My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9380
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
9380
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:35 PM
Creation date
5/20/2009 3:28:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
9380
Author
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
Title
Grand Valley Irrigation Company Fish Screens (Predesign).
USFW Year
2000.
USFW - Doc Type
Boise.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
107
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Bynass Pille Desi~ <br /> <br />After reducing the flow in the bypass by the secondary screens, a residual 10 cfs flow will <br /> <br />remain. The fish will remain in this flow and be diverted back to the river using the same bypass <br /> <br />alignment as was discussed for Alternative 1. Using the same water surface elevations for the 10 <br /> <br />percent and 90 percent exceedance flows as were discussed for Alternative I, the program <br /> <br />CulvertMaster was used to analyze the pipe. For the 10 cfs flow, a 24 inch diameter pipe is <br /> <br />required. Sheets 19 and 20 in Appendix C show the results of the bypass pipe analysis. The <br /> <br />profile through the bypass for this alternative will be very similar to that shown on Figure 9 in <br /> <br />Appendix B, except a 24 inch bypass pipe will be used. <br /> <br />Review of Options <br /> <br />The first decision to be made should probably be a selection between either a true screen <br /> <br />structure (flat plate or rotary drum) or a louver structure. The most important advantage of a true <br /> <br />screen structure is that a properly functioning screen system will provide an almost 100 percent <br /> <br />exclusion of both adult and juvenile fish. The same is not true for a louvered structure. A louver <br /> <br />screen is not a good name because the device does not physically prevent entry of fish into the <br /> <br />canal, it merely discourages entry. A louver is actually a type of behavior modification device <br /> <br />whereby fish are diverted away from the louvers and guided to the bypass. Data as to the <br /> <br />efficiency of louvers for the species of concern at this site is not available. Some studies <br /> <br />regarding louvers for the protection of salmon are available. One report, Use of Louvers for <br /> <br />Downstream Migrant Protection, is included in Appendix F. The report states the expected <br /> <br />efficiency to be 40 to 95 percent depending on fish species and life stage or size. <br />27 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.