State of California 

THE RESOURCES AGENCY 

MEMORANDUM REPORT 

ON THE 

PERIPHERAL CANAL FISH RETURN FACILITIES 

A Cooperative Study 

By The 

Department of Fish and Game 

And The 

Department of Water Resources 

June 1971 J 
-- 

State of California The Resources Agency 

$6 : 3.. Mr. Robert E. Whiting&&.~b4’~ Date : January 25, 1972 

2. Mr. John M. Haley 

File No.: 

Gerald C. Cox, Chief Subject: Peripheral Canal Fish 

Environmental Studies Section Return Facilities 

Delta Studies Branch t Central District 

From : Department of Water Resources 

The Peripheral Canal Fish Protection Facility as 12 

i presently planned will consist of a fish screen, primary I 

1 

i separating facility, secondary separating facility, holding

i 

tanks, fish pumps, a return conduit, and release facilities \

I

\ to the Sacramento River channel. 

! 

l -

J\i 

The scope of this report includes the results of 

a study of the fish return facilities component of the 

Peripheral Canal Fish Protection Facilities fish pumps, 

return conduit and release facilities. The objective of the 

study was to provide information to be used in establishing 

__ -_-

criteria for the planning, design and operation of the fish I 

return facilities. 

This cooperative study by the Department of Water 

Resources and Department of Fish and Game was conducted as 

part of the Delta Fish and Wildlife Protection Program (Work 

Authority 1382). Program management was provided by Gerald C. 

Cox. This report was prepared by Glenn R. Twitchell, under 

the direction of Wayne Haas. Activities by the Department of 

Fish and Game were directed by Dick Painter. 

Note: Delay in review arid release of, this report was due to 

workload of higher priority:,,* 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Paae 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................ iV 

INTRODUCTION ...................... 1 

SUMMARY OF FISHERY BASIS FOR SELECTION OF THE 

PERIPHERAL CANAL PLAN FOR THE DELTA ......... 5 

PERIPHERAL CANAL .................... 6 

FISHERIES PHOBLEMS ................... 9 

FISH PROTECTIVE FACILITY ................ 13 

FISh RETURN FACILITIES ................. 17 

Fish Pumps ..................... 17 

Centrifugal Food Handling Pump ........ 18 

Airllft Pump ................. 2 l 

Jet Pump ................... 25 . 

PRhSSURE TESTS ON SMALL FISH .............. 25 

Methods and Ykterials ............... 29 

Pressure Chamber ............... 29 

Fish ...................... 29 

Data ..................... 31 

DecompressLon Tests .............. 31 

Pressure Gradient Tests ............ 31 

Results ...................... 32 

Decompression Tests ............. 32 

Pressure Grsdient Tests ........... 34 

Discussion ..................... 34 

Conclusions .................... 38 

EXPECTED FISH NUMBhRS AT' PEHIPHERAL CANAL 

FISfi FACILITIES ................... 39 

Fish Species in Return System ........ 34 

Length of Daily Migrhtion Period ....... 40 

Explanation of TLbles ............ 40 

Fukure Potential ............... 40 

Sources of Information for Monthly 

Distribution ad Peak Number of 

Young Fishes ................ 44 

i 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

Page 

TIDAL EXCUHSIOM ..................... 44 

CONDUIT ......................... 47 

Pipeline ................... 48

Dissolved Oxygen ............... 48 

Sizing .................... 49 

FISH HELEASE AND PREDATIOh STUDY ............ 50 

Test Areas .................. 50 

Study Methods ................. 52 

ii 
List of Figures 

Number Page 

1 Peripheral Canal Plan 10 

2 Peripheral Cwaf Fish Protective Facilities 11 

3 Expected Flow Lins at Entrmce of 

Peripheral Canal 12 

4 Peripheral Canal Fish Return Facilities 15 

5 dladeless Centrifugal Pump 19 

G Head Discharge Curves for Solids Handling

Pump 22 

7 Heaa Discharge Curves for Solids Handling

Pump 23 

8 fiead Liischsrge Curves for Solids Handling 

9 

10 

Airlift Pump

Jet Eductor 

26 

27 

11 

12 

Jet Eductor Fish Pump 

Pish Pressure Test Chamber 

26 

30 

13 Threadfin Shad Pressure Test 35 

14 Blackfish Pressure Test 36 

15 

16 King Salmon Pressure Test 

Tidal Excursion at Courtland 

36 

46 

17 

18 

19 

Predation Study Test Sites 

Experiment21 Fish Release Sites 

Fish Release Live Box 

51 

53 

56 

20 Fish Release System 57 

List of Tables 

1 

2 

3 

Summary of Four Water Plans 

Decompression Test Summary

Summary of Pressure Gradient Test Data 

33 

37 

Pump. 24 

4 Monthly Distribution of Downstream 

iLIigrants 1974 41 

5 Monthly Distribution of Downstream 

Migrmts 1990 42 

i; Number of Fish in Pezk Days and Hours in 1974 43 

7 Number of Fish in Peak Days and Hours in 1990 43 

7 
-- 

-- 

SUNMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

The Peripheral Canal will. convey water for the 

state and federal water projects around the eastern edge of 

the Delta in a new, 43-mile channel, hydraulically isolated 

from existing Delta channels. It will be siphoned under the 

four major stream crossings the Mokelumne, the San Joaquin, and 

Old Rivers, and Disappointment Slough to allow for flood 

passage, fish migration, and navigation. Fish will be screened 

at the headworks near Hood. Releases will be made at selected 

slough and river crossings to supply fresh water for agricultural 

use, water quality control, and aquatic life. 

The fish protective facilities to be located at the 

heaaworks near Hood must screen the downstream migrating fingerlings from the Peripheral Canal and return them to the Sacramento 

Mver to continue their journey to the sea. 

The fish return facilities component of these fish 

protective facilities will vary in concept from the facility 

installed at the State's Delta Pumping Plant. At the Delta 

plant, fish are collected in holding tanks anci transported 

by truck to the western Delta for release into the Sacrr;mento 

and San Joaquin Rivers. The Hood return system will immediately 

transport the captured fish back to the Sacramento River by 

pump and pipeline. 

Conclusions 

The significant findings from the study of fish 

return systems are listed below: 
A. kiood Return System will transport screened fish 

back to the Sacramento River by pump ad pipeline. 

�3. Fish return components and criteria. 

1. Fish pumps. 

a. Centrifugal food handling pump. 

b. Capable of passing a 6-inch sphere. 

2. Conduit. 

a. A buried pipeline with.provisicns for 

drainage, cleaning and sampling. 

b. Thz interior must be smooth. 

c. Pipeline must always lie below the 

hydraulic grade line. 

u. Minimum velocity of 4 feet per second. 

3. Relezse facility. 

a. Releases macle on chamel bottom. 

b. rieleases mzde in highest velocity water. 

c. Releases maae from more than one point. 

d. Releases made at a minimum of 2 miles 

downstream from the entrance to the 

Peripheral Canal. 

Vi 
---- 

INTRODUCTION 1/ 

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the single most 

importanl; area in California from the standpoint of conservation 

and combined development of two vital resources -- water and 

fishlife. 

Envlronmental conditions for fish and other aquatic 

life have deteriorated in the Delta due to man's activities. 

Adverse conditions are due lzrgely to upstream water development, coupled with the Impact of increasing federal and state 

water transfer and export pumping from the southern channels. 

Localized waste discharges compound the problem. 

As a result, there is 2t present interference with 

migration of salmon and other anadromous fish; loss of striped 

bass spawning areas in the southern channels; loss of large 

numbers of striped bass eggs and larvae which pass through 

louver fish screens into the export pumps; decreases in aquatic 

fish food supply in the Delta channels that are used for water 

transfer; and great variation in the quantity of important fish 

food available in the western Delta and the adjoining bzys 

where extreme and sudden changes in salinity now occur. 

Plans for correcting these and other problems 

associated with fish and the aquhtic environment are discussed 

in the Delta Fish and Wildlife Protection Study Report No, 7. 

These plans are the result or a comprehensive cooperativz 

study inftiated in 1961 by the Department of Fish and Game and 

the Department of Water Iiesources. This study was designed to 

-I/ Excerpts from Delta Fish and Wildlife Protection Study Repcrrt

No. 7, December 1967. 

-1-
determine how to protect the fish and wildlife resources of 

the Delta, in a manner compatible with construction and 

operation of the State Water Project. To date, over $3.6 million 

has been Invested in the program. Of this, about 2/3 was 

devoted to biological investigations and analyses and about 11'3 

to related engineering studies. 

Of the numerous plans proposed for water transfer in 

the Delta, the Peripheral Canal was found by far the most 

beneficial to the Delta's aquatic environment and fishlife. 

With proper design and operation of this project, not only 

can the fishery resources of the Delta be protected, but they 

can be enhanced substantially. 

The factors affecting fish in the Deltr are involved 

and complex. Waterflow characteristics inclutiing quantity, 

quality, velocity, anu temperature, control many aspects of 

fish distribution, the foou chain relationships, and other 

biological relationships. 

The Delta Fish ana Wildlife Protection Study is 

directed toward maintaining and improving the Delta environment 

for fish and other zquatic life. To do this, first, the most 

numerous and Smpctrtat fish species of the Delta were identified; 

second, trie factors affecting their environment that might be 

altered by my of the water plans were iaentified; &TG third, 

specific stuaies and field sampling procedures wer2 undertaken 

to determine the relstionship of' water development to significant 

environmental fac+,ors through the life cycle of each species. 
-- 

-- 

The results, to date, of these and other studies are 

presented in the annual reports of the Delta Fish and Wildlife 

Protection Study, ana in the Fish Bulletins by the State 

Department of Fish and Game. 

These studies show that, properly operated, the' 

Peripheral Canal will: .. 

1. Maintain a long (about 50 miles) gradual salinity

gradient for migratory game fish. Such a gradient is 

necessary to permit the physiological changes required

when a fish migrates between salt water and fresh water 

and to provide a suitable environment for their important

food sources. 

2. Prevent flow reversal in all (50 to 100 miles) 

of the main fish migration channels and proviue a positive

downstream net flow in almost all Delta channels. This 

will enable anadromous fish (mainly salmon) to reach their 

spawning grounds without loss or undue delays and prevent 

the buildup of salts and pollutants. _-__,. -.. . - -~.. ' .. 

_. ~- . - . -... .- .,~.., .,. -.. .--_, 

3. Reduce to less than 10 percent the loss of striped

bass eggs and larvae into the export pumps. It is important 

!i to realize that louver screening will not salvage these 

eggs &nd larvae from the diversions. Without the Peripheral 

'i; Canal, the present loss cf from 15 to 40 percent would in- ., crease to an estimated 40 to 70 pe=.cent at the southern ,, Delta export pumps. Loss of other fishes now occurring

via the pumps would be eliminated. 

4. Provide an--environment- conducive to good production

of zooplankton -- microscopic anim&.ls of great importance 

as a source of food for the young of most Delta fishes. 

5. Provide an environment more conducive to good

populations of benthic animals which provide an important 

source of food for catfish and sturgeon. 

6. Retain tidal action throughout Delta channels. 

This is needed: 

a. For the survival of Neomysis and Corophium 

two of the most important fish foods in the Delta. 

b. For the survival of striped bass eggs which 

would otherwise settle to the bottom, suffocEte, and 

die. 

-3-
c. To maintain good water quality conditions, 

particularly high dissolved oxygen levels. 

7. Provide sufficient and well-dispersed areas with 

TDS levels below 180 ppm during the late spring for s+uripnd 

bass spawning. 

8. In conjunction with appropriate waste discharge

controls, keep dissolved oxygen levels at a satisfactory

level. This is necessary to protect the opposum shrimp

(Neomysis) and fish populations, particularly in the 

late summer and fall. 

9. Help regulate the intermixing of Sacramento, 

Mokelumne, and San Joaquin River water during the peak

of the salmon run to aid the homing ability of these fish. 

-4-
SUMMARY OF FISHERY BASIS FOR 

SELECTION OF THE PERIPHERAL CANAL PLAN FOR THE DELTA -2/ 

In January 1965, the federal-state Interagency Delta 

Committee recommended the Peripheral Canal concept as the best 

alternative for adaptation to the full range of water-associated 

needs in the Delta, while meeting the water transfer requlrernents of the state and federal water projects. This recommendation was made after more than 3 years of careful study of the 

Delta problems and the numerous alternative plans which were 

grouped into four basic concepts: 

1. Hydraulic Barriers - The transfer of water for 

export through existing Delta channels, accompanied by

large releases of wzter from upstream storage reservoirs 

for salinity control. 

2. Physical Barriers - The transfer of water for 

export through existing Delta channels, with salinity

control accomplished by a single barrier (low-level dam)

in the bay system west of the Delta. 

3. Waterway Control Plans - The transfer of water 

for export through hydraulically controlled and modified 

Delta channels with the present level of salinity control 

accomplished by a continuation of moderate releases of 

water from upstream storage reservoirs. Water supply

In the western Delta would be provided through overland. 

facilities. 

4. Peripheral Canal Plans - The transfer of water 

for export through a new, hydraulically isolated channel 

around the Delta, with the present level of salinity

control accomplished by a continuation of moderate releases 

from upstream storage reservoirs. Irrigation water of 

adequate quality woulu be provided for the Delta by a 

combination of controlled freshwater releases from the 

canal and overlhnd water facilities in the western Delta. 

The effect that ewh alternative plan would have on 

factors related to fish ana othzr aquatic life is reported in 

- ­

2/ Excerpts from Delta Fish and Wildlife Report No. 7, - December 1967. 
-- -- 

-- 

the Third Annual Report of the Delta Fish and Wildlife Protection 

Study, dated June 1964. A summary of the effects of the four 

water plans on six important environmental factors, in relation 

to present conditions, is shown in Table 1 of that report. 

This table is included here as Table 1 for convenient reference. 

In providing an overall rzting fGr each plan, the 

Department of Fish arid Game concluded that: 

1. The Hydraulic darrier Plan would only increase 

existing environmental deficiencies and would eliminate 

the San Joaquin and Mokelumne River anadromous fish 

runs and would likely reduce the striped bass populations 

that now spawn in the Sacramento River system. 

2. The Physical Barri3r Plan is the least desirable 

plan and would be particularly detrimental to the two 

most important fish species both of which ilre migratory

the salmon and the striped bass. This plan would virtually

eliminate the long, gradual salinity gradlent in all 

Delta channels 2nd would cause more frequent and mcre 

extensive flow reversals in the San Joaquin River and 

south Delta channels. It would probably result in almost 

+,otal loss of the striped bass due to the egg settlement 

and suffocation 2nd complete loss of the San Joaquin River 

salmon run without chance of rejuvenation. 

3. The LJelta Waterway Control Plan would, unuer 

proper operation, do no harm to the Sacramento River 

anadromous fish runs and could solve the flow reversal 

problem facing today's San Joaquin and Mokeluime River 

Funs. It would probably further restrict thn movement 

of these fishes into the south Delta and would damage

catfish populations there through a reductlon of their 

food supply. 

4. The Peripheral Canal Plan is the most desirable 

plzn and,'in fact, the only plan that can fully protect 

the fish ana aquatic resoume of the Delta and also provide

opportunities for enhancement. Properly operated, this 

pl2n can maintain a long, gradual salinity gradient,

provide a positive net flow toward the sea in most all 

llelta chpnnefs, minimize the loss of striped bass eggs

and larvae , improve environmental conditions necessary

for high population of fish food organisms, and maintain 

important tidrl action. 

-6-
(d

u 

d

0 

1 -4 

OU 

u wa 

rn wri 

0 30 a mm 

40 

rdUd 02 m(UM m3c m. om-4 c ho 4. 4 0

s?u -4 MO u u 

MO a (d wd 0) u 

cd 

u 

d 

a, 

n u m 

m d q

Grd 

-A c

U 

u

ccd 

a,4A

4 4 rla 

an 

u 

XW 

wo 

k 

0 

W1 0 mu 

000 

UNPl 

A n 

r4 . N n 

4 
-- 

-- 

-- 

5. In summary, based on intensive biological studies, 

it was concluded that the Peripheral Canal Plan is the 

most desirable plan for Delta Water Facilities, arid it 

is the only plan that will fully protect and offer enhment opportunities for fish and wildlife. "We recommend 

Its construction at the earliest possible date." ( emphasis 

added. ) 

PERIPHERAL CANAL 

The primary purposes of the Peripheral Caial are to 

convey water from the Sacranento River to the state and federal 

pumping plants in the southern Delta, and, at the same time, 

to serve and protect the Delta. The principal features of the 

Canal are shown on Figure 1. The Canal will be 43 miles long, 

about 30 feet deep, and over 400 feet wide at maximum water 

surface. It will be an unlined chnal hydraulically isolated 

from the Delta channels except for the intake from the Sacramento 

River at Hood. From Hood, it will be routed to the west of 

Stockton, then will continue southwesterly across the Delta. 

The Canal will be siphoned under four major stream crossings 

the Mokelumne, the San Jo;iquin, and Old Rivers, and Disappointment 

Slough to allow for flood passage, fish migration, and 

navigation. On the west side of Old River, the Cancl will 

divide into two branches the south branch terminating at 

the Bureau's Trzcy Pumping Plant intake canal, and the west 

branch terminating at the State's Clifton Court Forebay to tne 

Delta Pumping Plant of the California Aqueduct. The capacity 

of the headworks will be approximately 26,800 -3/ second feet 

and the terminal capacity will be about 18,000 secord feet. 

-3/ Includes capacity for proposed USBR Eastside Project(5,QOOcfs). 

-8-
As presently planned, the Peripheral Canal headworks 

will consist of trash boom, trashracks, and floodgates near the 

Sacramento River levee, and a settling basin, fish facility and 

the pumping plant near the intersection of the Southern Pacific 

railroad tracks and Lambert Road, approximately 2-1/2 miles 

downstream of the diversion from the Sacramento River (Figure 2). 

FISHERIES PROBLEMS 

A brief discussion of the fishery problems at the 

Peripheral Canal intake is necessary to understand the problems 

and proposed solution for returning salvaged fish to the 

Sacramento River. 

The fisheries problems in connection with the intake 

to the Peripheral Canal can be classified into two basic categories: 

downstream migrating adults, and downstream migrating fingerlings. 

(The problem of screening and returning eggs and larvae is not 

4 [considered in this report as the author assumed a louver type 

fish protective facility would be installed.) 

There are several species of fish that migrate upstream 

in the Sacramento River beyond the Hood diversion point to spawn. 

Of these, adult steelhead, striped bass, and shad migrate downstream, after spawning, and return to the ocean. Fingerlings 

of these and other species also will be migrating downstream 

to feed, grow, and become adult fish. 

Under low river flow and ebb tide conditions at the 

trashrack, only a small portion of the fish and flow will be 

able to proceed downstream; under low river flow and floodtide 

conditions, perhaps none of the fish will escape the intake as 

-9-
_ -

I 

J 

. 
-.. 

flow will be entering the Canal from both directions and fish are 

not apt to swim extensively against an opposing current (Figure 3). 

Fingerlings migrating downstream will be drawn into the 

Canal and separated from Peripheral Canal waters by the fish protective facilities (louver or screen) just upstream of the pumping 

plant near Lambert Road. As adult fish approach the Peripheral 

Canal intake at Hood, a large percentage of the fish may become 

entrapped in front of the trashrack. 

Adult striped bass will be migrating downstream with the 

newly spawned eggs and larvae. For those years when pumping can be 

reduced during this period, the majority of the flow and adult fish 

will pass the intake with the flow, reducing any trashrack problems 

these fish might have. The final entrance configuration log boom 

and trashrack design and resulting flow pattern should be determined 

by physical model studies during final design. If these studies 

conclude that a fishery problem exists at the intake, then remedial 

measures must be provided. 

FISH PROTECTIVE FACILITY 

The purpose of the fish protective facility is to separate 

fish from the main channel of the Peripheral Canal and transport 

them back into the Sacramento River at a point where they will not 

be drawn back into the intake of the-Canal. 

Under present operation of the federal Central Valley 

Project, the minimum flow in the Sacramento River at Sacramento is 

in the neighborhood of 10,000 cfs. Under this regime, tidal 

influence (backwater) is felt to the mouth of the Feather River at 

Verona and tidal flow reversals extend to approximately Clarksburg. 

-13-
Under operation of the Peripheral Canal, tile minimum 

flov! in the Sacrarriento River past Sacramento will be about 8,000 

second feet in thz spring of a very dry year. The influence 

of trie Peripnerrl Canal will probably cause the flow reversals 

in the Sacramento River to extend only a few miles above the 

city of Hood. 

7- The fish protective facility will consist of a h 

wx.;_ iL 

primary fish screen, secondary fish screen, holding tanks, t

.!k.- 

'> *\ 

$ it fish pumps, a return conduit, and release facilities in 

\ the Sacramento River channel (Figure 4). The scope of this 

L-4. 

report incluues the fish return facilities only, ie, fish 

pumps, conduit act release facility. These components would 

differ from the fish protection facility presently in use at 

thz Delta Pumping Plant. The remainder of the primary and 

secondary facilities will be described only to the extent that 

they will affect the return facilities. 

The purpose of the primary facility is to separate 

fish from the Peripheral Canal waters. The configuratiGn of 

the primary facility will be determined by others. For the 

purpose of' this report, we will assume that the primary fzcility 

would consist of several g&ted rectangular concrete chmnels 

equipped with trrveling fish screens of a V-notched configuration. 

The flow of water through tile bays woula carry the fish up to 

and along the face of the fish screen, and into the primary 

bypasses. Control of the approach velocity to the screens 

would be dependent upon the manipulation of the gates in the 

channels. Water and fish would pass through the primary bypass 

pipes into the secondzry channels. 
L 

W 

z 

z 

Q:

A 

a 
The secondary channel is assumed to be a rectangular 

concrete channel with a center wall forming two separate channels. 

Each channel would be gated and equipped with a traveling fish 

screen. The secondary channel should be split to allow repair 

of the fish screens and maximum flows in the secondary. The 

approach velocity in the secondary channel will be controlled 

by manipulation of the primary bypass valves, return pumps, 

ad the gates at the entrance of the individual channels. Fish 

will be divertea from the secondary channel through the bypass 

transitions into the holding tank influent manifold. 

Two holding tanks should be provided in the secondary 

system, primarily for counting purposes. These holding tanks 

would also be utilized as detention tanks for fish during 

periods of low fish concentrations such as the fall of the year. 

This would allow the discharge system to be cycled or utilized 

for a minimum period of tine. 

These holding tanks would be essentially the same 

tank that is installed at the State's fish facility in the 

intake to the Delta Pumping Plant with the exception that a 

fish handling pump would be provided to drain the water and 

fish from the tank directly into the effluent manifold. 

Water and fish would enter the periphery of the holding 

tanks through the influent manifold. Gate valves would be 

provided to control each tank. Vertical cylindrical screens 

would be provided in each tank to hold the fish to the perimeter 

of' the tank. Water would pass through the screen to an effluent 

wet-well by an effluent pipe. The effluent wet-well, through a 

pumpbzck system, would govern the inflow into the holding tmks. 

-1s-
"tie fish pump wculu also dmin the noluing t&ks for 

coun5ing purposes, UiSChZrgiIl&; water i~tcthe effluent manifclb 

air1 ti12 return conduit. A sill at the bottom of the cylindrical 

screen woul~lrctairi a psrtirjri of tkie water ana zll of the fish 

zrcurid the pei?imeter of tkie holding tank. After the counting 

bucket is placed in the bGttorri of the holding tank, the cylindrical 

screen woulu be lifted allowing fish ancl water to be discharged 

into the bucket. Fcr the counting operation, the counting 

bucket would be lifted from the holuing tank anu moved to a 

counting barrel. Fish and water would be uischarged frorri 

the outlet of the counting bucket into the bzrrel. Fish would 

be removed from the counting barrel by dip nets; counted, 

classified, aricl returned to the holding tank for discharge 

into the effluent manifold. 

FISI-I RETURN FACILITIES 

The major aeviztim in the general layout of the 

proposed Peripheral Cmal Fish Return Facility from the facility 

presently operzting at the Del66 Pumping Plant would be the 

direct return of salvaged fish to the Sacramento River without 

handling and trucking. A pump, conduit and release facilities 

are needed to accmplish this. 

Fish Pumns 

Two major factors must be considered in the selection 

of a pump to rriovs live fingerling fish: 
1. The ability of the pump to pass fish with no 

mechanical damage. 

2. The ability of fingerling fish to withstand the 

hydrostatic head created by the pump. 

To accomplish this, two areas of study were initia5ed. 

The first, a search for a pump that would handle live fingerling 

fish with a minimum of mechanical damage; and second, pressure 

tests on these fish to determine what pressures and durations 

they can successfully withstand. These studies were carried 

out during 1966 and 1967. 

Four types of pumps were investigated that are 

presently in commercial use at canneries to transport dead 

fish from the holds of fishing vessels to cannery conveyors. 

These four type.s are: (1) the centrifical food handling 

pump, (2) th? sirlift pump, (3) the jet pump, ana (4) the 

rotary valve pump. Of these four types of pumps, three were 

found to pass live fish successfully. The rotary vhlve pump 

presently operates Under a vacuum and would be unsuitable for 

handling live fish. The centrifical food handling pump is 

recommended for use at the Peripheral Canal fish facility as 

it has been the most thoroughly tested and is also a readily 

available "shelf item". A brief description of the three 

successful types follows. 

Cenlrif ical Food Handling Pump 

This type of pump is presently in wide use by the 

cannery industry (Figure 5). These pumps Ere presently used 

for pumping fruits, fish, ad various Gther solicis throughout 

cannery operations. For instance, the Libby, McNeil, anu Libby 

Cannery in Sacrzmento uses two of these pumps to move peaches 

-18-
S P E C 1.F I 

DRiyER: Motor illustrated is Fairbanks-Morse connected to 

pump through pin and rubber bushed flexible coupling, both 

halves of which are identical in all respects including bore and 

keyway. Engine or belt drive is also available. Unit is mounted 

on a rugged, machined cast iron base. 

1. IMPELLER: The impeller is the enclosed non-clog type, cast 

inone piece, and specifically designed to pass largesolids or

unscreened liquids. Clearance between the rotating and stationaryparts is adjustable to provide sustained performance

without excessive maintenance. 

This pump may also be furnished with the famous Patented 

Fairbanks-Morse bladeless impeller illustrated on the reverse 

side. 

2. STUFFIN6 BOX: Cartridge type stuffing box permits the 

use of either conventional packed boxes with glands or a 

variety of mechanical seals. This construction feature permits 

the field changeover from packing to seals or vice-versa as 

required. 

C A T 1 0 N S 

3. AOAPTOR: The adaptor is cast iron, provided with carefully

machined centering fits at either end. Large openings provide 

easy access to the stuffing box for adjustment or renewal of 

packing. A variety of adaptors permits the use of a frame 

matching the power requirements of the liquid end. 

4. Rotating is supported On 

bearings mounted in precision bored frame. Bearings are carefully sealed t0 exclude moisture and Contaminants, and retain 

lubricant. Provision is made for lubrication or periodic cleaning without disassembly. Several frame sizes are available with 

each liquid end to match the rating of the driving motor. 

5. CASING: High strength cast iron with ample section thickness to produce a large factor of safety mer the mayimm

allowable working pressures. Casing is enclosed by a suction 

and stuffing box or head carehrlly machined to assure 

perfect alignment6. SHAFT: Turned and ground to accurate dimensions from 

high grade alloy steel and furnished with Supard chrome stainless steel shaft sleeve through the stuffing box. 

THE HEART OF THE BLADELESS SEWAGE AND TRASH PUMP 

The Fairbanks-Morse single passage 

bladeless impelier, capable of handling 

fibrous trash ten to twenty-five times the 

size of such material passable in conventional pumps, is of the enclosed type. The 

illustration at right shows the water passage and direction of flow through the 

irnpeller. 

-19-
-- 

and tomatoes thrcugh their plat with no injury to the fruit. 

The impeller speeds of these pumps are about 1,400 rpm. The 

company also has a pump to hzndle olives in the same manner. 

To reduce abrasion on the olives, the pump bowl and impeller 

have been teflon-lined. 

Food handling and "trash" pumps are in use at the 

fish protective facility of the Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company's steam plant at Antfoch. These pumps were tested by 

the Bechtel Corporation under contract to PG&E for the development Gf' a fish protective facility at this plant.4/-

The fish salvage device set up by PG&E consists of 

a vertical traveling screen similar to those used in sewage 

treatment plants with a suction fish collector running along 

the face of the leading edge of the screen. Two fish pumps 

were connected to adjacent collection channels one, a 5-inch 

bladeless impeller horizontal shaft pump and the other, an 8­

inch open impeller vertical shaft pump. The smaller horizontal 

shaft pump had a rated capacity of 550 gallons per minute, and 

the %inch vertical typ5 he6 2 rated capacity of 2,000 gallons 

per minute. 

Shown below is the result of a comparative study 

conducted on the 5- ad 8-inch pumps. In Mr. Kerr's opinion 

the fish collecting facilities at the PG&E Steam Plat safely 

returned to the river g& percent or more of the fish entering 

the screened structure from the smallest size stopped by the 

Screens to fish Eipproximately 14 inches in length. 

h/ - Kerr, James Studies on Fish Preservation at the Contra 

Costa Steam Plant of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 

Fish Bulletin No. 92, Department of Fish and Game, 1953. 

-20-
Y 

a . 

PERCENT ALIVE PERCENT ALIVE PERCEKT TVAI.. PERCENT COLLECTED 

UNDER 5H OVER 5* FISH AL;':? OF 70TAL FISH - Shows the results of the oamparatlve study conaucted cn the five- and 4 /

dzht-Inch pumDs. 

Figures 6, 7, and 8 show head discharge efficiency 

curves of a food handling pump capable of pumping a 6-inch sphere. 

Airlift Pump 

This type of pump has been used for many years as a 

deep-well, semisolids handling unit. Tihe equipment required 

for this system is simple ana inexpensive with the advantzge 

that all mechanical parts cai be located for easy maintenance. 

The Fisheries Research Board of Canada has done 

developmental work with this pump. T'he prime interest was 

the removal of cannery or bait fish from the holds of fishing 

vessels. 

As a rule-of-thumb, the pump requires twice the amount 

of submergence as lift. A lift of 60 feet would require a 120­

foot well to encase the U-tube. 
-- 

P5400.-1.1 FAIRBANKS, MmSE & CO. FIGURE 6 Septer ioer 1, 1962 Pump & Hydraulic Division --I___ -._ 

CONTINGENT ON FURNISHINQ 

THE PUMP WITH SPECIFIED 

AMOUNT OF CLEAR, FRESH. 

I 

SOLID 

NON-AERATED WATER NOT TO I EXCEED as0 P.
- -- 

P5400-66 FAIRBANKS, MORSE & C8. FIGURE '? September 1, 1962 Pump & Hydraulic Division 65- _ ­

t 

CONTINGENT ON FURNISHING 

THE PUMP WITH SPECIFIED 

AMOUNT OF CLEAR, FRESH. 

AThR NOT TO 
NEW PAGE FAIRBANKS, MORSE & CO'. FIGURE 8 Pump & Hydraulic Division 

fuPuCONT1NGLM ON FURNISHING 

THh PUMP WITH SPECIFIED 

AMOUNT OF CLEAR. FRESH. 

NON-AERATED WATER NOT TO I EXCEED 880 ilr. 1 49638CP I 

-2 
This pump was tested by MY. Cliff Long, U. S. Bureau 

of Commercial Fisheries, Pasco, Washington. He used this 

principle to remove downstream migrant salmon from the turbine 

gate wells at the Ice Harbor Dam with no apparent mortality 

to the fish. 

Figure 9 shows an airlLft pump unloading a fishing 

boat. 

Jet Pump 

This type of pump.uses the thrust from jets from 

mound the perimeter of a venture section (Figure lo). 

Mr. Cliff Long, U. S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, 

Pasco, Washington, constructed a model jet pump and tested 

this type pump under a 4-foot head with no mortality to the 

test fish. If tne fish could be made to align themselves and 

enter the jet system tail-first, there would be less danger 

of damaging gill covers and descaling. Alignment of these 

fish can be accomplished by using a transparent plastic intake 

pipe with black bands around it, giving the fish a visual 

reference prior to entering the influence of the jets. 

A fish pump as envisioned by Schutte and Keerting 

Company, Cornwell Heights , Pennsylvania, is seen on Figure 11. 

This pump is a jet eductor. 

PRESSURE TESTS ON SMALL FISH 

A fish pump will be an important component of the 

secondary faclllties of the Peripheral Canal Fish Protective 

-2 5-
-- 

..-

'a',

I?:I 

/

/-

Fish Delivery Screen To 

Dock, Packer,

Etc. 

THE AIR-LIFT PUMP SYSTEM FOR ELEVATING FISH 

(ROACH Et Ai) -5/ 

'i7--ch, S. W., F. ti. ClaggetFaxi J. S. PI. iiarrison 1iJb3. 

Airlift Pump for E,levating Fisil. 
D1SCHARGE 

PRESSURE 

SUCTION 

J 
Jet Eductor removing fish from fishing boot.-6/ 

-6/ Schutte and Koerting Company, Cornwells Heiqhts, Bucks County, 

Pennsylvania. 

-2 8-
Facilities at Hood. It was the purpose of these tests to 

determine if fish could withstand the hydrostatic pressures 

between the secondary facilities and the release point in the 

Sacramento River. 

The tests were set up to reproduce the hydraulic 

grade line that will exist in the completed facility. At a 

minimum velocity in the conauit of 4 feet per second, the travel 

time from tile pumps to the river will be about 2-1/2 hours. 

Methods and Materials 

Pressure Chamber 

l'he pressure apparatus (Figure ~a consisted of a 

barrel-shaped steel chamber 14 inches in diameter that was split 

and hinged for access, and was fitted on each end with 3-inchthick plexiglass view windows. Pressures from 0 to 200 pounds 

per square inch (psi) were applied from a cylinuer of nitrogen 

gas through an accumulator to the water. The operator controlled 

nitrogen pressure by a regulator at the nitrogen bottle, and 

rates of water pressure increase or decrease by combinations 

of stop and/or relief valves. A recording pressure gage was 

connected to the chamber to recoru the pressure profile of 

each experiment. 

Fish 

All fish, except 6 to 7 millimeter long striped bass, 

czme from the Bureau of Reclamation's fish.salvage facility 

near Tracy. The striped bass were transported to Tracy from 

Stockton. The fish were carefully dipped from the collection 

-29-
FIGURE 

I 
bucket, placed in 6 gallon cans of water, arid transported 100 

yards to a shaded water bath. Each bucket was aerated, and 

the water bath received a continuous supply of river water. 

Fish were held for two days after their test to determine 

delayed mortality. 

Data 

Fish were measured after their test at fork length 

to the nearest millimeter (mm). Water temperature was noted 

both before and after each test. Time of day and a pressure 

profile of the test were also recorded. 

Decompression Tests 

The maximum pressure planned in the fish facility 

system is 86.7 psi, or 200 feet of hydrostatic head. As 

proposed, this pressure would be applied instantly, ana would 

decrease to zero in approximately 2-lJ2 hours. It would facilitate 

testing, however, if the 2-1/2 hour decompression portion of 

the simulation tests were reduced. Therefore, most species 

were tested to verify that 2-1/2 hour decompression survival 

was not greater than some shorter period, i.e., 5 minutes. 

Several replicates of at least 8 fish each were brought to 87 

psi instantly, held there for 60 seconds, and brought back to 

zero psi in either 2 hours, 5 minutes, or instantaneously. 

Control fish were held and processed in every way as the test 

fish except for the pressure portion of the test program. 

Pressure Gr&dient Tests 

The pressure level where significant mortality occurs 

1s ImpGrtant in pump design. The pressure gradient available 

-31-
to us with the pressure chamber was sampled at 0 (for control), 

43 (equivalent to 100 feet of head), 87 (200 feet of head), 

and 200 psi (461 feet of head). Several replicates of at 

least 8 and not more than 304 fish of each species available 

were subjected to each of the pressure levels. The fish were 

instantly subjected to maximum test pressure, held there for 

60 seconds, and then were lowered to 0 psi in 5 minutes. 

Except for pressure, control fish were exposed to the same 

conditions as test fish. 

Results 

Decompress ion Tests 

Decompression tests were conducted with 126 threadfin 

shad 50 mm in fork length (Table 2>. Duration of decompression 

had no significant effect on test fish survival. There 

was a difference, however, between one-day and two-day 

test fish survival and there was a siknificant difference 

between test and control fish survival. 

By inspection, there was no difference in survival 

caused by different decompression times in the 1053 Sacramento 

blackfish tested (Table 2). No difference was evident between 

. one and two-day survival of test fish, or between test ad 

control experiments. 

The only striped bass tested were 387 fish, 6-7 mm 

long, transported from Stockton to the Tracy test site. By 

inspection, there was no significant difference in one-day 

survival between decompression times or between test fish ana 

control fish (Table 2). Two-day survival is significantly 

-32-
0 

4 

. 

nb 

5 mB 

c,

m 

U 

0 

..i 

a

d 

c

0 

..i 

(d 

v) 

9)

.A.. 

0 

a 

a 

VI 

4 

4 

f 

4 

f 

4 

cy 

In 

cy 

(Y 

(Y 

a 

4 f

4 

m 

N 

l-. 

m 

c,C

sl

c1 

In 

c 

t( 

m 

4 

cn 

4 

0 

4 

cy

N 

N 

m 

(Y 

m 

f 

4 

a 

4 

4 

0 

CD 

f 

5 

0 

X 

cv 

0 

0 

0 

In 

a3 

m 

In 

rn 

m 

Lo 

f 

l-. 

m 

0 

cn 

l-. 

m 

cn 

P 

m 

Q, w

2 

rc) 

(Y 

(D

f 

r-l 

0 

a)

f 

r-l 

03 f

4 

Eo 

4 

m 

cy 

(D 

0 

0 

CY 

Q, 

m 

cy 

s43

0 

X 

CY 

0 

3 

0 

4 

4 

4 

4 

w 

9 

+J 

v)

c 

W 

0 

4 
different from one-day survival, primarily because of the 5­

minute decompression test. No explanation is offered for this 

anomaly. 

The number of black bass tested was not sufficient 

to make valid comparisons (Table 2). 

Pressure Gradient Tests 

In control experiments, 90 percent of the thresdfin 

shaa survived one day, and 79.4 percent two days after the 

tests (Figure 13). There was no significant difference between 

one or two-day control fish survival and test fisn survival at 

43 and 200 psi (Table 3). Significant differences from contrcjls 

were evident at 87 psi. 

All the Sacramento blackfish control specimens survived 

ons day, and 98.7 percent survived two days (Figure 14). No 

significant differences were found between control and test 

experiments at any pressure level tested (Table 3). 

King salmon control fish were all alive after one 

day, and 98.8 percent survived through two days (Figure 15). 

There were no significant differences in survival at any 

pressure level between control and test fish (Table 3). 

The results of the few black bass tested were not 

sufficient to araw final. conclusions (Table 3). 

Discussion 

With the exception of threadfin shad, all other species 

of fish examined showed little if any mortality due to pressure. 

Threadfin shad survival was low, even in contrcrl tests. 

-34-
8 

1 '\ 

\ 

\ 

\

\ '\ \ 

\ 

\

\ \ \ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

A- # 

/ 

/ 

/

/

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/

1 
rn2c 

0 0 u-ri 

- \ i 

I 73 

' I I 

j I i 

! I 

?j­

-16-
0 

c 

. * 4 ri 0 0 

R 

0 

4 

d 

0 

4 

000400 I0000d0 0 

M 

- 0

k 

0 

6

5 00 

mo 

VI 4cy 

M 

00 

In0 

-0 

4cy 

#000f00 Q) 

0 0 

cy cy 

ooocyoo cy 

000000 0 

04 

m* b 40 4 

Cvm In 

04 4 

mt p. 40 4 am In 

4CDcyomo cv 

Pi 

4 m fa 4 

a la 

U 

m 0 

f f-8 

CD 'a 

4 4 

cyomooo in 

In 

*

f 

m 

0 

cn 

lm 

cDcDr-mcyor CII 

o 

ffIncy(Ou3 0, 

cy 

00400 4 

00400 r-i 

00 0 

mor mf- * 

44 m 

00 0 

am 0 

CnP CI 44 0 

.d 

u) v)

a ri 

s 0 CI 

0 0 N c; 
Apparently shad are a f'fragile'' fish, and either collection, 

handling, or confinement sends some of this species into 

shock. 

Other species have been tested, especially American 

Shad, and many more size groups within the species tested. 

Unfortunately the operation of the Bureau of Reclamation's 

fish facility was reduced this year (1967) because of a wet 

spring and low demand for water. By the time water demand 

increased, most young-of-the-year fish were quite large or 

were not within the influence of the Bureau's pumps. 

By mid-July, water temperatures were above 74O and 

difficulties were experienced in holding fish for the two-day 

delayed mortality evaluation. For this reason, work was 

terminated for 1967. 

Conclusions 

1. Threadfin shad (5Omm) suffered large mortalities 

in control as well as test experiments. A significant

difference was noted between control and 87 psi tests while 

no difference was shown between control and 43 or 200 psi 

tests. No explmation is offered for this apparently

incongruous result, but it is unlikely that the mortality 

is due to pressure. 

2. Different handling techniques must be developed

for threadfin shad to eliminate shock mortality, or at 

least reduce the variance from this source to a reasonable 

level. 

3. Duration of decompression had no effect on survival 

of striped bass (6-7 mm), Sacramento blackfish, and 

threadfin shad. 

4. A few mortalities occurred among Sacramento blackfish (14-36mm) and king salmon (5Omm) in both pressure

gradient tests ana controls. Statistical analysis indicates 

that none of the pressures tested (43, 87, and 200 psi) 

were the source of mortality. 

\ 

-38-
5. More work needs to be done on other ,size groups 

of the species tested and nn other species. 

EXPECTED FISH NUMBERS AT PERIPIiERAL CANAL FISH FACILITY -7/ 

The total number of downstream migrants will vary from 

year to year according to spawning success, number of spawners, 

survival of young, etc. Likewise the monthly distribution. -

and the location of the peak of the run will vary according 

to stream flow, water temperature and other factors. The 

estimates here are intended to serve as a guide so that some 

idea of the fish numbers of an average year may be obtained. 

These estimates are based on the best available information, 

but in many cases informat'ion is lacking. 

Fish SDecies in the Return Svstem 

The following species support important sport and 

commercial fisheries that will enter the return system: King 

salmon, American shad, steelhead trout, wnite sturgeon and 

white catfish. Virtually all striped bass should pass through 

as unscreenable eggs and larvae and therefore are not consiaered 

in this memorandurn.g/ 

White sturgeon, the object of a growing sport fishery, 

are unmentioned in the estimates because so little is known 

about their life history. At present they are taken in small 

numbers at the Tracy Pumping Plant and may be found in the 

State's Delta Pumping Plant fish facillties. However, there 

should not be enough of them for concern. 

7/ Memorandum, G. Warner to C. Werner, May 16, 1966. 

8/ - The author assumed a louver fish screen would be installed

in the fish protective facility. 

-39-
Length of Daily Migration Period 

All of the species considered, with the exception 

of catfish, are believed to move downstream principally during 

the hours of darkness. However, during periods of heavy runoff 

and high turbidity, the numbers of fish migrating during daylight 

hours may equal the numbers moving at night. Catfish are not 

migratory and may be expected in the facilities at any time 

of the day. 

Explanation of Tables 

The following tables give estimates of downstream 

migrants. In both 1974 and 1990, American shad will be the 

most numerous in the system (Tables 4 and 5). Hence, the size 

of the return system will depend upon the peak numbers of 

this species. 

Not enough information is available to make estimates -

for the peak day and hour for white catfish (Tables 6 and 7). 

Any further pinpointing is impossible. 

Future Potential 

King salmon and steelhead are the only species for 

which estimates of future potential populations exist. Hughes 

(1964) gives potential populations of 800,000 spawning King 

salmon only if Hughes recommendations are carried out. -9/ Hence, 

the date given for the achievement of the potentials (1990) 

3s contingent upon the adoption of said recommendations. 

-9/ These recommendations included preservation and rehabilitation 

of stream gravels, stream flow maintenance, improved hatchery techniques and fish screens on major diversions. 

-40-
I: v3

v) 

0 ?-f 

k d X -lJ d cd 

0 

.. a

13"0 "0 \o 

0 

d 

x 

m 

M 

W 

W 

v3 

0 d X

" n 

W 

rl 

m

kx 

0 

M 

3,

cd 

d 

.. E: 

k 

m ac 

00 si 

a, 55 "0 0 W c 

zcd d d 0 k m x x d a, X 

E 

"0 .in 5 

* 

Cb m rl d 4 

% rl 

k .. fd 

0 0 

c> 

d 

0 

i-i 0 

0 4J d 4 X X k a3 W a,

d 

c

M k a

5 

a, w

k 

0 

a,

Of 00 0 

e3 

4 

0 E 

d k k 

X cd 6, 

r- a, 

c

3J VI 

E

M rl 2 

a, k 

a

L: c 

-lJ a rd l-i & k 0 0

0 I 

E

k a, bo rd z 

c a, 

JJ "I rl 0 4 .. rn 7 3, 

cd 3-( rl w 

-lJ 

E

0 * 

0

E * 1 z 
0 

Y 

in 

-

0 

rt :I X X 

M 

cn l-i 

c 

0 

rl 

x 

M 

rl 

0 

-P 

k 

a,c

F.1

id

5 

a,

ho 

k 

0 

a,

c5 

00 E 

i-i 

X 

M 

k

cd 

a,

h 

c 

4 

k 

k 

h 

a,

c 

-P 

k 

d 

rt 

c 44 0 

4J 0 I 

0 0 

c k 

0 ho rd

E Q) 

v: 5 

h . .. ri * 1 .* 

ri w 

d E-c 0

* * z 
TABLE 6 

NUMBER OF FISH IN PEAK DAYS AND HOURS IN 1974 

Shad 

Peak Day 2.3~108 

Peak Hour 6.0~10 

* Young of the 

King Salmon 

6 5.3~10 

1.4~106 

*Steelhead 

4 5.6~10 

1.5~104 

**Steelhead ***Catfish 

7x104 

4 1.8~10 

year. 

** 1-year-old fish. 

*** Insufficient information. 

TA3LE 7 

NUMBER OF FISH IN PEAK DAYS AND HOURS IN 1990 

King Salmon 

Peak Day 9.8~106 

6 Peak Hour 2.6~10 

* Young -ofthe year. 

** 1-year-old fish. 

%Steelhead 

2.0xlO 5 

4 4.7~10 

~ ~­

**Steelhead 

5 2.5~10 

4 6.5~10 
Sources of Information for Monthly Distribution and Peak Number 

of Young Fishes 

The background data for determining the monthly distribution and peak numbers of King salmon and American shad was 

obtained from the tow net catches of Errkkila, et a1 (1950); 

Shapavalov and Tart (1954) supplied information on steelhead. 

Catfish estimates are based on unpublished data from the 

Tracy Pumping Plant. 

TIDAL EXCURSION 

Tidal excursion is the distance a particle of 

water will travel during a single flood or ebb flow, approximately 6 hours in length. As the fingerling fish are flushed 

from the release facilities at the Courtland Bridge, they 

will be essentially at the mercy of their environment. One 

component of this environment is tidal flow. These small 

fish must be deposited in the Sacramento River far enough 

downstream from the Peripheral Canal intake at Hood to insure 

that they will not be drawn back into the canal. 

To determine the length of tidal excursion, an actual 

tidal cycle measurement was adjusted to a very conservative 

minimum net flow of 1,000 cfs past the intake to the Peripheral 

Canal. A minimum net flow will result in a maximum tidal flow 

past the release point to fill the tidal prism upstream of 

the release point, thus giving a conservative result. This 

low net flow downstream of Hood would occur during the fall 

of the year when there would also be a minimum number of small 

migratory fish in the river. 

-44-
The tidal cycle measurement used to determine the 

tidal excursion was made on the Sacramento River at CouTtland, 

September 12 and 13, 1951, and had a net downstream flow of 

about 8,500 cfs. Although the form of stage, flow and velocity 

plots (Figure 16) will change somewhat in the transposition 

from that of an 8,500 cfs net flow to a 1,000 cfs net flow, 

the error introduced is not appreciable. 

For the purpose of this znalysis,'a particle of water 

ar fish was released at low-low slack water at Courtland. 

Referring to Figure 15, trie phrticle moved 8,400 feet upstream 

uu,-ing the first phase of tne tide, 7,300 feet uawnstream on 

the second phase, 10,000 feet upstream on the tnira phase, 21,000 

feet downstream on trie fourth phase, witn a resulting movement 

of 10,000 feet downstream for zi complete tidal cycle (four 

phases). The maximum movement upstream was 11,100 feet or 

approximately 2 miles. The inflow to the Sacramento River 

fFom Sutter Slough on a floodtide will tend to further decrease 

the distance %raveled upstresm by released fisn. Based on the 

zt~oveanalysis, it is riccsmmnaed tnat the uppermost fish 

release polnt snould be at leest 2 miles downstream from tne 

intake of tne Peripneral Canal. 

The Paintersville release point as shown on Figure 2 

is included only tc pxviue a grdphlcal presentation of the 

4

overall concept for tile fish return fscility. Final sizing 

and location of the physical works for the fish return facilities 

will be based on an analysis of all factors including costs. 

-45-
U 

c 

iI ,00001 

I 

D 

=r 

I 

\ 
CONDUIT 

Under the concepts being considered here, a conduit 

will be necessary to convey the fish from the secondary facilities 

to a channel bottom release point on the Sacrzmento River. 

Listed below are dominant parameters to be considered in ,design 

of a conduit to handle the small fish. 

Item 

System Design 

Dissolved Oxygen

Carbon Dioxide 

Density

Tempera tu re 

Light

Release point

Velocity 

Remarks 

Pipeline with provisions for drainage,

sampling and cleaning.

Identical to that of river. 

Must remain low (exact levels unknown)

Allow 4 cubic inches per fish. 

ldenticaz to that of the river. 

Fish must be dark 

River bottom. 

Minimum of 4 feet 

adapted. 

per second. 

in operation 

35 miles east 

constructed 

on the 

of 

as a 

Portland General Electric 

There is currently a pipeline 

North Fork of the Clackamas River about 

Portland, Oregon. ­10/ This pipeline was 

portion of' the fish passage facility by 

Company at the North Fork Hydroelectric Project. This pipe is 

of smooth low pressure transite, 20 inches in diameter. The 

grade is auch that head is largely balanced by friction loss. 

Negative pressures are avoided since these are hazardous to 

fish. The fish are transported at from 4 to 6 feet per second, 

utilizing a flow of approximately 12 cfs, Unaer Oregon conditions, 

there are no known reasons why this method should be in any 

way harmful to the fish. With the volume of flow and time 

involved, oxygen depletion should be negligible. 

-10/ Eicher, George J., April 15, 1958, "Fish Get Novel Treatment 

at PG&E's North Fork Project", Electric Light & Power, pp. 84-87. 

-47-
Pipeline 

The Peripheral Canal secondary conduit should be constructed of a smooth material, There are several materials that 

would be suitable -- transite, plastic, cement lined steel pipe, 

to mention a few. The pipeline should have sweep elbows and be 

buried to maintain a constant temperature throughout the pipeline. 

At the Sacramento River levee end of the conduit, care 

should be taken during design to make sure the pipeline does not 

rise above the hydraulic grade line. This will cause pressures 

in the pipeline less than atmospheric (negative pressure). If 

the pipeline cannot be "jacked" through the levee, then it must 

pass through the levee crown above floodplain and vented. The 

vent will allow open channel flow in the pipe tothe river surface 

and then to the actual release point in the bottom of the Sacramento 

River channel. The release point per se will be discussed later. 

Dissolved Oxygen 

There should be no problems with the dissolved oxygen 

level falling below acceptable levels if a11 of the other 

parameters are abided by. 

The minimum velocities in the pipeline should be kept 

above 4 feet per second. This will keep predators that can enter 

the pipeline from the Sacramento River end from maintaining 

residence inthe conduit. At this velocity, the travel time between 

the secondary facilities of the Peripheral Canal and the Sacramento 

River will vary depending on the location of the release point. 

For example, the travel time from the secondary facilities to the 

Paintersville release point (Figure 2) would be approximately 

1-1/2 hours. The exchange of heat between the pipeline and the soil 

-48-
surrounding the buried pipeline should be slow. The water temperature should remain constant allowing the water to maintain the 

dissolved oxygen level of the river. 

If there is a traveling fish screen installed in-the 

primary and secondary facilities of the Canal, an added load of 

suspended solids will be also traveling in the conduit with the 

fish. Studies='done in the Sacramento River by the Delta Studies 

Branch indicate that the concentrated suspended solids should not 

appreciably change the BOD level. 

Sizing 

The facilities, including holding tanks, pumps, and conduit 

must be designed within the parameters set for successful handling 

of fingerling fish. This report will not attempt any cost analyses 

of the physical works but will offer some of the dominant parameters 

to be considered in that design. Under the parameters set forth 

above, and using the peak fish numbers per hour expected in 1974, 

from Table 6, the conduit would have to be designed to pass about 

40 cfs. Although this number was computed as a peak capacity from 

"shaky'' data, it may be less expensive and more practical to plan 

for an over-designed system that is subject to staging, than it 

is to fund the study to derive more exact data in advance. Considering the schematic diagram on Figure 4, only the extra rightof-way for a second pipeline and the influent manifold for an 

-

11/ A memorandum report (October, 1971) entitled "The Sacramento

River Debris Study", reported that based on the BOD analyses

of debris samples collected during the period March 1967, 

through November 1967, and November 1970, it was concluded that: 

(1) BOD of debris in a properly designed and operated fish 

return system should not create a dissolved oxygen problem

for fish (and presumably the.fish eggs) being conveyed back 

to the Sacramento River; and (2) the discharge from the fish 

return system should not cause a dissolved oxygen problem in 

the Sacramento River. 

-49-
oversized facility would have to be built initially. All other 

facilities could be added later if necessary. This approach 

would allow a more exact determination of need for a larger facility 

based on experience of the actual number or fish being returned. 

FISH RELEASE AND PREDATION STUDY 

After fingerling fish are separated from the Peripheral 

Canal, they will be transported to the Sacramento River by pump 

and pipeline. These fish will be released in the Sacramento River 

channel downstream of the City of Courtland. A 3-year study was 

carried on by the Department of Fish and Game and Department 

Water Resources to determine the best method of release, also, if 

these releases would attract an additional number of predator 

fish and if so what would be the extent of predation. This portion 

of the memorandum will cover the main points of the predation. 

Test Areas 

The test areas are shown in Figure 17. Test area 3 on 

Jersey Island was the site of the first 2 years (1966 and 1967) 

of investigation. Test areas 1 and 2 on Sherman were the 

location of the last year's (1968) investigation. Test area 3 

is one of the five fish salvage release sites of the U. S. Bureau 

of Reclamation's Tracy Pumping Plant fish salvage operation. 

Fish are released from a truck to the surface of the water by 

a sheetmetal chute. The Stockton Deep Water Channel passes 

about 600 feet offshore at this point. A submerged berm 

separates the test area from the ship channel. The bottom is 

rocky near the bank changing to mud approximately 100 feet out. 

Rows of wooden piling traveling the bank were within several 

hundred feet of release point, 

-50-
I 
Test areas 1 and 2 on Sherman Island were constructed 

by the Department of Water Resources. The method of release 

was by pipeline to the bottom of the channel. The maximum 

tidal velocities in the channel at site 1 on the Sacramento 

River at Horseshoe Bend generally do not exceed 1 foot per 

second which will be similar to the velocity in the Sacramento 

River at the Peripheral Canal fish release point. Test site 

2 at Curtis Lmding on the San Joaquin River released fish 

into the channel where tidal velocities are as high as 2-1/2 

feet per second. 

Study Method 

The basic approach to the study was to release 

small fish and monitor the number of predators present. The 

small fish at all three sites were supplied with the cooperation 

of the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. The release schedule 

was varied among a combination of single and multiple releases 

during daylight and dark. An area on the Sherman Island side 

of the San Joaquin River (Figure 17) was monitored as a control 

area. No small fish were released in this area. 

The general conclusions of the first 2 years of 

study (1966-1967) at Jersey Island were that the more fish 

that were released, the more fish that were eaten. This 

release site, however, was an ideal spot for predator to 

take up residence; the velocities were relatively low; there c 

was piling in the area for the predator fish to rest behind. 

The amount of predation at this site can be attributed to two 

factors: (1) the channel velocities were low and predators 

were able to remain in the area; (2) the fingerling fish became 
dark adapted in the fish truck and were released to the 

surface of the water in the light, consequently, they were 

temporarily blinded. Fishes' eyes do not dialate or contract 

rapidly as do humans. Consequently, when dark adapted fish 

*, are released to the surface of the water, they are blind for 

about one-half hour. They are easy marks for predator fish. 

On the other hanu, fish released on the channel bottom 

w911 be in an environment they are already adapted to. The 

predator ana fingerling are then on an equal footing. 

In light of the conclusions above, the two release 

sites on Sherman Island were constructed. These two sites 

were constructed to release the fingerlicg fish at the bottom 

of the channel-approximately 200 feet from shore (Figure . 18). __ 

EXPERIMENTAL FISH RE-1- SITE 

SITE ? sm 2 
With this system, the fish are unloaded into a "live box'' 

which is directly connected to a discharge line leading to 

the bottom of the channel (Figure 19). The flushing pump 

is then turned on and the fingerlings are pushed out of the 

discharge line. 

The end of the discharge line was flared to reduce 

the rate of change of velicty (minimun 4 feet per second) as 

the fish entered channel water. Ernie Murphy (personal 

communication) noted that when a discharge line from a fish 

planting truck was held under water, mortality began to occur 

among the released fish. When the fish were allowed to spill 

on the water surface, mortality ceased. No mortality has 

been noted from the disch&rges of the release facilities on 

Sherman Island. 

The diameter of the discharge line at site 1 at 

Horseshoe Bend is 8 inches and the diameter of the discharge 

line at site 2 on the San Joaquin River is 12 inches. The 8­

inch discharge line must now be replaced as it will not pass 

the trash that is collected in the fish screening process. 

Fish were released from these two sites during the 

spring and summer of 1968 on the same release schedule that 

was used during the previous 2 years. Because of the relatively 

high tidal velocities at these two points, the Department of 

Fish and Game was unable to set out gill nets, as they haa * 

at the Jersey Island sites. Their sampling was done by trawl 

net. 

-5.4-
Uue to problems of mechanlcs of the study, the only 

\ conclusions reached by this 1-year study at the Sherman Island 

site were that the release method appeared to be a good one 

and that predation seemed light. Although there were many 

millions of small fish released at these two sites, there 

was no substantial increase in predator population. On the 

basis of the somewhat optimistic results of this release technique, 

the Directors of the Departments of Water Resources and Fish 

and Game agreed that these two sites would become operational 

as a portion of the State Water Project facilities. ­11/ This 

will allow the Department of Fish and Game to make further 

observations as its time allows and make further recommendations 

to the Department of Water Resources' Design Group prior to 

the final design of the Peripheral Canal. 

-

12/ lvlemorandum, Gianelli to Shannon, January 20, 1965, (the day

of the Sherman Island break). 

-55-
w 

d 
FIGURE 20