U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological Survey

Impact of irrigation diversion screens on juvenile lamprey in the Columbia River basin

Matthew G. Mesa

U. S. Geological Survey

Western Fisheries Research Center

Columbia River Research Laboratory

Plight of the lamprey

Problems

Adult lamprey passage 1997-2010

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

Dam

Cu

mu

lati

ve c

ou

nt

Effectiveness of common fish screen materials to protect lamprey ammocoetes

Nearly 80% of water diversions in the Pacific Northwest are unscreened and can pose a major risk to fish*

*FRIMA 2002-04 report

What about the other 20%?

Criteria for screen design, operation, and protection of fish largely from studies of salmonids

Goal

Develop criteria for design and operation of fish screens that minimize injury and

mortality to lamprey

Test performance of 5 screen materials for protecting larval lamprey

Objective

Screen types

Profile bar (1.75 mm) Interlock (1.7 mm)

Perf. plate (2.4 mm) 12 & 14 g woven wire

Methods

• 5 size classes (mean TL= 40, 50, 60, 100, 130 mm)

• 2 releases per size class• 6–13 fish per release• 1 h test at 12 cm/s AV

• Sizes of fish entrained • Timing of entrainment • Injury and mortality

Evaluated

No. of fish entrainedProfile Bar

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Nu

mb

er o

f F

ish

02468

1012141618

Entrained

Partially Entrained

Above

Perforated Plate

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 16002468

1012141618Interlock

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 16002468

1012141618

14-Ga Wire Cloth

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 16002468

1012141618

12-Ga Wire Cloth

Fish Length (mm)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Nu

mb

er o

f F

ish

02468

1012141618

Probability of entrainment

Fish total length (mm)

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Pro

ba

bility o

f en

train

me

nt

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

InterlockVertical barPerforated plate12-g wire cloth14-g wire cloth

% of fish entrained

Interlock

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0Profile Bar

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

40 mm50 mm60 mm100 mm

Perforated Plate

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

12-Ga Wire Cloth

Minutes

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Pro

po

rtio

n E

ntr

ain

ed

14-Ga Wire Cloth

Minutes

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Pro

po

rtio

n E

ntr

ain

ed

Fish injury

• Severe injuries rare• Minor abrasions to the skin and caudal fin

– 2–13% for all fish– 0–9% for those above the screen– 5% for control fish

• Injuries more common in smaller fish• Higher for screens that were most protective

Summary

• Screens offered varying levels of protection

• Fish < 46 mm entrained by all screens• Impingement common for all sizes of

fish• PP and IL performed the best• Wire cloth screens performed the

worst

Use PP or IL Replace wire cloth screens

Current research

• Test SV and AV scenarios• Test different screen types

– Vertical, rotary drum, etc.– Cleaning structures

• Test criteria at field sites

Acknowledgments