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 
-- 

-- 

HORIZCINTALTRAVELING FISH SCREEN STATU&/ 

INTRODUCTION 

The horizontal traveling fish screen (HTFS) was one of the screening concepts considered for use in the intake works of the proposed Peripheral Canal. The impetus 

for considering.theHTFS came in 1965 when the California Department of Fish and 

Game informed the Department of Water Resources that louvers were 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 screen was 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 through Model 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. The model consisted of a series of vertical screen panels 

which continuously moved along a triangular configuration. The downstream leg 

traveled diagonally across the current and the upstream leg was parallel to the 

intake channel. Fish, eggs, and debris coming downstream were carried or guided 

into a bypass. The mesh size of the screen panels could be varied depending on the 

size and swimming ability of the organisms to be protected. 

TEST RESULTS 

The HTFS was tested most thoroughly at the Troy facility. The results of these 

tests have been published by Prentice and Ossiander (1973) and Farr and Prentice 

(1973). The test flume was 76 metres long by 12 metres wide, and 4 metres deep. 

The 48 screen panels were covered with eight mesh,'0.7 mm hiiameter galvanized 

wire cloth having a 2.5 mm clear opening (about 3/32 inch), with a total open 

area of 60.2 percent. The test fish were hatchery-reared spring chinook salmon 

in four size groups--170 mm, 70 mm, 35 mm, and 26 mm total length. The authors 

tested approach velocities of 15 to about 90 cm/sec (0.5 to 3.0 ftlsec). 

The biological tests demonstrated that about 97 percent of the fry and fingerling 

chinook salmon were 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 screen at 

both approach velocities. Su_v.i-va,l_...of . th:e...,.im~jaged-,~fry,...w a function - 'I .. . ~ of.. approach - ...,. ~ ._.. 

._-_-. velocity -.... .. .with .... .,.,,. mortality..be.?in~.-.~nd.e~-e~nde,n,t.,_o_f . __, .-- _. -..&wkge~ent ..tk??,,,.rtt,.?%approach 

velocity -Of._l5.. cmfsec-; as imFiGiement 

time ~ increased . __ from 6 .to . 60 minutes.-----Fingerl-i.n~s..~were no-friE$z&e- .-ac----e.-i.ther .~. ~ 

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 whose members 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 above material, the HTFS demonstrated biological potential although there were additional problems with fish escaping through openings 

around the screen panels. The ultimate problems 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. 

Lubrication of the underwater fittings proved to be difficult. Finally, debris, 

sand, and silt collected in the underwater track, jamming the screen. The 

overall conclusion on 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 screen at 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 successfully but that mechanical problems 

hampered its operation. Some of the mechanical problems were solved; however, 

PG&E biologists 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 now being 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 KTFS be dropped from further consideration as 

a screening concept for the Peripheral Canal. The information from Troy and 

Van Arsdale demonstrated that the screen had potential but that it was so 

mechanically complex that several years of study would 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 such as the fixed plate and 

revolving drum. The principal biological advantage of the HTFS, the ability 

to screen eggs and larvae of striped bass and American shad by selecting the 

proper screen openings, was lost when the Committee decided that curtailment 

of diversion would be used to protect these life stages. 

Developmental work on the HTFS essentially stopped in 1972 when the tests at 

Troy were completed. Nothing has occurred in the interim to cause the present 

Technical Committee to change the recommendation made 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. Diversion and collection of juvenile fish with 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 Screen Model VII. Nat. Ocean. Atmos. Admin., 

Nat. Mar. Fish. Ser. Rept, 14 p. 

Prentice, Earl F. and Frank J. Ossiander. 1973. Summary Report. Biological 

Investigation of Horizontal Traveling Screen Model VII, Nat. Ocean. Atmos, 

Admin., Nat. Mar. Fish. Ser. Rept. 19 p.