Basin Specific Feasibility Studies Everglades Stormwater Program Basins Preliminary Findings

Basin Specific Feasibility StudiesEverglades Stormwater Program Basins

Preliminary FindingsContract C-E024

HSA Engineers & Scientists

DB Environmental Laboratories, Inc.

Wetland Solutions, Inc.

Milian, Swain & Associates, Inc. August 21, 2002

Basin Specific Feasibility Studies

Baseline Flows and Loads

Basin

ACME Basin B

C-11 West

Feeder Canal

L-28

North New River Canal

North Springs Improvement District

Mean Annual Discharge to EPA,

acre-feet

31,499

194,167

77,179

83,806

1,781

6,168

Mean Annual TP Load to EPA,

kg

3,660

4,063

14,854

3,982

40

293

Flow-weighted Mean TP Conc.,

ppb

94

17

156

39

18

39


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)


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


Components of Base Case Alternatives

Source Controls

Biological Treatment (STAs)

Chemical Treatment (CTSS)

Integration with CERP Components

Other Diversion Components


Source ControlsObjective:

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


Biological Treatment Options

Periphyton STA (PSTA)

Emergent Vegetation

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)


Chemical Treatment Process

Inflow OutflowFEB

CTSS Works

Residual Solids Management

Bypass

Blending Basin


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


Feeder Canal Basin Map

Feeder Canal Basin Alternatives

Base 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


Flows and Loads

Base Parameter Baseline Condition *

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



Alternative 1 - Biological Treatment

Alternative 2 - Base Condition

Feeder Canal Basin Alternative 1

Optimum STA Configuration

100% SAV3 cells in series Treatment area =

865 acresReservoir area =

1,442 acresTotal area =

2,640 acres

Inflow PS

Outflow Canal to Existing

S-190

ReservoirSTA

Cell 1STA

Cell 2STA

Cell 3

Seepage PS

Seepage PS

West Feeder Canal

No

rth

Fee

der

Can

al


Summary of Preliminary FindingsAlt. 1STA

3,024 *

54 *

26-40

10-13

7.5

2010

91.95

0.66

105.45

698

Alt. 2Base Condition

0

0

58

27

4

2006

0

0

0

0

* Adjusted for start-up conditions and implementation schedule

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


Summary 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. 1STA

+2

+2

-1

0

+5


0

0

0

0

0

Questions?Questions?


L-28 Basin Map

L-28 Basin Alternatives

Base 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


Flows and Loads



Peak daily flow, cfs 1,300 1,300



No change from baseline flows and loads*





L-28 Basin Alternative 1


50% SAV and 50% PSTA

4 cells in series Treatment area

= 1,088 acresTotal area =

1,280 acres Inflow

PS

Outflow Canal to Existing S-140 PS

STA Cell 2

STA Cell 3

STA Cell 4

STA Cell 1

L-28 Borrow Canal


Summary of Preliminary FindingsAlt. 1STA

2,639 *

66 *

12-15

10-11

8.5

2011

35.70

0.40

43.11

327


0

0

39

39

4

2006

0

0

0

0


TP Load Reduction





Schedule



Cost













Alt. 1STA

+2

+2

-2

0

+4


0

0

0

0

0



C-11 West Basin Map

C-11 West Basin Alternatives


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

Base Base Condition * Condition**

Parameter Baseline (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


Flows and Loads

* 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



Alternative 1 - Chemical Treatment



C-11 West Basin Alternative 1 (2006-2036)

Optimum CTSS Configuration

Total Area = 168 acres

Inflow OutflowFEB100

acres

CTSS Works 35 MGD


25 acres

Bypass

Blending Basin

13 acres

C-11 West Basin Alternative 1 (2036-2056)



Inflow OutflowFEB100

acres

CTSS Works 20 MGD


1 acre

Bypass

Blending Basin

7 acres

C-11 West Basin Alternative 2

STA Configuration 2006-2036

100% SAV1 cellTreatment area =

556 acresTotal area =

730 acres

Inflow PSOutflow Canal to

Existing S-9 PS

STA

C-11 Canal

C-11 West Basin Alternative 2

Facility 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


Summary of Preliminary FindingsAlt. 1CTSS

90

29

19 **

10

4

2006

109.37

0.84 **

120.05

26,560

Alt. 2STA

121 *

39 *

14-16

10-14

9.5

2012

297.54

0.24 **

290.64

48,024


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

TP Load Reduction





Schedule



Cost













Alt. 1CTSS

0

+4

+1

-2

-3

Alt. 2STA

+1

+1

-2

0

+5

Alt. 3 Base Condition

0

0

0

0

0



North New River Canal Basin Map

North New River Canal Basin Alternatives

Base 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


NNRC Flows and Loads



Peak daily flow, cfs 400 400

Avg. annual TP load, kg/year 40 40


No change from baseline flows and loads through 2018*


NNRC 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)

North New River Canal Basin Alternative 1



Inflow OutflowFEB30

acres

CTSS Works 10 MGD


1 acre

Bypass

Blending Basin

3 acres


Summary of Preliminary FindingsAlt. 1CTSS

32

80 *

15

10

4

2006

30.99

0.58

31.86

379,328

Alt. 2G-123 off in 2006

40

100 *

NA

NA

4

2006

0

0

0

0


30

76 *

18

18

16

2018

0

0

0

0

TP Load Reduction





Schedule



Cost





* Includes TP load reduction due to CERP









Alt. 1CTSS

0

+4

+1

-2

-3

Alt. 2G-123 off in 2006

0

0

0

0

0


0

0

0

0

0



North Springs Improvement District Basin Map

North Springs Improvement District Alternatives


Diversion of 100% of NSID flows to the Hillsboro Impoundment (CERP) after 2007

No change from simulated flows and loads through 2007


NSID Flows and Loads




Avg. annual TP load, kg/year 293 293


No change from baseline flows and loads through 2007*


NSID 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)

North Springs Improvement District Alternative 1

Temporary Diversion Storage Facility

Land Area = 413 acres

Rock Pits

S-39A

Temporary Inflow PS

NSID Basin N.T.S


Temporary Diversion Assumptions

1. Diversion for 1 year only (2007)

2. 220 cfs temporary inflow PS

3. Maximum water depth in rock pits = 4.5 feet

4. Maximum storage volume = 1,700 ac-ft

5. Max. storage volume is adequate to store 100% of NSID flows during the 1-year diversion period (no bypasses to EPA)


Permanent Diversion Storage Facility

Land area = 1,300 acresTotal storage volume = 7,100 ac-ft

IMPOUNDMENT D

IMPOUNDMENT CROCK PITS

IMPOUNDMENT B

IMPOUNDMENT A

S-39A

New PS

NSID Basin

Seepage PS

N.T.S


Permanent Diversion Assumptions

1. Permanent diversion (no NSID flows to CERP)

2. No bypass to EPA (storage volume for 100% of NSID flows)

3. 200,000 gpm (440 cfs) inflow/outflow pumping capacity

4. Pump into impoundment whenever NSID bypasses to EPA

5. Pump out of impoundment whenever NSID pumps to L-36

North Springs Improvement District Basin Alternatives

Summary of Preliminary FindingsAlt. 1

Temp. Diversion

293

100

NA

NA

4

2006

26.98

0.08

26.06

88,956

Alt. 2Perm. Diversion

293

100

NA

NA

4

2006

107.97

0.29

110.51

7,543


287

98

39

39

5

2007

0

0

0

0

TP Load Reduction





Schedule

Implementation Schedule, yrs from 2003

Completion Date

Cost





* Includes TP load reduction due to CERP

North Springs Improvement District Basin Alternatives








Alt. 1Temp. Diversion

0

+4

+3

0

0

Alt. 2Perm. Diversion

+2

+4

+3

0

0


0

0

0

0

0



ACME Basin Map

ACME Basin B Alternatives

Flows and Loads






* Assumed 25% TP load reduction due to source controls


ACME Basin B Alternatives Alternative 1 - Diversion to CERP

Agricultural Reserve Reservoir

Alternative 3 - STA on Section 24 land (375 acres)

Alternative 4 - STA not limited to Section 24 land

Alternative 2 - Chemical Treatment Facility on Section 24 land (375 acres)

Alternative 5 - Treatment in STA 1E

ACME Basin B Alternative 1

Diversion CanalAssumptions for Evaluation

Length = 7 miles

Design Q = 505 cfs– 2 Pump Stations– 1 Siphon Structure– 4 Easement/Road Crossings

Average Canal ROW Width = 200’ (including a portion along eastern edge of Strazzulla)

ACME Basin B

Ag. Reserve Reservoir



Inflow Outflow


FEB200

acres

CTSS Works 25 MGD


52 acres

Bypass

Blending Basin

9 acres



100% SAV

3 cells in series

Treatment area = 297 acres

Total area = 375 acres

(District-owned land only)

%

%

%

C-1 C-2

C-24

C-23B

C-23A

C-23

Loxahatchee NationalWildlife Refuge

L-40

C-27

$

Inflow PS

C-27A

C-24A

Outflow PS

ACME PS 1

$

$

$

$

$$$

$$

$

$

$

$$



100% SAV

3 cells

Treatment area = 346 acres

Total area = 415 acres

%

%

%

C-1 C-2

C-24

C-23B

C-23A

C-23

Loxahatchee NationalWildlife Refuge

L-40

C-27

$

Inflow PS

C-27A

C-24A

Outflow PS

ACME PS 1

$

$

$

$ $

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

TP Load Reduction





Schedule



Cost





Alt. 1Diversion

2,361

86

71

71

11

2013

27.42

0.26

33.00

280

Alt. 2CTSS

1,701

62

27

10

3

2006

26.11

1.26

53.66

631

Alt. 3STA

1,979 *

72 *

19-27

12-15

6

2008

21.81

0.26

27.22

275

Alt. 4STA

2,011 *

73 *

17-26

10-14

7

2009

22.63

0.26

27.81

277




Alt. 5STA 1E

2,162

79

15-24

10-11

4

2006

7.52

0.25

12.06

112

Evaluated by Burns & McDonnell







Alt. 1Diversion

0

+4

+3

0

0

Alt. 2CTSS

+1

+4

+1

-2

-3

Alt. 3STA

+1

+2

+1

0

+5

Alt. 4STA

+1

+2

+1

0

+5



Alt. 5STA-1E

0

+1

+1

-1

+2

Evaluated by Burns & McDonnell


Documents

Basin Specific Feasibility Studies Everglades Stormwater Program Basins Preliminary Findings