SUPPLEMENTARY PAPER

1520

fp - PB -1)5

Proceedings of ~he In~erna~ional Symposium on

Fishways ' 90 in Gifu , Japan , Oc~ober 8-10, 1990

(The Organ i zing Commi ~ ~ee rece i ved

~his paper on Oc~ober 4 , 1990)

PAPER SEvalua~ion of Ro~ary Drum Screens Used ~o

Projec~ Juvenile Salmonids in ~he Yakima

River Basin , Washington, U.

Duane A. NEITZEL , Thomas J. CLUNE,

and C. Sco~~ ABERNETHY

Note: This paper S- l will be presen~ed a~ ~he

~ime of C- 3 (Wi~hdrawal) of ~he Session 

Presen~a~ion is Session C, 13:30- 15:30 on Oc~ober 
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Fishways ' 90 in Gifu Japan, October 8- 10, 1990

Evaluation of Rotary Drum Screens Used to

Protect Juvenile Salmonids in the Yakima

River Basin, Washington, U.

Duane A. Neitzel

Pacific Northwest Laboratory

O. Box 999

Richland, Washington 99352

Thomas J. Clune

Bonneville Power Administration

103 S. 3rd St.

Yakima, Washington 98901

and

c. Scott Abernethy

Pacific Northwest Laboratory

O. Box 999

Richland, Washington 99352

ABSTRACT

The purpose of our study is to assess the design and operations of rotary drums screens. Chinook salmon

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha and steel head O. mykiss are the potentially effected fish. Cold-branded fish are

released upstream of the screen facilities. The fish are captured as they exit the facility and are examined for

injuries, descaling, and post-test moralities. Nets are placed in the irrigation ditch, downstream of the screen

facilities to detennine if fish can pass through or over the screens.

More than 100 tests have been conducted with almost 35,000 fish. Additionally, nearly 2oaO native

fish have been evaluated. Usually less than 2% of the test fish are injured or dead, and the condition of test fish

does not differ from the controls. Less than 2% of the fish pass through or over the screens when the screen seal~

are properly installed and maintained.

Key Words.. rotary screens, drum screens, salmonids, irrigation canals, diversion dams,.

INTRODUCTION

The Yakima River Basin has historically supported significant runs of salmonids. During the late 1800s,

between 500,000 and 600,000 adult salmon and steelhead Oncorhynchus spp. returned to the Yakima River and

its tributaries (1). Runs of salmon included several races: spring, summer, and fall chinook salmon O.

tshawytscha coho salmon O. kisutch, sockeye salmon O. nerka and steelhead 0 mykiss.

Some of the runs are now extinct or near extinction. Spawning escapement averaged about 2000 salmonids

in the early 1980s (1). There is no sockeye run in the Yakima River Basin today, and only 37 coho salmon

passed the Prosser Diversion Dam in 1983 (2). Recent improvements in efforts to manage and enhance salmonid

runs in the Yakima River increased the total spawning escapement to between 5 and 10 thousand adults in the late

1980s (3).

Reduced numbers of salmon ids returning to the Yakima River Basin are the result of many factors.

Spawning and rearing habitat is less because reduced in-stream flow downstream of irrigation diversion dams.

Ineffective fish passage facilities for adults and juveniles at diversion dams caused high mortality during

migration. Additionally, many Yakima River fish were killed while passing hydroelectric dams on the mainstem

Columbia River.

- 523 
implementation of a regional Conservation and Electric Power Plan (4 5). The Northwest Power Planning

Council administers the Plan, and is charged with developing a program to protect and enhance fish and wildlife

populations, and to mitigate adverse effects from development, operation, and management of hydroelectric

facilities.

The Yakima River Basin was selected as one site for enhancement of salmon and steelhead runs. Under the

Plan, the Bonneville Power Administration (BP A) and the Bureau of Reclamation (BR) are funding the

construction of fish passage and protection facilities at irrigation and hydroelectric diversions in the Yakima River

Basin (Figure 1). We evaluated seven screen facilities that were constructed between 1985 and 1989.

10.

II.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

Easton Diversion

Taneum Di versi on Dam

Westsi de Di tch

Thorp Mi 11 Di tch

Town Di vers i on Dam

Roza Di vers i on Dam

Stevens Di tch Di vers i on

Wapatox Di vers i on Dam

Naches/Cowi che Di vers i on

Roza Power Pl ant

Wapato Di vers i on Dam

Old Reservation Canal Diversion

Sunnysi de Di vers i on Dam

Snipes/Allen Diversion

Toppeni sh Creek Di vers ion

Marion Drain Diversion

Toppenish Creek/Sat us Unit

Diversion

Sat us Creek Di vers i on

Prosser Di versi on Dam

Horn Rapi ds Di vers i on Dam

(Ri chl and and C~ umbi a Screens)

18.

19.

20.

Fi sh Ladder Improvements

Fi sh Screen and/or Bypass

Improvements

.. ....

19 ",

Fig. 1. Map of the Yakima River Basin and Location of 11 Rotary Drum Screen Facilities

- 524 
SCREEN SITE DESCRIPTIONS

We performed fisheries evaluations at seven screening facilities: the Sunnyside, Richland, Toppenish/Satus,

Wapato, Toppenish Creek, Westside Ditch, and Town Screens. The size and design of each facility varied.

Canal capacity ranged from 1.4 to 56.6 m3/sec. The primary study areas for fisheries evaluations included the

canal from the trash racks to the fish return, the screen forebay, the drum screens, and canal behind the drum

screens, and components of the fish bypass system. Secondary study areas included the canal from the

head gates to the trash racks, and portions of the river adjacent to the end of the fish return pipe.

The fish screening facilities include a canal, trash rack, drum screens, fish bypass, and fish return pipe (Fig.

2). The complexity of the facilities varies from site to site. Fish enter the canal through headgates at the

diversion. A trash rack in the canal and perpendicular to the canal flow removes large debris upstream of

the drum screen facility. The concrete screening facility houses cylindrical screens with axes parallel to the 

length

of the structure. Water depth at the screens varies with canal flow. However, the average depth across the face oj

the screens is about 75-80% of the screen diameter. Screen mesh openings are 3. 18 mm.

~RiVP/"

Fig. 2. Diagram of the Rotary Drum Fish Screening Facility

- 525 
sweeping-velocity-to-approach-velocity ratio equal to or exceeding 2: 1 (6). The maximum allowable approach

velocity is 0. 15 mls. Screen orientation and flow velocity differential help direct fish to the fish bypass.

The fish bypass facility provides passage through the screen facility and prevents fish from returning to the

area upstream of the drum screens. At the terminus of the fish passage facility, a pipe returns fish to the river

from which they were diverted. Some facilities include a separation chamber and "pump-back" system

that allows most of the diversion water to be used for irrigation after fish have passed through the fish screening

facility.

METIIODS

Two types of tests were conducted at these screens; descaling tests and screen integrity tests. For descaling

tests fish were released at the headgates and captured at the tenninus of the fish return slot. For integrity tests,

fish were released in the canal upstream of the screening facility and captured as they entered the fish return.

Additionally, fyke net were placed downstream of the screens to capture any fish that passed through he screens.

Some test fish were held for post-test observation. Native salmonids entering the canals were monitored during

release/capture tests.

Test Fish The species of fish selected for tests were recommended by fisheries biologists from the

Washington State Department of Fisheries (WDF), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Yakima

Indian Nation. The species were selected on the basis of the potential impact of an irrigation diversion on specific

salmonid populations likely to encounter each screening facility during the rearing and outmigration period.

Therefore, the selection was dependent on the species, race, and size of salmonids occurring in the Yakima River

drainage upstream of each diversion.

Juvenile steelhead used for most tests were obtained from the Washington Department of Wildlife Yakirna

Trout Hatchery in Yakima, Washington. The steelhead were progeny of native steelhead captured in the Yakima

River. The fish were about 22 fish/kg when released in out tests. Rainbow trout fry O. mykiss used in integrity

tests were obtained from our brood stock. Fry used in tests averaged 49.3 mm fork length. Yearling spring

chinook salmon were obtained from the Leavenworth National Hatchery in Leavenworth, Washington. The fish

weighed about 35 fish/k~ when released in our tests.

Sam lin Fish were captured within the screening facility, at the terminus of the primary fish

return slot, and in the canal behind the screens. Fish were captured by placing an inclined plane in the fish return

between the last rotary drum screen and the head of the fish return pipe. The front face of the plane was

hinged so that the slope of the plane could be changed to adjust the flow of water reaching the fish live box.

Solid walls, tapering from the entrance to the live box, acted as splash guards to reduce fish loss from the plane.

A live box was fastened at the end of the inclined plane. The inclined plane had an aluminum frame covered with

a perforated aluminum sheet (0.32-cm diameter holes, staggered centers, 40% open). Flow was directed over the

plane surface by inserting dam boards in the upstream stoplog slot in the fish bypass slot. The height of the dam

boards relative to the water depth determined the water volume through the fish bypass.

Fyke nets were used behind the drum screens in integrity tests. The mouths of the nets were wide enough to

fit into the stoplog slots behind the screens. The tops of the nets were above the water surface, and the

bottoms of the nets settled into the mud on the canal floor. The net mouth tapered down to a cod net. The mouth

diameter to net length ratio was about 5: 1. The end of the cod net was tied shut. The nets were .fished

continuously during screen integrity tests except for about a I-hour interval at the temrlnation of each test when tht

nets were raised from the water for fish retrieval and net cleaning.

Desc Evaluation The evaluation system developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (7)

was used to monitor the condition of fish at both sites. Evaluation criteria included modifications

established in 1985 (8). Baseline de scaling condition was detennined by randomly sampling groups of

test fish before their release. Descaling was evaluated in each of 10 areas, 5 on each side of the fish.

When 40% or more scale loss was observed in any 2 areas on one side of a fish, the fish was classified as

descaled.

- 526 
RESULTS

Fish screening facilities in the Yakima Basin are designed to direct fish that have been diverted from the river

and into irrigation canals back to the river without killing or injuring them or delaying their migration

(8, 10, 12).

rviv l At Screenin ilities Based on release/capture tests, fish are not descaled or

killed during passage in front of the rotary drum screens or through the fish bypass systems (fable 1). The

descaling rate for test fish falls within the confidence limits for control fish.

Table 1 Test Fish Descaled or Injured at Yakima River Fish Screening Facilities

Steelhead O. Mykiss

Number Number Percent Percent

Facili Released tured tured Descaled

Sunnyside 1000 226 22.

Richland 600 363 60. 1.1

Wapato 1715 1158 43.

Toppenish Creek 755 538 71.3

Westside Ditch 750 625 83. 1.8

Town 699 341 48.

TOTAL: 7079 4639 65.

Chinook Salmon O. tshawytscha

Number Number Percent Percent

Facili Released tured tured Descaled

Sunnyside 3000 2310 77.

Richland 600 560 93.

Wapato 1814 1421 78. 1.4

Westside 755 750 99.

TOTAL: 6169 5041 82. 1.1

Potential For Fish Predation At Screenin Facilities On the basis of the samples we have collected, loss to

predation does not appear to be a problem at screening facilities when only native species are involved; however

hatchery-released salmonids that take up temporary residence in a screens forebay may increase

predation pressure at screen sites. Screening facilities could affect the predator/prey relationship if the screens

concentrate prey or increase the exposure of prey to predators because of stress, injury, or delay in migration.

Potential For Fish Dela At Screenin Facilities One of the basic objectives of the redesign and construction

of new screens is to provide a facility that safely and rapidly returns fish from the diversion canal to the river (6).

Fish are not "flushed" from the screen forebay back to the river, although the screening facilities do not impede

voluntary movement and migration under normal operating conditions. Conversely, inadequate bypass flows

resulting from improper operation, inoperable components in the bypass system, low canal flows or forebay

elevations, or blockages in the fish return can impair the movement of fish through the fish bypass system and

contribute to delays in migration.

Fish Passa e Throu h Or Over Rotary Drum Screens The sweeping/approach velocity ratio as designed

into the facilities helps guide fish into the fish bypass, and screen mesh openings (3.18 rom) are small enough to

prevent most salmonid fry from passing through the drum screens. Less than 2% of the fry pass through or over

the screens when the seals are properly installed and maintained (fable 3).
Table 2 Summary of Screen Effectiveness For Test Fish At Yakima River Screens

Facili

Town

Westside

Sunnyside

Wapato (old seals)

Toppenish Creek

Wapato (after seal repair)

Richland

Number

Released

2000

1200

1599

500

900

900

3021

Screen

Efficiency

1.00

83 (:to.09)

98 (:to.Ol)

99 (:to.Ol)

(:to. 0 1)

96 (:to.08)

1.00

Number

tured

138

CONCLUSION

Release and capture tests and other monitoring studies have been conducted at seven diversion screen facilities in

the Yakima Basin between 1985 and 1990. Fish that pass through the diversion are not killed, injured, or eaten

by predators; fish migration is not delayed at the screen structure; and 3) fish are prevented from passing through

or over the screens.

REFERENCES

(1) Bureau of Reclamation. : Finding of No Significant Impact: Fish Passage and Protective Facilities, Yakima

River Basin, Washington. Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, Boise, Idaho,

28pp.+appendices, 1984.

(2) Hollowed, 1. J. : 1983 Yakima River Fall Fish Counts at Prosser Dam. Yakima Indian Nation, Fisheries

Resource Management Technical Report No. 84- 11. Yakima Indian Nation, Toppenish, Washington, 5Opp

1984.

(3) Fast, D., J. Hubble, and B. Watson. : Yakima River Spring Chinook Enhancement Study Fisheries

Resources Management, Yakima Indian Nation. Prepared by the Division of Fisheries, Yakima Indian

Nation for the Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon, 35pp., 1986.

(4) NPPC (Northwest Power Planning Council). : Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife

Program. Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon, 138pp. , 1984.

(5) NPPC (Northwest Power Planning Council). : Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife

Program. Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon, 246pp., 1987.

(6) Easterbrooks, J. A. : Juvenile Fish Screen Design Criteria: A Review of the Objectives and Scientific Data

Base. State of Washington Department of Fisheries, Habitat Management Division, Yakima, Washington

lOpp , 1984.

(7) Basham, L. R. , M. R. Delarm, 1. B. Athern, and S. W. Pettit. : Fish Transportation Oversight Team

Annual Report, FY 1981: Transport Operations on the Snake and Columbia Rivers. Technical

Services Division, Northwest Regional Office, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, Oregon, 75pp., 1982.

(8) Neitzel, D. A., C. S. Abernethy, E. W. Lusty, and L. A. Prohammer. : A Fisheries Evaluation of the

Sunnyside Canal Fish Screening Facility, Spring 1985. Prepared by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory,

Richland, Washington for the Division ofFish and Wildlife, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland,

Oregon, 29pp. + appendices, 1985.

- 528-

, , 

r~?:'"
Table 2 Summary of Screen Effectiveness For Test Fish At Yakima River Screens

(9)

Facili

Town

Westside

Sunnyside

Wapato (old seals)

Toppenish Creek

Wapato (after seal repair)

Richland

Number

Released

2000

1200

1599

500

900

900

3021

Number

tured

138

Screen

Efficiency

1.00

83 (:to.09)

98 (:to.Ol)

99 (:to.Ol)

(:to. 0 1)

96 (:to.08)

1.00

(lOj

(llJ

CONCLUSION

(12~

Release and capture tests and other monitoring studies have been conducted at seven diversion screen facilities in

the Yakima Basin between 1985 and 1990. Fish that pass through the diversion are not killed, injured, or eaten

by predators; fish migration is not delayed at the screen structure; and 3) fish are prevented from passing through

or over the screens.

REFERENCES

(1) Bureau of Reclamation. : Finding of No Significant Impact: Fish Passage and Protective Facilities, Yakima

River Basin, Washington. Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, Boise, Idaho,

28pp.+appendices, 1984.

(2) Hollowed, 1. J. : 1983 Yakima River Fall Fish Counts at Prosser Dam. Yakima Indian Nation, Fisheries

Resource Management Technical Report No. 84- 11. Yakima Indian Nation, Toppenish, Washington, 5Opp

1984.

(3) Fast, D., J. Hubble, and B. Watson. : Yakima River Spring Chinook Enhancement Study Fisheries

Resources Management, Yakima Indian Nation. Prepared by the Division of Fisheries, Yakima Indian

Nation for the Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon, 35pp. , 1986.

(4) NPPC (Northwest Power Planning Council). : Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife

Program. Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon, 138pp. , 1984.

:5) NPPC (Northwest Power Planning Council). : Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife

Program. Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon, 246pp. , 1987.

:6) Easterbrooks 1. A. : Juvenile Fish Screen Design Criteria: A Review of the Objectives and Scientific Data

Base. S tate of Washington Department of Fisheries, Habitat Management Division, Yakirna, Washington

lOpp , 1984.

7) Basham, L. R. , M. R. Delarm, J. B. Athern, and S. W. Pettit. : Fish Transportation Oversight Team

Annual Report, FY 1981: Transport Operations on the Snake and Columbia Rivers. Technical

Services Division, Northwest Regional Office, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, Oregon, 75pp., 1982.

Neitzel, D. A., C. S. Abernethy, E. W. Lusty, and L. A. Prohammer. : A Fisheries Evaluation of the

Sunnyside Canal Fish Screening Facility, Spring 1985. Prepared by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory,

Richland, Washington for the Division of Fish and Wildlife, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland,

Oregon, 29pp. + appendices, 1985.

- 528 
Neitzel, D. A., C. S. Abernethy, and E. W. Lusty. : A Fisheries Evaluation of the Wests ide Ditch and

Wapato Fish Screening Facilities, Spring 1989. Prepared by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland,

Washington for the Division ofFish and Wildlife, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon,

37pp.+ appendices, 1990.

(10) Neitzel, D. A., C. S. Abernethy, and E. W. Lusty. : A Fisheries Evaluation of the Wapato, Sunnyside, and

Toppenish Creek Fish Screening Facilities, Spring 1988. Prepared by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory,

Richland, Washington for the Division ofFish and Wildlife, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland,

Oregon, 45pp. + appendices, 1990.

(9)

(11) Neitzel, D. A., C. S. Abernethy, E. W. Lusty, and S. J. Wampler. : A Fisheries Evaluation of the Richland

and Wapato Canal Fish Screening Facilities, Spring 1987. Prepared by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory,

Richland, Washington for the Division ofFish and Wildlife, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland,

Oregon, 45pp. + appendices, 1988.

(12) Neitzel , D. A., C. S. Abernethy, and E. W. Lusty. : A Fisheries Evaluation of the Richland and

Toppenish/Satus Canal Fish Screening Facilities, Spring 1986. Prepared by the Pacific Northwest

Laboratory, Richland, Washington for the Division of Fish and Wildlife, Bonneville Power Administration,

Portland, Oregon, 53 pp. + appendices, 1986.

- 529