Download - Basin-Specific Feasibility Studies STA and Reservoir Alternatives Basin-Specific Feasibility Studies STA and Reservoir Alternatives November 21, 2002 Presentation

Basin-Specific Feasibility StudiesSTA and Reservoir Alternatives

Basin-Specific Feasibility StudiesSTA and Reservoir Alternatives

November 21, 2002November 21, 2002

Presentation to EAA Storage Reservoirs Phase 1 Project Development Team

Basin-Specific Feasibility StudiesEverglades Construction Project Tributary Basins


BackgroundBackground

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




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




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



BackgroundBackground 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



Principal ConclusionPrincipal 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



A Cautionary NoteA 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.



Suggestions...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



……Lead To...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



Possible StrategiesPossible 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




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




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




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)



Alternatives ConsideredAlternatives 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...



LimitationsLimitations

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



2050wPROJ Simulation2050wPROJ 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.




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)

LAKEOKEECHOBEE

EAA RESERVOIRCOMPARTMENT C

STA-6

Q1

Q2 Q3




RESERVOIR OPERATIONS SUMMARYCompartment Surface

Area(ac)

Ave. AnnualInflow Volume

(ac-ft)

Max.Depth

(ft)

Min.Depth

(ft)

Ave.Depth(ft.)*

Wet PeriodFraction (%

Time)A1 20,000 175,000 7.0 -2.5 3.8 96.4A2 21,500 128,000 8.1 -2.9 3.2 88.7B 9,500 154,000 6.9 -2.9 2.2 70.3C 9,000 50,000 7.1 -3.4 2.5 73.3

Total 60,000 507,000*Mean Depth of Reservoir During Wet Period Fraction

•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




ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL STA INFLOWSAverage Annual Inflow (Full CERP Completion)Receiving STAVolume (ac-ft) TP Load (kilograms)*

STA-2 208,000 26,600STA-3/4 629,000 58,600STA-5 147,000 32,300STA-6 61,000 5,800Totals 1,045,000 123,300

•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)



2050wPROJ Simulation2050wPROJ SimulationSUMMARY OF NEW WATER CONTROL STRUCTURES

Structure Type From To Nominal Capacity (cfs) Purpose/RemarksPumping Station Miami Canal Compartment A1 2,700 Miami Canal Basin Runoff to A1Pumping Station NNR Canal Compartment A1 2,300 NNR Canal Basin Runoff to A1

Spillway Compartment A1 Miami Canal 1,157 Irrigation Release from A1 to Miami CanalSpillway Compartment A1 NNR Canal 1,481 Irrigation Release from A1 to NNR CanalSpillway Compartment A1 Compartment A2 1,168 Overflow from Compartment A1 to A2

Pumping Station Miami Canal Compartment A2 4,500 Lake Okeechobee Regulatory Release to A2Pumping Station NNR Canal Compartment A2 3,000 Lake Okeechobee Regulatory Release to A2

Spillway Compartment A2 Miami Canal 942 Irrigation Release from A2 to Miami CanalSpillway Compartment A2 NNR Canal 1,376 Irrigation Release from A2 to NNR Canal; also for

Overflow from A2 to NNR Canal for Comp. BSpillway Compartment A2 STA-3/4 3,670 Surface Discharges from A2 to STA-3/4

Pumping Station NNR Canal Compartment B 3,375 Lake Okeechobee Regulatory Release to B; alsoCompartment A2 Overflow from NNR Canal

Spillway Compartment B NNR Canal 3,670 Surface Discharges from B to STA-3/4Pumping Station Miami Canal Compartment C 1,000 Lake Okeechobee Regulatory Release to B

Spillway Compartment C STA-6 1,000 Surface Discharges from C to STA-6

•Six New Pumping Stations, Total Installed Capacity of 16,875 cfs

•Eight New Spillways, Total Installed Capacity of 14,464 cfs



Integrated AlternativeIntegrated 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




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




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




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




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)




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




RESERVOIR OPERATIONS SUMMARYComponent Surface

Area(ac)

Ave. AnnualInflow Volume

(ac-ft)

Max.Depth

(ft)

Min.Depth

(ft)

Ave.Depth(ft.)*

Wet PeriodFraction (%

Time)A 30,370 818,000 10.9 0.0 6.6 100B 8,850 208,000 6.3 0.8 6.3 100C 8,710 212,000 9.1 0.0 5.3 100

Total 47,930 1,238,000*Mean Depth of Reservoir During Wet Period Fraction

•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




ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL STA INFLOWSAverage Annual Inflow (Full CERP Completion)Receiving STAVolume (ac-ft) TP Load (kilograms)

STA-2 201,000 17,000STA-3/4 624,000 40,000STA-5 131,000 12,500STA-6 73,000 7,000Totals 1,029,000 76,500

•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)




•Four New Pumping Stations, Total Installed Capacity of 8,100 cfs

•Seven New Spillways, Total Installed Capacity of 15,893 cfs

SUMMARY OF NEW WATER CONTROL STRUCTURESStructure Type From To Nominal Capacity (cfs) Purpose/RemarksPumping Station Miami Canal Component A 2,700 Miami Canal Basin Runoff and Lake Release to A1Pumping Station NNR Canal Component A 2,300 NNR Canal Basin Runoff and Lake Release to A1

Spillway Component A Miami Canal 1,157 Irrigation Release from A to Miami CanalSpillway Component A NNR Canal 1,481 Irrigation Release from A to NNR CanalSpillway Component A STA-3/4 3,670 Surface Discharges from A to STA-3/4Spillway Component A STA-3/4 2,770 Surface Discharges from A to STA-3/4Spillway Component B STA-2 3,343 Surface Discharges from B to STA-2

Pumping Station C-139 Basin Compartment C 2,100 C-139 Basin Runoff to Compartment CPumping Station Miami Canal Compartment C 1,000 Lake Okeechobee Regulatory Release to B

Spillway Compartment C STA-5 2,233 Surface Discharges from C to STA-5Spillway Compartment C STA-6 1,239 Surface Discharges from C to STA-6




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




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



Just a Starting Point!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



One PossibilityOne 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



One PossibilityOne 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)



One PossibilityOne PossibilityUse 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).



SummarySummary

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



Thank You!Thank You!

You’ve been given a difficult but extremely important assignment - good luck and God speed!

Questions?

Download - Basin-Specific Feasibility Studies STA and Reservoir Alternatives Basin-Specific Feasibility Studies STA and Reservoir Alternatives November 21, 2002 Presentation

Top Related