a 

### i \ 4 4 

# 9 a L 1­ $%

## 2 A 

### FISH PROTECTIONFACILITY 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 m3 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 screenmay be a "V" (sawtooth) COV~TYH1 nn

1*\.J with four bays, each containing about 1400m2 of fish screens. Cleaning and I clogging tests demonstrated that welded wedge-wire screenmaterial 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 facilitywas 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, whosemembers 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 670m3 sec-' water diversion to be located on the Sacramento River near Hood, California, The engineering and biological aspects of the design evaluationare 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 toprovide 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 amajor impact on the aquatic resources of the system and have several significant drawbacks. First, the existing diversions draw their water from amajor 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\"lowvelocity-positive barrier screen,: and the salvaged

~ . fish

### will not be handled but left in the river to travel downstreamalong 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.

3MATERIALS 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 cmwide, 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 flowpast the screen (Figure 3). Tests with the fish screen in avertical and a sloping 

### (45O) configurationwere 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 corrosionwork was conducted over a 4-year period at the Hood Test Facility located a fewhundred 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 12m approach flame with a maximum capacity 

### of about 

### 1.7 m3 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 flowdivided by screen ~WR, 

### The concentration and size of particles suspended inthe water, a11important 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


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

### of the net used (approximately 

### 500microns 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 compositionof the material being cleaned. Corrosion studies were made of several types of screenmaterial (mild steel, stainless steel, aluminum, etc.) by suspending samples 

### of knownweight 

### in the river near Hood and periodically retrieving, cleaning,and then reweighing them, The loss inweight 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 fishhave better swimming I ' "y than chinook salmonunder lighted conditions, but that 

### in the 

### dark perf( 8.- a

5falls to levels comparable to those 

### of the salmon. From these earlier studies,
we concluded that a screenapproach velocity of 6.1 cm sec-' would assure protection for these species, The conclusion was uncertain because the fishwere exposed to a singlevector 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 againmirrored 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 wirematerial 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 fishwhich prevents passage.

ENGINEERING 

### RESULTS

CLOGGING, CLEANING, AND CORROSION Figure 

### 7 provides an example of the relativevariation experienced indebris concentration from 1977 to 1979 in the test flume at 

### Hood, 

### As expected, high 

### F" .­ 7 

# 'Adebris 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 850m3 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 revolvingdrum 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- _____. ' 

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

# -.._.- .,-------1_ __I*------ ~. 

## ---_.... ;:; f? ! . the Peripheral Canal Fish ProtectionFacility screening. '\,.,.

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

~ 8The T-screen designed by JohnsonDivision, 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 awedge-wire

._ I. screenvertically 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 ITUUwill vary between two times per hour during flood flows, to less than once per week during the summermonths, 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 systemdesigned by Johnson, UOP. As originally installed, the airburst did not effectively clean the screen,
even with 

### 689 kilopascals and using 14m3 

### of compressed air. Johnson is redesigning the systemby changing the angle 

### of the orifices delivering air to the cylinder. Tests on the modified systemwill 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 canbe designed and 

### built ki- 3 F water and mave fish along the screens in an acceptable manner, Several questions 

## ..=­ 14 I? 9remain unanswered: 1. Predation

# - Large predator populations may exist at severalpoints within, above, and below the intake facility. The impacts of such predators on downstreammigrants 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, Upstreammigrants 

# - Several millionAmerican shad, chinook salmon, and striped bass move up the Sacramento River to spawn. The question of how to handle these fishhas 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 diversionprojects. 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
tI-



### I" clc w0 0 u) rn

c x
0 cuPcu d m 0 

## * cu

0 'aD



# . 0 -El

.ie. 

## -8

-0
,
(S/W3) A113013A

. .

.. .

## VERTICAL 

## SCREEN LIGHT 

## DARK

100



### 50



## SLOPING SCREEN 2


## - 3 

### LIGHT DARK <n i$ 100

50 -,If

.I6 -37 

### 57 .77 

## .& Vp (ftsec-'] 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.

L .,..., ' ..*-- .&:>:+,> '-2 -?--:., --7 :,;-!;..
- . ,- .. 

### .-- r-_--

## VERTICAL SCREEN LIGHT DARK

100 100



### 50 50



## -10



### 0 .3? .57 

### .7? .95 

### .I6 .37 .57 .77 

### .95 vp(ftsec") 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.IBO I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1.70

'!

CONCENTRATION OF DEBRIS IN THE RIVER 0 bVfRAGE I LEFTemu 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 -5mm 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.I35X 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:,- -. i, : . ~.-.~~ .-p 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--TestScreens and 

### Specifications 

# PFRFORATFD Pi

### ATF 

### Percent Weight (lb.j 

## 1* SS-304 2* 

### SS-304 3* 

### SS-304

VFN

# WIRFSWARFMFSH Opening Opening Percent Weight 

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



### 9* 

### SS-304 10" 

### SS-304 

## 11* SS-304



# NOVFN WIRF SMTTU~ 

## MFSH Slot Wire Percent Weil'ght 

### Diameter Open Area Per Ft. 

### (lb.1 

### 5/64 

## x 0.5 

### .O625 49.2 

### 1.19 (Sameas 

## No. 17

### except for coating of 

## an algecide-trianbutyflouride)



### (Same as 

### No. 19

### except fabricated into 3-foot

## diameterdrum)

.. . 

### *Clogging data available for these screens. No 

### clogging tests have 

### been conducted

on the other screens listed. **Before galvanizing.