NOAA Technical Report NMFS 39

Survey of

Fish Protective Facilities at

Water Withdrawal Sites on

the Snake and Columbia 'Rivers

George A. Swan

Tommy G. Withrow

Donn L. Park

April 1986

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA TECHNICAL REPORT NMFS _

The major responsibilities of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are to monitor and assess the abundance and geographic distribution of fishery resources, to

understand and predict fluctuations in the quantity and distribution of these resources, and to establish levels for their optimum use. NMFS is also charged with the development

and implementation of policies for managing national fishing grounds, development and enforcement of domestic fisheries regulations, surveillance of foreign fishing off United

States coastal waters, and the development and enforcement of international fishery agreements and policies. NMFS also assists the fishing industry through marketing service

and economic analysis programs, and mortgage insurance and vessel construction subsidies. It collects, analyzes, and publishes statistics on various phases of the industry.

The NOAA Technical Report NMFS series was established in 1983 to replace two subcategories of the Technical Reports series: "Special Scientific Report-Fisheries" and

"Circular." The series contains the following types of reports: Scientific investigations that document long-term continuing programs of NMFS; intensive scientific reports on

studies of restricted scope; papers on applied fishery problems; technical reports of general interest intended to aid conservation and management; reports that review in considerable detail and at a high technical level certain broad areas of research; and technical papers originating in economics studies and from management investigations. Since

this is a formal series, all submitted papers receive peer review and those accepted receive professional editing before publication.

Copies of NOAA Technical Reports NMFS are available free in limited numbers to governmental agencies, both Federal and State. They are also available in exchange for

other scientific and technical publications in the marine sciences. Individual copies may be obtained from: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service,

5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.

1. Synopsis of biological data on the Blue Crab, Cal/inecles sapidus Rathbun, by

Mark R. Millikin and Austin B. Williams. March 1984, 39 p.

2. Development of hexagrammids (Pisces: Scorpaeniformes) in the Northeastern

Pacific Ocean, by Arthur W. Kendall, Jr., and Beverly Vinter. March 1984, 44 p.

3. Configurations and relative efficiencies ofshrimp trawls employed in southeastern

United States waters, by John W. Watson, Jr., Ian K. Workman, Charles W. Taylor,

and Anthony F. Serra. March 1984, 12 p.

4. Management of northern fur seals on the Pribilof Islands, Alaska, 1786-1981, by

Alton Y. Roppel. April 1984, 26 p.

5. Net phytoplankton and zooplankton in the New York Bight, January 1976 to

February 1978, with comments on the effects of wind, Gulf Stream eddies, and slope

water intrusions, by Daniel E. Smith and Jack W. Jossi. May 1984, 41 p.

6. Ichthyoplankton survey of the estuarine and inshore waters of the Florida Everglades, May 1971 to February 1972, by L. Alan Collins, and John H. Finucane. July

1984, 75 p.

7. The feeding ecology ofsome zooplankters that are important prey items of larval

fish, by Jefferson T. Turner. July 1984, 28 p.

8. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Age Determination of Oceanic

Pelagic Fishes: Tunas, Billfishes, and Sharks, by Eric D. Prince (convener and editor),

and Lynn M. Pulos (editor). December 1983, 211 p.

9. Sampling statistics in the Atlantic menhaden fishery, by Alexander 1. Chester.

August 1984, 16 p.

10. Proceedings of the Seventh U.S.-Japan Meeting on Aquaculture, Marine Finfish

Culture, Tokyo, Japan, October 3-4, 1978, by Carl 1. Sindermann (editor). August 1984,

31 p.

II. Taxonomy of North American fish Eimeriidae, by Steve 1. Upton, David W.

Reduker, William L. Current, and Donald W. Duszynski. August 1984, 18 p.

12. Soviet-American Cooperative Research on Marine Mammals. Volume I-Pinnipeds, by Francis H. Fay, and Gennadii A. Fedoseev (editors). September 1984, 104 p.

13. Guidelines for reducing porpoise mortality in tuna purse seining, by James M.

Coo, David B. Holts, and Richard W. Butler. September 1984, 16 p.

14. Synopsis of biological data on shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser breviroslrum leSueur

1818, by Michael 1. Dadswell, Bruce D. Taubert, Thomas S. Squiers, Donald Marchene, and Jack Buckley. October 1984, 45 p.

15. Chaetognatha of the Caribbean sea and adjacent areas, by Harding B. Michel.

October 1984, 33 p.

16. Proceedings of the Ninth and Tenth U.S.-Japan Meetings on Aquaculture, by Carl

1. Sindermann (editor). November 1984, 92 p.

17. Identification and estimation of size from the beaks of 18 species of cephalopods

from the Pacific Ocean, by Gary A. Wolff. November 1984, 50 p.

18. A temporal and spatial study of invertebrate communities associated with hardbottom habitats in the South Atlantic Bight, by E. L. Wenner, P. Hinde, D. M. Knott,

and R. F. Van Dolah. November 1984, 104 p.

19. Synopsis of biological data on spottail finfish, Diplodus holbrooki (Pisces:

Sparidae), by George H. Darcy. January 1985, II p.

20. Ichthyoplankton of the Continental Shelf near Kodiak Island, Alaska, by Arthur

W. Kendall, Jr., and Jean R. Dunn. January 1985, 89 p.

21. Annotated bibliography on hypoxia and its effects on marine life, with emphasis

on the Gulf of Mexico, by Maurice L. Renaud. February 1985, 9 p.

22. Congrid eels of the eastern Pacific and key to their Leptocephali, by Solomon

N. Raju. February 1985, 19 p.

23. Synopsis of biological data on the pinfish, Lagodon rhomboides (Pisces:Sparidae),

by George H. Darcy. February 1985, 32 p.

24. Temperanlre conditions in the cold pool 1977-81: A comparison between southern

New England and New York transects, by Steven K. Cook. February 1985, 22 p.

25. ParasitOlogy and pathology of marine organisms of the world ocean, by William

1. Hargis, Jr. (editor). March 1985, 135 p.

26. Synopsis of biological data on the sand perch, Dipleclrum formosum (Pisces:

Serranidae), by George H. Darcy. March 1985, 21 p.

27. Proceedings of the Eleventh U.S.-Japan Meeting on Aquaculture, Salmon Enhancement, Tokyo, Japan, October 19-20, 1982, by Carl J. Sindermann (editor). March 1985,

102 p.

28. Review of geographical stocks of tropical dolphins (Stenella spp. and Delphinus

delphis) in the eastern Pacific, by William F. Perrin, Michael D. Scott, G. Jay Walker.

and Virginia L. Casso March 1985, 28 p.

29. Prevalence, intensity, longevity, and persistence of Anisakis sp. larvae and LaeisIOrhynchus tenuis metacestodes in San Francisco striped bass, by Mike Moser, Judy

A. Sakanari, Carol A. Reilly, and Jeannette Whipple. April 1985, 4 p.

30. Synopsis of biological data on the pink shrimp, Panda/us borealis Kr6yer, 1838,

by Sandra E. Shumway, Herbert C. Perkins, Daniel F. Schick, and Alden P. Stickney.

May 1985, 57 p.

31. Shark catches from selected fisheries off the U.S. east coast, by Emory D. Anderson, John G. Casey, John 1. Hooy, and W. N. Witzell. July 1985,22 p.

32. Nutrient Distributions for Georges Bank and adjacent waters in 1979, by A. F.

1. Draxler, A. Matte, R. Waldhauer, and 1. E. O'Reilly. July 1985, 34 p.

33. Marine flora and fauna of the Northeastern United States. Echinodermata:

Echinoidea, by D. Keith Serafy and F. Julian Fell. September 1985, 27 p.

34. Additions to a revision of the shark genus Carcharhinus: Synonymy of ApriL'nodon and Hypoprion, and description of a new species of Carcharhinus (Carcharhmidae),

by 1. A. F. Garrick. November 1985, 26 p.

35. Synoptic review of the literature on the Southern oyster drill Thais haemastoma

j1oridana, by Philip A. Butler. November 1985, 9 p.
NOAA Technical Report NMFS 39

Survey of

Fish Protective Facilities

at Water Withdrawal Sites

on the Snake and Columbia Rivers

George A. Swan

Tommy G. Withrow

Donn L. Park

April 1986

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmostpheric Administration

John V. Byrne, Administrator

National Marine Fisheries Service

William G. Gordon, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) does not approve, recommend

or endorse any proprietary product or proprietary material mentioned in this

publication. No reference shall be made to NMFS, or to this publication furnished by NMFS, in any advertising or sales promotion which would indicate

or imply that NMFS approves, recommends or endorses any proprietary

product or proprietary material mentioned herein, or which has as its purpose

an intent to cause directly or indirectly the advertised product to be used or

purchased because of this NMFS publication.

ii
Contents

Introduction 1

Objectives and Procedures 2

Inventory and Data Processing 2

Field Inspections 2

Biological Surveys 3

Results 3

Inventory and Inspection Surveys 3

Biological Surveys 5

Subsequent Actions 5

Recommendations 6

Acknowledgments 6

Figures 8

Appendix: Fish Screening Facility Criteria of the National Marine Fisheries Service 34

jii

Survey of

Fish Protective Facilities

at Water Withdrawal Sites

on the Snake and Columbia

Rivers

GEORGE A. SWAN

ruMMY G. WITHROW

DONN L. PARK

Coastal Zone and Estuarine Studies Division,

Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center,

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA,

Building 900, Big Pasco Industrial Park,

Pasco, Washington 99301

ABSTRACT

Proliferation of water withdrawals and new pump intake and screen designs has

occurred with the growth of irrigated agriculture along the Columbia and Snake

Rivers. Concern for the protection of anadromous and resident fISh populations

resulted in formulation of a survey of the water withdrawal systeDlS. The survey

included distribution studies ofjuvenile fish near pump sites and field inspection

of those sites to determine adequacy of screening for protection of fish. A total

of 225 sites were inspected in 1979 and 1980, with a follow-up inspection of 95

sites in 1982. Results indicated a definite trend toward lack of concern for the

condition of fish protective facilities. Only 4 out of 22 sites not meeting criteria

in 1979 had been upgraded to acceptable conditions. Of more concern, 13 of the

sites meeting criteria in 1979 were below criteria when reinspected in 1982. Some

ofthe discrepancies included lack of protective screens, poorly maintained screens,

and screens permitting excessive velocity that could result in impingement of larvae or small fISh. A conclusion from these surveys is that if adequate protection

for fish is to exist, screens for water withdrawals need to be properly installed,

inspected, and maintained.

INTRODUCTION-----------

Among the many uses of Columbia and Snake River water are

withdrawals for irrigation, industry, and municipalities, cooling of

thermal powerplants, and fish and wildlife propagation. Agricultural

and industrial uses require the largest volume of water withdrawn.

In the Columbia Basin alone, it has been estimated by the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers (1976)1 that the land under irrigation will increase by 1.7 million ha (4.2 million acres) between the years 1970

and 2020, reaching a total of 4.5 million ha (11.2 million acres).

The upper and middle Snake River, Big Bend, and Horse Heaven

Hills areas of Washington and the Umatilla area of Oregon are the

major areas of irrigation expansion. This rapid growth in irrigated

lands is expanding the use of existing water withdrawal sites and

escalating the numbers of new pumping plant sites being constructed.

As an example, the total horsepower (as deternlined from field inspections) of pump sites authorized in the area by the Portland and

Walla Walla Districts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CofE)

increased from 58,870 in 1969 to 109,942 in 1979.

The impact of expanded water withdrawal on populations of

anadromous and resident fishes in the Columbia Basin continues

to be a major concern to fisheries agencies. Fish protective facilities

are required by the CofE as a condition for permits to install and

operate water withdrawals on navigable waters. A 1973 survey of

mid-Columbia River pumping plants by the Fish Commission of

Oregon (FCO) indicated a need for a continuing inspection program (Fish Commission of Oregon2). In 1975, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service organized an interagency investigation of irrigation pumping plants on the same reach of the Columbia River as

the FCO's survey, and out of 27 sites visited, 14 had inadequate

fish protective facilities. Of those 14 sites, several still had the same

discrepancies (inadequate fish protective facilities) noted in the 1973

inspection (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service3). Thus, definite needs

were indicated for further studies to assess the impact of present

and future water withdrawals, for a continuing inspection program,

and for enforcement of established fish screening criteria.

Proliferation of pumping stations and new pump intakes and

screen designs has occurred with the growth of agriculture along

the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Concern for the protection of

anadromous and resident fish populations resulted in formulation

of a more comprehensive study conducted by the National Marine

Fisheries Service (NMFS) in 1979 and 1980 with funding provided

by the Bonneville Power Administration. The purpose was to survey

all types of water withdrawals on the main stem Columbia River

from Bonneville Dam to Wells Dam and on the main stem Snake

River from its confluence with the Columbia River to Lewiston,

Idaho (Fig. 1). The study was two-phased: The first phase consisted of an inventory of withdrawal sites; the second phase included

efforts to determine whether juvenile salmonids and resident fish

were being afforded adequate protection and to develop recommendations for improving fish protection where necessary. In 1982,

the CofE funded a follow-up inspection of water withdrawal sites

in the Walla Walla District. The results of these field studies are

contained in this report.

'U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers. 1976. Irrigation, depletions/instream flow study.

Columbia River and tributaries review study, 904 p. Walla Walla District, U.S. Anny

Corps of Engineers, Building 602, City-County Airport, Walla Walla, WA 99362.

'Fish Commission of Oregon. 1973. FCO pumping station survey. Unpubl.

manuscr., 10 p. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, P.O. Box 3503, Portland,

OR 97208.

'U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1975. Columbia River irrigation pumping plant

fish screen investigation. Unpubl. manuscr., 15 p. Division of River Basin Studies,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 919 N.E. 19th Ave., Portland, OR 97232.
Example: Col 301.7 LB = A withdrawal site located on the

Columbia River at River Kilometer 485.5 (River Mile 301.7),

on the left bank (facing downstream), and the second site

(facing downstream) at the same approximate river kilometer.

actual aerial, river, and land surveys to reveal all site locations,

including "grandfathered" sites and some sites operating without

any known water rights or permit of record. As anticipated, some

sites were not found in the records search but were located by close

shoreline inspection.

Each site was assigned an inventory number which allowed location by river mile and River Kilometer (RKrn) as follows:

OBJECTIVES

AND PROCEDURES _

In our survey, the jurisdictional areas of these three districts ofthe

North Pacific Division (NPD) of the CofE were adopted as major

subdivisions of the study area (Fig. 1): Portland, Walla Walla, and

Seattle. The survey was coordinated with state and federal fishery

and water management agencies to ensure maximum review and

use of the data.

The objective in the first year was to survey, inventory, and inspect fish protective facilities at water withdrawal sites on the Snake

and Columbia Rivers. This survey was intended to serve as a baseline for a subsequent evaluation of fish protective facilities at water

withdrawal sites.

The objectives in the second year were to:

1) determine fish distribution in selected water withdrawal areas,

2) ascertain whether fish protective facilities for juvenile salmonid~

and resident fish at water withdrawal sites functioned as designed,

and

3) develop recommendations for improving the effectiveness of

fish protection facilities.

As a result of the 1979 and 1980 surveys, the CofE issued notice

to all operators of pumping plants located on the Snake and Columbia Rivers within the Walla Walla District that a follow-up inspection of their fish screening facilities would be conducted by

the NMFS during the summer of 1982 to verify compliance with

the fish screening and intake velocity requirements of their pumping permits.

Codes:

CLW

Col

Snk

Umt

L

R

Is

A

B

C

Site Inventory Number

Clearwater River

Columbia River

Snake River

Umatilla River

left bank

= right bank

= island

first site, same location

second site, same location

third site, same location, etc.

Inventory and Data Processing

Public records of water rights and CofE structure pennits provided

a starting point for the inventory. Information on water rights was

compiled from records furnished by the Washington Department

of Ecology, Oregon Water Resource Department, and the Idaho

Department of Water Resources. The CofE, pursuant to Section

10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.c. 403), is responsible for permits authorizing structures located in or on navigable

waters and on adjacent federal shorelines. CofE permits were

available for review ofstructures not owned by the CofE and built

after December 1968 (structures established prior to December 1968

were exempt from the permit requirement by a grandfather clause

in Federal Regulation CFR 322.46).

During initial efforts to locate withdrawal sites, the authors received assistance from the Regulatory Functions Unit of NPD and

each of its districts. In addition, the Columbia River and Tributaries Review Study (CRT) provided data for our survey (U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers4).

Available records of water appropriations and CofE public notices

and structure permits were reviewed, and pertinent information on

description, location, ownership, mode of operation, and authorized

volume of withdrawal were entered into our data bank. Some water

rights data were obtained by cross-referencing name and legal

description of property; water rights for a number of withdrawal

sites are still undetermined.

Site locations obtained from public records were noted on aerial

photos, maps, and navigation charts. These were cross-checked with

'U.S. Anny corps of Engineers. 1977. Reach inventory, mid-1980's system description. Columbia River and tributaries review study, 301 p. North Pacific Division,

U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, P.O. Box 2870, Portland, OR 97208.

2

The data for each site were entered into a computerized data base,

pennitting easy access for adjustments, selection, and sorting in

a variety of combinations. A standard printout of this information

is presented in Appendix A of Swan et al. (19805) and Appendix

A of Swan (1981 6).

Photographic records were made ofsites located by actual survey.

Drawings were also made of representative sites to illustrate the

variety of structures and fish protective facilities noted in the field

surveys (see Figs. 3-29).

Field Inspections

Each site was visited by boat or automobile, and more detailed information on the structure, pumps, and screening facility was collected to supplement and corroborate data obtained from the records

search.

Underwater inspections by divers were conducted at each withdrawal site to detennine dimensions of the underwater structure,

type and mesh size of screening, and condition and cleanliness of

screen material. Observations of fish at or near intakes were noted.

Diving was sometimes restricted due to high turbidities or extremely

cold water.

'Swan, G. A., T. G. Withrow, and D. L. Park. 1980. Survey of fish protective

facilities at water withdrawals on the Snake and Columbia Rivers. Fiscal year 1979

report of research, 193 p. Northwest and Alaska Fish. Cent., Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv.,

"IOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Seattle, WA 98115. (Prepared for Bonneville

Power Administration, Portland, Oregon, under contract DE-A179-79BPI0684).

·Swan, G. A. 1981. Survey of fish protective facilities at water withdrawals on

the Snake and Columbia Rivers, Phase 2. Fiscal year 1980 report of research, 28

p. Northwest and Alaska Fish. Cent., Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, 7600 Sand

Point Way N.E., Seattle, WA 98115. (Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration. Portland. Oregon, under contract DE-A179-80BPI8490).
Federal and state agencies have established criteria for the open

area of screening material and the flow velocities at intakes. Although there are some differences between agencies regarding

criteria, NMFS criteria for salmonid fry call for a maximum clear

opening of 3.56 mm (0.14 inch) and a maximum approach velocity of intake water immediately in front of the screen of 15.2 cm/s

(0.5 ft/s) (National Marine Fisheries Service'). These criteria were

used as the baseline for our inspections of the fish protective

facilities. Complete NMFS fish screening criteria are presented in

the Appendix to this report. Rough measurements of intake velocities were taken by divers with a flowmeter when intake flows could

be detected. At some sites only limited data on flow conditions in

and around the intake structures were obtained because pumps were

not operating.

Biological Surveys

To determine if small fish are present and exhibit any adverse effects

from the withdrawal site, extensive sampling at a water withdrawal

installation is required to properly assess its potential impact on

salmonid and resident fishes. With the funds and staff available in

1980, only two areas could be adequately sampled. One was near

Wenatchee, Washington, where a large number of water withdrawal

installations are known to exist, and the second was in the reservoir of McNary Dam (Lake Wallula), where there are several large

installations that O-age chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha,

pass each year on their seaward migration (Fig. 1). Other areas

were investigated, but less extensively.

Traditionally, sampling ofsmall fish in reservoirs of the Columbia Basin has been conducted primarily with beach seines, purse

seines, gill nets, trap nets, and two-boat trawl nets. However,

studying the distribution and abundance of smolts and the young

of resident fishes with traditional gear near many of the withdrawal

sites was not feasible due to shallow water, rock outcrops, or thick

aquatic weed growth.

Since the water withdrawal sites chosen for intensive sampling

at the McNary Reservoir were shallow, we developed a sampling

technique for collecting fish in shoreline fringe areas. The system

consisted of two nets attached to 4.3 m (I4-ft) outriggers mounted

on a 6.4 m (2I-ft) workboat powered by a I65-horsepower inboardloutboard motor. The outriggers extended from each side of

the boat at midship and were trussed by a cable and a binder to

'National Marine Fisheries Service. [1974.J NMFS fish screening facility criteria.

Unpubl. manuscr., I p. Environmental and Technical Services Division, Northwest

Regional Office, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, P.O. Box 4332, Portland, OR 78280.

a point on the bow (Fig. 2). A depth finder and the power tilt outdrive unit facilitated operation in water as shallow as 0.9 m (3 ft).

An electromagnetic flowmeter was mounted on one outrigger to

measure the velocity of water into the trawl nets.

All tows were made in a downstream direction parallel to the

shoreline with the boat motor held at a constant 2,000 rpm. Tow

netting was attempted over a 24-h period, but was later restricted

to daylight hours because sampling at night was impractical due

to safety considerations and because from late afternoon until dusk

provided almost all of the sampled fish. To minimize mortality of

sampled fish, tows averaged about 12 minutes each. Most of the

season, nets were towed at a speed of about 2.0 mls (6.7 ft/s).

Toward the end of the sampling period, new nets were developed

which were towed about 2.7 mls (9 ft/s). We assumed that fish

which could avoid our tow nets could avoid the highest approach

velocities of the pump intakes measured in this study, at the time

about 45.7 cmls (1.5 ft/s). Three types oftows were made: 1) near

the left shoreline, 2) mid-river, and 3) near the right shoreline. This

method worked well until longer hours ofsunlight and higher water

temperatures promoted the growth of thick beds of aquatic vegetation which plugged the nets. The reservoir was sampled from

upstream of Richland, Washington (RKm 555), to McNary Dam

(RKm 470) on nine separate days between 10 and 27 June 1980.

In addition to tow nets, scuba diving and underwater TV were

used to observe distribution and behavior of fish near the intakes

of the pumping facilities. Scuba diving was also used at water

withdrawal sites surveyed in 1980 to observe condition ofscreens,

impingement offish on screens, and water velocity at screens. Gill

nets and hoop nets were used on a limited basis.

Divers conducted inspections and made observations of fish activity at various water withdrawals during 27 days between 11 April

and 29 September 1980. Divers also monitored three large withdrawal sites in the Wenatchee, Washington area throughout the

season.

RESULTS _

Inventory and Inspection Surveys

A summation of fish protective facilities (by district) at the 205

withdrawal sites located within the initial area ofstudy is presented

in Table 1. The large difference between number ofsites and number

of CofE permits is due to the CofE not issuing permits for sites

installed prior to the end of December 1968 ("grandfathered" sites)

and sites owned by the CofE. The horsepower rating of pump

Table I.-Information gathered from inspection of water withdrawal sites along the Columbia and Snake Rivers in 1979.

In areas where salmonid fry are present, the maximum mesh size for screens on intake pipes was 3.56 mm (0.14 inch) as

recommended by NMFS.

Screen Data

No. of sites

No. of inspected Pump Open mesh

size* CofE sites with CofE ';3.56 mm >3.56 to ';6.35 mm No Screening

District inspected permits S M L (0.14 inch) (0.25 inch) >6.35 mm screens unknown

Portland 27 22 3 7 17 13 4 5 3 2

Walla Walla 57 47 13 16 28 24 17 5 8 3

Seattle 121 8 89 21 II 25 31 56 5 4 - - - - -

Total 205 77 105 44 56 62 52 66 16 9

'S';50 hp; M = 50-499 hp; L ;'500 hp.

3
'Inventory numbers based on U.S. CofE river mile system.

Table 3.-Water withdrawal sites along the Columbia and

Snake Rivers inspected in 1979 which showed uncorrected

problems when reinspected in 1980.

CofE No. of sites No. of sites

District inspected below criteria'

Portland 27 17 (63%)

Walla Walla 57 32 (56%)

Seattle 121 97 (80%)

Total 205 146 (70%)

"The more restrictive criteria of the National

Marine Fisheries Service for salmonid fry

served as the limits for considering whether or

not a site ruet criteria.

Intake condition

Measured flows >15.2 cmls (0.5 fils)

Oversize mesh opening

Badly deteriorated mesh

Rusted, damaged, and oversize

Solid rust; badly deteriorated

Rusted shut; large hole

Rusted and bent panels

Deteriorated mesh

Rusted shut on top

No mesh

Oversize mesh openings

Oversize mesh openings

Oversize mesh openings

New screens to 1.8 m (6 fi) below surface;

remaining area was unscreened.

Inventory

no.*

Col340.8 R

Co1345.0 R

Co1397.1 L

Col448.8 R

Col448.9 L

Col449.5 RA

Col 449.6 L

Col449.9 RA

Co1450.2 L

Co1462.5 RA

Co1493.6 R

CoI504.0 L

Co1514.1 R

Snk020.2 R

Table 2.-Number of water withdrawal sites

inspected along the Columbia and Snake

Rivers in 1979 which had either no intake

screening or existing screening that did not

meet criteria.

ing. Plugging ofscreens by the growth of aquatic vegetation or impinged debris was a serious problem at many sites (especially the

smaller ones). A small number of sites had mild electrical fields

in conjunction with underwater screening. Apparently this was an

effort to control the fouling of the screens with plant and animal

material.

Based on interviews with operators of pumping stations and observations by divers, we arrived at some general conclusions regarding screen materials. Wire mesh screening was least durable because

of rust and corrosion. Monofilament mesh has only been in use

in this area a few years, and prolonged exposure to sun and weather

caused brittleness and eventual breakdown. Stainless steel screens,

such as manufactured by Johnson ScreenTM, appeared to be holding up very well with minimum maintenance.

During 1980,20 additional withdrawal sites within the study area

were located, bringing the total to 225 sites surveyed in 1979-80.

Of the additional 20 sites, l5 were owned and operated by the CofE

for another government agency.

A" number of withdrawal sites (mostly in the Seattle District,

upstream of Richland, Washington) that were inspected and found

to have problems in 1979 were inspected again in 1980. All 14 sites

reinspected were found !o be in the same or worse condition (Table

3). A similar situation was noted by U.S. Fish and Wildlife personnel in their reinspections ofsites in 1975 that were first surveyed

by the Fish Commission of Oregon in 1973 (footnote 3).

motors was used as an indication of the relative size of water

withdrawals. Screen data are separated into categories based on the

maximum size ofthe screen's clear opening. Intakes with no screening or those with screening completely deteriorated were combined into the "no screen" category. The screening of nine sites is

unknown because we were unable to locate the end of the intake

line due to debris or poor visibility.

Several basic types of water withdrawal sites were noted during

the survey:

I) vault-like structure with an underwater, screened opening (Figs.

3-6);

2) pier-like structure out from the shoreline supporting turbine

pumps (Figs. 7, 8);

3) combination pier/vault created by enclosing the area under a

pier with driven sheet piling or other material (Figs. 9, 10);

4) single large screened intake pipe (Figs. 11-14);

5) vault-like structure incorporating traveling screens (Figs. 15,

16) or circular rotating screens (Figs. 17, 18);

6) simple arrangement of a pump with a single intake line extending to a depth below the low water elevation (Figs. 19, 20);

7) simple pump and intake line incorporated with an additional

debris and weed seed straining device (Figs. 21, 22).

A variety of screening techniques was also encountered during

the survey. The withdrawal sites having pump motors larger than

50 hp were generally screened with some form of commercially

manufactured screening. Commercial screening materials observed

included wire mesh or hardware cloth, monofilament mesh, and

stainless steel screening. These materials were incorporated into

stationary vertical screen panels, traveling screens, or box or

cylinder shapes to strain water for individual or multiple pumps.

Smaller pump sites (less than 50 hp) generally incorporated a

single intake line with a straining device on the end. With the exception ofsome commercially manufactured check valves with builtin screening (commonly called foot valves), most screening used

on smaller sites was some form of an improvised screen device such

as bars or screen material tack-welded over the end of the intake

pipe, a perforated metal oil drum attached to the end of an intake

line, a cylinder or cone fashioned from wire mesh or expanded metal

grating, special sections of perforated pipe (Fig. 23), or a metal

pipe with slashes cut with a welding torch (Figs. 24, 25).

The mesh size (clear opening) and the condition of screening

material used at withdrawal sites are of primary interest because

large populations ofsalmonid fry and fmgerlings migrate past many

ofthe sites surveyed. Obviously, if a large number ofscreened 5truCtures do not meet the criteria (e.g., mesh size opening too large

or tears in the screen) losses of young fish could be serious. In 1979,

205 withdrawal sites were inspected and 146 (71 %) did not meet

the criteria. The highest percentage of below-standard sites (80%)

were in the Seattle District (upstream of Richland, Washington);

the lowest percentage (56%) were found in the Walla Walla District

(Table 2). The overall average of 71 % not meeting the criteriahigher than the 52 % found below standard by the U. S. Fish and

Wildlife Service in 1975 (footnote 3)-should be cause for concern by fishery agencies. The most common reasons why sites did

not meet the criteria were:

1) screens with oversize open areas;

2) screens in poor condition with breaks or missing sections;

3) no screening; and

4) intakes with excessive flows.

Deterioration of screens was caused by damage from rough

handling or ice build-up and plugging from debris or severe stages

of rust or corrosion, causing an increase in head loss and eventual

collapse ofscreen panels, resulting in gaps or openings in the screen4
Four withdrawals operated by the CofE as part of the levee at

Lewiston, Idaho, were of interest because they are siphons in use

year-round (Fig. 26). One is located on the Snake River, and three

are on the Clearwater River. The purpose of the siphons is to introduce more water into a level, groundwater drainage ditch to create

higher flow in the ditch and avoid water stagnation. NMFS divers

inspected them on 3 and 18 September 1980 and found impinged

organisms (turtles, crayfish, and decomposed small fish); intake

velocities, measured with an electromagnetic flowmeter, were found

to be much greater (100.6 cmls or 3.3 ft/s) than the acceptable fish

protective criteria (15.2 cmls or 0.5 ft/s). As soon as the deficiencies were made known to the CofE, corrective action was taken.

Biological Surveys

Initially, we expended near-equal sampling effort over hours of

daylight and darkness. However, most of the fish captured in our

tow nets were taken from late afternoon until dusk. Numbers captured reflected increased surface activity of smaller fish near

shorelines during those hours. Thus, late afternoon sampling was

preferred. Most fish taken were fall chinook salmon ranging from

40 to 75 mm fork length with a mean length of 55 mm. The majority of the fish were taken in the nearshore tows, with 73 % of the

fish captured in the tow net adjacent to the shoreline (Table 4). Since

the nets were only about 2 m apart, the data strongly suggest that

these small fish are quite concentrated next to the shoreline. A concurrent study by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also reported

that the smaller fish were found nearshore, whereas larger fish were

found primarily in midwater (Gray and RondorfB).

Table 4.-Catch of fall chinook salmon by tow netting

in McNary Reservoir, 1980.

Fall chinook % of catch

Number sampled in net

Location of tows (no.) closest to shore

Left shore 30 116 74

Midriver 13 4

Right shore 32 199 72 - -

Total 75 319

Gill nets and hoop nets used along the shoreline fringe on a very

limited basis revealed the presence ofsmall ("'80 mm or less total

length) young-of-the-year fish such as juvenile carp, Cyprinus carpio; sculpin, Cottus spp.; yellow perch, Percajlavescens; chinook

salmon; bluegill, Lepomis macrochirus; and crappie, Pomoxis spp.

In addition to examining data from net catches, we attempted to

monitor distribution by visual observations. Because underwater

visibility in the lower Columbia and Snake Rivers is generally poor

when salmonids are migrating, only limited data were obtained.

Fish behavior and distribution were observed at the mouth of the

Chelan River at Chelan Falls, Washington, where underwater

visibility averaged 3.7-4.6 m (12-15 ft). There in a backwater location, typical of many areas where water withdrawal sites are located,

II species offish were sighted with juvenile bass (Micropterus spp.),

bluegill, and crappie being abundant. Several adult bluegill were

observed guarding eggs on nest sites near the shoreline.

'G. Gray, and D. Rondorf. National Fisheries Research Center, Pasco Substation,

750 S. Lake Road, Route 6, Pasco, WA 99301, pcrs. commun., January 1981.

5

Underwater visual observations were also possible at a boat

moorage at RKm 764 (Rmi 475) upstream from Wenatchee, Washington, on 16 May 1980. No water withdrawal facility was located

in the area, but the configuration of the site was typical of many

withdrawal sites along the river and thus provides some indication

of small fish behavior and distribution near the shoreline. About

100 fall chinook salmon (40-50 mm long) were observed with a

group of threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus, in a school

holding in a back eddy along the talus rock shoreline in 0.6-0.9

m (2-3 ft) of water.

Our tow, gill, and hoop net data and visual observations confirmed the presence of juvenile salmon and other fish nearshore.

The presence of bluegill nests indicates that larval fish are also present in some nearshore areas.

Although the underwater inspection was conducted after the major

seaward migration of anadromous fish, juvenile salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) were observed in the immediate vicinity of some withdrawals. Impingement of juvenile salmonids was not observed at

these withdrawals, but impingement and entrainment of several

hundred threespine sticklebacks were observed at a withdrawal site

near Wenatchee, Washington. This appeared to be a result of an

accumulation of aquatic vegetation on the vertical screen panel which

caused an increase in intake velocity through the remaining open

area of the screen. The increased flow had impinged stickleback

on the screen panels and pulled more stickleback around the ends

of the screen panels into the pump chamber. A similar impingement situation was noted on a simple 15.2 cm (6-inch) diameter

foot valve.

At the three large withdrawal sites monitored in the Wenatchee

area in 1980, very few fish and no impinged fish were observed

around two of the three sites. However, large numbers of threespine stickleback were observed in the vicinity of the third site,

and, as in 1979, there were threespine stickleback impinged on the

intake screens.

SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS _

As a result of the 1979 and 1980 surveys, the CofE issued a notice

to all operators of pumping plants located on three major rivers

within the Walla Walla District (the Columbia, the Snake, and the

Clearwater) that an inspection of their fish screening facilities would

be completed during the summer of 1982 to verify compliance with

the fish screening and intake velocity requirements of their pumping permits. CofE permits for pump intakes require screens having

openings not in excess of 6.35 mm (0.25 inch) and an approach

velocity to the intake not to exceed 30.5 cmls (1.0 ft/s). (Note that

this approach velocity meets NMFS established criteria for fingerlings but not for salmonid fry.)

The NMFS scuba divers, under contract from the CofE, conducted inspections of these screens between July and October 1982.

Any discrepancies noted in the inspection were provided to the CofE

for enforcement of permit stipulations. Discrepancies noted during the diving inspections ranged from oversize mesh openings and

screening damaged by cuts and tears in the screen fabric to solid

rust and collapse of screening or no screens at all.

A summation of the findings in the inspection of the fish protective facilities at the 95 withdrawal sites located within the CofE

Walla Walla District in 1982 is presented in Table 5. A total of

59 sites were within criteria, 34 sites (36%) had some type of

discrepancy, and 2 were questionable. Specifics on each of the 95
Table S.-Number of water withdrawal sites in the U.S. CofE

Walla Walla District in 1982 which had acceptable intake

screening (within criteria) or unacceptable existing screen

materials or no intake screening at all (below criteria).

Table 6.-Condition of fish screening

facilities at 64 water withdrawal sites in the

CofE Wana Walla District reinspected in

1982 relative to the initial inspection conducted in 1979.

Criteria Criteria

Number Within Below Within Below

No. of Condition

sites No. No. No.

inspected questionable' within criteria below criteria

95 2 12%) 59 (62%) 34 (36%)

'The intake for one site was apparently covered with rock and

could not be located, and divers were unable to dive at the other

site.

29

13

4

18

x

x

1979

x

x

x

x

1982

x

x

sites inspected in 1982 are contained in Swan (1982)9. A greater

number of sites were inspected in 1982 than in 1979, due to the

following:

1) new sites installed after 1979,

2) sites overlooked in the initial survey, and

3) sites on the Hanford reach of the Columbia River which were

placed under the jurisdiction of the Walla Walla District of the CofE

after 1979.

The condition of fish screening facilities found over a 3-year

period at 64 water withdrawal sites is summarized in Table 6. Of

the 64 sites inspected in 1979 and reinspected in 1982, only 4 of

the 22 sites which did not meet criteria earlier had been upgraded

to acceptable conditions. Of more concern, 13 sites which had been

at or above standard in 1979 were below standard when reinspected

in 1982.

·Swan, G. A. 1982. Inspection of pumping plant intake screens. Annual report,

11 p. Northwest and Alaska Fish. Cent., Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, 7600 Sand

Point Way N.E., Seattle, WA 98115. (Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

North Pacific Division, Portland, Oregon, under contract DACW68-78-C-0051.)

6

RECOMMENDATIONS _

1. Current fish screening criteria of the NMFS appear generally

adequate for protection of fry and fingerling size fish (as no impinged salmonids were found on fish screens). but only if screens

are properly installed, inspected, and maintained.

2. Designs that enlarge gross screen area or move the screen mesh

farther away from the intake pipe are desirable to reduce velocities

through the screen. This not only offers more protection for fish

and other aquatic life, it also reduces maintenance of intake screens

by n:ducing impingement of debris.

3. Intake designs which draw from deeper water should be less

likely to entrain and/or impinge the small or larval stages of fish

which were observed to inhabit the cover of aquatic vegetation in

the littoral zone (the shallow-water region with light penetration

to the bottom; typically occupied by rooted plants). Those intake

designs should also require less maintenance because at depths below

the littoral zone, plugging from aquatic vegetation was found to

be minimal. In addition, locating intakes in the main flow of a river

as opposed to backwaters should provide the benefits of increased

bypass of debris and attendant reduction in maintenance costs.

4. This report provides a comparison with similar, less intensive

studies conducted previously and will serve as a baseline to evaluate

future changes in intake screening practices and compliance with

regulatory criteria. Furthermore, it provides the basis for an assessment of the impact of present and future water withdrawals on fishes

of the Columbia Basin. More detailed studies are needed to determine the occurrence, distribution, migration routes and timing, and

behavior of fish populations near water withdrawal sites. Those

studies should also quantify fish losses, test improvements in fish

protective facilities, and develop more accurate specifications for

facilities at water withdrawals.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS _

This work is a result of cooperative research sponsored in part by

the Bonneville Power Administration and the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers. The authors would like to than.":. the staff of the Environmental and Technical Services Division, Northwest Region,

National Marine Fisheries Service, for their advice and assistance

in this study.
7
\Wenatchee

,

SEATTLE

DISTRICT

\

P"." Rap'd,am

o Spokane

I

I

I lower Gnmlte Dam

Figure I.-Portions of the Columbia and Snake Rinrs surveyed in 1979 and 1980 by the National Marine Fisheries Service. Selected river kilometers and U.S. CorE

districts having responsibility are shown.

8
/ Tow net'

/

Power tilt motor

""'r==~

Tow

cable

LEFT SHORE TOW

/Cod end

tied off

when fishing

Figure 2.-0utrigger tow net system which aUowed sampling of fISh in the shaUow water ofT the shoreline fringe of McNary Dam Reservoir.

Columbia River.

9
RIV~ K.ILot--1ETr:.~

VICINITY

PUMP

MAP

~.

"_'to

:~ bi .'.

SCREEN REMOVALSLOTS

/ '-

"- "- '-

'-

'- '-

'- \

I I I I I ! t:=1==J===JIF==J.' o 5 '00 1- '!> FEET ME:ff::J{";>

PLAN VIEW

WATER

LINE

~ATC)

NOTE5:

I DIM. MAY !3E APPRO><IMATED F k0M DRAWING.

2.. PUMPS H. P. DIsc.HAF<E,E DIA. (CM)

i,4- 300 ~o.9

2.,3 150 40.11

:3 STATIONARY SCREEN~:

A) BAR SCREEN 'SIZE.: VER"7"'CAL BAR", WITH

7. (,Z-GM CLEAR OPENI.«" BETWEE BAI'<5 (CLEANED

• IN PLACE).

B) D MP SC><.EI::N MESH SILE·. o.lv?>CM wITH

4-781-11-1 CLEAR OPE.Nlt~G, (SCREENS '::>LlDE.

OJT FOR CLEANIN<=,\ 4 WATER \..1 E. IS Ar ,C><iMA,E AN[; WI '-

F"\..UCTUATE. WITH RESE;.,vO,R 0F[RATIC".lS.

~EC.TIO @

Figure 3.-Water withdrawal plan of Greater Wenatchee Irrigation District (river mile Col460.SL).

10
Figure 4.-(Above) Aerial view of water withdrawal site, Greater Wenatchee Irrigation District. (Below) View ofthe vault-like water withdrawal structure

with underwater screened opening.

11
DUMP

l1li" I :~ 2'0 O!'=='!'b='='=J~

FEET Me~

PLAN VIEW

o

@

@

.. FLOW

VICINITY MAP

PUMP

fllATFORM

COLUMBIA

RIVER

J_==~_ . I

RIVE-It:.

44~·Z-f{.

K.1l--OMeTEK

D

N

PUMP

@

MANIFOLD @

@

®

@

WATER ~INE

1400- 4- - 2.4 -79

"""

o 5 10

FEET

SECTION

NOTE:):

I DIM. MAY BE APPROXIMATED FROM DRAWING,. 2. PUMPS k.P. DI5CkAR5E. DIA(CM)

1-4 1500 "61

s.c<, 250 2'7.4

7-10.18 1000 '?B.I

11-1<0 700 .,e.1 17 roc '?B-I

3 ';)TATIONARY ~EEN~:

PUMP SCAE.EN ME!:>k ~IZ.E.: Q. 'Z.O~C.H WITI-l 4.71'11'1 CL£AP.. OPENINq(GCREENS €>LIDE

OUT F'"OP- Cl.EANIN5).

4 WATE.R LINE. IS APPROxIMATt- AND WILL

FLUCTUATE WITH RESERVOIP- OPERATIONS.

Figure 5.-Water withdrawal plan of Paterson Irrigation Project (river mile CoI275.5R).

12
Figure 6.-(Above) Aerial view of Paterson Irrigation Project. (Below) View of the vault-like water withdrawal structure with underwater screened opening.

13
N

;

VIC.INITY MAP

,--,

1f;\1 IVI L __ ...J

o

I I I I

FEET ::; 10 0

~I==:r::==~L==~1 Ii,?

MeT~

PLAN VIEW

(SIMILAR IN~TALLATION FOR

ALL 3 PLATFORMS)

NOTES:

DIM. MAY BE. APPROXIMATED FROM

DI'l.AWIN6,.

z. PUMPS H.P. DISUlARqE DrA. (eM)

1-2.4-12. 1000 40.&1 3 500 40.£1 3 STATIONARY SC.REENS:

PUMP 5C.REE.N ME.~H ~1z..E: c.ln WITH

?;>·Ie>HN CLEAR OPE.N 11'06, (;:, ~E.PARATE

PANELS SLIDE. OUT FOR c..LEANING).

4 WATER LINE. IS APPROXIMATE AND WILL

FLUCTUATE. WITH RESERVOIR OPERATION~.

SECTiON (6)

Figure 7.-Water withdrawal plan of Mikami Brothers (river mile CoI301.7LB).

14
Figure 8.-(Above) Aerial view of water withdrawal site of Mikami Brothers. (Below) View of the pier-like water withdrawal structure out from the

shoreline supporting turbine pumps.

15
N

t

R.lVE~ KIL.DMeTE~

~8L- -1

PUMP PLAT"O"'M

SHEET pILING t?~WAl-L -----

VICINITY Mt>-P

CHAIN UN\( FENCINE;-

_I

l

r -, r - 1 r-' r -1 r - 1 I

1(')' '1 IG)I 181 10 1 I

l _ J L J L_J L_J L J I

SCREENS]

I

PUMPS I

I

I

I

PUMP

o 11111111111 ==::=J

o 10 20

FEET

PLAN VIEW

MANIFOLD

SELTION o

NOTE.S:

I DIM. MAY BE APPROXIMATED FROM

DRAWING.

2- PUMPS H P DISC.HARG,E DIA.(INc.HES)

1- ') 450 4"'.7 3 STATIONARY SCREENS'

PUMP SCREEN MESH SIZE.: O.lu"?CI'-! W

~.Ie,MM CLEAR OPENING! (3 SE.PARATE

PANEL::> SliDE OUT FOR. Cl-EA IN"').

4- WATE.P-. LINE 15 APPROXIr-1ATE N~D

WIl-L FLUCTUATE: WITH RESERVOIR

OPE.RATIONS.

Figure 9.-Water withdrawal plan of Nedrow Farms (river mile Co1131S.0L).

16
Figure 10.-Views of Nedrow Farms' combination pier/vault created by enclosing the area under a pier with driven sheet piling or other material.

17
TO RIVER

INTAKE. SCREEN

MANIFOLD

SCR~N~

(o.9M l71A·, TYPo)

-INTAKE. PI;:>E...

PUMP

PLAT'ORM

COLUMBIA

RIVE.::t

VICINITV MAP

N

O~IICII:r1IISCI==:1, 0';:'==;:='fl:::::::;J.i,

FEE.T <-GM)

PLAN YIEW

NOTES:

DIM. MAY BE APPROXIMATED FROM

DRAWING..

2. PUMPS HP D1SC.HARE,E DIA.(CM)

1-'7 2.000 UO.9lP .3 "TATIONAP-Y .sCREEN":

A) TOHNSON WED<,;,E. WIRE SCAE.EN

SIZ.E: ~·'XPHM CLEAR OPE.NINE, (C.LEANED

IN PLAC.E. BY !"ORC.ED AI R).

SUPPORT

PILING,

RIVER INTAKE SCRliN (~CALE. SAME AS, ABOVE.)

Figure H.-Water withdrawal plan of Lorin Munn (river mile Co1275.8R).

18
Figure 12.-Aerial view of Lorin Muon's water withdrawal site showing single, large, screened intake pipe.

19
rNTAK.E AND

SCR.EE."J DEVICE.

RIVER.

, I K.1L-OM~Te~

'\ 4e>9.~F:.

VICINITY MAP

1·1M

/

SOLID

CONE.. I SCREEN

END AR.EA BPIPE.. ", I

"Ilill

SECTION

TO PUMPINE; BAYS

UNDE'" PLATF=ORM

1

I

~UNDERVVATER

A"" L_"

<I INTAKE I > 'l_~~~~_.v

I I I " I

o 5" 10 0 "Z.:> FE.E.T t-IE~~

PLAN VIEW

THIS SIDE.

SAME AS

OPPOSITE

NOTES:

DIM. MA'( BE APPROXIMATED FROM

DRAWING,.

2. PUMPs H.P. DISUi....RG,E DIA. (CM) 1-5 1000 ~.?

:3 STATIONAFJ..Y 5CAE.E.NS:

TOHNSQN WEDG,E WIRE. MESH sru:: "?IBIi~1

CLEAR OPENING, (CLEANED BY FORCED AI R).

Figure l3.-Water withdrawal plan of Barborosa Farms (river mile CoI304.SR).

20
Figure 14.-View of Barborosa Farms' single, large, screened intake pipe.

21
I

LE~L,( GROVES

PARK

TRAVELING

SCREEN

VICINITY MAP

PUMPS

.. "'.. 1" I I! !

o 5" 10

FEET

PLAN VIE.W

o

TRI\VElIN6

5CREF.N

TRAVE.LINt:;

SCREE.N

--H--.lA

.

"

WATER

LINE.

1050-

4-/3-79)

.--/

NOTE.S:

I DIM. MAY BE APFRO)(IMATED FO<OM DIi'AWINE, .

2. PUMPS H.P. DISCHAR.Eo~ DIA..(CM)

I, 2. CD 300 F;D. e, 3,' 200 '50.e,

4- 100 4J.u :3 :,TATIONARY 5Ci<.EENS:

BAR SCRE.EN SI2£: VEi2.TICAL B'A",-'S 11·4Gi't

ON C.E.NTE."'-( CLE.ANED iN PLACE.).

4- TRAVE.LINe;, SCRE.C:.NS:

)"EFFE.RY oCJ<EEN MESH SIZE.: O.lt'l-GH wlnl t.'~i'ti't CLEM<. OPENINq(SCRE..EN CLEANED

BY H IE,H PRE.SSU fZ-E.. WATE.R. SYSTEM).

5" \A/ATER LINE.. ,s ArrF:.CxIMA~E AN[; WILL

FLUC.TUATE.. WITH RE~.. ' "VUIK Oi-'ERAT tOr·JS .

~~ C' JeTlI FEE.T

::JE~T~

Figure IS.-Water withdrawal plan, City of Richland, Washington (river mile CoI340.8R).

22
Figure 16.-(Above) Aerial view of water withdrawal site, City of Richland. (Bottom left) View of the vault-like water withdrawal structure incorporating

traveling screens. (Right) Vertical traveling screens used for municipal water supply.

23
IIIII1

o 5 '0 FEET

PLAN VIEW

o

o 0 0

o

00 0

000

\ ACCESS F<OAD

~/

VICINITY MAP

~j

CYCLONE"-

FENC.F

-". ·::v'-·<l_",

I I!

o 5

FE.ET

10

PUMPS

, 2-

MeT~

CIRCULAR

ROTATINEo

SCREEN

7~

HOfE.~'

1_ DlM- MAY e>e Af'PlW)(IMll.Te-t7 FI'((JM !/WO·

7-. PUM!"? IH·. [71~ D'",. (CM)

I-J}. ~l VI e-Io 1-700 -40."

4,7 '?Go =.~

?>- ~",,-nOHARY ~~:

PAI'-IE.L. -=C~E.N "1EbH: O_O~ O-Ol'l--CH 'NI'll-I

~-IBMM C"~OPel'-IINO (BCI(,EEH'<> <7UpeoUT

R:'lC. C-L..e4HIHO).

A_ r~VE:L.IHO ~H=-:

~Ra--l KorATIHC> ~H Mec~ ~e: o·7vMM C-L--eAJ<::

OPeNING, WINc;I:>W sa:eeH(Cl-~EV e>Y i-IIOl---l F'~E.~ICE -

w::>.TE'" ~Y~T'eM).

'? ""'6.TEIt LINe. I~ APProXIHATe. ""I'-IDWIL.<-

~LueT1JATe WIT,! ~"'E."''.OJ<. OPe~PH?·

Figure 17.-Water withdrawal plan, KlU Farms, Inc. (river mile Snk017.0L).

24
Figure IS.-crop) Aerial view of water withdrawal site, IUD Farms. (Bottom left) View of the vaultlike water withdrawal structure incorporating circular rotating screens. (Right) Fine mesh revolving

drum screen used at IUD Farms to remove waterborne weed seeds from irrigation water. Small fish

may also benefit from such a screen.

25
PUMP

,

PUMP

• a

A

PLAN VIEW

SECTiON

POSSIBLE. WATER LINE.

Figure 19.-Schematic of a typical small pump installation located throughout the study area.

26
Figure 20.-Views oftypical small pump installations throughout the study area. Note single intake line extending to a depth below the low water elevation.

27
MM)l

<:0,- IHV~HTC'f1.Y I'j' INTAi<E OI~C.HARGoE. WI 1:1:-, r.LFAP ( .. - --- PIPE. H.P DIA. (Cl'1), ME5H~ 0F:Et'--IIN

COL.4EO-SLA 2.0 7.-0·?>? 4.& . ~.,?'" .. -

C.OL 4505LB 10 W·'!>2- ",· ...9 o.",e

<;:'OL4B90L 10 1'?tA !.P.40 I·ll

C.OL514 I R. 10 i·V/.. - _ It·7e ..

LOCATIONS

..PUMP

SEE.D 5CRE.£N

MESH.

INTAi<E. PI PE:.

FROM RIVE.R

SEE AEOVE. TABLE. FOR

INTAKE :;(..REEN ME.~H ~12£.

DE.BRIS RE.TURN

?IPE TO RIVER

PLA~~ VIEW

PUMP

MANIFOLD TO

FIELD~ -1-OVEJ<.LAY WEED

APPROX 4D-COO

COL'XCTION TROUGoH

r---------------l,---------- .--

t

1--=-W..:.:A:o.T-'-=ER=--'L=:I.:...N:.:E=-.:...F..::L:.:::U..::C::.:T-'U""A:o.T.:...:::i=.:.::S'-- ~~ ._...CLEAN __..ED__W_"'T ER

o

HOLDING TANK.

5ECTIOI--.J

C:[==:J=:C:=.lr..=..:-.II=I:=:I====::=::~ o 5 10

FEET

Figure 2l.-Schematic of a typical small water withdrawal and screen system used at several sites along the upper Columbia River.

28
Figure 22.-Views of a typical small water withdrawal and screen system used along the upper Columbia River: a simple pump and intake line incorporated with an additional debris and weed seed straining device.

29
c::::,;

e:---" 00

c::::::, ~o c:=:::l 000 C-...::l 000

c::::::> 6°

o

o

~.'?:3MH SLITS WITH iJ. """MI1 HOLES.

'I, I'

j- II I

"·~t-lM BETWEEN WIRES, £I·~HM CLEAA OPE.NIN~ ME~ ON ENe.

DDDDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDDDD

~.!>IGM CLE.AR OPENIN6'=>, E.ND CLOSED.

U·~NM CLEAR OPENING MESH, END DI<ILLE.P WITH ",.""<7~ 4751"11'1 HOLES.

Figure 23.-Examples of screens used on single-line intakes

30
I#.~HM CLEAR OPENINE, MESH, FLATTENED ON THE END.

".~MM SEPARATINE, RINGS, .,. .,.~t1M HOLE-SIN THE END.

WOOD FRAME COVERED WITH WINDOW 5C.REEN.

ELECTRI FlED SCREEN INTAKE.

5,CE-G Dl<:UM PellfORL\Te~

WITH ":J, If>MM ~bL-e5

throughout the study area.

31

61eE-L- ~UM ~~

C-O'VEI':ED WlH-II·9IGM

CL-eA~ OP'~HINO, o. '-'40c-",,-

WIf{E Me~.
1---------------------

PRESENTLyh~ IN USE II

I

l..i

II

II

II

II

I[

II

II

II I

II II

ACCESS ROA?: ::

II II

-----~ II II

II I[

ti

PUMPS

PIPE

NOT

I,

VICINITY MAP

INTAKE

PIPES

N

WATER LINE

(APPR.OXIMATE')

PLAN VIEW

I I 1 1

a 5 10

FEET

I I !

0 \ 1- "'? M~T~

SECT ION (j0

NOT TO V SCALE

F'LD. FAB.- Ci.JTTIf.J6 TORCH-TYPE SLOTS

1.';'.40'1 DIA. IN/ ":>.It>HM x .~.5C.H ~p~x. 5L-Ofo 1= == === == == == =yEND PLATE

DETAIL ED

NOTES:

DIM. MAY BE. APPROXIMATED

FROM DRAWING:.

2.. PUMPS HP DISCHARE,E DIA, (eM)

I 15' zo·"" 2. COO '/-0.",;>

3 PUMP NO. I IS PRE.SENTLY NOT IN

OPERATION. INTAKE LINE TO RIVER

HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED,

4- WATER LINE IS APPROXI MATE AND

WILL FLueTUATE- WITH RE':>ERYOIR.

OPERATIONS.

Figure 24.-Water withdrawal plan of W. Ketchersid (river mile CoI339.0L),

32
Figure 2S.-(Above) Aerial view of water withdrawal site of W. Ketchersid. (Below) Example of a metal pipe straining device with slashes cut with

a welding torch.

33
12 foot

13.7 m)

service road Valve Box l-------------- (vacuum breaker)

Existing grade 20 foot 16.1 ml

service road

Figure 26.-Siphon No.1 on West Lewiston Levee, Snake River. Typical of three other

siphons on East Lewiston Levee, Clearwater River, except for longer and greater head loss.

APPENDIX

FISH SCREENING FACILITY CRITERIA* OF

THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

Scale in Mete,s

012345

Scale," Feet

710 foot 1216.4 ml

~Ievation

Salmonid Fry

Screening material with clear openings not to exceed 3.56 mm (0.14

inch).

An approach velocity of the intake water not to exceed 15.2 cm/s

(0.5 fils) immediately in front of the screen.

A bypass flow to lead fish from the face of the screen to the main

streamflow. Velocity ofthe current should be no less than the screen

approach velocity.

Salmonid Fingerlings

Screening material with clear openings not to exceed 0.25 inch.

An approach velocity of the intake water not to exceed 30.5 cm/s

(1.0 fils) immediately in front of the screens.

A bypass flow to lead fish from the face of the screen to the main

streamflow. Velocity ofthe current should be no less than the screen

approach velocity.

'Recommended guidance for use by pennit-issuing authorities; also intended to pro·

vide design criteria at water withdrawals. Because they are for guidance only. criteria

are open to interpretation in exceptional cases.

34

Bass, Herring Cyprinids, etc.

Some of these fish have eggs and/or very small fry which are moved

with any water current, tides, or streamflows. Installations where

these species are present sometimes require special screening and/or

bypassing facilities, including rnicroscreen, louvre installations,

bypass pipes or canals, and almost always require individual evaluation of the proposed project.

General Considerations

In many instances, detailed and specific evaluation of the plan and

design of the proposed project is mandatory. Some factors may require significant evaluation by project sponsors and fishery experts,

such as local flow patterns, marine weather and hydraulics, total

discharge, season of discharge or water intake, location of water

intake, presence of marine or freshwater species.

Special Considerations

Proposed new (nonconventional) screening methods must include

biological basis for the concept, an acceptable plan for evaluating

the prototype installation, and an alternate plan should the initial

plan not prove acceptable.