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, 1979 
JUSTIFICATION FOR ABANDONMENT OF FURTHER 

Ct3NSIDERATION OF THE FILTEUTION CONCEPT FOR 

~4 mrm FACILITY FOR THE PERIPHERAL CANAS/ 

INTRODUCTION 

This is a “working justification paper” that presents the rationale 

?or the present direction of the Delta Fish Facilities Program. It 

was prepared by the Delta Fish Facilities Technical Coordinating Committee 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 

hscd an new findings, policy redirection, financial, and other constraints. 

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 in August 1974 to discontinue 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 Reswwces, U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, and U. s. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 
-- -- 

-- 

-2-

DISCUSSION 

1,arge scale sand and gravel filters-21 have 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 to large 

:X=E~SZILSareas through which water is drawn at a sufficiently slow rate 

ka G,~'$Qwegp, larvae, and debris to continue over the filter surface e The 'filteredFi water is carried away from the area by drain 

?.>ip~:sand discharged into a collector canal, 

F.1 .. L ~ porous I ~ area or filter bed is composed of layers of uniformly

grad.ed sands and gravels, gradation getting larger in the direction .-e 

p c.fL .<- t:later flaw. The layers can be arranged on a slope to be built up

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

Veloelty of water flowing across the filter bed could be a hundred 

times the velocity of water going through the filter bed. To maineai;; mavement of eggs and larvae across the filter bed, 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 constructed with 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 minimum head loss. If no cleaning is 

-.pi.o;;.ided, 1­ fo:ger inflow velocities will be required and great head loss

ca accwnulate 3s the filter bed clogs. 

pi, filter bed err a slope cannot be backwashed because the filter material would eventually end up at the bottom of the slope. Therefore, 

8 *:le&y leveeyPdesign, limited in height by minimum river water surfa@eelevation, csuld mean hundreds of miles of levee, This type of 

&sign does not therefore appear feasible. 

?-Fne gstential feasibility of a horizontal filter bed system was investLgn-~.edin 1973 by the Department of Water Science and Engineering, 

-gq- Li~ersity -%. of California at Davis (UCD) under a contract with DkR 

(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 in November 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 to be potentially feasible; 

however, some additional information is required before 

Pes use Ls recovmended. Before complete evaluation can 

2/f Zwcludes ~tkernomenclature 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 to be 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 in river water with suspended particles. 01 

'::he.report further recommends that laboratory tests be' made to gain 

;:a

,t;;,heneeded information, After some iscussions with UCB personnel, specific praposed was made by ZJCL37 to construct a Sacramento -t<&iw-&sr .. pElot sa-rrd filter installation and conduct studies to deter­

:dn.e whether 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 the Agency 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 will be 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 to have 

the Peripheral Canal operational by 1980, the intake 

location must be fixed by January 1975, 

The cli~~~inatisn of the filter concept under item 1 resulted 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 P testing To develop the biological and engineering Eeehnohogy

?:or a filter system in Che Sacramento River at.Hood. 

TFle iL Fotx-Agenev ]Directors approved this program direction on tiarch 13,

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~Teoncepe , 

The Consulting Board, hired Ln April 197'4, recommended at a meeting 

;:xe 24 and 25, 1974, that all screen concepts be reviewed. After 

~eviewof all svaflable material 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, to Robin Reynolds, District Engiricer, Central Bistrict, Department of Water Resources, 

I i w.

0 +; ;,etter reporE' dated Augast 28, 1974, from Loren Jensen, Chairman, -e 

Fish FacilL~iesConsulting Board, to John Skinner, Charman, ;xsh

FiatEities Tcch~2ca-ECooxtki-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 

.;, .~,we>4.&t 4 ;r;.. " 14 2 4,974. 

A revised program, based on the Directors' decision and on the Con­

~uI.cL,ng rd recomendations, was for~ukatedby the work group of 

tIse ,i,,FTa? Mesl farther work has been scheduled on the filter cmcept. 

cOEGLIISION 

%?e rccomend tihat no further work on the filter concept be pursued, i-.~'l~is; rcccmaendation is based on the availability of other technalogical and-operationalsolutions, the lack of an adequate cleaning

~z.clg,anisrnfor a filter, and the size sf ehe filter bed needed for 

&j7 -p *.*. application. 
-3­

c 

-si, i.>;i~~.~.~es, ,Qi:Prw 1 J, J, 1973, Sand Filters for Screening of Water Diversion.

tJate-6' Science and Engineering Paper #lC853. Department of Water 

S~ie~~ce and Engineering, U. C. Davis.