Assessment of Fish Entrainment and Fish Passage Issues

1
Assessment of Fish Entrainment and Fish Passage
Issues
DeSabla-Centerville Relicensing Project

• FERC No. 803
• Relicensing Study Plan

2
Proposed Goals

• Assess the feasibility and potential costs for
  potential full mitigation measures, which include
  fish screens and fish ladders (tier 3)

3
Screens and Ladder Sites
4
Screens Only Sites
Screen
5
Sites not included in this presentation

• Toadtown Powerhouse - Screen
• DeSabla Powerhouse - Screen
• Little Butte Creek Diversion - Screen
• Helltown Ravine - Screen
• Round Valley Dam - Ladder
• Philbrook Dam - Ladder

6
Screen Types Considered

• In Canal Screens
• Drum Screens
• Flat Plate Screens / Vertical
• Flat Plate Screens / Horizontal
• In-stream Screens
• Flat Plate Screens
• Perforated Curtains
• Coanda/Eicher Screen
• EPRI Modular Incline Screen (MIS)

7
In Canal Considerations for Screens and Ladders

• Positives
• Flow is constant / controlled
• Bypass flows to the stream bed is utilized as
  passing flows for the screen
• Trash is removed by grizzly in a controlled
  environment instead of in the stream
• Negatives
• Fish are delayed in screen approach area with
  possible predation problems
• High velocity at intake requires second passage
  if ladder exists at the site
• Different water elevation in canal and intake
  requires ladder with variable gates

8
In-stream Considerations for Screens and Ladders

• Positives
• Provides cover for small fish
• Fish are not removed from their habitat
• Negatives
• Debris is highly destructive
• Maintenance is more difficult
• Bypass flows to the stream would be separated
  from the canal flows requiring larger releases to
  the stream than are presently permitted
• Screen cleaning is difficult a grizzly would be
  required upstream
• Flows in stream vary greatly requiring larger
  screen area and causing flow balancing
  difficulties

9
Butte Creek Diversion Dam Proposed Fish Ladder
and Screen
10
Butte Creek Bypass and Canyon
11
Butte Creek Bypass
12
Butte Creek Downstream of Dam
13
Butte Creek Diversion DamGeneral Description

• 44 high dam
• 5 x 6 gate to tunnel
• Long raised canal in steep terrain
• Present bypass flows drop at least 30 ft.
  vertically out of canal
• Fish passage required around tunnel

14
Butte Creek Diversion DamProposed Fish Ladder
and Screen
15
Butte Creek Diversion DamEngineering
Construction Challenges

• Very steep terrain with large spring turbulent
  flows
• Site has no power available
• Construction materials brought in by helicopter
• Long access for personnel
• Strict safety requirements for construction
  workers would be necessary in the steep slopes,
  and would greatly increase construction time
• Construction should not interfere with operations
• Tunnel and headgate velocities are too high for
  fish passage

16
Butte Creek Diversion DamProposed Screen
Ladder Used

• Modular flat plate vertical screen would be
  placed in canal at tunnel exit
• Bypass flows to a fish ladder would consist of
  denil ladders (Alaska Steeppass or equivalent)
  and resting pools built into the mountain side
• River discharge structure of concrete must
  provide the minimum river release flows of 16 CFS
  as attraction flow
• Screen would require a substantial grizzly with
  flush cleaning and hoisting capabilities
• Screen cleaning would use sweeping brushes and
  would require power from a propane fueled engine
  generator
• Screen area would be 300 ft2 minimum to meet Cal.
  DFG requirements
• Baffles behind screen would be used to balance
  flows
• Existing headgate and tunnel would require
  extensive modifications to lower velocities for
  fish migration upstream

17
Hendricks Diversion DamProposed Fish Screen
Ladder
18
Hendricks Canal Head Gate
19
Hendricks Canal Grizzly
20
Hendricks Canal Control Gate
21
Hendricks Diversion DamGeneral Description

• 8.8 ft high dam
• 2 each 4.3 x 4.6 ft gates to canal dug into the
  earth
• A grizzly, a bypass and an abandoned fish screen
  site exists about 200 yards down stream from the
  headgates.

22
Hendricks Diversion DamProposed Fish Screen
Ladder
23
(No Transcript)
24
Hendricks Diversion DamEngineering
Construction Challenges

• Site has no power available
• Construction should not interfere with operations
• Headgate velocities are too high for fish passage
• The abandoned fish screen was perpendicular to
  flows and far smaller than current standards
  (water driven drum screen)
• Will require modifications of the gates and
  portions of the canal to pass fish

25
Hendricks Diversion DamProposed Screen Ladder
Used

• Modular flat plate vertical screen would be
  placed in canal
• 15 CFS of bypass flows would be directed to a
  denil fish ladder (Alaska steeppass or
  equivalent) near the original screen location,
  which is about 100 yards from the West Branch
  Feather River
• River discharge structure of concrete must
  provide the minimum river release flows of 15 CFS
  as attraction flow
• Screen would require a substantial grizzly with
  flush cleaning and hoisting capabilities
• Screen cleaning would use sweeping brushes and
  would require power from a propane fueled engine
  generator
• Screen area would be 400 ft2 minimum to meet Cal.
  DFG requirements
• Baffles behind screen would be used to balance
  flows
• Existing headgate would require extensive
  modifications to lower velocities or a ladder for
  fish passage

26
Lower Centerville Diversion Dam
27
Lower Centerville Canal Grizzly
28
Lower Centerville Dam Downstream (possible fish
ladder site)
29
Lower Centerville Dam Downstream (creek flow
observation May 2006)
30
Lower Centerville Dam Head Gate (discharge to
canal)
31
Lower Centerville Dam Aerial View
32
Lower Centerville Diversion DamGeneral
Description

• 12 ft. high dam
• 2 each 3 x 6 intake gates
• An existing pipe grizzly and hoist clean large
  wood and debris (located about 100 yards down
  stream from the intake structure)
• An overflow is located about 50 yards downstream
• Road access is very poor and steep, but useable

33
Lower Centerville Diversion Dam
34
(No Transcript)
35
(No Transcript)
36
Lower Centerville Diversion DamEngineering
Construction Challenges

• Dam is inaccessible except along head gates and
  canal
• Large boulders move downstream during high flows,
  even to the head gates
• Terrain is extremely steep into the canyon
• Truck access is slow and steep with no shoulders
  along road
• Power is available from DeSabla power house but
  limited
• Large turbulent flows in spring (over 1200 CFS in
  May 06)
• Construction should not interrupt operations

37
Lower Centerville Diversion Dam Proposed Screen
Ladder Used

• 550 to 600 ft2 flat plate vertical, modular
  screen located in the canal would be placed just
  downstream of the headworks
• A new grizzly would protect the screen and be
  located upstream of, or at the existing overflow
• Bypass flows of 40 CFS would discharge into a
  fish ladder consisting of concrete and boulder
  ponds with v-notch weir passages
• The headworks and a portion of the canal would be
  modified to reduce flow velocities in the fish
  ladder / screen approach channel
• Other requirements would be hoisting sweeping
  brush cleaning and baffles behind screens

38
Long Ravine Diversion Dam Proposed Screens
39
Long Ravine Dam
40
Long Ravine Grizzly
41
Long Ravine Radial Gate
42
Long Ravine Access over Creek
43
Long Ravine Diversion Dam General Description

• 6.5 high dam recaptures all 120 CFS of the
  Hendricks canal
• Canal flows are controlled by 6 x 10 radial
  gate protected by a grizzly
• In-stream releases are very low (1 CFS) and not
  adequate for screen bypass flows

44
Long Ravine Diversion Dam Proposed Screens
45
Long Ravine Diversion DamEngineering
Construction Challenges

• Very steep terrain with large spring turbulent
  flows
• Site has no power available
• Construction materials brought in by helicopter
• Long access for personnel
• Strict safety requirements for construction
  workers would be necessary in the steep slopes,
  and would greatly increase construction time
• Construction should not interfere with operations
• Velocities are too high for fish passage at the
  radial gate
• There is insufficient bypass flows for any screen
  system as presently operated
• Bypass flows to long ravine would place screened
  fish into a steep gradient creek which would
  possibly be detrimental to their survival

46
Long Ravine Diversion DamProposed Screen Used

• A 400 ft2 modular flat plate vertical screen in
  the canal downstream of the radial gate would
  discharge at least 10 CFS to the long ravine
  through a by-pass pipe
• The 10 CFS loss would have to be made up from the
  Cunningham or Little West Fork feeders
• Modular flat plate vertical screen would be
  placed in canal downstream from the radial gate
• Screen would require a substantial grizzly with
  flush cleaning and hoisting capabilities
• Screen cleaning would use sweeping brushes and
  would require power from a propane fueled engine
  generator
• Baffles behind screen would be used to balance
  flows
• Existing radial gate would require modifications
  to lower velocities for fish migration upstream

47
Inskip Diversion Dam
48
Inskip Discharge Pipe
49
Inskip Downstream of Dam
50
Inskip Downstream of Dam
51
Inskip Diversion DamGeneral Description

• Small diversion structure, about 1.5H x 2.0W
  un-gated opening to flume
• Very steep creek gradient with significant drop
  to creek bed from dam
• Bypass flows are about 0.25 CFS through two 2
  pipes

52
Inskip Diversion Dam
53
Inskip Diversion Dam Engineering Construction
Challenges

• Diversion is very remote
• Access by walk-in personnel only
• No electric power available
• Present bypass is not adequate for a fish screen
• Very steep terrain
• Construction materials brought in by helicopter
• Strict safety requirements for construction
  workers

54
Inskip Diversion DamProposed Screens Used

• 180 ft2 screen located in the flume would be a
  non self-cleaning vertical flat plate screen
• Present requirements for bypass flows would have
  to be increased to 1.5 CFS for full screen flows
  of 15 CFS
• a small bypass pipe would carry fish to the creek
  bed below which would be modified to dissipate
  the high discharge velocities without harming the
  fish
• Inflows to the screen would have to be protected
  by a new grizzly trash rack that would require
  manual cleaning

55
Kelsey Diversion Dam
56
Kelsey Creek Dam Discharge Pipe
57
Kelsey Creek Discharge Pipe at Butte Canal
58
Kelsey Diversion DamGeneral Description

• Small diversion structure, about 1.5H x 2.0 W
  un-gated opening to flume
• Very steep creek gradient with significant drop
  to creek bed from dam
• Bypass flows are about 0.25 CFS through two 2
  pipes
• Diversion has side spillway which discharges
  vertically to creek bed below

59
Kelsey Diversion Dam Engineering Construction
Challenges

• Diversion is very remote
• Access by walk-in personnel only
• No electric power available
• Present bypass is not adequate for fish screen
  bypass flows
• Very steep terrain
• Construction materials brought in by helicopter
• Strict safety requirements for construction
  workers

60
Kelsey Diversion DamProposed Screens Used

• 24 ft2 screen located in the flume would be a non
  self-cleaning vertical flat plate screen
• A small bypass pipe would carry fish to the creek
  bed below which would be modified to dissipate
  the high discharge velocities without harming the
  fish
• Inflows to the screen would have to be protected
  by a new grizzly trash rack that would require
  manual cleaning
• see sketch for Inskip for additional information

61
Cunningham Diversion Dam
62
Cunningham Dam
63
Cunningham Creek Access
64
Cunningham Creek Down Stream of Dam
65
Cunningham Diversion DamGeneral Description

• 4-2 diversion structure diverts water into a
  16 diameter pipe
• No grizzly or control gate
• Steep terrain and river gradient
• No electric power available
• Limited access by trail

66
Cunningham Diversion DamEngineering
Construction Challenges

• Diversion is very remote
• Access by walk-in personnel only
• No electric power available
• Present bypass is not adequate for fish screen
  bypass
• Very steep terrain
• Strict safety requirements for construction
  workers

67
Cunningham Diversion DamProposed Screens Used

• 60 ft2 screen located in the flume/pipe would be
  a non self-cleaning vertical flat plate screen
• 0.5 CFS bypass flows through pipe to creek bed
  with energy dissipater
• New manual cleaned grizzly required
• see sketch for Inskip for additional information

68
Little West Fork Diversion Dam
69
Little West Fork Ditch to Canal
70
Little West Fork Pipe
71
Little West Fork Diversion DamGeneral Description

• 2-10 high by 10 wide diversion structure
• 16 diameter pipe
• No grizzly or control gate

72
Little West Fork Diversion DamEngineering
Construction Challenges

• The grizzly and the flat plate screen would need
  to be self-cleaning using the bypass flows
• Diversion is very remote
• Access by walk-in personnel only
• No electric power available
• Present bypass is not adequate for fish screen
  bypass
• Very steep terrain
• Strict safety requirements for construction
  workers

73
Little West Fork Diversion DamProposed Fish
Screens Used

• 60ft2 self-cleaning/flushing flat plate vertical
  screen
• The grizzly and the flat plate screen would need
  to be self-cleaning using the bypass flows
• Diversion is very remote
• Access by walk-in personnel only
• No electric power available
• Present bypass is not adequate for fish screen
  bypass
• Very steep terrain
• Strict safety requirements for construction
  workers
• see sketch for Inskip for additional information

74
Clear Creek Diversion Dam
75
Clear Creek Dam Approach
76
Clear Creek Dam Up Stream
77
Clear Creek Dam Down Stream
78
Clear Creek Diversion DamGeneral Description

• 7 high concrete dam diverts water through a
  sloped grizzly
• 4 x 4 slide gate
• Transition concrete structure to a 16 pipe with
  a significant slope to the Butte canal

79
Clear Creek Diversion DamEngineering
Construction Challenges

• Diversion is very remote
• Access by walk-in personnel only
• No electric power available
• Present bypass is not adequate for fish screen
  bypass
• Very steep terrain
• Construction materials brought in by helicopter
• Strict safety requirements for construction
  workers
• Major water falls upstream and downstream of dam
  make fish passage highly unlikely.

80
Clear Creek Diversion DamProposed Screens Used

• A 135 ft2 modular, flat plate, vertical fish
  screen would be installed upstream of the 16
  pipe
• The entire screen system would be constructed on
  a raised steel structure
• Bypass flows would have to be increased to clear
  creek to 4 CFS minimum
• The bypass pipe and discharge area would be
  designed to dissipate the high energy of the fall
  without harming fish
• Screen cleaning would be mechanical brushes
  powered by propane fueled engine generator
• Cleaning should occur on pressure differential
  across screen
• Low voltage battery power would be used for
  instrumentation.

81
Estimated Cost of Screens and Ladders
82
Estimated Cost of Screens and Ladders