## p?P'
INTERAGENCY ECOLOGICAL STUDY PROGRAM
FOR 

### THE SACRAMENTO-SAN 

### JOAQUIN ESTUARY



### DELTA FISH FACILITIES 

### TECHNICAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE

WORKING JUSTIFICATION PAPER NO. 4

HORIZONTAL TRAVELING FISH SCREEN STATUS

JUNE, 1980--

-- 

### HORIZCINTAL 

### TRAVELING FISH SCREEN 

### STATU&/

INTRODUCTION The horizontal traveling fish screen (HTFS) was one of the screening concepts considered for use in the intakeworks of the proposed Peripheral Canal. The impetus for considering.theHTFS came 

### in 1965when the California Department of Fish and Game informed the Department of Water Resources that louverswere not acceptable as screens for the canal. About the same time, Dan Bates of the Bureau 

### of Commercial Fisheries (now the National Marine Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) was building and testing models of a traveling fish screen. The traveling fish screenwas subsequently (in 1973) eliminated from further consideration as a candidate fish screening device for the Peripheral Canal. This paper documents the reasoning behind the decision to drop the HTFS.

THE CONCEPT The concept of the 

### HTFS was described by Bates (1970) and progressed through several models throughModel 7 which was tested at a facility on the Grande Ronde River near the town of Troy, Oregon. A schematic diagram of a Model 7 HTFS is shown in Figure 1. Themodel consisted of a series of vertical screenpanels which continuouslymoved along a triangular configuration. The downstream leg traveled diagonally across the current and the upstream legwas parallel to the intake channel. Fish, eggs, and debris coming downstream were carried or guided into a bypass. The mesh size of the screenpanels could be varied depending on the size and swimming ability of the organisms to be protected.

TEST

### RESULTS The HTFSwas tested most thoroughly at the Troy facility. The results of these tests havebeen published by Prenticeand Ossiander (1973) and Farr and Prentice (1973). The test flume was 

### 76 metres long by 12metres wide, and 4 metres deep. The48 screenpanels were covered with eight mesh,'0.7 mm hiiametergalvanized wire clothhaving a 2.5 mm clear opening (about 3/32 inch), with a total open area of 60.2 percent. The test fishwere hatchery-reared spring chinook salmon in four size groups--170 mm, 70mm, 

### 35 mm, and 

### 26 mm total length. The authors tested approachvelocities of 15 to about 

### 90 cm/sec 

### (0.5 to 3.0 ftlsec). The biological tests demonstrated that about 97percent of the fry and fingerling chinook salmonwere bypassed at approach velocities of 15 and 46 cm/sec (0.5 and 1.5 ft/sec), Fry,both sac and buttoned-up, readily impinged on the screenat 

## a function of

.. approach both approachvelocities. Su_v.i-va,l _...o f

.

### th:e ...,.im~jaged-,~fry,...w

- 'I .. . ~ - ...,. ~ ._.. velocity .withmortality..be.?in~.-.~nd.e~-e~nde,n,t.,_o_f 

## ..tk??,,,.rtt,.?% ._-_-. -.... .. .....,.,,. . __, .--_. -..&wkge~ent approach velocity -Of._l5.. 

### cmfsec-; as imFiGiement time increased from 6

.. no-friE$z&e-

.-ac----e.-i.ther

~ . __ to 60minutes.

-----Fingerl-i.n~s..~were .~.

~ approach velocity. y-- . . .



## - 1/Prepared by the Delta Fish Facilities Technical Coordinating Committee, part of the Interagency Ecological Study Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary whosemembers include: California Department of Fish and Game, California Department of Water Resources, 

### U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.-2­ 

# e

..

i I

a 

## 5

n 

# j g

P

rl W

### -3-

As is apparent from the abovematerial, the HTFS demonstrated biological potential although there were additional problems with fish escaping through openings around the screenpanels. The ultimateproblems with the HTFS were mechanical, associated with the large number of moving parts in the structure, The panel supports (sliding connections) were subject to considerable wear. The panel hinges created problems, especially on turns and at higher approach velocities. Lubricationof the underwater fittings proved to be difficult. Finally, debris, sand, and silt collected 

### in the underwater track, jamming the screen. The overall conclusionon the mechanical aspects of the Model 7 HTFS at Troy was there were problems, but that they could be worked out given enough time. About the time the 

### HTFS was being tested at Troy, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) installed a similar screenat the Van Arsdale Dam on the Eel (Brian Waters,personal communication). During the initial operation at this facility, PG&E found that the HTFS diverted fish successfullybut that mechanical problems hampered its operation. Some of themechanical problems were solved;however, PG&Ebiologists and engineers never resolved the problem of sediment,debris, and gravel clogging the track and slowing and/or stopping the screen. The original screen is still in place at Van Arsdale but it is nowbeing operated as a non-moving fixed plate screen to divert fish into collection facilities.

CONCLUSION Based on the data available in 1973, the Fish Facilities Technical Coordinating Committee recommended that the KTFSbe dropped from further consideration as a screening concept for the Peripheral Canal. The information from Troy and Van Arsdale demonstrated that the screenhad potential but that it was so mechanically complex that several years of studywould be necessary to make it perform adequately. Even at best, the 0 & 

### M costs on the HTFS would probably be higher than other available screen concepts suchas the fixed plate and revolving drum. The principal biological advantage of the HTFS, the ability to screeneggs and larvae of striped bass and American shad by selecting the proper screenopenings,was lost when the Committee decided that curtailment of diversionwould be used to protect these life stages. Developmental work on the HTFS essentially stopped in 1972when the tests at Troy were completed. Nothing has occurred in the interim to cause the present Technical Committee to change the recommendationmade in 1973, i.e. drop the concept. We will continue to follow the fish screen literature, and, if new data warrant, the merits of the HTFS will be reviewed in the future.-4-



### LITERATURE CITED

Bates, Daniel 

### W. 1970. Diversionand collection of juvenile fishwith traveling screens. U. S. Fish Widl. Service, Fish. Leafl. 633. Farr,Winston 

### E. and Earl F. Prentice. 1973. Summary Report. Mechanical Operation of Horizontal Traveling ScreenModel 

### VII. Nat. Ocean. Atmos. Admin., Nat. Mar. Fish. Ser. Rept, 14p. Prentice,Earl 

### F. and Frank J. Ossiander. 1973. Summary Report. Biological Investigation of Horizontal Traveling ScreenModel VII, Nat. Ocean. Atmos, Admin., Nat. Mar. Fish. Ser. Rept. 19 p.