1 / 17

DPM QRB Desired Outcomes

WCA 3 Decomp & Sheetflow Enhancement Quality Review Board Meeting 30 January 2009 West Palm Beach, FL. DPM QRB Desired Outcomes. Concurrence with the current approach Understanding of budgetary limitations and implications for addressing uncertainties associated with PIRs 2 & 3. DPM History.

leon
Télécharger la présentation

DPM QRB Desired Outcomes

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. WCA 3 Decomp &Sheetflow EnhancementQuality Review BoardMeeting30 January 2009West Palm Beach, FL

  2. DPMQRB Desired Outcomes • Concurrence with the current approach • Understanding of budgetary limitations and implications for addressing uncertainties associated with PIRs 2 & 3

  3. DPMHistory • April 2006 - presented at the QRB • Proposed design relied on 1 Modified Water Deliveries (MWD) conveyance/seepage feature (C&SF) (S-345) • Estimated cost of $10.3 Million over 5 years • $3.4M Levee Removal and Canal Backfill (assumed MWD in place) • $6.9M Monitoring and Field Assessment • FY07 – continuing work on preliminary DPM design based on MWD C&SF • FY08 - on hold due to uncertainties with MWD • FY09 - reinitiated and unlinked from MWD C&SF • Move forward faster • Reduce uncertainties for Decomp PIRs 2 & 3 • Moving forward assuming $10.3M cost cap • Study design examines a pulsed-flow system • Reduced in scale

  4. Decomp Physical Model • Is a large scale field study to address scientific, hydrologic and water management uncertainties associated with Decomp PIR 2&Decomp PIR 3 • Is a landscape manipulation designed to provide critical information regarding hydrologic targets for sheetflow restoration • Is an opportunity to provide temporary benefits during the study period to WCA3B X X X X X X X X Conceptual Design Temporary Gated Culverts L-67A L-67C WCA 3A No Backfill Partial Backfill Complete Backfill Physical Model WCA 3B Sheetflow * DPM Location is Approximate Levee Degrade 355A 355B

  5. FEATURES OF PIRs 2 &3 Levee Modification Canal Backfilling Conveyance Structures X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X • PIR 2 • Elevate east portion of • Tamiami Trail • - Remove L-29 levee / canal • Additional S-345s • Backfill Miami Canal • between S-151 and S-31 • Remove S-151 • Conveyance in North New • River (if necessary) I-75 PIR 3 –Backfill/Degrade L-68A MIAMI CANAL L-67A PIR 3 – Weirs in L-67A L-67C WCA 3A X X X X • PIR 3 • Elevate west portion of • Tamiami Trail • Remove levee and canal for • L-68A, L-67C, L-28, L-29 • Weirs in L-67A • Backfill southern 7.5 miles • of L-67A canal • Remove S-12s, S-343, • S-344 PIR 2 – Backfill/Degrade Miami Canal X PIR 2 – Add S-345s Physical Model PIR 3 –Backfill/Degrade L-67C PIR 3 –Backfill /Degrade L-28/L-29 PIR 3 – Backfill L-67A WCA 3B X PIR 3 – Remove S-12s, 343s, 344 PIR 2 – Raise & Bridge East Portion of TT PIR 3 – Bridge West Portion of TT PIR 2 – Degrade L-29 Levee/Canal X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

  6. FY09 Progress: Oct 2008 to Jan 2009 • Updated DPM plan in the Decomp Project Management Plan (PMP) • Developed / Prioritized major uncertainties for PIR 2 and PIR 3 to be addressed with DPM • Developed / Documented constraints and assumptions • Produce NEPA Environmental Assessment document • Alternative formulation and Rough Order Magnitude (ROM) costs for installation / removal / monitoring and assessment • Assume 2006 cost cap of $10.3M • Assume DPM installation of ALL conveyance features (no MWD) • Developed a first-order project budget based upon the minimum scientific monitoring requirements and other project task needs

  7. DPM: Major uncertainties for PIR 2 and PIR 3 to be addressed

  8. Decomp Physical Model What are the effects associated with complete and / or partial backfilling of canals? What are the effects associated with no backfill? I-75 PIR 2 & 3 FEATURES PIR 3 – Backfill L-68A Canal Backfilling Pilot Test Treatments MIAMI CANAL L-67A No Backfill Partial Backfill Complete Backfill L-67C Monitoring Data: • Velocity • Particle Transport • Water Quality • Habitat Quality • Fish Populations PIR 2 – Backfill/Degrade Miami Canal WCA 3A PIR 3 –Backfill L-67C Expected Outcome: • Habitat response to backfill treatment • Relate velocity and particle transport to ridge / slough maintenance • Native and Invasive Fish Responses PIR 3 – Backfill L-67A PIR 3 –Backfill L-28/L-29 WCA 3B PIR 2 – Degrade L-29 Levee/Canal

  9. Decomp Physical Model 2. What are the effects associated with levee degradation and/or modification? Pilot Test Treatments } L-67C Levee Degrade X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X I-75 PIR 2 & 3 FEATURES Levee Modification PIR 3 –Degradee L-68A MIAMI CANAL L-67A L-67C Monitoring Data: • Velocities • Water Levels • Groundwater Seepage • Phosphorous Loading • Habitat Quality WCA 3A PIR 3 –Degrade L-67C X Expected Outcome: • Relate WCA3B Hydro-periods and seepage to length of levee degrade • Relate total flow to ridge / slough maintenance • Habitat response WCA 3B PIR 3 –Degrade L-28/L-29 X PIR 2 – Degrade L-29 Levee/Canal X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

  10. Decomp Physical Model What is the magnitude and direction of sheetflow necessary to maintain the landscape characteristics of the Everglades? Pilot Test Treatments Conveyance Structures } L-67A Culverts Sheetflow across Pocket and in WCA 3B X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X I-75 PIR 2 & 3 FEATURES MIAMI CANAL L-67A PIR 3 – Weirs in L-67A L-67C WCA 3A Monitoring Data: • Phosphorous levels • Ridge and Slough Dynamics • Velocities • Flow Pathways • Particle Transport PIR 2 – Add S-345s WCA 3B Expected Outcome: • WCA3B Hydroperiods and seepage with input flow • Relate total flow velocity to particle transport to ridge & slough maintenance • Preferential Flow Pathways PIR 3 – Remove S-12s, 343s, 344 PIR 3 – Bridge West Portion of TT PIR 2 – Raise & Bridge East Portion of TT X X

  11. DPM: NEPA Alternative Formulation

  12. DPM NEPA Alternative Formulation • Developed ROM costs for a complete range of preliminary DPM alternatives to support preliminary screening • L-67A structure design capacities: 300 to 6,000 cfs • L-67C levee degrade: 2,000 to 12,000 feet • ROM installation/removal costs: $4.7M to $17.7M • Preliminary alternative served as a starting point to develop a set of implementable alternatives that meet project objectives within the cost cap for further NEPA evaluation • L-67A structure design capacities: 250 to 750 cfs • L-67C levee degrade: 2,000 to 4,000 feet • ROM construction/deconstruction costs: $4.0M to $5.9M • Next Steps • Trade-off Analysis and Alternative Plan Selection

  13. DPM Draft Project Budget (to address Major Uncertainties 1, 2 & 3) * * Six alternative trade-off analyses that examine different installation alternatives (gap size and conveyance feature CFS)

  14. DPM Budget / Schedule: Risk Factors • Installation / Removal ROM Costs • Decoupling from MWD • Accessibility to the installation and staging sites • Quantity of suitable/unsuitable materials on-site • Availability and costs of materials from off-site • Viability of installation methods • Petroleum prices and per diem rates at time of installation • Reversibility of the project • Schedule • Currently on track for installation • Scientific Monitoring and Testing Costs • Equipment costs dependent on final DPM design • Data recovery • Meteorological uncertainties • Installation / Removal Costs vs Monitoring and Assessment

  15. Decomp Physical Model Limitations Ridge and Slough Habitat Restoration • Conceptual Models • DPM will utilize • Biogeochemical Processes • DPM will not measure DIRECT • Physical Transport Processes • DPM delivers critical information for PIRs 2 & 3 • Regarding the response of . . . INFERENCE • Hydroperiods and seepage • Particle Transport • Preferential Flowpaths • Habitat recovery • Ridge and slough processes • Native and Non-native Fish • . . . to flow restoration.

  16. DPM Schedule (Re-Initiated FY2009) • NEPA NEPA Scoping Meeting Feb 2009 Draft EA May 2009 Final EA; NEPA Complete Jan 2010 • Experimental Design Finalize DPM Experimental Design Feb 2009 Develop Monitoring Plan Apr 2009 • Design/Plans and Specs Plans and Specs Jun 2009 / May 2010 • Installation and Testing Pre-Installation Monitoring Mar/Apr 2010 Begin installation Sep 2010 Installation Complete Sep 2011 Removal Aug/Sep 2013

  17. Summary • The DPM will advance the state-of-the-art regarding how flows can be managed to restore and sustain Ridge and Slough habitat in the Everglades. • DPM delivers critical information to reduce uncertainties related to Decomp PIRs 2 &3

More Related