Fish Guidance and Exclusion Barrier
One embodiment of a fish guidance and exclusion barrier having an upper reticulated section (10) imbricated by a lower reticulated section (12) which communicates with the upper section. The upper and lower sections are attached in an above water position to a floating device (24) with the lower section being suspended from the floating device utilizing funicular leads (22). The funicular leads are affixed to the floating device with latch type connectors (20) attached to loop type mounts (18) and to the lower sections with latch type connectors attached through grommets (16). Other embodiments are described and shown.
Not Applicable
FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCHNot Applicable
SEQUENCE LISTING OR PROGRAMNot Applicable
BACKGROUND Prior ArtThe following is a tabulation of some prior art that presently appears relevant:
- Google: Fish Diversion Systems or Analysis or Literature
Operators of water resource dependent facilities typically utilize various devices and methods for intercepting and guiding fish and other marine life towards bypass or collection structures. In the past, these structures utilized high flow and specially designed sluice ways to attract fish away from dangerous intake turbines, pumps and impellers and into special devices that ensure safe upstream and downstream fish passage. Although these devices have dramatically increased fish survival rates at such facilities the fish mortality rate is too high. Research has shown that the use of upstream ancillary devices that can divert or guide fish towards these collectors and bypass structures can significantly increase fish survival rates. In response, operators of facilities have relied on existing floating waterway log & debris barriers and buoys to create a surface guidance effect for migrating fish. Typically such facilities relate to water intakes serving power generation, industrial, irrigation, and water treatment systems. Often such operators employ multiple devices or methods each singularly tasked to a primary purpose such as log and debris barrier, security barrier, and encroachment barrier.
The systems and devices in U.S. Pat. No. 4,064,048 issued Dec. 20, 1977 to Downs, et al; U.S. Pat. No. 4,929,122 issued May 29, 1990 to Yoas; U.S. Pat. No. 5,445,111 issued Aug. 29, 1995 to Smith; U.S. Pat. No. 6,524,028 issued Feb. 25, 2003 to Bryan; U.S. Pat. No. 6,964,541 issued Nov. 15, 2005 to Bryan; U.S. Pat. No. 7,048,850 issued May 23, 2006 to DePaso, et al; U.S. Pat. No. 7,300,572 issued Nov. 27, 2007 to DePaso, et al; and U.S. Pat. No. 7,594,779 issued Sep. 29, 2009 to Hilstad, et al. describe different attempts for effecting a fish barrier or diversion. Each of these attempts share a common deficiency being limited efficacy to only within a defined watercourse channel constructed to supply water intakes. Yet another common deficiency is that each presents an all or none option and do not offer adaptability to other like tasked devices nor are any to attachable to a non-related device such as a floating log and debris boom.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,263,833 issued Nov. 23, 1993 to Robinson, et al. presents a surface mounted fish screen device. This device claims buoyant elements and the ability to connect multiple sections which allow it to be installed in defined watercourses as well as across open water expanses. This design attempts to guide fish towards a desired location by placing trash-rack like bars underneath a floating device. The device as designed possesses several critical deficiencies that limit its effectiveness as at fish guidance.
First, the barrier utilizes a trash-rack mounted to a floating device. The trash-rack has angled bars spaced apart to create a gap between the bars. This gap permits smaller specifies of fish and marine creatures to easily pass through the fish guide. The spacing between the bars reduces the flow velocity along the surface of the fish guidance device resulting in an insufficient current to effect fish guidance. In order for fish to migrate along and not through a fish guidance device, a sufficient water current for the fish to follow must be present. The large openings and resultant lack of a guiding current diminishes its utility at fish guidance. The device does not appear to present an effective attempt at creating a barrier to prevent the passage of fish.
Yet another substantial deficiency of the device is its use of wood as primary method of buoyancy. Due to its high rate of water absorption wood is a poor choice for the environment in which the device is intended to be deployed. Wood looses buoyancy through absorption thereby becoming heavier and weaker. In order to prevent wood from absorbing water, it must be injected with various chemical agents such as creosote making it toxic to its installation environment. Additionally, as the wood absorbs water and becomes heavier and weaker it would require significant additional maintenance and frequent replacement.
The connecting mechanism limits application of the device to short spans and defined watercourses. An elongate structure is created by positioning multiple sections end to end. The connecting mechanism secures and squares adjoining sections with two tie bars secured at the facing corners of each section. This results in a rigid structure with poor capacities for absorbing impacts, distributing, flexing or bending with load. This deficiency would increase as the number of connected sections increases thereby restricting installation of the device to short spans and defined watercourses. This deficiency is rooted in the device design and not dependent on the materials used in its construction. This deficiency would result in a more rigid, straight line installation that creates extremely high tension along the barrier thereby increasing the hardware requirements and anchorage requirements thus resulting in a more costly installation.
The inventor of the device describes an advantage of the device is to provide facile replacement of sections and facile maintenance. The device appears to generally achieve this objective only when compared against other prior art. However, the damage created by water will require an ever increasing maintenance regimen thereby negating any claims of facile maintenance. Additionally the underwater slat assembly appears to encumber substantial weight thereby requiring a diver and mechanical lifting apparatus for routine maintenance.
SUMMARYIn accordance with one embodiment a fish guidance and exclusion barrier comprises an upper reticulated section and a lower reticulated section, funicular leads with latch type connector mechanisms affixed at each end, and a rigid loop type mounting mechanism which may be affixed to a floating device in an above water position.
ADVANTAGESAccordingly several advantages of one or more aspects are as follows:
To provide an attachment to floating devices that can be suspended from a floating device, that can be facilely installed from above the surface of the water, that can be facilely maintained from above the surface of the water, and which can be comprised of a variety of reticulated materials which may vary according to user specifications.
To provide an underwater system that effectively prevents passage of fish and other marine life by either acting as a barrier wall or when installed at an angle, by directing fish towards a spillway, collection device or some other form of fish passage.
To provide a modular system that can be pre-assembled on land and lowered into the water using standard lifting equipment.
To provide a modular system that utilizes connections designed to allow the system to flex or bow and absorb loads.
To provide a system that can be easily adapted to site specific aquatic and environmental conditions.
To provide an elongate system that provides zero-gap between underwater sections to prevent fish passage.
To provide a system that can use a multitude of reticulated materials appropriate for the specific habitat in which the system is deployed.
To provide a system that can be extended to variable depths depending upon site specific requirements.
To provide a system with above the water surface connectors for facile maintenance, inspection, and replacement.
Other advantages of one or more aspects will be apparent from a consideration of the drawings and ensuing description.
A preferred embodiment of a fish guidance and exclusion barrier device is illustrated in
Beginning at one end along the top horizontal edge of the lower section 12, grommets 16 are affixed through the reticulated element and spaced periodically the entire horizontal edge ending at the opposite end. The spacing of the grommets 16 may vary according to end user specifications generally according to weight and load considerations affecting the lower section 12.
In the preferred embodiment illustrated in
A close up perspective of the preferred loop and latch type connection method of connecting the lower section 12 to a floating device 24 is shown in
A perspective embodiment of the lower section 12 of the device is depicted in
An end view perspective of the device is depicted in
The end view perspective of the preferred embodiment of the fish guidance and exclusion barrier device is depicted in
Yet another embodiment of a continuous fish guidance and exclusion barrier a predetermined length of reticulated or non reticulated material may be attached by any suitable method to create a continuous underwater barrier between device sections.
There are various possibilities for the materials used in either the upper or lower sections. Additional variations exist for the type of connectors and funicular lead material which may be used for the device. The greatest determinant of materials used in the construction of the device will vary according to user specifications and the conditions in which the device is intended to be employed.
AdvantagesFrom the above description, a number of advantages of some embodiments of our fish guidance and exclusion barrier are evident:
(a) Providing a suspended attachment to upstream located floating log and debris boom lines or other floating devices can provide a cost effective and efficient method for water intake operators to guide fish from their critical facilities.
(b) The ability to utilize a single system as a simple barrier or, by making simple adjustments to the angle at which the device operates, as a device for guiding fish towards a spillway or diversion channel.
(c) The modular system may be pre-assembled on land and easily lowered into the water using standard lifting equipment.
(d) The use of a variety of underwater underwater reticulated materials allows the system to be easily adapted to site specific fish, water and environmental conditions.
(e) The addition of a reticulated material between devices provides zero-gap between underwater screens to prevent fish passage.
(f) The placement of lower section connectors above the water surface allows easy maintenance, inspection, and replacement.
CONCLUSIONAccordingly, readers will see that the fish guidance and exclusion barrier is an improvement over the prior art by providing a device capable of simultaneously guiding and blocking multiple sizes of fish which can be installed and maintained from above the surface of the water and which can be attached to many different types of floating devices.
The description and drawings above contain many specificities, but these should not be construed to limit the scope of the embodiments but rather to illustrate some of several possible embodiments. For example, the fish guidance and exclusion barrier could be suspended from a cable suspended above a body of water rather than from a device floating on the surface of the body of water.
Thus the scope of the embodiments should be determined by the claims and their legal equivalents, rather than by the examples given.
Claims
1. A fish guidance and exclusion barrier device means to divert or prevent the downstream progression of fish and or debris within a body of water comprising: A plurality of suspended reticulated means to allow the flow of water beyond said means and prevent the passage of fish or debris beyond said means. Said screen or reticulated means as described above may extend below the surface of the water for a predetermined length.
2. The barrier of claim 1 wherein said reticulated means consists of upper and lower sections.
3. The barrier of claim 1 wherein a plurality of barriers may be suspended longitudinally across a pre-determined span.
4. The barrier of claim 3 wherein a plurality of longitudinally suspended barriers may be affixed end to end means to provide a continuous barrier for a predetermined length.
5. The barrier of claim 1 wherein said upper and lower sections may be attached to a floating device
6. The barrier of claim 5 wherein the attachment means of said upper and lower sections is positioned in an above water location.
Type: Application
Filed: Jun 30, 2010
Publication Date: Jan 5, 2012
Inventors: Paul S. Meeks (Canton, OH), Jeffrey Sanger (Jensen Beach, FL)
Application Number: 12/827,188
