{"Bibliographic":{"Title":"Biological evaluation of the prototype gatewell lift-tank system at Lower Granite Dam, 1994","Authors":"","Publication date":"1994","Publisher":""},"Administrative":{"Date created":"08-16-2023","Language":"English","Rights":"CC 0","Size":"0000041993"},"Pages":["153\nBiological Evaluation\n.L6\nS3\nof the Prototype Gatewell\n1994\nLift-Tank System\nat Lower Granite Dam,\nCZAES\n1994\nCoastal Zone and\nby\nEstuarine Studies\nGeorge A. Swan, M. Brad Eppard,\nDivision\nPaul A. Ocker, Robert N. Iwamoto, and\nBenjamin P. Sandford\nNorthwest Fisheries\nScience Center\nNational Marine\nDecember 1994\nFisheries Service\nSeattle, Washington","NWFSC096\nBIOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF THE PROTOTYPE GATEWELL LIFT-TANK SYSTEM\nAT LOWER GRANITE DAM, 1994\nSH\n153\nL6\n53\nLibrary\n1994\nPIDAA,\nAmoke\nFisharias\nby\nCenter\nservice\nGeorge A. Swan\nM. Brad Eppard\nPaul A. Ocker\nRobert N. Iwamoto\nand\nBenjamin P. Sandford\nAnnual Report of Research\nFunded by\nU.S. Army Corps of Engineers\nWalla Walla District\nDelivery Order E86940120\nand\nCoastal Zone and Estuarine Studies Division\nNorthwest Fisheries Science Center\nNational Marine Fisheries Service\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration\n2725 Montlake Boulevard East\nSeattle, Washington 98112-2097\nDecember 1994","CONTENTS\nPage\n1\nINTRODUCTION\n1\nMATERIALS AND METHODS\n9\nLocation\n11\nTest Fish\n11\nTest Sequence\nOn-Deck Testing\n13\nPhase I.\nGatewell Testing with Lift Tank\nPhase II.\nFully Submerged\n14\nGatewell Testing with Lift Tank\nPhase III.\n16\nabove Water\n17\nTest Schedule\n18\nRESULTS\nPhase I.\nOn-deck Testing\n18\nGatewell Testing with Lift Tank in Water\nPhase II.\n(submerged 4.9 m)\n20\nPhase III. Gatewell Testing with Lift Tank\n22\nabove Water\n27\nDISCUSSION\n28\nSUMMARY\n29\nRECOMMENDATIONS\n31\nACKNOWLEDGEMENTS\n32\nREFERENCES\n33\nAPPENDIX","INTRODUCTION\nA proposed drawdown of Lower Granite Reservoir (Fig. 1) would\nreduce turbine intake gatewell water levels at the dam to an\nextent that would prevent normal egress of migrant salmonid\nsmolts to the fingerling bypass collection gallery, as described\nby Matthews et al. (1977) (COE 1994a). This could result in\nlarge numbers of fish stranded in the gatewells (COE 1993)\nBecause of this anticipated stranding, several options for\nfish removal from gatewells were considered, including dip\nbaskets (Swan et al. 1979), lift tanks, air-lift pumps, and screw\npumps. After analysis of these options, lift tanks emerged as\nthe preferred choice (Fig. 2) .\nAlthough similar to existing gatewell dip baskets, the lift\ntanks differ in several significant ways, such as size; frequency\nand duration of operation; and fish collection, transfer, and\ndelivery (Fig. 3) (COE 1994b) . Furthermore, unlike gatewell dip\nbaskets, the proposed lift-tank system had not been evaluated.\nAt the request of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the\nNational Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) conducted a study to\nevaluate a prototype lift tank in 1994. Results of that study\nare presented in this report.\nMATERIALS AND METHODS\nThe testing schedule was extremely compressed in order to\nmeet COE schedules necessary to develop an operational lift-tank\nsystem for proposed reservoir drawdown tests (Table 1) .","CANADA\nMONTANA\nChief\nJoseph\nWells\nGrand Coulee\nRocky Reach\nRock Island\nIDAHO\nLittle\nLower\nLower\nGoose\nWASHINGTON Wanapum\nGranite\nMonumental\nClearwater\nPriest Rapids\nR.\nDworshak\nSnake\nIce Harbor\nR.\nColumbia\nMcNary\nJohn\nSalmon F.\nThe\nBonneville\nDalles Day\nHells Canyon\nOxbow\nBrowniee\nOREGON\n0\n100 Km\n50\nN\nCALIFORNIA\nNEVADA\nFigure 1. . -- Location of Lower Granite Dam relative to other\nhydroelectric projects of the Snake and Columbia\nRivers.\n2","Lift tank hoist tower\n1994 Lift tank\nfishing position\nMinimum operating\npool (EI. 733')\nBypass gallery\nProposed drawdown\nlift tank fishing\nposition\nProposed drawdown\nforebay level (El. 693')\nVertical barrier\nscreen\nTurbine intake\nFlow\nFigure 2 . - - Cross-section of a turbine intake at Lower Granite\nDam showing the lift tank in the bulkhead slot for\nthe 1994 study and at the proposed drawdown level.\n3","Lift tank\nAttraction lights\nOrifice\nFlow\nWalkway grating\nBypass gallery\nFigure 3. . - - Cross-section of lift tank releasing fish through the\norifice into the fingerling bypass gallery at Lower\nGranite Dam for a proposed biological drawdown test.\n4","Table 1. - - Schedule for the lift-tank biological evaluation\nat Lower Granite Dam, starting June 18, 1994.\nTest\nTest\nReplicate Testing and Gatewell Activity\nPhase\nDay\nTagged fish\nI\n1\nTagged fish; lift-tank test in Slot 6A\n2\n1 & 2\nTagged fish; lift-tank test in Slot 6A\n3\n3\nTagged fish; lift-tank test in Slot 6A\n4\n4\nTagged fish; lift-tank test in Slot 6A\n5\n5\nTagged fish\n6\nTagged fish; Dip-basket test in Slot 4B\nII\n7\n1\nLift-tank test in Slot 6A\nTagged fish; Dip-basket test in Slot 4B\n8\n2\nLift-tank test in Slot 6A\nTagged fish; Dip-basket test in Slot 4B\n9\n3\nLift-tank test in Slot 6A\nTagged fish; Dip-basket test in Slot 4B\n10\n4\nLift-tank test in Slot 6A\nTagged fish; Dip-basket test in Slot 4B\n1\nIII\n11\nLift-tank test in Slot 6A\nTagged fish; Dip-basket test in Slot 4B\n12\n2\nLift-tank test in Slot 6A\nTagged fish; Dip-basket test in Slot 4B\n13\n3\nLift-tank test in Slot 6A\nDip-basket test in Slot 4B\n14\n4\nLift-tank test in Slot 6A\nGear clean-up, end of project\n15\n5","The 1994 evaluation was conducted with steelhead (Oncorhynchus\nmykiss) only. Complete testing of the lift-tank system and\nevaluation of its effects on yearling chinook salmon (O.\ntshawytscha) requires additional studies.\nThe lift tank consisted of a steel box measuring 7-m long,\n1.1-m wide, and 1.8-m deep and held about 11.7 kL of water\n(Fig. 4) . The floor (gate) of the tank was hinged. The gate was\nopened when the tank was lowered into the gatewell SO that fish\ncould swim into the tank. To remove fish from the gatewell, the\ngate was closed, and the tank was then lifted with fish and water\nto the bypass orifice. The inner surface of the tank floor was\ndesigned to drain water from each end of the tank to the orifice\nconnection (Fig. 5) . The support structure for the lift tank was\nbolted and grouted to the intake deck. The lift tank was\ndesigned to be fully automated and during a drawdown scenario\nwould operate 24 h/day with each cycle taking about 1 h.\nThe lift tank was equipped with a debris screen system to\nremove large debris from the gatewell when the lift tank was\nraised. It was mounted inside of the tank and consisted of an\narray of parallel cables spaced at 15.2 cm intervals, each\nenclosed in a vertical tube on the downstream side of the tank.\nThe cables were attached to a square steel beam positioned\nlength-wise at the top of the tank. Prior to raising the lift\n6","Figure 4. Lift tank and support structure.\n7","Orifice\n3 Percent Slope\n10 Percent Slope\nFigure 5. - - Plan and side views of lift-tank floor (gate) showing\nslope to the orifice.\n8","tank from the fishing position, the steel beam was pulled across\nthe top of the tank by a chain and sprocket system powered by a\npneumatic motor. The pneumatic motor failed to operate\nthroughout the evaluation. Therefore, the debris screen system\nwas not tested.\nA formal consultation, as required by Section 7 of the\nEndangered Species Act, was requested and approved for the\nincidental take of wild and listed hatchery yearling chinook\nsalmon, subyearling fall chinook salmon, and sockeye salmon (O.\nnerka). Incidental catches of these species were unavoidable as\na result of the lift-tank evaluation.\nLocation\nThe lift-tank tests were conducted in bulkhead Slot 6A\nequipped with a standard submersible traveling screen (STS) and a\nblocked vertical barrier screen (BVBS) (Fig. 6) . The BVBS\nconsisted of the modified balanced-flow vertical barrier screen\n(MBFVBS) removed from bulkhead slot 4A and further modified to\nconsist of four upper panels of balanced-flow vertical barrier\nscreen and six lower panels that were blocked by covering them\nwith plywood. The BVBS was installed in bulkhead slot 6A to\nsimulate estimated gatewell flows at a forebay elevation of 692\nft during the proposed drawdown. These estimates were based upon\nhydraulic model studies conducted at the COE's Waterways\nExperiment Station at Vicksburg, Mississippi.\n9","BVBS\nMBFVBS\nSolid Area\nScreened Area\nFigure 6 - - View of two vertical barrier screen config- -\nurations at Lower Granite Dam. The\nmodified balanced flow vertical barrier\nscreen (MBFVBS) formerly located in\nbulkhead slot 4A was further modified\nas a blocked vertical barrier screen\n(BVBS) and installed in bulkhead slot 6A.\n10","A standard dip basket was used to remove control fish from\nSlot 4B (with a MBFVBS and a standard STS) to compare descaling\nincidence and collection efficiency with the test slot. The\nconfiguration of test equipment is shown in Figure 7.\nTest Fish\nRiver-run hatchery steelhead were collected at the juvenile\ncollection facility at Lower Granite Dam. Fish for different\ntreatment and control groups were marked with small, colored\nFloy1 T-bar tags. Descaling was assessed according to Fish\nTransport Oversight Team guidelines (Ceballos et al. 1992)\n.\nFish naturally recruited into the gatewell during test periods\nwere also counted and examined for descaling and fish condition.\nTest Sequence\nThe evaluation of the gatewell lift-tank system was conducted\nin three phases. Phase I addressed operating procedures for the\nlift tank, evaluated effects of confinement in and exit from the\nlift tank, and established descaling and fish condition indices.\nPhase II assessed collection efficiency and effectiveness of the\nwater-draining process (dewatering) for the lift tank and\nprovided further information on descaling and fish condition.\nPhase III assessed changes in fish behavior and location in the\ngatewell as a result of lift-tank position in the gatewell, and\nReference to trade names does not imply endorsement by the\n1\nNational Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA.\n11","A. Lift tank\nB. Simulated gallery tank\nC. Fish crowder\nD. Pre-anesthetizing chambers\nE. Fish working platform\nF. Fish transfer pipe\nC\nG. Mobile laboratory\nFish movement\nE\n+\nF\nD\nC\nB\nA\nFigure 7. . - - Plan view of test facilities for the 1994 lift-tank\nevaluation.\n12","evaluated collection efficiency and descaling after complete\noperating cycles of the lift tank.\nDuring testing, Turbines 4 and 6 were operated at 135 MW\nwhich corresponded to turbine intake flows of approximately\n18,450 cfs per unit. Gatewell orifices from Slots 4B and 6A were\nclosed to prevent escape of marked test fish. Above-water\nprocedures and fish behavior and movement were video taped\nthroughout the evaluation.\nPhase I. On-Deck Testing\nPhase I testing was conducted on the intake deck and examined\nthe combined effects of containment in and exit from the lift\ntank. Prior to testing, treatment and control fish were examined\nfor descaling and differentially marked. Descaled fish were not\nused in the experiment Tagged treatment fish were placed into\nthe lift tank and allowed to pass, via an orifice coupling, into\na tank that simulated the bypass gallery (gallery tank) Control\nfish were released directly into the gallery tank. All fish in\nthe gallery tank were crowded to a pre-anesthetic chamber and\nanesthetized. Fish were then counted and examined to determine\ndescaling, injury, and mortality rates. To facilitate fish\nhandling, examinations were conducted in a NMFS mobile laboratory\nparked on the intake deck. Condition of fish released from the\nlift tank was compared to control fish released directly into the\ngallery tank.\nFor calculation of sample sizes, we assumed background and\nadditional treatment descaling incidences of 1% each. We\n13","determined that approximately 2,400 steelhead were required for\ntesting, and planned on using 400 fish (200 test and 200 control)\nfor each of 6 tests. Treatment and control descaling incidence\nwere compared by paired tests at the a = 0.05 significance\nlevel.\nWe videotaped fish exiting the tank via the orifice opening\nto determine any unusual fish behavior and problems with tank\ndesign. The bottom gate of the lift tank was designed to empty\nall fish from the tank during the water draining process.\nHowever, prior experience with similar designs and fish behavior\nsuggested that additional flush water might be necessary, and in\ncertain cases, still might not be adequate in removing all fish.\nPhase II. Gatewell Testing with Lift Tank Fully Submerged\nThe objectives of Phase II testing were to evaluate\n1) collection efficiency (i.e., the percentage of available fish\ncollected with each lift-tank immersion in the gatewell) ; 2) fish\nescapement, either by passing between the lift-tank sides and\ngatewell sides or by remaining below the lift tank; and 3) the\neffect of lift-tank operation on fish condition.\nTesting began with the lift tank lowered to maximum fishing\ndepth where the upper and lower ends of the lift tank were\napproximately 1.4-m and 4.9-m, respectively, below the water\nsurface in the gatewell. Traditionally, the dip basket has been\nfished at a depth of about 24.4 m.\nMarked fish were transferred into the gatewell via a 7.6-cm\ndiameter hose from the intake deck and released just below the\n14","water surface in the gatewell. After allowing 20 minutes for\nfish dispersion and acclimation, the bottom gate of the lift tank\nwas closed. The lift tank was then raised to the deck, the\norifice fittings coupled, and fish were released through the\norifice into the simulated gallery tank (Fig. 4) . This process\nwas repeated two more times to recover fish (with the exception\nthat no additional fish were released) .\nOnce in the gallery tank, fish were handled and inventoried\nas in Phase I. Descaling in Phase II evaluations could have\nresulted from operation of the lift tank in the gatewell, exit of\nfish from the lift tank to the gallery tank, or post-treatment\nfish handling. Causes of descaling were partitioned by releasing\nmarked control fish in the simulated gallery tank using the\nprocedures previously described for Phase I. The net result\nindicated that descaling was caused by lift-tank operation\nincluding exit of fish from the lift tank.\nCondition of fish collected with the lift tank was also\ncompared with that of fish collected with a standard dip basket.\nFor every lift-tank test, marked fish were also released into\nSlot 4B, and after 20 minutes were collected using a standard\ngatewell dip basket.\nWe assumed that Phase I descaling would be 2%, that\nstandard dip basket descaling would be 2%, and that the lift-tank\ncollection operation would cause an additional 1% descaling. As\na result, we determined that 4 replicates of approximately 1,000\nfish each were necessary for the lift-tank and dip-basket groups.\n15","Control replicates were released into the simulated gallery\ntank as in Phase I. Sample sizes were adjusted once actual tests\nwere conducted and variability of treatment effects was\ndetermined. The comparisons of between treatment and control\ndescaling and between lift tank and standard dip basket were made\nby two-sample t-tests at the a = 0.05 significance level.\nPhase III. Gatewell Testing with Lift Tank above Water\nPhase III evaluated the proposed operational cycle for the\nlift-tank system. It provided information on 1) the effect of\nlowering the lift tank on fish in the gatewell, 2) lift-tank\ncollection efficiency, and 3) fish condition after exposure to\nthe entire operational cycle.\nPhase III testing began with the opened lift tank suspended\nabove the water surface in the gatewell. Marked fish were\nreleased below the water surface as in Phase II. After a period\nof approximately 20 minutes to allow fish to disperse and\nacclimate, the lift tank was lowered to the same depth as in\nPhase II and closed. The lift tank was then raised to the deck,\nthe orifice fittings coupled, and fish released into the\nsimulated gallery tank as in Phase II. This process was repeated\n2 more times with the lift tank remaining at maximum fishing\ndepth with the bottom gate open for 20 minutes prior to being\nclosed and raised.\nInitially, the standard gatewell dip basket was fished in\nSlot 4B using similar procedures and at the same depth as the\nlift tank. This proved ineffective. Consequently, the dip\n16","basket was lowered to 15.2 m after the first two replicates in\nPhase II, and during Phase III, it was lowered to 24.4 m, closer\nto the standard depth for dip baskets.\nDuring Phases II and III, the overhead orifice light located\non top of the lift tank was turned on during Replicates 1 and 3\nand off during Replicates 2 and 4 to determine if the light\nprovided any collection benefit.\nTest Schedule\nThe original testing schedule (Table 1) was constrained by\nthe late delivery and release of the prototype lift tank, delay\nin issuance of the Section 7 formal consultation, and the\nrelatively narrow time frame that inriver hatchery steelhead were\navailable. The emergency spill program contributed to limited\ncollection of juvenile hatchery steelhead.\n17","RESULTS\nThe goal of tagging 18,400 juvenile hatchery steelhead was\nnot met due to the low numbers of juvenile salmonids migrating\nthrough Lower Granite Dam. A total of 5,214 hatchery steelhead\nwere tagged and released for testing during the three phases of\nthe lift-tank evaluation.\nPhase I. On-deck Testing\nWe reduced the size of test groups to about 200 hatchery\nsteelhead (100 fish each for treatment and control groups) for\neach of the five replicates in Phase I testing. Average\ndescaling was 1.3% for the treatment fish and 0.6% for the\ncontrols (Table 2) .\nThe moderate slope of the floor in the lift tank failed to\ndrain water efficiently. The majority of water did not drain\nfrom the lift tank until approximately 3.5 minutes after the\norifice slide gate was opened. Review of video tapes indicated\nthat most fish did not begin exiting the lift tank until the\nwater level had decreased to the top of the orifice. At that\ntime, the low water elevation in the lift tank produced a slower\nflow of water. As a result, fish resisted exiting and remained\nin the lift tank. About 5 to 10 fish remained in the tank after\nwater had been completely removed, 5 to 5.5 minutes after the\norifice slide gate had opened. These last fish either had to be\nremoved by hand or forced to exit with use of additional water\nfrom a hose. However, the added water was not effective, and\n18","Table 2. - - Percent descaling of hatchery steelhead during Phase I\nof the lift-tank biological evaluation at Lower\nGranite Dam, 1994.\nControl\nTreatment\nNumber\nNumber\nPercent\nNumber\nNumber\nPercent\ndescaled descaled\nsampled\ndescaled\ndescaled\nReplicate\nsampled\n99\n0\n0.0\n3\n3.0\n1\n99\n0.0\n67\n0\n0.0\n2\n101\n0\n7.91\n9\n2.7\n114\n3\n113\n3\n3.1\n97\n3\n3\n2.5\n4\n118\n0.0\n0.0\n119\n0\n5\n117\n0\n157\n0\n0.0\n0.0\n6\n138\n0\n539\n3\nTotal\n686\n9\n0.6\n1.3\nAverage\n1 Handling problem, control data not used for this replicate.\n19","instead compounded the removal problem by attracting fish away\nfrom the orifice.\nPhase II. Gatewell Testing with Lift Tank in Water\n(submerged 4.9 m)\nDuring Phase II testing, the majority of marked fish were\nrecovered in the first dip of the lift tank (Table 3) . Over the\n4 replicates, an average of 83.7% of the tagged fish were\nrecovered in the first dip, 9.5% in the second dip, and 1.4% in\nthe third dip for an overall recovery rate of 94.5% for 3 dips.\nIn comparison, the standard dip basket averaged 96.0%\ncollection efficiency after 4 dips. Efficiency was affected by\nthe depth to which the dip basket was fished. In the first\n2 replicates, the dip basket was fished at approximately the same\ndepth as the lift tank (bottom at approximately 4.9 m) .\nPercent recovery after 3 dips was unusually low, and a fourth dip\nto 15.2 m was required. Beginning with the third replicate, the\ndip basket was fished at 15.2 m, closer to the usual depth of\n24.4 to 27.4 m. This improved fish collection, eliminating the\nneed for the fourth dip. Collection efficiency of the dip basket\ntotaled 97.8% after three dips in Replicates 3 and 4.\nAbout 16.3% of the tagged fish evaded collection by the lift\ntank during the first dip. We were unable to determine if fish\nevaded collection by passing between the lift-tank and the\ngatewell walls or by swimming deeper than the lift-tank fishing\ndepth before the bottom gate was closed.\n20","sampled descaled\nTable 3. - - Collection efficiency and percent descaling of hatchery steelhead during Phase\nPercent\n.\nThe dip basket was originally fished at the same depth as the lift tank (about 4.9 m)\n1.0\n0.0\n0.5\n-\n-\nControl\nAt that depth, a fourth dip was required to recover fish. After Replicate 2, the\n1 The overhead orifice light located on top of the lift tank was turned on during\nNumber\nII of the lift-tank biological evaluation at Lower Granite Dam, 1994.\n-\n99\n-\n97\n196\ndescaling\ndip basket was fished closer to the traditional depth at about 15.2 m.\ndescaled\nPercent\nPercent\n1.3\n1.1\n0.0\n1.7\n0.8\n0.0\n0.0\n0.9\n0.7\n0.4\nTotal\nTotal\n95.7\n91.7\n94.6\n92.2\n96.9\n94.5\n96.9\n95.7\n98.7\n96.0\nDip-basket efficiency in Slot 4B (%)\nLift-tank efficiency in Slot 6A (%)\nReplicates 1 and 3 and off during Replicates 2 and 4.\nFourth\n61.9\n16.7\n27.8\ndip²\n-\n-\nThird\nThird\nlift\n0.6\n1.7\n1.7\n1.4\n1.4\n2.1\n1.3\n0.0\n0.0\n0.7\ndip\nSecond\nSecond\n15.5\n5.0\n0.0\n0.7\n1.7\n2.0\n0.5\n4.3\n12.5\n9.5\nlift\ndip\nFirst\nFirst\n33.0\n76.9\n93.9\n75.6\n88.0\n86.1\n83.1\n83.7\n96.6\n81.3\nlift\ndip\nreleased\nReplicate released\nNumber\nNumber\n97\n299\n115\n298\n809\n168\n299\n115\n295\n877\nReplicate\nAverage\nAverage\n1\n2\n1\n2\n3\n4\nTotal\n3\n4\nTotal\n2","On the average, descaling during Phase II testing was 0.8%\nfor the treatment fish and was 0.5% for the controls. Nominal\ndescaling (treatment effect only) was 0.3%. Descaling for the\ndip basket treatment fish was 0.4%.\nDuring Phase II testing, 42 unmarked fish were collected by\nthe lift tank in Slot 6A, and 50 were collected by the dip basket\nin Slot 4B (Table 4) . Only 3 unmarked juvenile chinook salmon\nwere collected with the lift tank compared to 14 collected with\nthe dip basket, possibly due to the difference in fishing depths.\nSeveral of the juvenile chinook salmon collected by the lift tank\nwere descaled. However, numbers of these fish collected for each\nreplicate were small, and we were unable to determine the\ncause (s) of the descaling.\nPhase III. Gatewell Testing with Lift Tank above Water\nLowering the lift tank into the gatewell while tagged\nhatchery steelhead were in the gatewell seemed to have little\neffect on collection. During the first dip of the lift tank,\n84.7% of the tagged fish were recaptured. Total collection by\nthe lift tank averaged 95.0% (Table 5) .\nRecovery percentages for the dip basket were higher for\nReplicates 2, 3, and 4 due to the change in fishing depths. With\nthe exception of the first replicate, the standard dip basket\nrecovered an average of 97.3% of the tagged fish in the first\ndip. Overall collection efficiency for the dip basket throughout\nPhase III averaged 98.0%.\n22","Incidental fish collected during Phase II of the\nTable 4.\nlift-tank biological evaluation at Lower Granite Dam,\n1994.\nLift tank (Slot 6A)\nHatchery\nWild\nHatchery\nWild\nchinook\nchinook\nSockeye\nReplicate\nsteelhead\nsteelhead\n1\n26\n-\n-\n-\n-\n1\n2\n8\n-\n-\n-\n1\n3\n3\n-\n-\n-\n1\n4\n3\n-\n-\n-\nTotal\n40\n2\n1\n-\n-\nDip basket (Slot 4B)\nHatchery\nWild\nHatchery\nWild\nchinook\nSockeye\nReplicate\nsteelhead\nsteelhead\nchinook\n2\n4\n1\n1\n9\n-\n3\n2\n10\n1\n-\n-\n2\n1\n3\n3\n11\n-\n1\n4\n2\n-\n-\n-\n10\n1\nTotal\n32\n3\n4\n23","sampled descaled\nPercent\noverhead orifice light on top of the lift tank was turned on during Replicates 1 and\n0.0\n0.0\nTable 5. - - Collection efficiency and percent descaling of hatchery steelhead during Phase\nControl\nNumber\n94\n94\nIII of the lift-tank biological evaluation at Lower Granite Dam, 1994.\nDescaled\ndescaled\nPercent\nPercent\n0.9\n0.8\n1.6\n0.5\n1.0\n1.7\n1.9\n0.4\n0.4\n0.9\nDescaled\ndescaled\nNumber\nNumber\n1\n1\n4\n1\n7\n2\n7\n3\n1\n1\nTotal\n95.6\n99.2\n98.0\n98.6\n98.0\nTotal\n93.8\n95.7\n96.5\n93.5\n95.0\nDip-basket efficiency in Slot 4B (%)\nLift-tank efficiency in Slot 6A (%)\nThird\nThird\nlift\n3.9\n4.3\n3.1\n1.6\n3.0\n2.6\n0.0\n0.8\n0.0\n0.7\ndip\n3 and off during Replicates 2 and 4.\nSecond\nSecond\n59.6\n0.8\n1.2\n0.5\n10.3\nlift\n9.3\n5.6\n6.6\n8.2\n7.3\ndip\nFirst\nFirst\nlift\n80.6\n85.7\n86.8\n83.7\n84.7\n33.3\n98.3\n96.1\n98.1\n87.0\ndip\nreleased\nreleased\nNumber\nNumber\n114\n121\n255\n216\n706\n129\n161\n287\n245\n822\nReplicate\nReplicate\nAverage\nAverage\nTotal\nTotal\nThe\n1\n2\n3\n4\n1\n2\n3\n4\n1","Descaling in the lift-tank treatment group averaged 0.9%. No\ndescaling was found in the control group. Descaling in the dip\nbasket averaged 1.0%. Nine, 1, and 87 unmarked yearling\nspring chinook salmon, sockeye salmon, and steelhead, were\nincidentally collected by the lift tank and dip basket,\nrespectively (Table 6) .\nThe overhead orifice light on top of the lift tank had no\neffect on fish recovery, suggesting that the light was\nineffective in attracting fish to the surface during daylight.\nMean recovery for Phases II and III when the light was on (94.1%\nfor Replicates 1 and 3) was 1.1% lower than when the light was\noff (95.2% in Replicates 2 and 4) (Tables 3 and 5) . No tests\nwere conducted during darkness.\nAppendix Table 1 lists the handling mortality of hatchery\nsteelhead during the lift-tank biological evaluation. No\nhandling mortality of other species was observed. Numbers of\nfish used during testing and the analysis of those data are\nprovided in Appendix Tables 2 through 5.\n25","Table 6. - - Incidental fish collected during Phase III of the lift- -\ntank biological evaluation at Lower Granite Dam, 1994.\nLift tank (Slot 6A)\nHatchery\nWild\nHatchery\nWild\nReplicate\nsteelhead\nsteelhead\nchinook\nchinook\nSockeye\n1\n3\n-\n-\n-\n-\n2\n16\n1\n-\n-\n-\n3\n7\n-\n-\n-\n-\n1\n4\n3\n-\n-\n-\nTotal\n29\n2\n-\n-\n-\nDip basket (Slot 4B)\nWild\nHatchery\nWild\nHatchery\nchinook\nSockeye\nReplicate\nsteelhead\nsteelhead\nchinook\n1\n14\n-\n-\n-\n1\n2\n9\n2\n1\n-\n3\n24\n4\n1\n-\n-\n2\n3\n4\n5\n-\n-\nTotal\n52\n6\n3\n4\n1\n26","DISCUSSION\nPreliminary evaluation of the lift-tank system indicated that\nits collection efficiency was satisfactory (compared with\nstandard gatewell dip baskets) and that its use for the\ncollection and transfer of fish did not cause excessive\ndescaling, injuries, or mortalities. However, the lack of\ndetrimental effects may have been a result of the specific test\nconditions. Test results might have been different had the\nevaluation occurred during the spring migration period when fish\nnumbers were higher and the species composition was different.\nFor example, the low descaling incidence may have resulted\nfrom a combination of low fish densities and the use of steelhead\njuveniles, which have less deciduous scales. Maximum number of\nfish in the lift tank at any time during testing was about 250,\nand given the lift-tank capacity of 11,925 L of water (COE,\n1994a) this number resulted in a density of 1 fish per 48 L.\nIn the future, during the peak of the juvenile salmonid\nmigration, several thousand fish might be collected in one dip of\nthe lift tank, increasing densities considerably.\nIncreased densities and propensity of fish to resist exiting\nthe tank could lead to higher incidences of descaling, injury, or\nmortality, particularly if combined with the presence of sharp\nedges inside the lift tank and adult fish. Occasionally, adult\nfish are collected in dip baskets, and their activity may also\ncause descaling of juvenile fish.\n27","SUMMARY\n1. The lift-tank system efficiently and safely collected and\ntransferred tagged juvenile steelhead released into the gatewell.\n2. Fewer than 1% of the tagged steelhead collected and\ntransferred via the lift-tank system were descaled.\n3. The evaluation indicated that the lift-tank system is, at\na minimum, as effective as the standard gatewell dip baskets.\n4. Few non-target species were captured with the lift tank\nbut a variety of other species were caught with the dip basket,\nmost likely because the dip basket was fished at a much deeper\ndepth.\n5. Several potential design weaknesses of the lift-tank\nsystem were observed and noted.\n28","RECOMMENDATIONS\n1. Before installation of operational lift tanks, further\ntesting should be conducted during a spring migration to evaluate\nthe lift-tank system under normal migratory conditions when fish\ndensities in gatewells are higher and the species composition is\ndifferent.\n2. Testing should involve both chinook salmon and steelhead.\n3. The lift-tank orifice connection to the existing orifice\nof the bypass gallery should be evaluated for fish safety.\n4. Testing should be extended to longer durations to examine\nequipment reliability in terms of fish handling.\n5. Several potential problems with lift-tank system design\nwere noted and should be addressed before additional testing,\nincluding;\na. The debris screen was not working at the time of the\ntest. Considering the potential amount and size of\ndebris encountered at Lower Granite Dam, debris\nseparation/removal systems should be tested before\nimplementation of the lift-tank system.\nb. The inner walls of the lift tank were cluttered with\ndebris-screen system hardware. Many sharp edges inside\nthe tank including conduit clips and nuts and bolts may\ncause descaling when fish are in high numbers. The\nmajority of sharp edges would be eliminated with\nmodifications to the current debris-screen system. The\nsystem should be completely covered, mounted on the\n29","outside of the tank, or replaced with a bar grating to\nhandle debris and adult fish.\nStructures near the orifice opening caused erratic flows\nC.\nprecluding smooth release of fish and may cause\ndescaling with high fish densities. These structures\nshould be shielded to provide laminar flow from the lift\ntank.\nd. The floor (inner surface of the bottom gate) of the lift\ntank did not have an appropriate slope to drain water\nefficiently from the tank. Therefore, most fish\nremained in the tank until nearly all water has drained.\nWe recommend increasing the slope on the floor to drain\nwater faster, promote a more efficient fish exit, and\neliminate the need for flush water.\ne. The eye bolts associated with the cable attachments for\nopening and closing the bottom gate of the lift tank\nwere surrounded by large gaps which may be harmful to\nsmall fish. These eye bolts should be replaced with eye\nbolts with longer shanks that would allow covering of\nthe gaps without restricting cable attachment.\nf. The limit switch that controlled the upward movement of\nthe lift tank de-activated on several occasions. As a\nresult, the lift tank remained stationary until the\nlimit switch was manually activated and the operating\nsystem was re-set. Because the lift tank had several\nleaks, a malfunction of the limit switch while the tank\n30","was suspended could result in complete draining of the\nlift tank. A more reliable limit switch should be\nimplemented.\nACKNOWLEDGEMENTS\nWe thank the many COE personnel who provided information and\nassistance; Dan Kenney, Sean Milligan, and Norm Hawes from the\nWalla Walla District office; Del Gerke from Little Goose Dam; and\nJess Smiley, Doug McIver, Tim Wik, Mike Halter, Ed King, Dennis\nGolding, and Jim Harris from Lower Granite Dam.\nWe thank the personnel of the Washington Department of Fish\nand Wildlife for collecting additional fish for our testing.\nLast, but of equal importance, we acknowledge the help of\nthe following NMFS personnel: Scott Davidson, Neil Paasch, Ken\nMcIntyre, Rich Burland, Zach Burland, Jerry Harmon, Chuck Ebel,\nPhilip Weitz, and Thomas Ruehle.\n31","REFERENCES\nCeballos, J. R. , S. W. Pettit, and J. L. McKern. 1992. Fish\nTransportation Oversight Team. Annual Report FY 1991.\nTransportation operations on the Snake and Columbia Rivers.\nNOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/NWR-29. 77 p. plus\nAppendix. (Available from Environmental and Technical\nServices Division, 525 NE Oregon St./Suite 500, Portland, OR\n97232.)\nMatthews, G. M. , G. A. Swan, and J. R. Smith. 1977. Improved\nbypass and collection system for protection of juvenile\nsalmon and steelhead trout at Lower Granite Dam. Mar. Fish.\nRev. 39 (7) : 10-14.\nSwan, G. A. , R. F. Krcma, and W. E. Farr. 1979. Dip basket for\ncollecting juvenile salmon and trout in gatewells at\nhydroelectric dams. Prog. Fish. Cult. 41 (1) : 48-49.\nU.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1993. Reservoir drawdown test,\nLower Granite and Little Goose Dams, 185 p. (Available from\nU.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District,\nBldg. 602, City-County Airport, Walla Walla, WA 99362. . )\nU.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1994a. Lower Granite Lock and Dam\ngatewell fish removal system concept report 2, 76 p.\n(Available from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla\nDistrict, Bldg. 602, City-County Airport, Walla Walla, WA\n99362.)\nU.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1994b. Lower Snake River\nbiological drawdown test, draft environmental impact\nstatement, 449 p. (Available from U.S. Army Corps of\nEngineers, Walla Walla District, Bldg. 602, City-County\nAirport, Walla Walla, WA 99362. )\n32","APPENDIX\n33","1994 Lower Granite Dam Lift - Tank Evaluation\nMechanical and Operational Characteristics\nObservations\n1. Lift-tank sides and gatewell walls have minimal clearance.\nWhen the lift tank was operated, STS extension cables were moved\nby upwelling flow and tended to rub or catch on the bottom lip of\nthe tank. In one instance, a cable was caught by the lift tank\nand pulled the support, badly damaging a hand rail before the\nlift tank was manually stopped. There is a possibility of\ngreater damage if the lift tank is left unmanned.\n2. The spooling mechanism which raised and lowered the lift\ntank appeared to work. However, we were unsure if the current\nmechanism can safely lower the tank an additional 12 m without\ncausing damage to the cables and sheaves on top of the tank\nsupport beam.\n3. The emergency stop switch disrupted power to the entire\nsystem rather than just halting the movement of the lift tank.\nLoss of power could lead to pump failure or, at night, delay\nproblem assessment and repair.\n4. While being raised, the lift tank leaked from numerous\nareas including the orifice gate, corners of the bottom gate, and\nwalls.\n5. The lift tank could not be easily viewed from the control\npanel. Therefore, it was difficult to manually operate the\nsystem efficiently.\n34","6. The liquid crystal display (LCD) screen was ineffective at\nnormal summer temperatures. Heat from direct sunlight caused the\nscreen to blank out.\n7. The float-limit switch did not have adequate support along\nthe shaft. Also, the limit switch occasionally did not disengage\nwhile at simulated gallery orifice level causing a halt to\noperations until the switch was tripped manually.\n8. When full of water, the lift tank shifted downstream\nagainst the wall of the gatewell while being lifted.\nSuggestions For Improvements To The Lift Tank\n1. To avoid the possibility of catching STS extension cables,\nthe tank could be made narrower and/or slots could be made on the\ntank to accommodate the cables. In addition, if the lift tank is\nused in a gatewell with an extended STS, a slot for the center\nlifting cable should be incorporated into the lift tank. Also,\nbrushes mounted around the top of the tank would guide fish into\nthe tank and hold cables out of the way against the wall.\n2. Emergency kill switches should be located at multiple\npoints for safety purposes. The switches should only shut off\nthe movement of the tank rather than the whole system.\n3. In addition to or in place of the LCD screen, install\nlabeled buttons to perform the desired functions.\n4. Eliminate or completely cover all protruding structures\ninside the tank and make the inside as smooth as possible.\n35","5. Redesign the orifice opening to provide smoother flow of\nwater. In addition, install the slide gate and air cylinder\noutside the tank or enclose within a smooth cover.\n6. The bottom gate of the tank currently has a dual-slope\ndesign. Changing to a tri-slope design with the third slope\nleading to the opening, increasing the slope and/or putting a\nsmall reservoir at the exit may provide a safer and more\nefficient exit for the fish.\nThe Simulated Gallery Tank\n1. The pump to fill the simulated gallery had inadequate\npumping capacity.\n2. A semi-permanent screen at the orifice end of the tank\nwould permit use of submersible pumps to supply water to fish-\nholding facilities.\n3. A 10. 2 cm quick-disconnect hose fitting on the upstream\nside of the simulated gallery tank would facilitate control fish\nreleases and help to reduce congestion of traffic on the intake\ndeck during testing.\n36","Appendix Table 1. - - Incidental mortality of hatchery steelhead during\nthe lift-tank biological evaluation at Lower\nGranite Dam, 1994.\nPhase I mortality\nAfter collection (laboratory)\nPre-release\nLift tank\nLift tank\nDip basket\nIncidental\nTreatment Control\nDip basket\nTreatment Control\nReplicate\n0\n0\n1\n1\n1\n-\n-\n0\n0\n2\n0\n0\n-\n-\n-\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n-\n-\n1\n1\n-\n-\n4\n1\n1\n-\n0\n0\n-\n-\n5\n3\n1\n-\n3\n0\n6\n2\n1\n-\n-\n4\n1\nTotal\n7\n4\n-\n-\nPhase II mortality\nAfter collection (laboratory)\nPre-release\nLift tank\nLift tank\nIncidental\nTreatment Control\nDip basket\nTreatment Control\nDip basket\nReplicate\n0\n1\n2\n1\n1\n0\n131\n0\n0\n1\n2\n1\n1\n0\n0\n0\n3\n1\n1\n0\n-\n-\n0\n3\n2\n0\n4\n5\n0\n2\n5\n2\n15\n0\nTotal\n7\n1\n4\nPhase III mortality\nAfter collection (laboratory)\nPre-release\nLift tank\nLift tank\nTreatment Control\nDip basket\nIncidental\nTreatment Control\nDip basket\nReplicate\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n1\n2\n1\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2\n5\n-\n7\n0\n7\n0\n3\n3\n13\n1\n1\n0\n1\n0\n-\n4\n2\n-\n8\n0\n0\n3\n10\nTotal\n22\n2\nFish mortality occurred in holding tank and was caused by\n1\nblockage in water hose.\n37","descaled\nduring Phase I of the lift-tank biological evaluation at Lower Granite\nPercent\n7.93\nAppendix Table 2. - Analysis of lift-tank data collected for juvenile hatchery steelhead\n0.0\n0.0\n3.1\n0.0\n0.0\n1.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.5\n0.5\n0.5\n0.4\n0.9\nTreatment fish were released from the lift tank through the simulated orifice.\nMean\nBinomial 95%C.I.+/- -\nEmpirical 95%C.I.+/-\ns.e.\nControl²\ndescaled\nNumber\nControl fish were released directly into the simulated gallery tank.\n0\n0\n9\n3\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n4\n99\n67\n114\n97\n119\n157\n99\n97\n94\n829\nN\ndescaled\nPercent\n3.0\n0.0\n2.7\n2.5\n0.0\n0.0\n1.3\n0.9\n1.4\n0.6\n1.6\nMean\nBinomial 95%C.I.+/-\ns.e.\nEmpirical 95%C.I.+\nHandling problem, data not used.\ndescaled\nNumber\n0\n9\n3\n0\n3\n3\n0\nDam, 1994.\n1\nTreatment\nN\n138\n686\n99\n101\n113\n118\n117\nReplicate\n6\n7\n8\n9\nTotal\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n1\n2\n3","during Phase II of the lift-tank biological evaluation at Lower Granite\ndescaled\nPercent\nAppendix Table 3. - - Analysis of lift-tank data collected for juvenile hatchery steelhead\n1.3\n1.1\n0.0\n0.7\n0.8\n0.6\n0.7\n0.3\n0.8\ndescaled\nNumber\n2\n3\n0\n2\n7\ndips 1-3\nPercent\n91.7\n94.6\n92.2\n97.0\n94.5\n1.5\n93.9\n1.2\n3.9\nPercent\n83.7\ndip 1\n75.6\n88.0\n86.1\n83.1\n2.4\n83.2\n2.7\n8.7\ndip 3\nMean\n1\n5\n2\n4\n12\nBinomial 95%C.I.+/-\nEmpirical 95%C.I.+/-\ns.e.\nNumber recovered\ndip 2\n26\n15\n5\n37\n83\nDam, 1994.\ndip 1\n127\n263\n99\n245\n734\nreleased\nNumber\n168\n299\n115\n295\n877\nReplicate\nAverage\n1\n2\n3\n4\nTotal","descaled\nPercent\nAppendix Table 4. - Analysis of lift-tank data collected for juvenile hatchery steelhead\n1.7\n1.9\n0.4\n0.4\n0.9\n0.6\n1.0\n0.4\n1.2\nduring Phase III of the lift-tank biological evaluation at Lower\ndescaled\nNumber\n2\n3\n1\n1\n7\ndips 1-3\nPercent\n93.8\n95.7\n96.5\n93.5\n95.0\n1.5\n94.9\n0.7\n2.3\nPercent\ndip 1\n80.6\n85.7\n86.8\n83.7\n84.7\n2.5\n84.2\n1.4\n4.3\nEmpirical 95%C.I. +/-\nBinomial 95%C.I.+ +/-\ndip 3\n5\n7\n9\n4\n25\nMean\ns.e.\nNumber recovered\ndip 2\nGranite Dam, 1994.\n12\n9\n19\n20\n60\ndip 1\n104\n138\n249\n205\n696\nreleased\nNumber\n129\n161\n287\n245\n822\nReplicate\n1\n2\n3\n4\nTotal","descaled descaled\nPercent\n0.0\n0.0\n0.9\n0.7\n0.9\n0.8\n1.6\n0.5\n0.7\n0.4\n0.7\n0.2\n0.4\nAppendix Table 5. - - Analysis of dip-basket data collected for juvenile hatchery steelhead\nduring Phases II and III of the lift-tank biological evaluation at\nNumber\n0\n0\n1\n2\n1\n1\n4\n1\n10\nEmpirical 95%C.I. +/-\nMean\nBinomial 95%C.I. +/-\ns.e.\nPercent\n1-4\n96.0\n1.9\n96.9\n95.7\ndip\n(4) Dips 1-3 made at same depth as lift tank and dip 4 was to 15.24 m.\ndips 1-3\nPercent\n35.1\n99.2\n78.9\n95.7\n98.7\n95.6\n98.0\n98.6\n97.9\n0.8\n97.6\n0.7\n1.7\n68.2\n4.6\nPercent\n33.0\n76.9\n93.9\n96.6\n33.3\n98.4\n96.1\n98.2\n90.3\n1.7\n86.1\n10.6\n27.2\n66.2\n4.7\ndip 1\nEmpirical 95%C.I.+/-\nMean\nBinomial 95%C.I.+/- -\nBinomial 95%C. I. +/- -\ns.e.\ndip 4\n(3) 3 dips all to about 24.4 m as is traditional\n110\n60\n50\nLower Granite Dam, 1994.\nNumber recovered\ndip 3\n2\n4\n0\n0\n3\n0\n2\n0\n5\n6\ndip 2\n0\n2\n2\n6\n68\n1\n3\n1\n81\n2\nReplicate released dip 1\n32\n230\n108\n288\n38\n119\n245\n212\n1010\n262\nNumber\n97\n299\n115\n298\n114\n121\n255\n216\n1119\n396\nTotal (all) 1515\nTotal (3)\nTotal (4)\n7\n1\n2\n8\n3\n4\n5\n6"]}