# 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~oberProceedings 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.

- 523implementation 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 m

### 3/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

- 525sweeping-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/k g 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 Evalu ati

# on 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.

- 526RESULTS

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.

- 528Neitzel , 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