INTERAGENCY ECOLOGICAL STUDY PROGRAM FOR 

THE SACRAMENTO-SAM JOAQUIN ESTUARY 

DELTA FISH FACILITIES TECHNICAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE 

... 

WORKING JUSTIFICATION PAPER NO. 8 

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

'/Preliminary Design Criteria $or the . - ..- -.-J .. . .. .._---

Peripheral Canal Intake Fish Facilities" 

May, 1981 

c 
PRELIMINARY DESIGN CRITERIA FOR THE 

PERIPHERAL CANAL INTAKE FISH FACILITIE&' 

INTRODUCTION 

This is a "working justification paper" that presents the rationale for the 

present direction of the Delta Fish Facilities Program. It was prepared by 

the Delta Fish Facilities Technical Coordinating Committee whose members include both biological and engineering staff of the Interagency Ecological 

Study Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, As a "working" document it is subject to change based on new findings, policy redirection, financia1 considerations, and other constraints. ... 

This paper presents the preliminary design criteria for the Peripheral Canal 

intake fish facilities and the rationale behind each criterion. The criteria have been reviewed by both staff and the Fish Facilities Consulting 

Board, an independent review body accountable to the Agency Coordinators of 

the Interagency Ecological Study Program for the Sacramento-San 3oaquin Estuary. 

DISCUSSION 

The preliminary design criteria are arranged from upstream to downstream and 

reflect the selection of an "off-river" intake concept as described in our 

first "working justification paper" (Anonymous 19791, 

A, Intake 

The intake of the Peripheral Canal shall be located in an "off-river" channel, located on the left bank of the Sacramento River near the town of Hood, 

California. The location of the turnout, on the outside of a bend, is 

being selected by mathematical and hydraulic model studies to maintain a 

smooth hydraulic flow through the intake structure and minimize the entrainment of sediment (Hartman et al. 1979). Additional detailed hydraulic 

model studies-arein progress to refine the location and design of the 

structure, 

B. Trashrack 

1, Velocity through the trashrack may range between 2 and 3 ft/s and 

the facility will be designed to minimize variations in velocity 

-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. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

and 17, S. Water and Power Resources Service, 
-2­

across the face of the structure. This criterion is based,on the 

results of studies just completed which indicate that velocities 

of at least 2 ft/s are necessary to assure the passage of juvenile 

fish without delay (Reading MSa), 

2. Trashrack bar spacing will be no less than 9 in. between bars, This 

criterion 4s also based OR the results of studies just completed 

(Reading MSa) as well as work performed by Hanson and Li (MS! with 

juvenile chinook salmon. The objective is to pass juvenile fish 

without delay and allow migrating adults to pass through the structure 

3. The trashrack will be located near the river, but may be set back 

from the bank of the river to minimize hydraulic problems. The 

hydraulic model studies have demonstrated significant advantages 

in locating the trashrack in the intake channel where the flow is 

uniform. 

4. Each trashrack bar will be oriented with its long side parallel to 

the diversion flow. The purpose of this criterion is to assure 

the passage of fish by minimizing the turbulence associatedwith 

the trashrack. 

5. There will be a sill at the bank of the river-ofat least 10 ft, 

The intent of this criterion is to attempt to avoid entraining benthic organisms and bedload material by providing a sill at the base 

of the structure. This should provide some measure of protection 

from entrainment for benthic fish which are migrating past the intake structure, although we have been unable to quantify the value 

of such a structure to fish. Work in progress with side-scanning 

sonar may provide information in this regard. 

C. Approach Channel 

1, The channel will be designed to minimize deadwater areas, turbulence, 

and eddies. These hydraulic flow disturbances have been identified 

as locations where predatory fish accumulate to prey on juvenile 

outmigrant fish, Thus, every effort will be made to eliminate these 

areas (Anonymous 1980). 

2. Each side and the floor of the channel may taper at no more than a 

loo angle from the plane parallel to the centerline of the channel. 

Studies cbnducted by Meinz (1978) and Mecum (1980) indicated that 

this angle was critical to the successful passage of juvenile fish, 

with an angle of 100 producing the highest gain in fish passage 

while still allowing the channel to taper. 

3. The channel velocity will not be less than twice the approach velocity to the screen and must not exceed 3 ft/s. This criterion is 

based on the need to provide a positive downstream flow component 

to guide the fish past the screen, Small fish detect velocity gradients and orient themselves to migrate downstream, Thus, a positive 

velocity component should guide the fish past the screens. The 
-3­

maximum velocity of 3 ft/s was selected to avoid scouring the unlined "off-river" channel. This criterion may be adjusted after 

site explorations. 

D. Screen Structure 

1. Design approach velocity will be 0.2 ft/s perpendicular to the screen 

face and uniform across the wetted face of the screen. Variations 

during operation of 0.1 ft!s in spots will be acceptable, This 

criterion is based on the results of a long series of swimming performance studies (Skinner 1974, Fisher E976, Fisher 1981). The 

specific criterion is to protect juvenile American shad in darkness 

and is based on the results of tests reported by Kano (MSa), Verification of these results will be accomplished during the summer of 

1981 and may result in some modification of the criterion. 

2. The screen will be totally submerged during all combinations of tidal....-

stage and river flow, 

3. The screen will be vertically oriented. This criterion is based on 

the work reported by Kano (MSa) and is also subject to verification 

during tests scheduled for the summer of 1981. 

4. The channel sides and floor may taper at no mire than a 10° angle 

from the plane parallel to the centerline of the channel. The 

rationale is presented in C. 2, 

E. Screen Material 

1. The percent open area will not be less than 46%. The materials tested 

in our retention, swimming ability, clogging, and cleaning tests 

had open areas of at least this value, thus, no test data is available for materials with less open area. 

2. Perforated plate material will have holes which do not exceed a 

diameter of 5/32 in, This criterion is based on the results reported by Fisher (1978). Tlie criterion will protect all chinook 

salmon and American shad juveniles passing the Hood intake site, 

Sturgeon beginning at 26 mm in length should also be protected by 

this material (Reading MS)., 

3. Slotted material will meet the following criteria: 

a, Continuous slot material will not exceed a 3/32 in, slot width. 

b, Rectangular slot material will have a slot width of 3/32 in. if 

the diagonal opening of the material exceeds 5/32 in. 

These criteria are based on the same studies as those for perforated 

plate and subsequent studies on the continuous slot material conducted with chinook salmon and American shad (Kano MSb), 
-4-

F. Bypass 

1. The bypass will be an open channel, with depth maximized within the 

constraint that the channel must not be less than 36 in. wide. The 

vertical displacement of fish will be minimized. This criterion is 

based on the results of the work reported by Mecum (1980) which showed 

that maximum passage of juvenile American shad and chinook salmon required a bypass width of at least 36 in.. The vertical displacement 

criterion is the result of a desire to avoid involuntary vertical 

displacement of the fish, a movement which affects the fishes air 

bladder, with a resulting stress. 

2. The velocities will not be less than the channel velocity nor exceed 

-ft/s. This criterion was selected to move the fish through the 

system as quickly as possible, while avoiding sudden acceleration 

or decelerations which could disorient or stress the fish, Studies 

to establish this criterion are currently in progress. .-­

3. Each side and the floor may taper at no more than a loo angle from 

the plane parallel to the centerline of the channel. The rationale 

has been discussed in C, 2. 

4. Turbulence must be minimized. The rationale has been discussed in 

c. 1. 

5. The bypass channel will be long enough to reduce or eliminate the 

chance of multiple exposure to the screen system during tidal reversalse 

6, Fish Bypass Exit 

1. Turbulence should be minimized. The rationale has been discussed 

in B. 1. 

2. Bypass and river velocity must match to the extent possible. This 

criterion will provide a less turbulent return to the river. Due 

to fluctuations in the river flow, an average velocity may need to 

be chosen (Anonymous 1981). 

ti. Pumps 

1. The pumps will be designed to minimize delay, disorientation, and 

mortality-ofboth juvenile and adult migrants. This element is the 

subject of ongoing studies and results are forthcoming. 

2, The pumps will only operate when needed, This criterion should reduce the period of time when fish have to contend with the pump. 

Pumping Will be required during controlled low river flow periods 

when tidal reversals in flow reach the end of the off-river channel. 

3. The pump will be located (as near to/as fay from) the river return 

as possible., This criterion will depend on the results of the ongoing pump tesr program. 
I, Miscellaneous 

1, A positive downstream flow of (5oT)/1,000/1,500~cubic ft/s will be 

maintained through the bypass system at all times, Specific criteria will be based on the results of detailed operation studies 

and our pump testing program. 

2. Instream and overhead structures will be minimized in any channel 

where fish are present and any instream structures should be streamlined to minimize turbulence and eddies. These conditions are known 

to create conditions favorable to predation and thus should be minimized (Anonymous 1980). 

CONCLUSION 

Tttese preliminary criteria are intended to provide the designers with a basis 

for revising their preliminary designs. This process will involve considerable 

feedback as design requirements and design criteria impact on one another and 

are modified, This process should serve to refine both the designs and the 

criteria, as well as pointing out potential weaknesses in the criteria, 
-- 

-6-

LITERATURE CITED 

A~o~~ous, 1979. Justification �or proceeding with an “off-river” intake concept for the Peripheral Canal. Delta Fish Facilities Technical Coordinating 

Cornittee, Working Jnstification Paper No. 1. 3 p. 

1980. Predation management for the Peripheral Canal fish facilities, 

Delta Fish Facilities Technical Coordinating Committee. Working Justification Paper No, 5, 12 pa 

1982. Conditions relating to fish migrations in the Sacramento 

River at Hood with possible exit strategies for the fish screen bypass, 

Peripheral Canal, Delta Fish Facilities Technical Coordinating Cornittee. 

Working Justification Paper NO, 7. 10 p. 

Fisher, Frank W. 1976. Swimming ability of juvenile American shad (Alosa 

sapidissima). Calif. Dept. Fish and Game, Anad. Fish, Br, Admin. ReptWc;--. 

76-9. 6 p. 

1978. Retention of young king salmon, American shad, and 

striped bass by perforated plate and woven wire screens. Calif. Dept. 

Fish and Game, bad, Fish. Br, Admin. Rept. 78-18. 19 p. 

1981. Long- term swimming performance of -juvenile American 

shad, Alosa sapidissima, and chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha; 

Calif, Dept. Fish and Game, had. Fish. Br, Admin. Rept. 81-2, 19 p, 

Hanson, Charles H. and Hiram W. Li. MS. Behavioral response of juvenile 

chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) to trashracks bar spacing. 

Hartman, W. J,, J. Amorocho, and J, J. DeVries. 1979. Peripheral Canal intake studies. 1, Distorted river channel model. Volumes 1 and 2. Water 

Science and Engineering Paper No. 1064. Dept, Water Sci. and Ehg., Univ. 

oE Calif., Davis. 

Knno, Robert M. MSa. Swimming performance of juvenile chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, and American shad, Alosa sapidissima, in two-vector 

flow conditions, 

MSb. Chinook salmon and American shad retention tests with 

various slotted materials. 

Mecum, W. Lee. 1980. The efficiency of various bypass configurations for 

juvenile striped bass, Morone saxatilis, and American shad, Alosa sapiilissima. Calif, Dept. of Fish and Game, Anad. Fish, Br. Admiri. Rept. 80-12, 

16 p. 

Meinz, Mike. 1978. Factors affecting louver guidance efficiency for juvenile king salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Calif Dept. Fish and Game, Anad. Fish. Br. Admin. Repto 78-22, 17 p. 
-7-

Reading, Harvey, MSa, Trashrack bar spacing tests for juvenile chinook salmon and American shad. 

MSb. Sturgeon retention tests with perforated plate and 

continuous slot material. 

Skinner, John E, 1974. A functional evaluation of a large louver screen installation and fish facilities research on California water diversion projects. 

-

In: L. D. Jensen (ed.) Proceedings of the second entrainment and intake

screening workshop. The Johns Hopk.ins University Cooling Water Research 

Project (15). 

;5. 

c