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

## -- Stateof California The Resources Agency


### $6 : 3.. Mr. Robert E. Whiting&&.~b4’~ Date : January 

### 25, 

### 1972 2. Mr. John M. Haley FileNo.: Gerald C. Cox, Chief Subject: Peripheral Canal Fish Environmental Studies Section Return Facilities Delta Studies Branch t Central District From : Department ofWaterResources
The Peripheral Canal Fish Protection Facility as 1 

# 2 i presently planned willconsist of 

### a fish screen, primary
I 1 i separating facility, secondary separating facility, holding 

### i tanks, fishpumps, 

### 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 fishreturn facilities component 

### of the Peripheral 

### Canal Fish Protection Facilities fish pumps, return conduit and release facilities. The objective of the study 

### was toprovide information tobe used inestablishing



### __ -_- 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,thisreport 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 

# ................. 2l 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 adPeak Number of Young Fishes 

# ................44

iTABLE 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

iiList 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 CanalFish Return Facilities 

### 15 

### 5 dladeless Centrifugal Pump 

### 19 G Head Discharge Curves for Solids Handling Pump 22 

### 7 Heaa Discharge 

### Curves forSolids 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, fishmigration, and navigation. Fish willbe screened 

### at the headworks near Hood. Releases willbe made at selected slough and river crossings to supply fresh water for agricultural use, water quality control, and aquatic life. The fishprotective 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 tocontinue theirjourney to the sea. The fish return facilitiescomponent of these fish protective facilities willvary in concept from the facility installed 

### at the State's Delta Pumping Plant. At the Delta plant, fish 

### are collected inholding tanks anci transported by truck to the western Delta 

### for release into the Sacrr;mento and San Joaquin Rivers. The Hood return systemwill immediately transport the captured fishback to the Sacramento River by pump and pipeline. Conclusions The significant findings from the study of fish return systems are listedbelow:A. kiood Return System willtransport screened fish back to the Sacramento River by pump adpipeline. �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 vitalresources 

## -- water and fishlife. Envlronmental conditions for fish and other aquatic lifehave deteriorated in the Delta due toman's activities. Adverse conditions are due lzrgely toupstream 

### 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 stripedbass 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 forwater 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 1961by 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 toprotect 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 tobiological investigations and analyses and about 11'3 torelated 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, controlmany 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 myof the water plans 

### were iaentified; &TG third, specific stuaies and field sampling procedures wer2 undertaken to determine therelstionship of' 

### water development to significant environmental fac+,orsthrough the life cycle of each species.--



### -- The results, 

### to date, 

### of these and other studies 

### are presented inthe annual reports of the Delta Fish and Wildlife Protection Study, ana inthe 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 topermit the physiological changes required when a fish migrates between salt water and fresh water and toprovide 

### a suitable environment 

### for their important food sources. 2. Prevent flow reversal in all 

### (50 to 100 miles) of the main fishmigration channels and proviue 

### a positive downstream net flow inalmost 

### all Delta channels. This willenable anadromous fish (mainly salmon) toreach 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 torealize that louver screening willnot 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=.centat 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&.lsof great importance as 

### a source of food for the young 

### of 

### most Delta fishes. 

### 5. Provide an environment more conducive togood 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 isnecessary 

### to protect the opposum shrimp (Neomysis) and fishpopulations, 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 fullrange of water-associated needs in the Delta, while meeting the 

### water transfer requlrernents of the state and federal water projects. This recommendationwas 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 systemwest 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. Irrigationwater 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 fishana 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, inrelation topresent conditions, is shown in Table 1of that report. This table is included here 

### as Table 1 for convenient reference. In providing an overall rzting fGreach 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 likelyreduce 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 tothe 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 SanJoaquin River and south Delta channels. It would probably result in almost +,otalloss of the striped bass due tothe egg settlement and suffocation 2nd complete 

### loss of the San Joaquin River salmon run without chance of rejuvenation. 

### 3. The LJeltaWaterway 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 alsoprovide 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 0 2 m(UM m3c m. om-4c ho 4. 4 0 s?u -4 MOuu MO a (d wd 0) u

cd u d a, n

u m m d 

# q Grd -Ac 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 willfully protect and offer enhment opportunities for fish and wildlife. "We recommend Itsconstruction 

### at the earliest possible date." (emphasis added. )

PERIPHERAL CANAL
The primary purposes of the Peripheral Caial are 

### to convey 

### water from the Sacranento River 

### tothe 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 willbe 

### 43 miles long, about 

### 30 feet deep, and over 400 feet wide 

### at maximum water surface. 

### It willbe 

### an unlined chnal hydraulically isolated from the 

### Delta channels except for the intake from the Sacramento River 

### at Hood. 

### From Hood, it willbe routed 

### to the west of Stockton, then willcontinue southwesterly across the Delta. The Canal willbe siphoned under four 

### major stream crossings the Mokelumne, the San Jo;iquin, and OldRivers, and Disappointment Slough to allow for flood passage, fishmigration, 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 willbe approximately 26,800
- 

### 3/ second feet and the terminal capacity willbe about 18,000 secord feet.



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



# -8-As presently planned, the Peripheral Canal headworks willconsist of trash boom, trashracks, and floodgates near the Sacramento River levee, and 

### a settlingbasin, 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 tounderstand the problems and proposed solution forreturning salvaged fish to the Sacramento River. The fisheries problems inconnection with the intake to the Peripheral Canal can be classified into two basic categories: downstream migrating adults, and downstreammigrating fingerlings. (The problem of screening and returning eggs and larvae isnot 

# 4

# [

considered in this report as the author assumed 

### a louver type fishprotective 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, stripedbass, and shad migrate downstream, after spawning, and return to the ocean. Fingerlings of these and other species alsowillbe migrating downstream to feed, grow, and become adult fish. Under low river flowand ebb tide conditions at the trashrack, only a smallportion of the fish and flow willbe able toproceed downstream; under low river flow and floodtide conditions, perhaps none of the fishwillescape the intake as

-9-

## _ -

I J

## .-.. flow willbe entering the Canal from both directions and fish 

### are not apt to swim extensively against an opposing current (Figure 

### 3). Fingerlings migrating downstreamwillbe drawn into the Canal and separated from Peripheral Canal waters by the fishprotective 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 infront of the trashrack. Adult striped bass willbe 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 willpass the intake with the flow, reducing any trashrack problems these fish might have. The finalentrance configuration log boom and trashrack design and resulting flow pattern should be determined by physical model studies during finaldesign. 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 willnot 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 toapproximately Clarksburg.



### -13-Under operation of thePeripheral Canal, tile minimum flov! in the Sacrarriento River past Sacramento willbe about 8,000 second feet in thz spring of 

### a very dry year. The influence of trie Peripnerrl Canal willprobably cause the flow 

### reversals in the Sacramento River toextend only 

### a few

### miles above the city of Hood.

7- The fish protective facilitywillconsist of 

### a
h wx.;

_ i L 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 fishreturn facilities only, ie, fish pumps, conduit actrelease facility. These components 

### would differ from the fishprotection facility presently inuse 

### at thz Delta Pumping 

### Plant. The remainder of the primary and secondary facilities willbe described only tothe extent that they willaffect the return facilities. The purpose of the primary facility is 

### to separate fish from the Peripheral Canal waters. The configuratiGn of the primary facility willbe determined by others. For 

### the purpose of' this report, we willassume that the primary fzcility would consist of several g&tedrectangular concrete chmnels equipped with trrveling fish screens of 

### a V-notched configuration. The flow of water through tile bays woula carry the fishup 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 

# aThe 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 willbe 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 fallof 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 tothe Delta Pumping Plant with the exception that 

### a fishhandling pump would be provided to drain the water and fish from the tank directly into the effluent manifold. 

### Water and fishwould 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 

### tohold 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~tc the 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 intothe bzrrel. Fish would be removed from the countingbarrel by dip nets; counted, classified, aricl returned tothe 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 inthe selection of a pump torriovs live fingerling fish:1. The ability of the pump topass fishwithno mechanical damage. 2. The ability of fingerling fishto 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 fishwith 

### a minimum of mechanical damage; and second, pressure tests on these fish todetermine what pressures and durations they can successfullywithstand. These studies 

### were carried out during 

### 1966 and 

### 1967. Four types of pumps were investigated that 

### are presently in commercial use 

### at canneries 

### totransport 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. Cenlrifical Food Handling Pump This type of pump is presently inwide 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 tomove peaches

-18-S P E C 1.FI DRiyER: Motor illustrated is Fairbanks-Morse connected to pump through pin and rubber bushedflexible coupling, both halvesofwhichareidenticalinall respectsincludingboreand keyway. Engineorbeltdriveisalsoavailable. Unitismounted ona rugged, machinedcast ironbase. 1. IMPELLER: The impelleristheenclosednon-clogtype, cast in

onepiece, solidsor andspecificallydesignedto passlarge unscreenedliquids. Clearancebetween the rotatingandstationary partsis adjustabletoprovide sustained performance without excessive maintenance. This pump may also be furnishedwith the famous Patented Fairbanks-Morsebladeless impeller illustratedon the reverse side. 2. STUFFIN6 BOX: Cartridge type stuffing box permits the use of either conventionalpacked boxes with glands or a varietyofmechanicalseals. Thisconstructionfeaturepermits the field changeover from packingto seals or vice-versa as required. C A T 1 0

### N S 3. AOAPTOR: Theadaptoriscastiron, providedwithcarefully machinedcenteringfitsateitherend. Largeopeningsprovide easyaccesstothestuffingboxfor adjustmentor renewalof packing. A variety of adaptors permitsthe use of a frame matchingthe powerrequirementsof the liquidend. 4. Rotating is supported On bearingsmountedinprecisionboredframe. Bearingsarecarefullysealedt0excludemoistureandContaminants,and retain lubricant. Provisionismadefor lubricationor periodiccleaningwithoutdisassembly. Severalframesizesareavailablewith each liquidendtomatchtheratingofthedrivingmotor. 5. CASING: Highstrengthcast ironwith amplesectionthicknesstoproducea largefactor of safety mer the mayimm allowableworkingpressures. Casing isenclosedbyasuction and stuffing box or head carehrlly machined to assure perfect alignment6. SHAFT: Turned and ground to accuratedimensions from highgradealloysteelandfurnishedwithSupardchromestainlesssteelshaftsleevethroughthestuffing box. 

### THE HEART 

## OF THE 

### BLADELESS 

### SEWAGE AND TRASH PUMP

The Fairbanks-Morsesingle passage bladeless impelier, capable of handling fibrous trashtentotwenty-fivetimes the size of such material passable inconventional pumps, isoftheenclosedtype.The illustration at right showsthewaterpassage and direction of flow through the irnpeller.

-19-

## -- and tomatoes thrcugh their platwithno injury 

### tothe fruit. The impeller speeds of these pumps 

### are about 1,400 rpm. The company 

### also has 

### a pump 

### tohzndle 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 toPG&Efor the development Gf' 

### a fishprotective facility 

### at this plant.4/ 

### - The fish salvage device set up by PG&Econsists of


### a vertical traveling screen similar tothose 

### 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 isthe result of 

### a comparative study conducted on the 

### 5- ad8-inch pumps. In Mr. Kerr's opinion the fish collecting facilities at the PG&ESteam Platsafely returned to the river g&percent or more of the fish entering the screened structure from the smallest size stopped by the Screens to fishEipproximately 14inches 

### 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-InchpumDs. Figures 

### 6, 

### 7, and 

### 8 show head discharge efficiency
curves of 

### a food handling pump capable of pumping 

### a 6-inch sphere. AirliftPump 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 

### allmechanical parts caibe located for easy maintenance. The Fisheries Research Board of Canada has done developmental work with this pump. T'he prime interest 

### was theremoval 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 toencase the U-tube.-- P5400.-1.1 FAIRBANKS, MmSE & CO. FIGURE 

### 6 Septerioer 1, 1962 Pump & HydraulicDivision

--I__ _ - ._

CONTINGENT ON FURNISHINQ THE PUMP WITH SPECIFIED AMOUNT OF CLEAR, FRESH.

# I SOLID NON-AERATED WATER NOTTO EXCEED as0 P. 

# I--- P5400-66 FAIRBANKS, MORSE & C8. FIGURE 

### '? September 1, 1962 Pump& HydraulicDivision 65- _ ­

t CONTINGENT ON FURNISHING THE PUMPWITH SPECIFIED AMOUNT OF CLEAR, FRESH. AThR NOTTONEWPAGE FAIRBANKS, MORSE & CO'. FIGURE 

### 8 Pump & Hydraulic Division

fuPuCONT1NGLM ON FURNISHING THh PUMPWITH SPECIFIED AMOUNT OF CLEAR. FRESH. NON-AERATED WATER NOTTO 

# I EXCEED 880 ilr. 

# 1 49638CP 

# I

-2This pump 

### was tested by MY. Cliff Long, 

### U. S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Pasco, Washington. He used this principle toremove 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 tothe 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 withblack bands around it, giving the fish a visual reference prior toentering the influence of the jets. A fishpump 

### 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 fishpump willbe an important component of the secondary faclllties of the Peripheral Canal Fish Protective

-2

### 5--- ..- 'a', I?:

I / /- FishDelivery ScreenTo 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 toreproduce the hydraulic grade 

### line that willexist 

### in the completed facility. At

### a minimum velocity in the conauit of 

### 4 feet per second, the travel time from tile pumps tothe river willbe about 2-1/2 

### hours. Methods and Materials Pressure Chamber l'he pressure apparatus (Figure

## ~a consisted of 

### a barrel-shaped steel chamber 

### 14inches 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 tothe chamber torecoru the pressure profile of each experiment. Fish Allfish, 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 fishwere carefully dipped from the collection

-29-FIGURE

Ibucket, 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 todetermine 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 alsorecorded. 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 toverify that 2-1/2 hour decompression survival


### was not greater than some shorter period, i.e., 

### 5 minutes. Several replicates of 

### at least 

### 8 fisheach 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&dientTests The pressure level where significant mortality occurs 1s ImpGrtant inpump design. The pressure gradient available

-31-tous 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 

### (461feet of head). Severalreplicates 

### of 

### at least 

### 8 and not more than 

### 304 fish of each species available
were subjected to each of the pressure levels. The fishwere instantly subjected tomaximum test pressure, held there for 60 seconds, and then were lowered to 0 psi in 

### 5 minutes. Except for pressure, control fishwere 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 

### inone-day survival between decompression times or between test fish ana control fish (Table 2). Two-day survival is significantly

-32-0 4 

# .

nb 

# 5

m 

# B

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

s4 3 0 X CY 0


### 3

0

4 4

4 4

w 

### 9

+J v) c W 0 4different 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 tomake 

### 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 survivaland 

### 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 toaraw final. conclusions (Table 

### 3). Discussion With the exception of threadfin shad, all other species of fish examined showed little if 

### any mortality due topressure. Threadfin shad survival was low, even in contrcrl tests.

-34-

# 8 

# 1 ' \ \\\ 

# \ '
\\\\ 

# \ \\

\\\\\ A- # / / / / / / / / / / / / 1rn 2c 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

cnlm
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 operationof the Bureau of Reclamation's fishfacility

### 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 fishwere quite large 

### or
were not within the influence of the Bureau's pumps. By mid-July, 

### water temperatures were above 

### 74O and difficultieswere experienced inholding 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 psitests while no difference was shown between control and 

### 43 or 200 psi 

### tests. No explmation is offered for this apparently incongruous result, but 

### it isunlikely that the mortality is due topressure. 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 fewmortalities 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,sizegroups of the speciestested and 

### nn other species.

EXPECTED FISH NUMBERS AT PERIPIiERAL CANAL FISH FACILITY 

### - 7/
The totalnumber of downstream migrants willvary from year toyear according to spawning success, number of spawners, survival of young, etc. Likewise the monthly distribution . - and the location of the peak of the 

### run willvary 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 willenter 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 lifehistory. Atpresent they are taken 

### in small numbers 

### at the Tracy Pumping 

### Plant and may be found inthe 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 fishprotective facility.



### -39-Length of Daily Migration Period All of the species considered, with the exception 

### of catfish, 

### arebelieved to move downstream principally during the hours of darkness. However, during periods of heavy runoff and high turbidity, the numbers of fishmigrating during daylight hours may equal thenumbers 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 willbe the most numerous in the system (Tables 4 and 

### 5). Hence, the size of the return systemwilldepend 

### 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 * C b 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, 

### c d 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 rl 0 4 

## .. 

# "I rn 7 3, cd 3-( rl 

### w -lJ E 0 

### * 0 E 

### * 1 z0
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 

### * * zTABLE 

### 6 NUMBER OF FISH 

### IN PEAK DAYS AND 

### HOURS 

### IN 

### 1974
Shad
Peak Day 2.3~10 

### 8
Peak 

### Hour 6.0~10 

## * Young of the King Salmon 6 

### 5.3~10 1.4~10 

### 6 *Steelhead 

### 4 

### 5.6~10 1.5~10 

### 4 **Steelhead ***Catfish 7x10

### 4 

### 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 

### 9.8~10 6 

### 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 

### 6.5~10Sources 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 

### willtravel 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 willbe essentially 

### at the mercy of their environment. One component of this environment is tidal flow. These small fishmust be deposited 

### inthe Sacramento River far enough downstream from the Peripheral Canal intake 

### at Hood to insure that they willnot 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 tothe Peripheral Canal. A minimum net flow willresult in 

### a maximum tidal flow past the release point to fillthe 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) willchange 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 toFigure 15, trie phrticle moved 8,400 feetupstream uu,-ing the first phase of tne tide, 7,300 feet uawnstream on the second phase, 10,000 feet upstream on the tniraphase, 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 tofurther decrease the distance %raveledupstresm 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 tcpxviue 

### a grdphlcal presentation 

### of the

4 overall concept for 

### tile fishreturn fscility. Final sizing and location of the physical works for the fish return facilities willbe based on an analysis of 

### allfactors including costs.



### -45-U c

i

# I ,00001

I D =r I 

## \CONDUIT
Under the concepts being considered here, a conduit willbe necessary to convey the fish from the secondary facilities to

### a channel bottom release point on the Sacrzmento River. Listed below are dominant parameters tobe 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 tothat 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. 

### inoperation 

### 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 fishare 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 inany 

### 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, tomention 

### a few. The pipeline should have sweep elbows and be buried tomaintain 

### a constant temperature throughout the pipeline. At the Sacramento River levee end of the conduit, care should be taken during design tomake sure the pipeline does not rise above the hydraulic grade line. This will cause pressures inthe 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 willallow open channel flow inthe pipe totheriver surface and then to the actual release point inthe bottom of the Sacramento River channel. The release point per se willbe discussed later. Dissolved Oxygen There should be no problems with the dissolved oxygen level fallingbelow acceptable levels if 

### a11 of the other 

### parameters are abided by. The minimum velocities inthe pipeline should be kept above 

### 4 feet per second. This willkeep predators that can enter the pipeline from the Sacramento River end from maintaining residenceinthe conduit. Atthis velocity, the travel time between the secondary 

### facilities of the Peripheral 

### Canal and the Sacramento River willvary 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 inthe conduit with the fish. Studies='done inthe Sacramento River by the Delta Studies Branch indicate that the concentrated suspended solids should not appreciably change the BOD level. Sizing The facilities, includingholding tanks, pumps, and conduit must be designed within the parameters set for successful handling of fingerling fish. This report willnot attempt any cost analyses of the physical works but willoffer 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 topass about 40 cfs. Although this number was computed 

### as 

### a peak capacity from "shaky'' data, 

### it may be less expensive and more practical toplan for an over-designed system that is subject to staging, than 

### it is to fund the study 

### to derive more exact 

### data inadvance. 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 ina 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 tobe built initially. Allother 

### 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 willbe transported to the Sacramento River by pump and pipeline. These fish willbe released inthe 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 todetermine 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 willcover the main points of the predation. Test 

### AreasThe 

### test 

### areas are shown inFigure 17. Test 

### area 3 on Jersey Island 

### was the site of the first 2 years 

### (1966 and 1967) of investigation. Test 

### areas 1and 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 tomud approximately 100 feet out. Rows of wooden piling traveling the bank were within several hundred feet 

### of release point,-50-

# ITest 

### areas 1and 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 1on the Sacramento River 

### at Horseshoe Bend generally do not exceed 1foot per second which will be similar to the velocity in the Sacramento River 

### at the Peripheral Canal fishrelease 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 

### allthree 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 fishwere 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 torest behind. The amount of predation 

### at this site can be attributed totwo factors: (1) the channel velocities were 

### low and predators


### were able toremain in the 

### area; (2) the fingerling fish becamedark 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 forpredator fish. On the other hanu, fish released on the channel bottom w911be 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 2With 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 

### toreduce 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 fishwere allowed to spill
on the 

### water surface, mortality ceased. No mortality has been noted from the disch&rgesof 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 SanJoaquin River is 12 inches. The 

### 8­ inch discharge line 

### must 

### now be replaced 

### as it 

### willnot pass the trash that is collected in the fish screeningprocess. 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 toset out gillnets, 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 tobe 

### a good one and thatpredation seemed light. Although there were many millions of small fishreleased 

### at these two sites, there
was no substantial increase inpredator 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 siteswould become operational
as a portion of the StateWater Project facilities. 

### ­ 11/ This willallow the Department of Fish and Game to make further observations as itstime allows 

### and make further recommendations tothe 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 dFIGURE 20