INTERAGENCY ECOLOGICAL STUDY PROGRAM 

### FOR
THE SACRAMENTO-SAM JOAQUIN ESTUARY

DELTA FISH FACILITIES TECHNICAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE

..

### .

WORKING JUSTIFICATION PAPER NO. 

### 8

.-_-.._--._..I .~ . .~, .. . .. .---------., '/PreliminaryDesign Criteria $or the 

## .

- -.-J

..- .. . .. .._--- Peripheral Canal Intake Fish Facilities"

May, 1981 cPRELIMINARYDESIGN CRITERIA FOR 

### THE



### PERIPHERALCANAL 

### INTAKEFISH FACILITIE&'

INTRODUCTION

This is a "working justificationpaper" that presents the rationale for the present directionof the Delta Fish Facilities Program. 

### Itwas prepared by the Delta Fish Facilities Technical Coordinating Committeewhose members includeboth biological and engineering staff of the Interagency Ecological Study Program for the Sacramento-San JoaquinEstuary, As a "working" document it is subject to changebased 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 rationalebehind each criterion. The criteria have been reviewed by both staff and the Fish Facilities Consulting Board, an independent reviewbody accountable to the Agency Coordinators of the Interagency Ecological Study Program for the Sacramento-San 3oaquin Estuary.

DISCUSSION

The preliminary design criteria are arranged fromupstream 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 locationof the turnout, on the outside of a bend, is being selected by mathematical and hydraulic model studies to maintain a smoothhydraulic 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 trashrackmay range between 2 and 3 ft/s and the facility will be designed to minimize variations 

### invelocity

- 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. 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 aswork performed by Hanson and 

### Li (MS! with juvenile chinook salmon. The objective is to pass juvenile fish without delay and allowmigrating 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 fishbyminimizing 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 somemeasure of protection from entrainment for benthic fishwhich aremigrating 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 tominimize deadwater areas, turbulence, and eddies. Thesehydraulic flowdisturbances 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 nomore 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 fishpassage while still allowing the channel to taper. 3. The channel velocity will not be less than twice the approach velocity to the screenand 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 tomigrate 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 criterionmay 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 juvenileAmerican shad indarkness and is based on the results of tests reported by Kano (MSa), Verificationof these results will be accomplished during the summer of 1981 and may result in somemodification of the criterion.
2. The screenwill be totally submerged during all combinations of tidal.. 

### ..- stage and river flow, 3. The screenwill 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 nomire 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 than46%. 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. Slottedmaterial will meet the following criteria:

a, Continuous slotmaterial 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 depthmaximized within the constraint that the channel must not be less than 36 

### in. wide. The vertical displacement 

### of fishwill beminimized. 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 salmonrequired abypass width of at least 36 in.. The vertical displacement criterion is the result of a desire to avoid involuntaryvertical displacement of the fish, amovement 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 criterionwas selected to move the fish through the systemas quickly as possible, while avoiding sudden acceleration or decelerations which could disorient or stress the fish, Studies to establish this criterion are currently inprogress. 

### .-­ 3. Each side and the floormay 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. Turbulencemust be minimized. The rationalehas been discussed in 

## c. 1.
5. The bypass channel will be long enough to reduce or eliminate the chance of multiple exposure to the screensystem during tidal reversalse 6, Fish Bypass Exit
1. Turbulence should be minimized. The rationalehas been discussed in B. 1.
2. Bypass and river velocitymust match to the extent possible. This criterionwill provide a less turbulent return to the river. Due to fluctuations in the river flow, an averagevelocitymay need to be chosen (Anonymous 1981).
ti. Pumps
1. The pumps 

### will be designed tominimize 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 fishhave to contend with the pump. Pumping Will be required during controlled low river 

### flowperiods 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. Instreamand overhead structureswill 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 mini

### mized (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 refineboth the designs 

### and the criteria,as well as pointing out potential weaknesses 

### in the criteria,-- -6-

LITERATURE CITED



### A~o~~ous,Justification�orproceeding with an “off-river” intake con

### 1979. cept for the Peripheral Canal. Delta Fish Facilities Technical Coordinating Cornittee, Working JnstificationPaper No. 1. 3 p. 1980. Predationmanagement for the Peripheral Canal fish facilities, Delta Fish Facilities Technical Coordinating Committee. Working Justification Paper No, 

### 5, 12pa 1982. Conditions relating to fishmigrations in the Sacramento River at Hood with possible exit strategies for the fish screenbypass, 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. 

### 6p. 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


## - juvenileAmerican 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 slottedmaterials. 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 juvenilechinook salmon and American shad. MSb. Sturgeonretention tests with perforated plate and continuous slotmaterial. 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.insUniversity Cooling Water Research Project (15).

;5.
c