following the spawning season. Therefore from May 15 to October 31 , TFCF operations attempt to minimize take of 

### improve Reclamation uses 

### criteria agreed Department of Fish and Game (Reclamation 

### 1992). These criteria are primary approach velocity shall be 0. 30 m/s (1. 0 ft/s) 

### and shall not 76 m/s (2. 

### 5 fils). 

### Primary bypass ratios shall be 

### between velocity shall be 0. 

### 30 m/s (1.0 fils) and shall 

### not exceed 0. 76 m/s (2. ft/s). Secondary bypass ratio shall be 1.2. 

### American Shad American shad is a large- 

### bodied anadromous c1upeid introduced into the Sacramento between 1871 and 1881 (Skinner , 1962). A 

### commercial fishery existed for this fish from 1879 to 1957 (Moyle , 1976 , p. 106). 

### commercial fishery was then banned in favor of a sport fishery which still exists.


### Adults return from their 3- to 5- year marine existence to the estuary in the 

### March or early April , the adults migrate to 

### spawning grounds in the and its major tributaries such as the American and Feather Rivers. Peak of the 

### season depends on temperature; the optimum temperature range of 15 to 20 o c (59 to 68 O can typically be found in the spawning waters 

### from May to between the American shad life cycle and that 

### of striped bass. Like striped bass , American 

### shad eggs are slightly negatively buoyant and 

### require some drifting eggs hatch while being transported to the estuary. 

### Like striped bass 

### , American shad adults are good swimmers (Bell 

### , 1990) and thus adults migrating upstream are not easily entrained to 

### the TFCF. Like striped bass eggs , American 

### shad eggs are While moving , young American shad develop. And , by late autumn most American shad have entered saltwater at 

### sizes from 8 to 2 to 7. 1 in) total length (TL) (Moyle , 1976). American shad are decreasingly less vulnerable to entrainment as 

### they grow and travel toward the ocean. At the TFCF 

### , young American shad

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study

between 80 and 120 mm (3. 2 and 4. 7 in FL)) are salvaged in significant nwnbers ftom May 

### to December with the peak in the last portion of this period.

White Catfish


### White catfish is a carnivorous bottom- feeder introduced into the estuary in 1874 (Skinner 

### 1962; Miller , 1966; Moyle , 1976). Before 1953 

### , white catfish supported a commercial fishery in the Delta but this was discontinued due to overfishing (Pelgen , 1952). Although the white 

### (~ 40 cm (15. 

### 7 in) FL in 

### channel 9 in) TL in California) and slower catfish is more commonly 

### anglers because of its distribution (Moyle , 1976). White catfish live up to 11 years. Adults begin to spawn when they reach 20 to 21 cm (7. 9 to 

### 3 in) FL; in the Delta , white catfish of this size are typically 3 to 4 

### catfish spawning temperatures greater than 21 o (70 O 

### (Borgeson and McCammon , 1967). Thus , in the Delta , the spawning season is usually June to July (Moyle 

### , 1976). Either or both parents guard the adhesive eggs deposited in a nest. At water temperatures in the range of24 to 29 o (75 to 84 O F), the eggs hatch in 6 to 7 days. 

### Individuals from 7 to 20 mm (0. 3 to 0. 8 in) 

### have been taken at the TFCF with plankton 

# nets personal suggesting white TFCF. However , the smallest size of fish 

### routinely counted at the TFCF is greater than 

### 20 mm TL (0. 8 in) , personal 

### observation). The salvaged seldom exceed 0.41 m (16 in) FL. This size is usually attained in the Delta at an 

### age of 5 years. Thus , most white catfish may be vulnerable to entrainment for all their lives. 

### White and Green Sturgeon White sturgeon adults are capable of attaining the largest body size (4 m (13. 1 ft) FL , 590 kg (1, 300 lb)) of any species of freshwater fish in 

### North America. This endemic species was once commercially fished from the late 1860' 

### to 1901. Due to overfishing, the commercial 

### fishery was closed , 1909 to 1915 

### , and was ended permanently in 1917. A 

### sport fishery was initiated in 1954. White sturgeon may live to be over 100 years of age (Moyle , 1976). Adults spend most of 

### their lives in the estuary, and move upstream to spawn each Sacramento- 

# San individual spawns Females mature at 11 to 12 years of age and at 

### sizes ranging from 1.1 to 1.5 m (3. 6 to 4. 9 ft) FL. Males mature at 

### ready to spawn , some adults may move into lower portions of rivers in the winter. Moyle (1976) reports spawning " 

### seems to take place between mid- March and early June. " The eggs are adhesive and larvae hatch within 2 weeks. 

### The hatching. Miller (1972) reported yolk-sac larvae may be 

### susceptible to entrainment from March to June. Juveniles are more likely to utilize the 

### upper , 1976). 

### Therefore 

# the

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study



### susceptible to entrainment to the TFCF for some time 

### , but the length at which they cease to be susceptible is unknown. However 

### , no 

## white (17. 7 in) FL have been salvaged at the TFCF. Occasionally, juveniles and sub-adults are found impinged on the trash rack at the Tracy Fish Collection Facility. The green sturgeon is native to the estuary and 

### may spend more time in white sturgeon. Fewer green sturgeon inhabit the estuary than white sturgeon (Miller , 1972), 

### and green sturgeon do not attain as great an adult size (1.3 m (51 in) FL 

### , 45 kg (99Ib)) as 

### white reported green sturgeon may be more likely to 

### undertake large marine migrations compared to white sturgeon.



## APPENDIX B
REVIEW OF TRACY FISH 

## COLLECTION FACILITY

STUDIES: Volumes
Since 1989 

# the (Reclamation - Mid- 

### Pacific Region) and the Ecological Research and Investigations Group (Reclamation - Denver) have actively studied 

### the TFCF s. Fish and , National 

## Marine California 

### Department of Fish and Game , and the 

### California Department of Water These studies have been aimed at improving fish salvage 

### economically and species. Here 

### , we review the first four major 

### studies that have , peerreviewed 

### , and published in the Tracy Fish 

### Collection Facility Studies. The first study 

### described secondary channel (Liston et aI. , 1994).

In volwne 1 , Liston et al. (1994) described the development and 

### predator removal program in the channel forebay. Large predatory individuals 

### primarily striped bass and white catfish , were 

### routinely removed channel. Stomach analysis confirmed these 

### predators were feeding on diverted fish. In addition 

### , Liston et angling for predator removal. They showed 

### that the catch per unit effort angling was far netting. Liston et al. also evaluated striped 

## bass movement within mark/recapture experiments. These authors 

### found that 29 percent of 267 released in the primary louver forebay were recaptured in the secondary louver forebay 

## within 1 week of concluded that predator loads within the TFCF tend to accrue over time. completion of volume 1 , weekly predator 

### removals have been implemented as standard operating procedure at the TFCF.

In volume 2 , Hiebert (1994) designed 

### patented 

# and ichthyoplankton pump sampler 

### refined the approximately 98 percent of eggs entrained by 

### the unit's pump. The successful with larvae , recovering 44 percent 

## of s pump. 

## Hiebert compared entrainment of striped bass eggs and larvae

### Tracy Fish Collection Facility Study



### into the TFCF traditional ichthyoplankton netting techniques. In 1991 

### , the CIPS entrainment into the TFCF was 24. 0 million 

### striped bass eggs while the 

### netting estimate was 9. 

### million Similarly, the CIPS unit estimate for striped bass larvae entrained was 2. 

### 3 million while the ichthyoplankton netting estimate was that 0.2 million striped bass larvae were entrained 

### into the TFCF in in egg and suggest a high degree of patchiness at the TFCF. Hiebert also described strong diel trends in the entrainment of several species 

### ' eggs and larvae into the TFCF. The strongest diel trend was noted for striped bass; 71 percent of an estimated 3. 

### 2 million striped 

### bass eggs were collected between 0000 and 0600 h.


### In volwne 3 

### , Karp et aI. (1995) describe the louver efficiency experiments they conducted. 

### All experiments were with chinook salmon juveniles and found that debris load and discharge strongly influenced louver 

### salmon or striped bass. Furthermore , chinook 

### salmon efficiently at night. channel velocities during each experiment and 

### noted that the 1992) channel velocities for target 

### were not being met under all Karp et al.' independent variables that we evaluated in this report: debris load 

### , channel velocity, and time of day. 

### In volume 4 

### , Puckett et al. (1996) evaluated 

### trends in fish salvage data. These data were acquired from 5- or 10-minute counts of fish louvered into the holding tanks. Fish salvage for all species of fish combined was higher in 

### a wet year (1993) than a critical dry 

### (1994). salmon , striped bass 

### , and splittail were higher in 1993 than species and delta and longfin smelt , the number of individuals salvaged was correlated 

### with seasonal correlations to aspects of species ' life 

### histories that make them more susceptible to entrainment in some seasons. Specific factors appeared to coincide with salvage for different species. For example 

### , time of day and tide appeared correlated with chinook salmon splittail , and delta smelt salvage. Puckett et al. 

### also presented data that suggest pumping rate /s) is directly related to the number 

### salvaged for some , splittail); however , pwnping rate also appears to interact with a species ' life history to influence salvage rates. For example , when young 

### striped bass are in the vicinity of the TFCF and pumping rates are high , salvage rate for striped bass is higher than if pumping rate is constrained. 

### With the completion of volumes 3 and 4 Karp et al. and Puckett et al. had identified several important trends. One of 

### was that 

## among the independent variables debris load , channel 

### velocity, and time of day related to salvage.