The goal of this project is to prevent mortality and/or injury to all life stages of anadromous and resident fish at irrigation diversions. Obsolete Yakima basin fish screens constructed in the 1930's, 40's, 50's, 60's, and 70's must be replaced or updated to comply with current regional fish screen biological protection criteria adopted by Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA), Fish Screening Oversight Committee (FSOC) in 1995. This goal is being accomplished through an on-going effort by the Yakima Basin Phase II Technical Work Group (TWG), which is comprised of local, state, federal, tribal and private groups who prioritizes and assign screening projects. Prioritized screening projects are completed through coordination between the Bureau of Reclamations (BOR), who design and permit, and the WDFW who fabricate the screens for these projects. The following is the 2004 fish screening facility construction schedule as proposed by the Bureau of Reclamation Design Group (USBR) and Fish Passage Technical Work Group (TWG).
The goal of this project was to restore ESA listed and resident fish stocks within the Yakima Basin by preventing mortality and/or injury to all life stages of anadromous and resident fish at irrigation diversions. This goal is being accomplished through an on-going effort by the Yakima Basin Phase II Technical Work Group (TWG), which is comprised of local, state, federal, tribal and private groups who prioritize and assign screening projects.
The goal of this project is to assure that the benefits of BPA's capital investment in Yakima Basin Phase II fish screen facilities are realized by performing operations that assure optimal fish protection and long facility life through a rigorous preventative maintenance program, while helping to restore ESA listed fish stocks in the Yakima River Basin.
The goal of this project is to assure that the benefits of BPA's capital investment in Yakima Basin Phase II fish screen facilities are realized by performing operations that assure optimal fish protection and long facility life through a rigorous preventative maintenance program, while helping to restore ESA listed fish stocks in the Yakima River Basin.
The goal of this project is to assure that the benefits of BPA's capital investment in Yakima Basin Phase II fish screen facilities are realized by performing operations that assure optimal fish protection and long facility life through a rigorous preventative maintenance program, while helping to restore ESA listed fish stocks in the Yakima River Basin.
In 2002, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory evaluated 23 Phase II fish screen sites in the Yakima River Basin as part of a multi-year project for the Bonneville Power Administration on the effectiveness of fish screening devices. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory collected data to determine whether velocities in front of the screens and in the bypasses met National Marine Fisheries Service criteria to promote safe and timely fish passage and whether bypass outfall conditions allowed fish to safely return to the river. In addition, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory conducted underwater video surveys to evaluate the environmental and operational conditions of the screen sites with respect to fish passage. Based on evaluations in 2002, PNNL concluded that: (1) In general, water velocity conditions at the screen sites met fish passage criteria set by the National Marine Fisheries Service. (2) Conditions at most facilities would be expected to provide for safe juvenile fish passage. (3) Conditions at some facilities indicate that operation and/or maintenance should be modified to increase safe juvenile fish passage. (4) Automated cleaning brushes generally functioned properly; chains and other moving parts were typically well greased and operative. (5) Removal of sediment buildup and accumulated leafy and woody debris should be improved at some sites.
In 2003, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) evaluated 23 Phase II fish screen sites in the Yakima River Basin as part of a multi-year project for the Bonneville Power Administration on the effectiveness of fish screening devices. PNNL collected data to determine whether velocities in front of the screens and in the bypasses met the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries, formerly the National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS]) criteria to promote safe and timely fish passage. In addition, PNNL conducted underwater video surveys to evaluate the environmental and operational conditions of the screen sites with respect to fish passage. Based on evaluations in 2003, PNNL concluded that: (1) In general, water velocity conditions at the screen sites met fish passage criteria set by the NOAA Fisheries. (2) Conditions at most facilities would be expected to provide for safe juvenile fish passage. (3) Conditions at some facilities indicate that operation and/or maintenance should be modified to improve juvenile fish passage conditions. (4) Automated cleaning brushes generally functioned properly; chains and other moving parts were typically well greased and operative. (5) Removal of sediment buildup and accumulated leafy and woody debris could be improved at some sites.
In 2005, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) researchers evaluated 25 Phase II fish screen sites in the Yakima and Touchet river basins. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory performs these evaluations for Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) to determine whether the fish screening devices meet National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) criteria to promote safe and timely fish passage. Evaluations consist of measuring velocities in front of the screens, using an underwater camera to look at the condition and environment in front of the screens, and noting the general condition and operation of the sites. Results of the evaluations in 2005 include the following: (1) Most approach velocities met the NMFS criterion of less than or equal to 0.4 fps. Less than 13% of all approach measurements exceeded the criterion, and these occurred at 10 of the sites. Flat-plate screens had more problems than drum screens with high approach velocities. (2) Bypass velocities generally were greater than sweep velocities, but sweep velocities often did not increase toward the bypass. The latter condition could slow migration of fish through the facility. (3) Screen and seal materials generally were in good condition. (4) Automated cleaning brushes generally functioned properly; chains and other moving parts were typically well-greased and operative. (5) Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) generally operate and maintain fish screen facilities in a way that provides safe passage for juvenile fish. (6) In some instances, irrigators responsible for specific maintenance at their sites (e.g., debris removal) are not performing their tasks in a way that provides optimum operation of the fish screen facility. New ways need to be found to encourage them to maintain their facilities properly. (7) We recommend placing datasheets providing up-to-date operating criteria and design flows in each sites logbox. The datasheet should include bypass design flows and a table showing depths of water over the weir and corresponding bypass flow. This information is available at some of the sites but may be outdated. These data are used to determine if the site is running within design criteria. (8) Modifying use of debris control plates at Gleed helped minimize the extreme fluctuations in flow, but approach velocities are still too high. Other ways to reduce the approach velocities need to be tried, possibly including redesign of the site. (9) Alternatives to a screen site at Taylor should be considered. A lot of effort was spent trying to increase water to the site, but it still was unable to operate within NMFS criteria for most of the year and may be a hazard to juvenile salmonids. We conclude that the conditions at most of the Phase II fish screen facilities we evaluated in 2005 would be expected to provide safe passage for juvenile fish. For those sites where conditions are not always optimum for safe fish passage, PNNL researchers will try to coordinate with the WDFW and USBR in 2006 to find solutions to the problems. Some of those problems are consistently high approach velocities at specific sites, including Congdon, Naches-Selah, Union Gap, and Yakima-Tieton. We would like to be able to monitor changes in velocities as soon as operations and maintenance personnel adjust the louvers or porosity boards at these sites. This will give them immediate feedback on the results of their modifications and allow additional adjustments as necessary until the conditions meet NMFS criteria. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory has performed evaluations at many of these sites over the past 8 years, providing information WDFW and USBR personnel can use to perform their operations and maintenance more effectively. Consequently, overall effectiveness of the screens facilities has improved over time.
