1 / 66

Basin Specific Feasibility Studies Everglades Stormwater Program Basins Preliminary Findings

Basin Specific Feasibility Studies Everglades Stormwater Program Basins Preliminary Findings Contract C-E024. HSA Engineers & Scientists DB Environmental Laboratories, Inc. Wetland Solutions, Inc. Milian, Swain & Associates, Inc. August 21, 2002.

kaveri
Télécharger la présentation

Basin Specific Feasibility Studies Everglades Stormwater Program Basins Preliminary Findings

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 Everglades Stormwater Program Basins Preliminary Findings Contract C-E024 HSA Engineers & Scientists DB Environmental Laboratories, Inc. Wetland Solutions, Inc. Milian, Swain & Associates, Inc. August 21, 2002

  2. Basin Specific Feasibility Studies Baseline Flows and Loads Mean Annual Discharge to EPA, acre-feet 31,499 194,167 77,179 83,806 1,781 6,168 Flow-weighted Mean TP Conc., ppb 94 17 156 39 18 39 Mean Annual TP Load to EPA, kg 3,660 4,063 14,854 3,982 40 293 Basin ACME Basin B C-11 West Feeder Canal L-28 North New River Canal North Springs Improvement District

  3. Basin Specific Feasibility Studies Evaluation Methodology • Established planning level water quality goal of 10 ppb TP (geometric mean) • Established guidelines for technical analysis of alternatives • Established quantitative evaluation criteria (5) • Established qualitative evaluation criteria (5)

  4. Basin Specific Feasibility Studies Planning Objectives • Achieving the planning level WQ target of 10 ppb (geometric mean) in all discharges to the EPA • Avoid hydraulic bypass • Utilize the least land area possible • Maintain existing level of flood protection

  5. Basin Specific Feasibility Studies Components of Base Case Alternatives • Source Controls • Biological Treatment (STAs) • Chemical Treatment (CTSS) • Integration with CERP Components • Other Diversion Components

  6. Basin Specific Feasibility Studies Source Controls Objective: • Reduce TP at the source • Agricultural / urban BMPs • Educational programs • Regulatory actions (ordinances, rules, etc.) Application in BSFS: • Assumed level of TP reduction for 2 basins • Sensitivity analysis in all basins • No flow reduction • No cost estimates

  7. Basin Specific Feasibility Studies Biological Treatment Options Periphyton STA (PSTA) Emergent Vegetation Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)

  8. Basin Specific Feasibility StudiesChemical Treatment Process Bypass Inflow Outflow CTSS Works Blending Basin FEB Residual Solids Management

  9. Basin Specific Feasibility Studies Integration with CERP Components • No cost estimates prepared • No credit taken for TP removed in cost effectiveness calculations • Effect of CERP components recognized in overall percent TP load reduction calculations, where applicable

  10. Basin Specific Feasibility StudiesFeeder Canal Basin Map

  11. Feeder Canal Basin AlternativesBase Condition Assumptions • Source control projects in place by 2006 • McDaniel Ranch improvements • Seminole Tribe Water Conservation Plan • Planned CERP project in Feeder Canal Basin (2015) not yet well defined • Not considered in alternatives evaluation

  12. Feeder Canal Basin Alternatives Flows and Loads Base ParameterBaselineCondition * Avg. annual flow, ac-ft/year 77,179 77,179 Peak daily flow, cfs 5,067 5,067 Avg. annual TP load, kg/year 14,854 5,563 Flow weighted mean TP conc., ppb 156 58

  13. Basin Specific Feasibility StudiesFeeder Canal Basin Alternatives • Alternative 1 - Biological Treatment • Alternative 2 - Base Condition

  14. Feeder Canal Basin Alternative 1Optimum STA Configuration 100% SAV 3 cells in series Treatment area = 865 acres Reservoir area = 1,442 acres Total area = 2,640 acres Seepage PS North Feeder Canal Inflow PS STA Cell 2 STA Cell 3 STA Cell 1 Reservoir Seepage PS West Feeder Canal Outflow Canal to Existing S-190

  15. Feeder Canal Basin AlternativesSummary of Preliminary Findings TP Load Reduction TP Load Reduction, kg/yr TP Load Reduction, % TP Flow-weighted Mean, ppb TP Geometric Mean, ppb Schedule Implementation Schedule, years from 2003 Completion Date (includes stabilization) Cost Capital Cost, $ million O & M Cost, $ million/yr 50-yr Present Worth, $ million Cost Effectiveness, $/kg Alt. 1 STA 3,024 * 54 * 26-40 10-13 7.5 2010 91.95 0.66 105.45 698 Alt. 2 Base Condition 0 0 58 27 4 2006 0 0 0 0 * Adjusted for start-up conditions and implementation schedule

  16. Feeder Canal Basin AlternativesSummary of Preliminary Findings Qualitative Evaluation Criteria Operational Flexibility Resiliency to Extreme Conditions Assess. Full-Scale Construction/O&M Management of Side Streams Improvement in Non-P Parameters Alt. 1 STA +2 +2 -1 0 +5 Alt. 2 Base Condition 0 0 0 0 0

  17. Questions?

  18. Basin Specific Feasibility StudiesL-28 Basin Map

  19. L-28 Basin AlternativesBase Condition Assumptions • No CERP projects will directly affect the future flows and loads in the L-28 Basin • Source control projects planned for the L-28 Basin: • Seminole Tribe Water Conservation Plan (2005) • Miccosukee Tribe Water Management Plan (2010) • Impacts of these projects on future flows and loads not clear • Base Condition assumed no change from the simulated baseline flows and loads for the L-28 Basin

  20. L-28 Basin Alternatives Flows and Loads Base ParameterBaselineCondition * Avg. annual flow, ac-ft/year 83,806 83,806 Peak daily flow, cfs 1,300 1,300 Avg. annual TP load, kg/year 3,982 3,982 Flow weighted mean TP conc., ppb 39 39 * No change from baseline flows and loads

  21. Basin Specific Feasibility StudiesL-28 Basin Alternatives • Alternative 1 - Biological Treatment • Alternative 2 - Base Condition

  22. L-28 Basin Alternative 1Optimum STA Configuration 50% SAV and 50% PSTA 4 cells in series Treatment area = 1,088 acres Total area = 1,280 acres STA Cell 3 STA Cell 1 STA Cell 4 STA Cell 2 Inflow PS L-28 Borrow Canal Outflow Canal to Existing S-140 PS

  23. L-28 Basin AlternativesSummary of Preliminary Findings TP Load Reduction TP Load Reduction, kg/yr TP Load Reduction, % TP Flow-weighted Mean, ppb TP Geometric Mean, ppb Schedule Implementation Schedule, years from 2003 Completion Date (includes stabilization) Cost Capital Cost, $ million O & M Cost, $ million/yr 50-yr Present Worth, $ million Cost Effectiveness, $/kg Alt. 1 STA 2,639 * 66 * 12-15 10-11 8.5 2011 35.70 0.40 43.11 327 Alt. 2 Base Condition 0 0 39 39 4 2006 0 0 0 0 * Adjusted for start-up conditions and implementation schedule

  24. L-28 Basin AlternativesSummary of Preliminary Findings Qualitative Evaluation Criteria Operational Flexibility Resiliency to Extreme Conditions Assess. Full-Scale Construction/O&M Management of Side Streams Improvement in Non-P Parameters Alt. 1 STA +2 +2 -2 0 +4 Alt. 2 Base Condition 0 0 0 0 0

  25. Questions?

  26. Basin Specific Feasibility StudiesC-11 West Basin Map

  27. C-11 West Basin AlternativesBase Condition Assumptions • Diversion to Western C-11 Impoundment in 2006 • Diversion to North Lake Belt Storage Area in 2036 • C-11 West Basin alternatives sized to accommodate only those flows and loads remaining after the diversions occur

  28. C-11 West Basin AlternativesFlows and Loads BaseBaseCondition * Condition**ParameterBaseline(2006-2036)(2036-2056) Avg. annual flow, ac-ft/year 194,167 18,283 885 Peak daily flow, cfs 2,880 2,933 2,930 Avg. annual TP load, kg/year 4,063 493 31 Flow weighted mean TP conc., ppb 17 22 28 * Adjusted for the diversion to the Western C-11 Impoundment in 2006 ** Adjusted for the diversion to the North Lake Belt Storage Area in 2036

  29. Basin Specific Feasibility StudiesC-11 West Basin Alternatives • Alternative 1 - Chemical Treatment • Alternative 2 - Biological Treatment • Alternative 3 - Base Condition

  30. C-11 West Basin Alternative 1 (2006-2036)Optimum CTSS Configuration Bypass Inflow Outflow CTSS Works 35 MGD FEB 100 acres Blending Basin 13 acres Residual Solids Management 25 acres Total Area = 168 acres

  31. C-11 West Basin Alternative 1 (2036-2056)Optimum CTSS Configuration Bypass Inflow Outflow CTSS Works 20 MGD FEB 100 acres Blending Basin 7 acres Residual Solids Management 1 acre Total Area = 130 acres

  32. C-11 West Basin Alternative 2STA Configuration 2006-2036 100% SAV 1 cell Treatment area = 556 acres Total area = 730 acres STA Inflow PS Outflow Canal to Existing S-9 PS C-11 Canal

  33. C-11 West Basin Alternative 2Facility Operations 2036-2056 • Sustained drydown periods do not allow operation as STA • Operate facility as reservoir without discharge to EPA • Bypass of 10,000 ac-ft over 31-year POS (5 storm events) • Assumed increase in CERP storage to avoid discharge to EPA

  34. C-11 West Basin AlternativesSummary of Preliminary Findings TP Load Reduction TP Load Reduction, kg/yr TP Load Reduction, % TP Flow-weighted Mean, ppb TP Geometric Mean, ppb Schedule Implementation Schedule, years from 2003 Completion Date (includes stabilization) Cost Capital Cost, $ million O & M Cost, $ million/yr 50-yr Present Worth, $ million Cost Effectiveness, $/kg Alt. 1 CTSS 90 29 19 ** 10 4 2006 109.37 0.84 ** 120.05 26,560 Alt. 2 STA 121 * 39 * 14-16 10-14 9.5 2012 297.54 0.24 ** 290.64 48,024 Alt. 3 Base Condition 0 0 24 21 4 2006/2036 0 0 0 0 * Adjusted for start-up conditions and implementation schedule, assumed no outflow from reservoir from 2036-2056 ** Average of 2006-2036 and 2036-2056 values

  35. C-11 West Basin AlternativesSummary of Preliminary Findings Qualitative Evaluation Criteria Operational Flexibility Resiliency to Extreme Conditions Assess. Full-Scale Construction/O&M Management of Side Streams Improvement in Non-P Parameters Alt. 1 CTSS 0 +4 +1 -2 -3 Alt. 2 STA +1 +1 -2 0 +5 Alt. 3 Base Condition 0 0 0 0 0

  36. Questions?

  37. Basin Specific Feasibility StudiesNorth New River Canal Basin Map

  38. North New River Canal Basin AlternativesBase Condition Assumptions • CERP project implemented by 2018 • Divide structure across North New River Canal at Markham Park • Urban drainage continues to be conveyed east • Seepage water directed south to ENP • G-123 Pump Station taken off-line when CERP project complete

  39. Basin Specific Feasibility StudiesNNRC Flows and Loads Base ParameterBaselineCondition * Avg. annual flow, ac-ft/year 1,781 1,781 Peak daily flow, cfs 400 400 Avg. annual TP load, kg/year 40 40 Flow weighted mean TP conc., ppb 18 18 * No change from baseline flows and loads through 2018

  40. Basin Specific Feasibility StudiesNNRC Basin Alternatives • Alternative 1 - CTSS Facility until CERP Divide Structure in 2018 • Alternative 2 – Discontinue use of G-123 in 2006 with CERP Divide Structure in 2018 • Alternative 3 - Operate G-123 as normal until CERP Divide Structure in 2018 (Base Condition)

  41. North New River Canal Basin Alternative 1Optimum CTSS Configuration Bypass Inflow Outflow CTSS Works 10 MGD FEB 30 acres Blending Basin 3 acres Residual Solids Management 1 acre Total Area = 56 acres

  42. North New River Canal Basin AlternativesSummary of Preliminary Findings TP Load Reduction TP Load Reduction, kg/yr TP Load Reduction, % TP Flow-weighted Mean, ppb TP Geometric Mean, ppb Schedule Implementation Schedule, years from 2003 Completion Date (includes stabilization) Cost Capital Cost, $ million O & M Cost, $ million/yr 50-yr Present Worth, $ million Cost Effectiveness, $/kg Alt. 2 G-123 off in 2006 40 100 * NA NA 4 2006 0 0 0 0 Alt. 3 Base Condition 30 76 * 18 18 16 2018 0 0 0 0 Alt. 1 CTSS 32 80 * 15 10 4 2006 30.99 0.58 31.86 379,328 * Includes TP load reduction due to CERP

  43. North New River Canal Basin AlternativesSummary of Preliminary Findings Qualitative Evaluation Criteria Operational Flexibility Resiliency to Extreme Conditions Assess. Full-Scale Construction/O&M Management of Side Streams Improvement in Non-P Parameters Alt. 1 CTSS 0 +4 +1 -2 -3 Alt. 2 G-123 off in 2006 0 0 0 0 0 Alt. 3 Base Condition 0 0 0 0 0

  44. Questions?

  45. Basin Specific Feasibility StudiesNorth Springs Improvement District Basin Map

  46. North Springs Improvement District AlternativesBase Condition Assumptions • Diversion of 100% of NSID flows to the Hillsboro Impoundment (CERP) after 2007 • No change from simulated flows and loads through 2007

  47. Basin Specific Feasibility StudiesNSID Flows and Loads Base ParameterBaselineCondition * Avg. annual flow, ac-ft/year 6,168 6,168 Peak daily flow, cfs 440 440 Avg. annual TP load, kg/year 293 293 Flow weighted mean TP conc., ppb 39 39 * No change from baseline flows and loads through 2007

  48. Basin Specific Feasibility StudiesNSID Alternatives • Alternative 1 Temporary Diversion to Rock Pits Diversion to Hillsboro Impoundment in 2007 • Alternative 2 Permanent Diversion to Rock Pits (No integration with CERP) • Alternative 3 Base Condition (Diversion to Hillsboro Impoundment in 2007)

  49. North Springs Improvement District Alternative 1Temporary Diversion Storage Facility Land Area = 413 acres S-39A HILLSBORO CANAL L-36 CANAL Temporary Inflow PS Rock Pits NSID Basin N.T.S

More Related