### INTERAGENCY ECOLOGICAL 

### STUDY PROGRAM FOR 

### THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN 

### ESTUARY

DELTA FISH FACILITIES TECHNICAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE

WORKING JUSTIFICATION PAPER 

### NO. 

### 3

"Justification for Abandonment of Further Consideration of 

### the Filtration Concept 

### for an Intake Facility for the Peripheral Canal"

August, 

### 1979JUSTIFICATION FOR ABANDONMENT OF FURTHER Ct3NSIDERATION OF 

### THE FILTEUTION CONCEPT FOR ~4 

## mrmFACILITY FOR 

### THE PERIPHERAL 

# CANAS/

INTRODUCTION


### This 

### is 

### a “workingjustification paper” that presents the rationale 

### ?or the present direction of the DeltaFish Facilities Program. 

### It 

### was prepared 

### by the Delta Fish Facilities Technical Coordinating Com

### mittee whose members include both biological and engineering 

### staff 

### cf 

### the Interagency Ecological Study Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin 

### Estuary. As a “working” document it 

### is subject to change hscdan new findings, policy redirection, financial, and other con

### straints. This paper documents the rationale and decisions leadhg up to the recomaendation 

### by the Fish 

### Facilities Consulting Board and adoption oE the recommendation by the Fish 

### Facilities Technical Coordinating Comiittee inAugust 

### 1974 todiscontinue any further evaluation 

### of 

### zhe Ciltration concept.



# - I/ Prepared by the DefPla Fish Facilities Technical Coordinating Comnittee, 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 Re

### swwces, 

### U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, and U. 

## s. Fish and Wildlife Service.

# -- 

# --

-- -2-


### DISCUSSION 1,arge 

### scale sand and gravel filters- 

### 21have been proposed for 

### screen­ %ng

### gish eggs 

### and larvae from water being diverted into the Peripheral

.e-> 

### tan82. The concept involves exposing flowing 

### river water 

### tolarge :X=E~SZILS 

### areas through which 

### water is drawn at 

### a sufficiently 

### slow rate ka G,~'$Qw 

### egp,larvae, and debris to continue over the filter sur

### facee 

### The 'filteredFiwater 

### is carried away from the 

### area by 

### drain ?.>ip~:s and 

### discharged into a collector canal, F.1
.. I ~ L ~ 

### porous area or filter bed 

### is composed of layers of uniformly grad.ed sands and gravels, gradation getting larger inthe direction

.-e c.fL

### t:later flaw. The layers can be arranged on 

### a slope to be built up p .<- 

### ILke 

### a levee (leaky levee), or arranged flat (horizontal filter bed). 

### Veloelty of water flowing across the filterbed could be a hundred 

### times the velocity 

### of water going through the filterbed. 

### To main

### eai;; mavement of eggs and 

### larvae across the filterbed, 

### a velocity 

### grreaeer than 

### 1 fps may be required. To prevent movement 

### of filter bed. naterlals, 

### a velocity 

### less than 

### 4 fps may be required. The 

### Ei'Bter bed 

### can be constructedwith or without 

### a cleaning mechanism. Hackwshing 

### .withwater 

### air, 

### or a combination of both.is probably the ixst,method far cleaning sand filters. Cleaning allows higher inflow 

### -\,docities 

### while maintaining 

### a minimumhead 

### loss. 

### If no cleaning 

### is pi.o;;.ided, fo:ger inflow velocities 

### will

### be required and great head 

### loss 

### -. 1­ ca accwnulate 3s the filterbed clogs. pi, 

### filterbed err a slope cannot be backwashed because the filter

### mate

### rialwould eventually end up 

### at the bottom 

### of the slope. Therefore, 8 

### *:le&y leveeyP design, limited inheight by minimum river 

### water 

### surfa@e 

### elevation, csuld mean hundreds of 

### miles of levee, 

### This type 

### of 

### &sign does not therefore appear feasible.

?-F



### ne gstential feasibility of 

### a horizontal filterbed system 

### was investLgn-~.ed 

### in 

### 1973

### by the Department 

### of 

### Water Science and Engineering, Li~ersity -gq- -%. 

### of 

### California atDavis (UCD) under 

### a contract 

### withDkR (SSA 

### #?353424). The study by UCD considered 

### a high capacity sand 

### fili;ser without backwashing 

### or mechanical cleaners and 

### was limited 

### to

### a literature survey 

### and to computations required for a preliminary uod& 

### sf the 

### system. A report 

### was completed inNovember 

### 1973 (DeVries -I&- 7 -, k;l I

### -sl*

p:.p 

### sne following statement 

### is from the summary.in that report on page 

### IV: "This filter 

### system appears tobepotentially feasible;

however, 

### some additional information 

### is required before Pes use Ls 

### recovmended. Before complete evaluation can

2/f Zwcludes 

### ~tker nomenclature used, such 

### as: filtration, filter bed, bottm

### gilter, infiltration, and leaky levee.J-L



# -- -3­
w be 

### made and 

### a final design undertaken, further 

### infomatLsn is needed 

### on the minimum horizontal velocities 

### required for the filter tobe self-cleaning, the effects

f OX 

### flaw on bass larvae and eggs, the resistance 

### of an operztirrg filter to 

### flows across it, and the performance cf B fifhter inriver 

### water with suspended particles. 01 

### '::he.report 

### further recommends that laboratory 

### tests be' made 

### to gain ;:a 

### ,t;;,he needed information, After some iscussions with UCB personnel, specific

### praposed

### was made 

### by ZJCL 

### 37 toconstruct 

### a Sacramento



## -.. t<&iw-&srpElot sa-rrdfilter installation 

### and conduct studies todeter­ 

### :dn.ewhether appropriate conditions 

### can be established 

### for cleaning 

### t:::he

### fi2Eer surface by action of the horizontd velocities, without 

### entraining the filter

### material. A 

### program 

### reviev by the Fish 

### Facilities Technical Camdinacing 

### Comsiittee (FFTCC) arid theAgency CoordEnators resulted in the following xecamnendazions being made January 

### 9 1974: 

### 1, Screen concepts be limited 

### to three, wikh concentrated 

### effort 

### m a 

### low velocity, positive barrier, 

### "at-river, TI with limited effort 

### on rotary 

### drums and louvers

# ,''in-canal " 

### 2, Striped 

### bass eggs and 

### larvae willbe protected by 

### curtailment of diversions. 

### 3. The fish screen should be func%ionaPby 1980 

### or 2982 

### at the 

### latest. \ 

### 4. 

### Based OR the 

### design and construction schedule tohave the Peripheral 

### Canal operational by 1980, the intake 

### location must be 

### fixed 

### by January 1975, 

### The cli~~~inatisn 

### of the filter concept under 

### item 

### 1resulted primarily

c '1-y -~.

### the 

### decision that the 

### fish screen should be functional by 1980-82. gat 

### enoeigh time 

### was available 

### prior to start 

### of design 

### to

### perform the 

### needed testing To develop the biological and engineering 

### Eeehnohogy P 

### ?:or a 

### filter system 

### in Che Sacramento River 

### at.

### Hood. TFle 

### Fotx-Agenev ]Directors

### approved this program direction on tiarch 

### 13, iL 

### 2974, UCD was-notified by letter April 

### 17, 1974, that the 

### $&ne CORstrain^ iil 

### the 

### approved program precluded further studies 

### cm the fil­

a- L~T 

### eoncepe, The Consulting Board, hired Ln April 

### 197'4, recommended 

### at 

### a meeting 

### ;:xe 24 and 

### 25, 

### 1974, that 

### all screen concepts 

### be reviewed. 

### After ~eview of allsvaflablematerial of t filteation concept, the 

### Board
_*=

c.cs-~mended 

### on 

### A~gust12 artd 

### 23, 

### 1974- 

# & ?hat the 

### FFTCC discors,E:inae 

### any -.

--.- :if Letter daced Wrch 

### 12, 

### 1974, 

### J, Amorocho, Professor 

### of'Water Sei­

, ence and Civil Engineering, 

### UCD, toRobin Reynolds, 

### District Engi

### ricer, Central 

### Bistrict, Department of Water 

### Resources,

I i w. 

### +; ;,etter reporE'dated Augast 

### 28, 

### 1974, from 

### Loren Jensen, Chairman, 0 -e Fish

### FacilL~ies Consulting Board, toJohn Skinner, Charman, ;xsh FiatEities 

### Tcch~2ca-E Cooxtki-nating committee.

### -4­ 1

n 

### i.:ztcnsive evaluation 

### of the 

### filter concept, A 

### major 

### concern was devk;lqmenent 

### crE 

### a cleaning method 

### and 

### of relayering the 

### filter mate-

F *? .-<, '3 c 2 a 

### The 

### Technical Cornittee accepted 

### this recommendation on

4 ;

r;.. .;,.~,we>4.&t " 

### 14 2 

### 4,974. 

### A revised program, 

### based on the 

### Directors' decision 

### and on the 

### Con­ ~uI.cL,ng rd 

### recomendations, 

### was for~ukated 

### by the work 

### group 

### of tIse ,i,,FTa? 

### Mesl farther work has been 

### scheduled on the 

### filter cmcept.



### cOEGLIISION


### %?erccomend tihat 

### no further 

### work 

### on the 

### filter concept 

### be 

### pursued, i-. 

### ~'l~is; rcccmaendation 

### is 

### based on the availability

### of other 

### technalogical and-operational

### solutions, the lack of 

### an adequate cleaning 

### ~z.clg,anisrn for 

### a filter, and the 

### size sf 

### ehe filter bed 

### needed 

### for &j7 -p *.*. 

### application.-3­

c

-si, 

### i.>;i~~.~.~es, 

### 1973, Sand Filters 

### for Screening 

### of Water Diversion. ,Qi:

Prw1 

### J, J, tJate-6'Science 

### and Engineering 

### Paper 

### #lC853. Department 

### of 

### Water S~ie~~ce and 

### Engineering, U. 

### C. Davis.