fi



### INTERAGENCYECOLOGICAL 

### STUDY PROGRAM FOR 

### THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN ESTUARY

DELTA 

### FISH FACILITIESTECHNICAL COMMITTEE



### WORKING JUSTIFICATIONPAPER NO, 

### 6

"Justification For Abandonment of Further 

### Considerationof the
Louver Fish 

### Screen For 

### An Intake Facility For 

### the Peripheral Canal"

March, 1981

~Pa 

### b

# $2;&*% JUSTIFICATION FOR ABANDONMENT

### OF 

### FURTHER CONSIDERATION

### OF 

### THE +" 

## 4%
LOWER FISH SCREEN FOR AN 

### INTAKE FACILITY FOR 

### THE PERIPHERAL CAN&'

INTRODUCTION

This is a "working justification paper" that presents the rationale for the present direction of the Delta 

### Fish Facilities Program. 

### It was prepared by the Delta Fish Facilities Technical Committee whose members includeboth biological and engineering staff of the Interagency Ecological Study Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. As a "working" document 

### it is subject to change based on new findings, policy redirection, financial, and other constraintse This paper documents the rationale and decisions leading to a reccmnendation by the Fish Facilities Consulting Board and adoptioh of the recommendation

### by the Fish Facilities Technical Committee in August, 1974, to discontinue any further evaluation of the louver screen concept,

THE CONCEPT

The louver fish screen,developed by the 

### U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to screen the intake of the 

### U, S. Water and Power Resources Service pumping plant near Tracy, California, first became operational in February, 1957, Subsequently, a modified version 

### of this fish screenwas installed at the intake of the California Department 

### of Water Resources' pumping plant near Byron, California, This second installationbecamecperational in the late 1960's.
The original plan for the Peripheral Canal intake screens assumed the relocation of the existing louvers from the southern Delta to the new intake site at Hood on the Sacramento River. This assumption led to several evaluations which defined the effectiveness of the louver screen concept and established 

### its limitations, Three of these evaluations summarize the state of our knowledge on these systems, and are: 

### (1) Hallock, Richard J., Robert 

### A, Iselin, and Donald H. Fry, Jr. 1968, Efficiency tests of the primary system, Tracy Fish Screen 1966-67. California Fish and Game, Marine Resources Branch Administrative Report 68-7,



## - 1/ Prepared by the Delta Fish Facilities Technical Committee,part of the Interagency Ecological Study Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin,Estuarywhose members include: California Department of Fish and Game, California Department of Water Resources, U. 

## s, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U, 

## s. Water and ,' Power Resources Service-2­

(2) California Department 

### of Water Resources. 1973, Evaluation testing program report �or Delta Fish Protective Facility. State Water Facilities, CaliforniaAqueduct, North San Joaquin Division, Memorandum Report. (3) Heubach,William and John 

### E, Skinner, 1978, 1973 evaluation of the federal fish collecting facility at Tracy, California. California Department 

### of Fish and Game, Bay-Delta Fishery Project Memorandum Report prepared July, 1978.
In addition,workers elsewhere have done considerableresearch on this screen concept, These workers include Ruggles and Ryan (19641 who evaluated louvers for use in guiding juvenile Pacific salmon, Thompson and Paulik (1967) who tested louvers at Mayfield Dam in Washington, and Meinz 

### (1978) who evaluated factors affecting louver guidance efficiency for juvenile chinook salmon (Oncor­ .hynchustshawytscha). Finally, the hydraulics 

### of a louver fish screen are fully described in a report by the Hydraulics Research Station,Ministry of Technology, Wallingford, Berkshire, England (1967). These reports and their supporting references provide access to the research into this subject,

DISCUSSION

-rnieresults 

### of the louver evaluation studies (Hallock, Iselin,and Fry 1968; California Department of Water Resources 1973; Heubach and Skinner 1978) have 

# \demonstrated that loilvers are not efficient devices for screening fish less \than38 mm 

### (1.5 in.> 

### in length, The work conducted by Meinz (1978) was done \withthe specific goal of optimizing louver efficiencies for chinook salmon \jless than 38 mm 

### (1-5 

### in.) in length. His results showed that significant {gainsin overall efficiencywere possible,but since a significant proportion /ofthe chinook salmonmigrating past the Hood intake site are smaller than 138 mm (1-5 in.) in length (Schaffter 19801, 

### our inability to achieve acceptable 

## J'salvageefficiencies with the louver system resulted in a decision to pursue !otherscreening concepts. 

### L

The matter was further complicated by a decision to move the fish screens from the Peripheral Canal proper, downstream of the settling basin, to the river bank. 

### At the river, tidal reversalswould cause flows fromboth upstream and downstream of the intake, requiring the louvers to be movable, Such a system has been developed subsequently and was presented in a report to the 

### New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (Goodman 1977).
Concerns over the louver efficiencies and the tidal reversal problems became the basis for a decision (in 1974) 

### to abandon the louver screen for the Peripheral Canal intake. Subsequent to this decision, planned location 

### of the intake was moved 

### from the "on-river" location to a locationwithin an "off-river channel," to eliminate the tidal reversals at the screen face. Thus, our inability to achieve acceptable efficiencies for fish less than 38 mm (1-5in.) remains the major objection to the use of'the louver screen for the Peripheral Canal intake,

, -- .' The decision to abandon the louver concept for this application should not be taken as a blanket condemnation of the system, since it is s+-ill trhe most cost effective screening kce'chnologyavailable for fish large enough to detect and guide past the louvers to the b~, ;>zss., -3-

The 1974decision of the Fish Facilities Technical Committee, following a recommendationby the Fish Facilities Consulting Board, concluded that the louver screen shouldnot be pursued as ameans of screening fish at the Peripheral Canal intake, The conclusionwas based 

### on two concerns, one of whichmay no longer be valid,
The Technical Committeeagain reviewed the various concepts 

### in 1979 and con­ {:Luded that a "positive barrier" appeared to be the most suitable screen concept for fish protection at the Peripheral Canal intake and further

### work on behavioral screens such as the louver was not appropriate.
bk continue to monitor the work on fish screens being done elsewhere and will reconsider this decision if new informationon this concept becomes available,

LITERATURE CITED

California Department of Water Resources. 1973. Evaluation testing program report for Delta Fish Protective Facility. State Water Facilities. California Aqueduct,North San Joaquin Division, Memorandum Report. Goodman,Alvin S, 1977. Conceptual reviewand preliminary designofmultifarious water intake structure, Polytechnic Institute of New York, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hallock, Richard J,, Robert A. Iselin,and Donald H. Fry, Jr. 1968. Efficiency tests of the primary system,Tracy Fish Screen 

### 1966-67. California Department of Fish and Game,Marine Resources Branch AdministrativeReport 68-7. tleubach, William and John E, Skinner. 1978. 1973 Evaluation of the Federal Fish Collecting Facility at Tracy, California. California Department of Fish and Game, Bay-Delta Fishery Project Memorandum Report prepared July, 1978. Hydraulics Research Station. 1967. Report on study ofhydraulic characteristics of louver-type fish screens. Hydraulics Research Station,Ministry of Technology, Wallingford,Berkshire, England, Report 

### No. EVX 358, Meinz,Mike. 1978, Factors affecting louver guidance efficiency for juvenile king salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), CaliforniaDepartmentof Fish and Game, Anad. Fish. Br, Admin, Rept. 78-22. Ruggles, C, P, and 

### P. Ryan, 

### 1964, An investigationof louvers as amethod of guiding juvenile Pacific salmon, Canadian Fish, Cult, Issue 33. Schaffter,Raymond G, 1980, Fish occurrence, size, and distribution

### In the Sacramento River near Hood, California during 1973 and 1974, California Department of Fish and Game,Anad. Fish. Br, Admin. Rept. 

### 80-3.

,- C'-4-

Thompsozr, John So

### and G, 3. 

### Paulik, 

### 1967. 

### An evaluation of 

### louvers and 

### bypass facilities for 

### guiding seaward migrant salmonids past Mayfield Dam in western

### Washington, State of 

### Washington. Department:of Fisheries. Research Division.

, i'

..._ .