a 

i \ 

4 4 9 a L 1­

$% 2 A FISH PROTECTION FACILITY FOR THE PROPOSED PERIPHERAL CANAL 

--' cr;& 3 i P73 8 ',"e z2 & 

Z$ 2 Dan Odenweller 

California Department of Fish and Game 

4001 North Wilson Way 

Stockton, California 95205 

?&d 3251 "S" Street 

Sacramento, California. 95816 

ABSTRACT 

The California Departments of Fish and Game and Water Resources, and the 

United States Fish and Wildlife and Water and Power Resources Services are involved in studies to design a fish protection facility for the proposed Periphera1 Canal. (The Peripheral Canal would divert up to 670 m 

3 

sec 

-1 of water from 

the Sacramento River near Sacramento and transport it around the Delta to the 

export pumping plants.) The studies are scheduled to continue until 1981, with 

a final conceptual design of the fish protection facility in 1982. The present 

design is based on the analysis of available data but may be changed before 1982. 

Fry and juvenile American shad and chinook salmon will be protected using a positive barrier (2.4 mm openings), with low approach velocity (6.1 cm sec 

-1 1 located 

in a channel off the Sacramento River. Larval striped bass will be protect. ': t 

curtailment of diversion during the period in the spring when larvae zzri c $0­

- dant near the point of diversion. The screen may be a "V" (sawtooth) COV~T YH 1 nn 

1 
*\.J 

with four bays, each containing about 1400 m 

2 of fish screens. Cleaning and 

I 

clogging tests demonstrated that welded wedge-wire screen material with 2.4 mm 

1 slotted openings clogs much less rapidly than perforated plate with 4 mm openings, Both screen types retain juvenile fish 25 to 40 mm in length. Screen 

clogging at the test facility was caused by trapped suspended materials, not 

by biological growth on the screens. The screens were effectively cleaned by 

either brushes or high pressure Jets, After the fish have been screened, they 

will enter a pumped bypass system for release in the Sacramento River at one 

or more points. 

Predation has been identified as a potential problem at the proposed fish 

protection facility and studies are underway to evaluate and develop solutions 

to the problem. 

INTRODUCTION 

The Delta Fish Facilities Program is a part of the cooperative Interagency 

Study Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, whose members include the 

California Departments of Fish and Game (DFG) and Water Resources (DWR), and 

the U. S. Fish and Wildlife (FWS) and U. S. Water and Power Resources Services 

(WPRS), 

The objective of the Fish Facilities Program is to develop fish protection 

facilities for the intake of the Peripheral Canal, a 670 m 

3 sec-' water diversion to be located on the Sacramento River near Hood, California, 

The engineering and biological aspects of the design evaluation are reported herein. 

2 
BACKGROUND 

The Peripheral Canal was conceived as an isolated conveyance facility to 

divert water from the Sacramento River about 40.3 km south of Sacramento and 

convey it around the eastern periphery of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary 

(Delta) to the existing state and federal pumps and canals in the south Delta, 

a distance of 69.2 km. The initial reach of the canal will have a capacity of 

670 m 

3 seL_-1. Provisions are included to release water from the Peripheral 

Canal at various locations to provide water quality sufficient to meet Delta 

agricultural and environmental needs, 

The Peripheral Canal is an alternative to existing direct diversions from 

the south Delta (Figure 11. These diversions represent a major impact on the 

aquatic resources of the system and have several significant drawbacks. First, 

the existing diversions draw their water from a major nursery area, the Delta. 

Second, the intakes are located at the end of what is essentially a dead-end 

channel. Third, the louver screens presently installed do not exclude or protect fish less than 38 mm in length. Finally, all fish salvaged are handled 

."d 

I. 

and trucked to release sites in the western Delta. . 9. 

In contrast, the Peripheral Canal intake is located outside the nursery 

area, on a major river which will provide instream bypass flows; the diversion 

74"" ----'-'I---l--.-_--.--~ 

---l--.l." 

_"__ 

_._._I..... ._ ~.- .-~,, _,~.",,-~-~-~~-~: will be screened with a\"low velocity-positive barrier screen,: and the salvaged . ~

fish will not be handled but left in the river to travel downstream along their 

normal migration route. 'I

These concerns resulted in the selection of the Peripheral. Canal as :I 

most environmentally sound method of transporting water across the Delta: Ita the 

export pumps. 

3 
MATERIALS AND METHODS 

BIOLOGICAL STUDIES 

Research activities include laboratory tests and field evaluations of several large existing fish screens. The latter have included fully operational. ------.",..-.".-/-.+ ._ 

louver, horizon~~lro~~r~-,~~, vertical rotary dzum, and fixed perforated plate ---.=- --*s---.---------- --.* c"IL"lcI...I--c~-.c"~­ -----__l*,as*-.. 

c~ , screen installations. -.%.*-. -._-w=&-,-__1_3 

Laboratory testing has been conducted at the John E. Skinner Fish Protective Facility located near Byron, at the intake of the California Aqueduct, and 

at the Hood Test Facility located near Hood, the site of the proposed Peripheral 

Canal intake. Testing performed at the J.E,S. Fish Protective Facility was 

described in an earlier report (Fisher et al. 1976). The testing performed at .v-."-=----,--,----- 1-- ..___ 

the Hood Test Facility is described in this report. 

yl

;7" 14"I.~*.. ~-"..~'>-.-~,. i-*. "...* ~, -'- ._ ~.~~'.....-~-. =...-~~.~.,~.. ~..,. ,.._r_ ..._,~.~^ ."_-.. Xrl(i jx _,_c^...<_. 

xr Test Apparatus 

Long-term swimming ability tests were conducted in a circular test flume 

(treadmill), which was 30 cm wide, 30 cm deep, and an outer diameter of 3,O m, 

located at the Hood Test Facility (Figure 2). This device exposed the fish to 

a two vector flow, with water flowing from the center outward through the test 

screen, creating the velocity through the fish screen, while rotation of the 

center portion of the apparatus imparted a sweeping bypass flow past the screen 

(Figure 3). Tests with the fish screen in a vertical and a sloping (45O) configuration were performed under light and dark conditions. 

Test Fish 

The test schedule was governed by the natural seasonal occurrence of wild 

fish of each species, which were used exclusively in these tests. 

Juvenile chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawyrscha) were seined frm pt: 

Sacramento River between Rio Vista and Sacramento. Post-larval Anrericar: 

4 

..I 
(Alosa sapidissima) were collected from the Sacramento and Mokelumne River systems using the technique described by Meinz (1978). 

Test fish were held for at least 24 hours prior to testing in a ffowthrough holding facility and controls were used with each test group. 

ENGINEERING STUDIES 

The engineering portion of the program to develop a fish protection facility has been divided into three concurrent studies, namely cleaning and corrosion studies, intake hydrodynamic studies, and overall design studies. Each of 

the three areas is described briefly in the following section. 

Cleaning and Corrosion 

Most of the cleaning and corrosion work was conducted over a 4-year period 

at the Hood Test Facility located a few hundred yards upstream of the proposed 

canal intake. A schematic diagram of the test facility has been shorn in Figure 2. Water was pumped from the Sacramento River into a 12 m approach flame 

with a maximum capacity of about 1.7 m 

3 

sec 

-1 at a channel velocity of approximhtely 19 cm sec 

-1 . Towards the middle of the flume there were provisions for 

two test screens (0.9 x2.7 m) one OR each side wall of the approach flume. After 

passing through the screens, the water returned to the river by way of two additional flumes, with weirs on the downstream ends. A series of weirs and bypasses 

in the flumes allowed control of flow, channel velocity, and approach velocity, 

where approach velocity is defined as flow divided by screen ~WR, 

The concentration and size of particles suspended in the water, a11 important variable in determining the cleaning frequency, was not a controllable 

experimental variable in these studies. There was considerable variability in 

the debris concentrations found naturally in the Sacramento River, and this 

natural variability provided an acceptable range of test conditions. The 

riverine debris concentrations were estimated by means of periodic net tows in 

5 
a cross section of the river above the intake, The comparatively large mesh of 

the net used (approximately 500 microns nominal openings) allowed many small 

particles to escape; however, the dry weight of the captured material did appear 

to accurately portray the annual cycle of debris in the river. Actual debris 

concentrations in the test flume were estimated by periodically suspending the 

net in the flume. 

Cleaning tests were conducted on the experimental screens using brushes and 

water jets. The major variables in the cleaning tests were brush fzype and composition, angle to the screen, cleaning frequency, and composition of the material being cleaned. 

Corrosion studies were made of several types of screen material (mild steel, 

stainless steel, aluminum, etc.) by suspending samples of known weight in the 

river near Hood and periodically retrieving, cleaning, and then reweighing them, 

The loss in weight was assumed to be due to corrosion, 

BIOLOGICAL RESULTS 

SWIMMING PERFORMAMCE TESTS 

The results reported by Fisher et ale (1976) showed that chinook salmon and 

American shad had significantly different behavioral characteristics and swimming 

abilities, 

Chinook salmon results can be summarized by the general statement that performance is directly related to size and inversely proportional to water velocity 

(Figure 4) (Fisher et al. 1976). There was no measurable change in swimming 

performance between light and dark conditions. _ ­

c 

American shad results showed that these fish have better swimming I ' "y 

than chinook salmon under lighted conditions, but that in the dark perf( 8.- a 

5 
falls to levels comparable to those of the salmon. From these earlier studies, 

we concluded that a screen approach velocity of 6.1 cm sec-' would assure protection for these species, The conclusion was uncertain because the fish were 

exposed to a single vector flow. The treadmill test facility, discussed earlier, 

was built to provide two vector flows in the test situation. The new test facility also allowed us to evaluate the effect of sloping the screen to reduce the 

overall length of the structure. 

Chinook salmon tests produced no significant differences from previous work 

in light or dark conditions and a slight reduction in performance when the screen 

was sloped (Figure 5). 

' 8 < 

The American shad test results again mirrored the previous work and confirmed the significant reduction in performance in darkness. Further, sloping 

the screen produced even greater mortalities (Figure 6). 

MESH RETENTION TESTS 

Earlier work had identified a 3.97 mm clear opening in perforated plate or 

woven wire mesh (Fisher et al. 1976). Subsequently, we obtained samples of 

profiled wire material and tested it to establish the appropriate size to protect the juvenile fish in the vicinity of the proposed intake. We established 

that a continuous slot material with a 2.38 mm slot width would provide the 

same level of protection as the 3.97 mm identified earlier. The difference 

is the result of a change in the controlling dimension of the fish which prevents passage. 

ENGINEERING RESULTS 

CLOGGING, CLEANING, AND CORROSION 

Figure 7 provides an example of the relative variation experienced in debris 

concentration from 1977 to 1979 in the test flume at Hood, As expected, high 

F".­ 7 'A 
debris loads were associated with flood flows which normally occur in the Sacramento River during the months of January through March. The debris concentrations found in the test flume are compared with those in the river in Figure 8, -

1.- < . 

4 

Below about 850 m 

3 

sec 

-1 , the values are reasonably comparable; however, above 

850 m 

3 

sec 

-1 , the test flime appeared to carry significantly less debris than 

the river, In terms of our studies, the data indicate that we may have slightly 

underestimated the rate at which Sacramento River water plugs screens at high 

flows. The general composition of the debris varied from detritus (remains of 

organic materials) in the winter, to algae in the summer, to algae and leaves 

in the fall. 

Screen clogging tests were conducted using the variety of screen types and 

materials tabulated in Table 1. The general format was to run a 3.97 mm on _L 

1 . '"'.i 5.56 mm centers perforated plate against other screen types. 

, The clogging data have been summarized in Figure 9. It should be noted 

that, for comparison purposes, the actual test information, which was derived 

from tests conducted over a wide range of debris concentrations and approach 

velocities, has been adjusted so that the approach velocity is 0.8 fps and the 

debris concentration is 0.2 mg L-1. For flat vertical screen, the wedge-wire clogged at a significantly slower 

rate than 3.97 m perforated plate. The vertical revolving drum screen (Figure 

10),dropped from consideration �or the Peripheral Canal intake, showed least 

clogging. (Drum screens were eliminated because the theoretical flow lines 

around the screens suggested quiet areas where predators could congregate, and 

problems with seals at the bottom were not resolved.) Further tests comparing 

0 the vertical and slanted screen orientation (screen slanted at 45 ,with flow 

parallel to the screen face) demonstrated that a slanted screen clogs about a--.._l_ -.---.---_. ll___.__l- _____. 

twice as slowly as a vertical -_---.--. one. \The2-38 mm wedge-wire is recommended f-= ''7:

i. -.._.- .,-------1_ __I*------

~. ---_ .... ;:;f? ! .

the Peripheral Canal Fish Protection Facility screening. '\,.,. 

. , .. . "_l ...__...._I .. ... .~_____I ~ 

8 
The T-screen designed by Johnson Division, UOP was also tested for clogging. 

The T-screen (shown in Figure 11) is being tested at Hood for possible use in 

small diversions and is not a candidate for the Peripheral Canal intake. Clogging 

studies did indicate that the T-screen clogged more slowly than a wedge-wire 

._I. 

screen vertically orientated. ' t -

Collected debris could be easily removed by brushing or spraying either 

side of the small vertical screen in or out of the water, The anticipated 

cleaning frequency needed to maintain head loss less than 0.3 ITUU will vary 

between two times per hour during flood flows, to less than once per week during the summer months, Aquatic organisms growing on the screen face did not 

appear to be an important factor in clogging screens because they were easily 

removed by brushes or water jets. 

The T-screen was cleaned by an internal airburst system designed by Johnson, 

UOP. As originally installed, the airburst did not effectively clean the screen, 

even with 689 kilopascals and using 14 m

3 of compressed air. Johnson is redesigning the system by changing the angle of the orifices delivering air to the cylinder. Tests on the modified system will be run as flume time and debris concentrations allow, 

The corrosion studies ended in December, 1980 and a final analysis of four 

years' data led us to the tentative selection of 304 stainless as the material 

for Peripheral Canal fish screens (Smith and Ferguson 1979). 

DISCUSSION 

The engineering and biological results have led us to the design sttowFigure 12 as one approach to building an effective fish protection faci1.t.:. 

an extremely large diversion. Such a facility can be designed and built ki- 3 F 

water and mave fish along the screens in an acceptable manner, Several questions ..=­14 

I? 

9 
remain unanswered: 

1. Predation - Large predator populations may exist at several points 

within, above, and below the intake facility. The impacts of such 

predators on downstream migrants and ways to minimize any adverse 

impacts are being looked at. The question of how to best return the. 

bypassed fish to the river (in a tidally-effected reach) is of particular importance. 

2. Pumping - Because of the tidal effects, and the design goal of maintaining downstream flow along the screens, a Barge-volume, low-head 

pump is required for the bypass, A fan pump is being tested, 

3, Upstream migrants - Several million American shad, chinook salmon, 

and striped bass move up the Sacramento River to spawn. The question 

of how to handle these fish has not been resolved, The problem is 

particularly important during those periods when the bypass flow 

will about equal the flow remaining in the river after diversion. 

REFERENCES 

Fisher, F. W., I). B. Odenweller, and J. E, Skinner, 1976. Recent progress in 

fish facility research for California water diversion projects. Pages 381­

404. -In: L. E. Jensen, ed. Third National Workshop on Entrainment and 

Impingement. Section 316(b) - Research and Compliance held February 24, 1976, 

Meinz, M, 1978. Improved methods for collecting and transporting youw * Y 

shad. Progressive Fish, Cult, 4(40):150-151, 

Smith, Lawrence W. and David A, Ferguson, 1979- Progress report on clogging, 

cleaning, and corrosion studies of possible fish screens for the proposed 

Peripheral Canal. California Department of Water Resources. 

10 
FIGURE I 

PROPOSED DELTA FACILITIES 

ii 

w m

P a c P 

0 

c 

t -

II" 

clc 

w 
0 

0 

u)

rn 

c 

x 

0 cu 

Pcu 

d 

m 0 

* 

cu 

0 

'aD 

. 0 

-El 

.ie. 

-8 

-0 

, 

(S/W3) A113013A 

. . 

.. . 
VERTICAL SCREEN 

LIGHT DARK 

100 

50 

SLOP I NG SCREEN 

2-

3 LIGHT DARK 

<n 

i$ 

100 

50 

-,If 

.I6 -37 57 .77 .& 

Vp (ft sec-'] Vp (ff sec-1) 

Figure 5 Swimming Ability of Chinook Salmon in Reiation to Velocities 

Approahing ('+/A) and Passing (Vp) Vertical and Sloping 

Screen Orientations, Under Light and Dark Conditions. 

.,...,' ..*-- .&:>:+,> '-2 -?--:., L --7 :,;-!;.. - . , - .. .-- r -_--
VERTICAL SCREEN 

LIGHT DARK 

100 100 

50 50 

-10 

0 

.3? .57 .7? .95 .I6 .37 .57 .77 .95 

vp (ft sec") VA (ft sec-'1 

SLOPING SCREEN 

LlGHT DARK 

Figure 6 Swimming Ability of American Shad in Relation to Velocities 

Approaking ("A) and Passing (Vp) Vertical and Sloping 

Screen Orientations, Under Light and Dark Conditions. 
I BO I I I I I I I I I 1 I 

1.70 

'! 

CONCENTRATION OF DEBRIS 

IN THE RIVER 

0 bVfRAGE 

I LEFT emu 

IN THE TEST FLUME 

-LEFT BANK 

CONCENTRATION 

1979 

FJGURE 7 SACRAMENTO RIVER FLOW AND CONCENTRATION OF DEBRIS 

AS SAMPLED AT THE HOOD TEST FACILITY 
- I I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 

r2 = .72 

i -0 TOTAL RIVER 

0.I 

Z 

0-

I4 

U. 

I- -01

Z 

w 

0 

z 

0 

0 

BASED ON DRY WEIGHT OF MATERIALS 

SAMPLED WITH A PLANKTON NET OF 

-5 mm OPENINGS 

.ooI TOTAL RIVER : CONC = 3.728X16'4<FL0W) 

2.75 

2.22 LEFT BANK : CONC = 6.670x 16'2(FtOW) 

1-86

TEST FLUME : CONC = 2. I35 X 16'o!FLOW) 

I I 1 I 1 1 1 I - .- .OW! IO 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 

SACRAMENTO RIVER FLOW (thousand cfa) 

FIGURE 8 CONCENTRATION OF DEBRIS IN THE 

SACRAMENTO RIVER AT HOOD AND 

IN THE HOOD TEST FAClLlTY 

197.6-1979 

?cc-. 

. -.-? p:,-.-p -. i, : .~.-.~~ 8 ic1 -~ . -73.A-%; * 
I 1 I I I I I I 1 I 
Figure 10. The vertical revolving drum. 
Figure 11. The "T-Screen" tested at Hood. 
Table 1--Test Screens and Specifications 

PFRFORATFDPi ATF 

Percent Weight 

(lb. j 

1* SS-304 

2* SS-304 

3* SS-304 

VFN WIRF SWARFMFSH 

Opening Opening Percent Weight

No. Material Per Inch' Diameter Width Diagonal Open Area Per Ft. 

9* SS-304 

10" SS-304 

11* SS-304 

NOVFNWIRF SMTTU~ MFSH 

Slot Wire Percent Weil'ght

Diameter Open Area Per Ft. 

(lb.1 

5/64 x 0.5 .O625 49.2 1.19 

(Same as No. 17 except for coating of an algecide-trianbutyflouride) 

(Same as No. 19 except fabricated into 3-foot diameter drum) .. . 

*Clogging data available for these screens. No clogging tests have been conducted 

on the other screens listed. 

**Before galvanizing.