1 / 19

In-Delta Fish Screen Facilities

In-Delta Fish Screen Facilities. Delta Wetlands Proposed Facilities and Basis for Re-Engineered Facilities. Webb Tract Diversions and Discharges. Bacon Island Diversions and Discharges. Now. Two Main Locations. Re-engineered. Diversion Plan and Elevation - 5/10/01.

clio
Download Presentation

In-Delta Fish Screen Facilities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. In-Delta Fish Screen Facilities Delta Wetlands Proposed Facilities and Basis for Re-Engineered Facilities

  2. Webb Tract Diversions and Discharges

  3. Bacon Island Diversions and Discharges Now Two Main Locations Re-engineered

  4. Diversion Plan and Elevation - 5/10/01 Booster Pumps Located on New Levee Section Fish Screen

  5. Proposed Fish Screen - 86 cfs each max. Hinged Pipe to Remove Screen when not in Use No Cleaning System

  6. Some Existing Siphons to be Screened, but Contribution is Unclear Habitat Islands = 200 cfs (existing water right) Webb Tract = 4500 cfs 32 New Siphons/Pumps = 2750 cfs 7 Existing Siphons = 1750 cfs (or 250 cfs each???) Bacon Island = 4500 cfs 32 New Siphons/Pumps = 2750 cfs 28 Existing Siphons = 1750 cfs (or 62 cfs each??) ??? Typical Siphons are in the 10 -20 cfs max range…They are not proposed to be enlarged

  7. DW Proposed Design Issues/Problems • Intake Screen Unproven at this Scale • Fish Screen Criteria Not Met • Screen Structure and Support Inadequate • Hinge, Screen, Piling, Bracing, Etc. • Pipe/Pump Hydraulic Issues • Settlement Impacts • Levee Stability Impacts • Erosion • Cyclic Loads and Fatigue • Retrofit of Existing Siphons Uncertain

  8. Operations and Maintenance Issues • Manual Cleaning is Inadequate • Sedimentation and Dredging • Corrosion Potential and Cathotic Protection • Poor Access to Screens (cranes, boats) • Difficult Underwater Inspection • Settlement Monitoring and Adjustment • Flow Monitoring and Data Collection • Starting the Siphon • Pump Maintenance

  9. Hinge Design Loads and Fatigue

  10. Cleaning System Failure Andreotti Fish Screen 9/98

  11. Material Selection Considerations

  12. Potential Environmental Issues of DW Alternative • Fish Predation • Larval Fish Loss • Recreation/Boating Limitations • Aesthetics • Pump Noise • Evaluation Facilities Needed • Maintenance Activities • Construction Impacts • Water Quality at Discharge Stations

  13. Uncertain Retrofit of Existing Facilities for Screening • Old Siphon Pipe Adequacy • Electrical Requirements for Automation • Site Issues • Structural Adequacy

  14. Siphon Screen ExampleHorseshoe Bend (30 cfs)

  15. Fish Screen Criteria Drove Alternative Facilities Design at Intake Site • Screen area inadequate for manual cleaning • Screen mesh is too large • Screens over 40 cfs subject to hydraulic uniformity and siting criteria • Not a “Distributed Intake” concept

  16. Potential Benefits of Re-Engineered Consolidated Facility • Operations • Maintenance • Structural Integrity • Hydraulic Improvements

  17. Example of Consolidated Facility CCWD Los Vaqueros IntakeOld River Pump Station

  18. Example of Consolidated Facility RD108 830 cfs Sac. River

More Related