slide1 l.
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
M&T/Llano Seco Fish Screen Short-term/Long-term Project

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 48

M&T/Llano Seco Fish Screen Short-term/Long-term Project - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 324 Views
  • Uploaded on

M&T/Llano Seco Fish Screen Short-term/Long-term Project. WORKSHOP #5, 9-3-08. A CALFED BAY-Delta Authority Funded Project. Sponsored by: Ducks Unlimited, Inc. MEI. M&T PROBLEM. Fish Screen Velocity and Intake Burial Solutions 1. Relax the fish screening criteria

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'M&T/Llano Seco Fish Screen Short-term/Long-term Project' - mike_john


Download Now 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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

M&T/Llano Seco Fish Screen Short-term/Long-term Project

WORKSHOP #5, 9-3-08

A CALFED BAY-Delta Authority Funded Project

Sponsored by: Ducks Unlimited, Inc.

m t problem
M&T PROBLEM
  • Fish Screen Velocity and Intake Burial
  • Solutions

1. Relax the fish screening criteria

2. Evaluate a range of solutions that meet fish screen criteria (in-channel) or eliminate the need for fish screens(out-of-channel)

slide4
Progressive meander migration
  • Downstream
  • By 1942, outside of bend reaches pump site
  • Continues to move downward
  • Outside of bend “slides” along pump site

Eric Larsen UC Davis

slide5
Progressive migration continues downstream
  • By 1997, apex of bend reaches pump site
  • Continued migration will cause apex to migrate downstream
  • Channel moves away from pump site

Eric Larsen UC Davis

slide6

2003 Photo

1979 Photo

1979 Photo

MEI

gravel bar 2007 condition
Gravel Bar – 2007 Condition

Eroding

Bank

M&T

Pumps

causes of the problem
CAUSES OF THE PROBLEM
  • Downstream bar migration

850 ft in 6 yrs (1995-2001): Rate = 140’/yr (Stillwater Sciences, 2001) – 60’/yr (Larsen/DWR) – 60-80’/yr (Corollo)

Recent rates reduced by dredging of gravel bar (2001, 2007): 300,000 t.

  • Bank erosion and river migration

~ 400 ft in 10 yrs (1996-2006)

project objectives
Project Objectives

1. To obtain an authoritative and unbiased description of the state of scientific knowledge related to Sacramento River meander, fish screen and pumping plant technology by convening a multidisciplinary team of experts in the fields of fluvial geomorphology, sediment transport, hydraulic modeling, fish screen and pumping plant technology.

2. To provide an opportunity for stakeholders and scientists to test and refine an understanding of the potential for unintended effects between managing the natural riverine system, fisheries requirements and pumping requirements.  

3. To conduct an exhaustive literature search, fill identified data gaps and conduct modeling to provide important data essential to answering specific questions that support a strong research approach in accomplishing the primary project goal.

4. To determine performance measures/indicators that will guide the long-term solution in meeting the primary project goal.

5. To fully document the investigative process of determining, identifying and justifying the long-term solution that will meet the primary goal of the project.

ranking criteria
RANKING CRITERIA
  • Ability to provide reliable water supply (150 cfs; 40,000 A-F/YR)
  • Ability to let river meander
  • Ability to meet fish screen criteria
  • Engineering Feasibility
  • Capitol Costs
  • Operation and Maintenance Costs
  • Compatibility with City of Chico wastewater outfall needs
scientific panel
Scientific Panel
  • Yantao Cui, Ph.D. Research Scientist -Hydrology/Geomorphology
  • Michael Harvey, Ph.D., P.G. FluvialGeomorphologist
  • Eric Larsen, Ph.D. Research Scientist-Geology
  • Robert Mussetter, Ph.D., P.E. Hydraulic Engineer
  • Dennis Dorratcague, P.E. Civil Engineer (MWH)has assisted with engineering analysis and costing throughout the project
project stakeholders
Project Stakeholders
  • M&T Chico Ranch
  • Llano Seco Ranch
  • U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service – Sacramento National Refuge Complex
  • California Department of Fish & Game
  • City of Chico
workshop 1 nov 2003
WORKSHOP 1 Nov. 2003
  • Alternative Water Supplies

-Groundwater wells

-Ranney Collector

-City of Chico Wastewater

-Butte Creek Diversion

  • Change Point of Diversion

-Upstream & Big Chico Creek

  • Additional “T” fish screens

-Upstream & across-stream

  • Bank Stabilization
follow on studies
FOLLOW-ON STUDIES
  • Feasibility of groundwater wells
  • Costs for alternatives
  • Feasibility of “T” screens
  • Economic and legal issues
  • Evaluation of water supply & demand
  • Impacts on City of Chico WWTP outfall
  • River meander and sediment transport modeling
workshop 2 march 2004
WORKSHOP 2 March 2004
  • Infiltration galleries
  • Extended intakes d/s and across-stream
  • In-conduit fish screens
  • Dredging w/ modified fish screens
  • Rock Dikes
  • Multiple production wells
  • Ranney Collectors
outcome
OUTCOME
  • Reject

- Extended intakes

- In-conduit screens

- Infiltration galleries

- Multiple production wells

  • Carried Forward

- Dredging & modified screens

- Spur dikes

- Ranney Collectors

additional studies
ADDITIONAL STUDIES
  • Two-dimensional modeling
  • Meander modeling
  • Drilling of test wells
workshop 3 february 2005
Workshop 3: February 2005
  • 3-4 Ranney wells
  • Dredging/fish screen modification
  • Spur dikes
  • ADDITIONAL STUDIES
  • 4 Feasibility studies to inform alternatives
  • Refine meander analysis (50-yrs) (impacts)
  • Enviro. Documentation- gravel bar dredge
  • Feasibility of interim stabilization
workshop 4 april 2006
WORKSHOP 4: April 2006
  • No Action
  • 3-4 Ranney wells ($20-26M) ($~ 30 A-F)
  • 1-2 Ranney wells (can’t supply 30,000 AF)
  • 8 Dikes
  • 9 Dikes
  • 9 dikes extended ($7.5 -$12M) ($13 AF)
  • 3 dredge alternatives ($8.6M) ($15 AF)
additional studies actions
ADDITIONAL STUDIES & ACTIONS
  • 2-D model to evaluate u/s and d/s impacts of dikes and removal of rock revetments
  • Additional meander modeling to predict impacts of rock removal
  • Physical modeling to evaluate dredging and spur dikes
  • Interim bank stabilization
  • Removal of gravel bar
calfed expenditures
CALFED EXPENDITURES
  • 1997 New pumping plant and screens $5M
  • 2001 Gravel bar dredging $400,000
  • 2007 Gravel bar dredging $ 409,000
  • 2007 Interim bank stabilization $620,000
  • 2003 – 2008 Studies $1.4M
  • TOTAL EXPENDITURE (1997-2008) $8.3M
slide35

2-D Modeling to evaluate upstream and downstream impacts of dikes and to evaluate effects of river meandering on the M&T overflow weir

MEI

M&T Weir

current status
CURRENT STATUS
  • No Action alternative
  • Eliminated dredging alternatives
  • 9 Dike alternative
  • Move pumping plant

- ~ 2,200 ft

- ~ 3,500 ft

slide47

2200 ft

3600 ft

MEI