fi 

INTERAGENCY ECOLOGICAL STUDY PROGRAM 

FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN ESTUARY 

DELTA FISH FACILITIES TECHNICAL COMMITTEE 

WORKING JUSTIFICATION PAPER NO, 6 

"Justification For Abandonment of Further Consideration of the 

Louver Fish Screen For An Intake Facility For the Peripheral Canal" 

March, 1981 ~ 
Pab $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 include both 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 screen was installed at the intake of 

the California Department of Water Resources' pumping plant near Byron, California, This second installation becamecperational 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,Estuary whose 

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, California Aqueduct, 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 considerable research 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

.hynchus tshawytscha). 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 efficiency were possible, but since a significant proportion 

/of the chinook salmon migrating past the Hood intake site are smaller than 

138 mm (1-5 in.) in length (Schaffter 19801, our inability to achieve acceptable 

J

'salvage efficiencies with the louver system resulted in a decision to pursue 

!other screening 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 reversals would cause flows from both 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 location within 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 (1-5 in.) 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+-illtrhe most cost 

effective screening kce'chnology available for fish large enough to detect and 

guide past the louvers to the b~,;>zss. 
, -3-

The 1974 decision of the Fish Facilities Technical Committee, following a recommendation by the Fish Facilities Consulting Board, concluded that the louver 

screen should not be pursued as a means of screening fish at the Peripheral Canal 

intake, The conclusion was based on two concerns, one of which may no longer 

be valid, 

The Technical Committee again 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 information on 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 review and preliminary design of multifarious 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 Administrative Report 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 of hydraulic 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), California Department of Fish and 

Game, Anad. Fish. Br, Admin, Rept. 78-22. 

Ruggles, C, P, and P. Ryan, 1964, An investigation of louvers as a method 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' 

..._ .