1 / 38

Basin-Specific Feasibility Studies STA and Reservoir Alternatives

Basin-Specific Feasibility Studies STA and Reservoir Alternatives. Presentation to EAA Storage Reservoirs Phase 1 Project Development Team. November 21, 2002. Background. Basin-Specific Feasibility Studies for the ECP Basins Completed October 2002

ursa
Télécharger la présentation

Basin-Specific Feasibility Studies STA and Reservoir Alternatives

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. Basin-Specific Feasibility Studies STA and Reservoir Alternatives Presentation to EAA Storage Reservoirs Phase 1 Project Development Team November 21, 2002

  2. Background • Basin-Specific Feasibility Studies for the ECP Basins Completed October 2002 • Objective Was to Evaluate Alternatives for Achieving EFA Long-term Water Quality Improvement Goals • Included Alternatives for STA-2, STA-3/4, STA-5 and STA-6 • All Potentially Affected by EAA Storage Reservoirs Projects

  3. Background • Proper Evaluation Required Assessment of Potential Influence of EAA Storage Reservoirs on STA Operation and Performance • Necessary to Conduct Assessment in Advance of Full Definition of the Probable Nature of the EAA Storage Reservoirs by CERP PDTs • Assessment for 50 Year Period 2007-2056 • Required Consideration of both Phase 1 and Phase 2 Storage Reservoir Projects

  4. Background • Initial Assessment for Each STA Based on Results of SFWMM Simulation 2050wPROJ • Simulation Prepared for the Specific Purpose of the BSFS • Structured to Parallel as Closely as Possible Restudy Alternative D13R, Modified to Reflect One Possible Arrangement for Use of Lands Acquired in the Talisman Land Exchange (plus an additional approx. 10,000 acres for consistency with total 60,000 acres used in Restudy) • Included Assumptions Which May or May Not Be Consistent With CERP Goals and Objectives

  5. Background • BSFS for ECP Basins Also Included Development and Evaluation of One Integrated Alternative for STA-2, STA-3/4, STA-5 and STA-6 In Which the Assumed Design and Operation of the EAA Storage Reservoirs Projects Were Altered Substantially • Only One of Many Possible Alternative Configurations • Conducted For the Sole Purpose of Assessing Potential Influence on Water Quality Improvement Strategies

  6. Principal Conclusion • It Does Appear Possible to Develop the EAA Storage Reservoirs Projects to Contribute to Overall Water Quality Improvement Strategies Without: • Sacrificing or Impairing the Hydrologic Functions of the Reservoirs • Increasing the Probable Cost of the Reservoirs

  7. A Cautionary Note • The Integrated Alternative considered in the BSFS cannot be considered as an optimized solution. The interrelationships of the various STAs and the Reservoirs are highly complex. A wide variety of alternatives should be postulated and considered in detail. Time and budget restraints inherent in the scope of the BSFS studies permitted the development of but one of the many possible adjustments which could be made.

  8. Suggestions... • For enhanced performance of the Reservoirs in meeting WQ objectives, consider: • Minimize Frequency and Duration of Dryout • Discharge WQ Improves as Depth Increases • Total Loads Discharged to STAs Reduce as the Proportion of Total Inflows First Directed to Reservoirs Increase • Atmospheric Inputs to and ET Losses From Reservoirs Increase as Surface Area Increases

  9. …Lead To... • Favor the Development of Deeper Reservoirs With Less Surface Area, to Which the Maximum Proportion of Total Basin Inflows are Directed, and in Which Strict Partitioning of Inflows by Source and Destination is Reduced. • Can Concurrently Simplify the Design and Operation of the Reservoirs, With Attendant Beneficial Impact on Capital and O&M Costs

  10. Possible Strategies • In Lieu of Compartmentalization, Consider Allocation of Storage Based On Depth in the Reservoir(s) • Reduces Total Length of Impoundment Levees, But Increases Height • Reduces Number and Total Installed Hydraulic Capacity of Pumping Stations and Other Water Control Structures

  11. Possible Strategies • Maximize Use of Water Control Infrastructure Now Existing or Under Construction • Example: Consider Use of G-370 & G-372 as Reservoir Inflow Pumping Stations • Maximizes STA-3/4 Inflows First Directed to Reservoir(s), Minimizes Loads Discharged to STA-3/4 • Reduces Duplication of Installed Pumping Capacity

  12. Possible Strategies • Expand Number of Sources From Which Runoff is Introduced to Reservoirs. Possibilities Include: • Miami Canal and NNR Canal Inflows Now Simulated as Direct Inflows to STA-3/4 • C-139 Basin and C-139 Annex • Hillsboro Canal Inflows Now Simulated as Direct Inflows to STA-2

  13. Possible Strategies • Direct Discharges from the Reservoir(s) to STAs in Proportion to Their Assimilative Capacity (e.g., Attempt to “Balance” Reservoir Discharges with Downstream Treatment Capacity)

  14. Alternatives Considered • Reservoir Design and Operation as Simulated in SFWMM 2050wPROJ • Modified Design and Operation • Reduced Number of Compartments • Increased Inflow Sources • Greater Depths, Less Surface Area • Will Discuss Both, But First, Some Limitations...

  15. Limitations • Simulation Considers Entire CERP Complete (Both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the EAA Reservoirs Project, North of Lake Okeechobee Storage, All ASR Projects) • Need a Simulation for Conditions Expected Upon Completion of EAA Storage Reservoirs Phase 1 • Modeling for TP Reduction in Reservoirs an Initial Approximation • Needs More Detailed Consideration • Again, Only One Integrated Alternative Considered - We Believe It Can Be Substantially Improved Upon

  16. 2050wPROJ Simulation • EAA Reservoir Modeled in 4 Components, 3 Hydraulically Linked to STA-3/4 • A1 - Runoff from NNR & Miami Canal Basins • A2 - Overflows from A1, & L.O.R.R. • B - Overflows from A2, and L.O.R.R.

  17. 2050wPROJ Simulation • Fourth Compartment Hydraulically Linked to STA-6 • Inflows Limited to Lake Okeechobee Regulatory Releases Exceeding Modeled Storage Capacity in Other Compartments • No Discharge to Adjacent STA-5 (Treats C-139 Basin Only)

  18. 2050wPROJ Simulation Total Surface Area of 60,000 Acres Average Annual Inflow Volume 507,000 Acre-Feet Depth Ranges From 3.4 ft. Below to 8.1 ft. Above Ground

  19. 2050wPROJ Simulation • Average Annual Inflow Volume to STAs of 1,045,000 Acre-Feet • Average Annual Inflow TP Load to STAs of 123.3 Tonnes (96 ppb) *TP loads estimated using information presented in the Baseline Data Report (Goforth & Piccone, 2001)

  20. 2050wPROJ Simulation Six New Pumping Stations, Total Installed Capacity of 16,875 cfs Eight New Spillways, Total Installed Capacity of 14,464 cfs

  21. Integrated Alternative

  22. Integrated Alternative • Basic Goal - Improve Water Quality Performance Without Impacting Hydrologic Performance • Basic Measure - Meet Simulated Water Supply Demands (Both to STAs for Environment and to EAA for Irrigation) on a Daily Basis for Entire 31-Year Period of Simulation, While Avoiding Dryout

  23. Integrated Alternative • Component A • Direct All Discharges From G-370 and G-372 to Reservoir • Modeled to Receive All Lake Okeechobee Regulatory Releases Originally Simulated As Directed to Compartments A2 and B • Modeled to Satisfy All Water Supply Demands Simulated to Be Met From Compartments A1, A2 and B

  24. Integrated Alternative • Component B • Modeled to Receive All STA-2 Inflows • All Discharges Directed to STA-2 • Depth Limited to Permit Use of Existing Pumping Station S-6 As Inflow Pumping Station • No Lake Regulatory Releases, No Water Supply Releases

  25. Integrated Alternative • Component C • Modeled to Receive Simulated Lake Okeechobee Regulatory Releases Directed to Compartment C • Satisfies Environmental Water Supply Releases to STA-6 From Simulation • C-139 Basin Runoff Added to Inflows • Discharges Directed to Both STA-5 and STA-6, In Proportion to Treatment Capacity

  26. Integrated Alternative • In Each Component, Allocate Storage Necessary To Meet Water Supply Demands From Ground Surface Up • In Component A, 4.0 Ft. Depth • In Component C, 1.5 Ft. Depth • Component B Not Used to Meet Water Supply Demands (Modeled for No Withdrawal Below 1.0 Ft. Depth)

  27. Integrated Alternative • Above Water Supply Storage Allocation, Releases to STAs Determined by Stage on Previous Day, With Maximum Rate of Release at Maximum Storage Depth and Equal to Hydraulic Capacity of Receiving STA • Adjusted in Component A to Limit Maximum Storage Depth

  28. Integrated Alternative Total Surface Area Approximately 48,000 Acres Average Annual Inflow Volume of 1,238,000 Acre-Feet Depths Range from Ground to 10.9 ft. Above Ground

  29. Integrated Alternative • Average Annual Inflow Volume to STAs of 1,029,000 Acre Feet • Average Annual Inflow TP Load to STAs of 76.5 tonnes (60 ppb) *TP loads estimated using information presented in the Baseline Data Report (Goforth & Piccone, 2001)

  30. Integrated Alternative Four New Pumping Stations, Total Installed Capacity of 8,100 cfs Seven New Spillways, Total Installed Capacity of 15,893 cfs

  31. Integrated Alternative • As Compared to 2050wPROJ Simulation, Projected to Reduce TP Load Discharged to STAs by 38%, With: • 12,000 Acre Reduction in Surface Area • 8,775 cfs Reduction in New Pumping Capacity (2 Fewer Stations) • 1,429 cfs Increase in Spillway Capacity, But One Less Structure

  32. Integrated Alternative • Levee Impacts • Component A: Length Reduced From 53 to 42 Miles, But Height Increases From Approx. 15’ to 20’ Above Grade • Component B: New Levee and Supply Canal Along North Line of STA-2, Otherwise No Significant Change • Component C: No Change in Length, Height Increases From Approx. 15’ to 18’ Above Grade

  33. Just a Starting Point! • Again, Time and Budget Constraints Limited Opportunity to Consider Additional Alternatives. • For EAA Reservoirs Project, Phase 1 Need a Simulation to Define Requirements Prior to Full Completion of CERP, Roll The Results of That Analysis Into Additional Alternatives • Can Suggest Additional Alternatives For Consideration

  34. One Possibility • Consider Component A as Phase 1 Reservoir • Try to Accommodate All Phase 1 Demands and Functions • Consider Possible Contribution to Phase 2 Requirements • Structure Generally As Previously Discussed

  35. One Possibility • Separate Compartment C From Lake Okeechobee Regulatory Releases In Total; Limit Possible Inflows to C-139 Basin and C-139 Annex. Evaluate Potential Beneficial Impact of Storage On Receiving Water Bodies. Let It Stand or Fall on Its Own Merits (e.g., Incremental Benefits vs. Incremental Costs)

  36. One Possibility • Use Compartment B to Replace the Function of Compartment C as Simulated in 2050wPROJ. Let STA-2 Stand Alone. Consider Compartment B Developed As a Smaller Reservoir Coupled with STA on the Available Footprint, Potentially Discharge to NNR Canal Immediately Upstream of S-7 (Would Tie to STA-3/4 Discharge Works).

  37. Summary • It does appear possible to couple water quality improvement with the hydrologic function of the EAA Storage Reservoirs project, without impacting the hydrologic function or significantly increasing cost. • Many possible adjustments can be made, need to consider a broad array - today’s discussion just a starting point

  38. Thank You! • You’ve been given a difficult but extremely important assignment - good luck and God speed! Questions?

More Related