# 54-0 

# ~p - '

PD - 

# L-V/lt~

Cramer97. doc , 08/14/98 

### , 2:02 PM



### Evaluation of a Louver Guidance S stem and Eicher Screen for Fish Protection at the 

### Sullivan Plant in Ore on. 1997. 

### P. Cramer 

### The T. W. Sullivan Plant is a diversion project 

### , which is located at Willamette Falls in Clackamas County, Oregon. Included with in the plant 

## are 13 turbines. The maximum flow is approximately 5 

## 200 cis , with 43 feet of head , producing 16. 6 megawatts (Cramer 

### , 1997). Fish 

## mortality had risen due to passage through turbines. Although full screens were an option , they 

## were not the most cost effective solution for the plant. A look at louvers was then suggested. 

### Since installation in 1972 

### , many alterations have been made to the system. The current 

## configuration has existed since 1992. It includes three parts: forebay guidance system , turbine bypass system 

### , and the fish evaluator (Cramer , 1997). 

### The flow enters the forebay at 900 , which enabled the plant to use the trash racks that were 

## present as the louver system. All sharp angles were eliminated and a training wall was added. 

### The forebay has a depth of 22 feet. 

### As for the turbine bypass system , a wedge-wire bar screen was installed in two sections , a front 

## and a back. The loading for the screen was about 250 pounds per square foot. Screen cleaning is automated and on heavy loading days , may have to be cleaned 24 times in a 24 hour interval 

### (Cramer , 1997). 

## Once passed through the bypass system the fish will be carried to an evaluator. It consists of a 

### main discharge channel , a test channel 

### , and a holding box. There are two modes available: the 

## bypass and the fishing positions. In the bypass mode , the test channel is closed and the fish and 

## water pass through the main discharge channel and down a spillway chute to the tailrace. In the 

### fishing mode 

### , a bar screen separates the main and test channels. Approximately three quarters of 

## the flow passes through the screen and back into the main channel. The fish and remaining flow pass down the test channel. The fish are then 

### transported to the holding box (Cramer , 1997). 

## The fish being tested were marked using passive integrated transponder tags. During each shift 

### of eight hours 

### , 100 fish are collected and examined. Individual fish are determined to be either 

## mortality, ok , descaled (:;:.20% scale loss), or 

### injured (fresh wounds 

### , deformation , strange 

### swimming patterns) (Cramer , 1997). 

### Despite some problems and setbacks throughout the testing phases , the mortality rate was

believed to have decreased from 11 

### % to 3 % (Cramer 1997).

# 5fD FP-FDEV ALUA TION OF A LOUVER 

### GUIDANCE SYSTEM AND EICHER SCREEN FOR FISH PROTECTION AT THE T. W. SULLIAN PLANT IN OREGON Douglas P Cramer

Portland General Electric , 121 SW Salmon St , Portland OR. 97204 USA


### Abstract The T. W. Sullivan Plant is a run of the river diversion project on the WiIIamette River in Oregon. The Project has 13

turbines and at full load draws about 200 cubic feet per second (cfs) to produce 16. 6 megawatts. Since 1972 Portland General Electric (pGE) has been modifying and evaluating a system to safely pass juvenile migrant salmonids. Forebay trash racks were slightly modified to act as louvers and a training wall added to provide a more laminar flow. Fish are

guided through the forebay past the first 12 units to unit 13. In 1980 the unit 13 penstock was retrofitted with an Eicher pressure screen to divert fish into a bypass pipe leading to a fish evaluation area. Flow through unit 13 is approximately 400 cfs while flow through the bypass is maintained at 50 cfs. With the current facility configuration, fish entering the 

### forebay exhibit average bypass efficiencies of 92% , 82% and 85% for spring chinook 

### (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha),

faIl chinook and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) respectively. Over 500 OOO:fish were examined for Injmy and descaling ITom 1991 through 1995. The average occurrance of injury and descaling, for all species all years , was 0.44% and 1. 81 % respcetively. 

### Description The T. W. Sullivan Plant (FERC number 2233) is a run-or- river diversion project located at Willamette Falls on the WiIIamette River in Clackamas County, Oregon. The Project has 13 turbines (12 Kaplan and 1 Francis) and at full load

draws about 200 cfs at an average of 43 feet of head to produce 16. 6 megawatts. Tests conducted by the Fish Commission of Oregon (now the Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife) indicated the juvenile salmonids experienced turbine passage mortality ranging ITom 8% to 12 % in the Kaplan units to 14% to 26% in the Francis unit. Full screening was considered too expensive , so PGE began to look at the potential of using a louver system which would be compatable with the shape of the forebay and flow pattern configuration. If the louver worked the original idea was to remove Unit 13 and engineer some kind of bypass to the tailrace. The end result was to leave Unit 13 in place and install a complete penstock screen. Since installation and testing of this system began in 1972 numerous modifications have been made to both the fish guidance and bypass systems. The results reported in this paper are for the current configuration that has existed since 1992.
There are three major components to the SuIIivan downstream migrant bypass system: the forebay guidance system, the 

### turbine bypass system , and the fish evaluator. Fish are guided through the forebay to Unit 13 which is the only unit with an Eicher screen. Once fish are entrained in Unit 13 they are diverted by the Eicher screen into a bypass conduit which

leads to the evaluator. In the evaluator fish can be passed directly to the tailrace or can be captured for examination. Forebay Guidance System Flow enters the Sullivan forebay nearly perpendicular to the turbine intakes. This configuration has allowed 

### PGE to use the trash racks as a louver system to guide fish. First the trash racks were realigned to eliminate sharp angles and a training waIl was added in the forebay opposite the units to provide a more laminar flow (Figure 1). Trash racks in ITont of units 1 through 3 have 1 inch spacing. The racks in ITont of units 4 through 12 have 1 ~ inch spacing and are constructed of flat bars. The racks in ITont of Unit 13 are cylindrical bars with 5 inch openings to reduce the chance of injury and encourage fish movement into the unit The depth of the forebay is fairly uniform and averages about 22 feet The head and flow vary differently at the Sullivan Plant than at most hydro plants in that as the flow goes up the head decreases. This is due to the restricted channel configuration below the project that causes the tailrace to raise faster than the forebay during high water events. The velocities across the trash racks generally decrease ITom Unit 1 downstream to Unit 13 (Table I).

### Methods

Guidance Efficiency 

### While numerous species offish pass through the Sullivan bypass system, only anadromous salmonids have been 

### evaluated. FaIl chinook, spring chinook and steelhead have been tested for Fish guidance efficiency (FGE). When 

### possible , hatchery fish are tested separately ITom wild fish. Initially, partial fin-marks were used to identifY test fish. In 1992 we switched ITom using partial :fin marks on test fish to 

### Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags. This has greatly improved our ability to conduct tests. Since the tags allow identification of individual fish we can run several tests concurrently, and we eliminate errors associated with marking, 

### mark identification and data transcription. Most importantly, large numbers offish (~70 OOO a day) can be interrogated 

### for tags without handling. The PIT tag detector is located on the six inch pipe that carries fish to the holding box in the evaluator. 

### Test fish are released at two locations to determine FGE. A calibration release is made directly into the plunge pool of the evaluator. This allows us to determine the detection rate of the PIT tag interrogation system. A forebay release is 

### made at the head racks (approximately 200 feet upstream of Unit #1) which allows us to estimate the number offish that are guided past the first 12 units into Unit 13. FGE equals the percent detected from a forebay release divided by the 

### percent detected from the calibration release. Due to a change in methodology, calibration tests used prior to 1994 are 

### not used. For forebays tests , which there were no corresponding calibrations , an average of all calibrations for that 

### species was used. Generally, groups of test fish are captured in the evaluator , measured to the nearest millimeter (rom) fork length and are PIT tagged. The fish are held for a minimum of 

### 12 hours before release to allow recovery. Forebay tests are conducted with groups of 100 fish while calibration tests consist of groups of 50 fish. Tests are not conducted when water 

### temperature exceeds 65 degrees Fahrenheit. It often takes more than ten days for all of the fish ITom a forebay release to pass through the system, making 

### it difficult to test a specific condition. We attempt to do releases once a week during the migration period to cover all of the different environmental conditions. Although calibration and forebay releases are done concurrently, we use an average
8IUmal calibration for a given species because of the extended detection period for forebay released fish. 

### Inimy and Descaling A minimum of 100 fish captured in the evaluator during each eight hour shift 

### , three days a week were examined. 

### Fish were identified as descaled , injured, mortality or ok. A fish was descaled based on the criteria of 20% or more scale loss on one side of the fish. Fish were considered injured if any ftesh wounds , physical deformity or abnormal swimming
behavior was observed. 

### 48 Hour Mortalily To examine the potential for delayed mortality as a result of negotiating the bypass , fish were held for 48 hours. Twice each month ITom March through June approximately 300 fish were collected as they entered the holding box and placed 

### in tanks supplied with WiIIamette River water. The tanks were opened after 48 hours , the fish were counted by species 

### and mortalities recorded.


### Results Guidance Efficiency All guidance efficiency tests conducted in 1995 and after May 13, 1996 were discarded due to a malfunction of the PIT tag detection system. Due to an insufficient number of wild smolts , or our inability to distinguish between hatchery and wild fish, wild fish have not been tested separately. Spring Chinook For spring chinook, the average guidance efficiency 

### for all tests combined is 90% (Table 2). No difference between the size of the fish released and those recaptured has been detected over the size range tested (14Omm to 295rom).To address the concern of our release methodology causing stress we initiated a second release method. The original

method involved holding fish in tanks supplied with Willamette River water overnight after tagging. Fish were dip netted ITom the tanks and hauled to the head racks in plastic cans where they were released through a 6- 

### inch flex hose behind 

### the head racks. For the second method , fish are taken directly after tagging to a live box anchored about 30 feet 

### upstream of the head racks. The fish are held overnight and released by opening up the live box. 

### The problem with the second method is that fish could avoid entering the Sullivan Plant forebay. Five paired test (two steelhead and three
spring chinook) have been completed with no differences in FGE between the two methods. Injury. D escalin and 48 Hour Mortali Injury, descaling and 48 hour mortality have all been low. It is important to note that the levels reported here are for run 

### of the river fish. For these tests , there is no control group to separate bypass induced descaling, injury or mortality ITom background levels.



### sag e of Non Salmonids Although salmonids have been the only species tested for FGE , injury, descaling and mortality, we can make some

comments based on general observations. Juvenile American shad (A/osa sapidissima) 

### are probably the most abundant fish passing through Sullivan. These fish , ranging in size ITom 50mm to 120IllIIl, seem to come through the bypass okay but do not do well in the evaluator and any disturbance seems to cause mortality. Largemouth and smallmouth bass 

### bluegill, yellow perch and brown bullhead of all sizes seem to pass through with little injury or mortality. 

### Crappie appear to suffer the greatest injury with the rate increasing with size.


### eration Maintenance and Cost The Eicher pressure screen has been in use at the Sullivan Plant for 16 years. The screen shows no sign of wear and has needed repair only once when a piece of debris caused a small section (8 inch square) of bars to separate. Automation of the cleaning cycle has decreased labor and the time it takes to cycle. Also , since heavy debris loads tend to coincide with high water events it allows the operator to focus on other critical functions. The narrower spacing of the louver trash rack system does result in more debris build up (mostly from leaffall) that requires temporary shutdowns to clean the racks. The wider spacing of the bars in ITont of unit 13 allows larger sticks getting into unit 13 during cleaning cycles resulting in broken wicket gate links. Debris accumulates in the plunge pool in the evaluator which needs to be cleaned out five or six times a year. The cost of these items are included under annual maintenance in Table 7. In addition to the costs listed in Table 7 , we anticipate that some additional costs will be incurred in the form of compensation to the State for unmitigated fish loss. 

### Summary Since 1972 PGE has installed , tested and modified a downstream migrant fish protection system at the T. W. Sullivan 

### Plant in Oregon. The system is comprised of a louver system in the forebay to guide fish to Unit 13 

### , a complete penstock screen and bypass in Unit 13 and an evaluator to test the system. PGE believes the system as it currently exists has been successful in reducing juvenile salmonid mortality ITom generally greater than 11 % to less than 3 % with relatively minimal annual costs. In addition, the evaluator has proven to be a valuable tool in obtaining significant biological information.

### Table 3. Average forebay recovery rates and the estimated guidance efficiency for fall chinook at the T. W. Sullivan

Plant. 

### Fall Chinook Forebay Releases
Year 

### Number ofFish Percent Calibration Rate 

### Fish Guidance

Released Recovered 

### Applied Efficiency (FGE)

1993 

### 592 84% 

### 94% 89%
1993 105 

### 77% 

### 94% 82%

1993 203 

### 70% 

### 94% 74% 

### Average FGE 

### 82%

Table 4. Average calibration and forebay 

### recovery rates and the estimated guidance efficiency for steelhead at the 

### T. W. Sullivan Plant.
Steel head Calibration Tests


### Year 

### Number of Fish per Release 

### Range in Percent Average Recovery

Releases 

### Recovery
1994 100 

### N/A 91%
1996 

### 78 - 90% 83% 

### Forebay Releases
Year 

### Number of Fish per 

### Range in Percent 

### Average Calibration 

### Fish

Releases Release Recovery 

### Recovery 

### Rate Applied 

### Guidance 

### Efficiency (FGE)

1993 135 

### 74 - 86% 

### 79% 87% 

### 91%
1994 105 N/A 

### 79% 91% 

### 87%
1996 56 - 76% 

### 64% 83% 

### 77% 

### Average FGE 

### 85%Table 6. Results of 48 hour mortality 

### test conducted on juvenile salmonids after passing through the T. W. Sullivan



### Plant fish bypass.

Sample Size 

### Mortalities 

### Percent Mortality

1993 459 

### 00%
1994 370 

### 00%
1995 281 

### 91%
1996 1019 1.37% 

### Cummulative Totals 2129 

### I.I 7% 

### Average Percent Delayed Mortality 32%

Sample Size Mortalities 

### Percent Mortality
1993 613 1.79%
1994 210 

### 2.38%
1995 1015 1.97%
1996


### Cumulative Totals 1838 96% 

### Average Percent Delayed Mortality 05%

Sample Size Mortalities 

### Percent Mortality
1993 

### 00%
1994 

### 00%
1995 228 

### 00%
1996 791 1.26% 

### Cumulative Totals 1146 

### Average Percent Delayed Mortality 32%APPROXIMATEL Y200 FT.UPSTREAM TOMAIN HEADRACKSSULLIVAN DIVERSIONFLOW APPROX.5200CFS.FLOW~ S.GOVERNMENT CANALFOREBAY5' SPACING ON BARLOCKSSIMPSONPAPERCOMPANYFISH BYPASS & EVALUATORFigure I PlanView of the T. W. Sullivan Plant Forebay Showing Relative Location of Turbines, Guiding Trash Racks, Training wall and Fish Bypass1~' SPACING ON RACKSLNIT 2HIOtINE lee eSItOI'LIIIT ILIIIT :IlillY 4lillY ,LNIT 8LNIT II\ \(i) (f)(f)(i)" G) (f) (i)(f) \ \lillY IILIIIT 7LNIY 'ILNIT II 'r.hJ3SULLIVAN PLANTCB 11J1IT 12 IOfFICETAIL RACEGENERATOR FLOOR EL.65.00'BYPASS OUTFALL TOWILLAMETTE RIVERWILLAMETTEIVERLOCATION PLANFISH STORAGE BOXORAIN- - - - -- - - ---- - ---- - -- -I PARTITION AS REQUIRED)---r---FISH HOLDING TANKSTAIRS. DOWN-----MAIN WEIR GATEFISH DISCHARGETO SPILLWAYSINK ANDLAB TABLEI ILL____-I Il L__.------------------_DRAIN------BYPASSPOSITIONMAIN CHANNELMAIN DISCHARGE RAMPBELOWMOVABLEVERTICALSCREENSFLOW----------36 CFS TO RIVER------FLOW-----I~ CFS TO RIVERDRAW OFF SCREENBAR SCREETESTDISCHARGECHUTEFigure 3 Plan View ofthe T. W. Sullivan Project Fish Bypass Fish Evaluator