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

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, ,167 77,179 83,806 1,781 6,168 Mean Annual TP Load to EPA, kg 3,660 4,063 14,854 3, Flow-weighted Mean TP Conc., ppb

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)

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

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

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

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

Basin Specific Feasibility Studies Chemical Treatment Process Inflow Outflow FEB CTSS Works Residual Solids Management Bypass Blending Basin

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

Basin Specific Feasibility Studies 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

Feeder Canal Basin Alternatives 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

Basin Specific Feasibility Studies Feeder Canal Basin Alternatives Alternative 1 - Biological Treatment Alternative 2 - Base Condition

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

Feeder Canal Basin Alternatives Summary of Preliminary Findings Alt. 1 STA 3,024 * 54 * Alt. 2 Base Condition * 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

Feeder Canal Basin Alternatives 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. 1 STA Alt. 2 Base Condition 0

Questions?

Basin Specific Feasibility Studies 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

L-28 Basin Alternatives Flows and Loads Base Parameter Baseline Condition * 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 No change from baseline flows and loads *

Basin Specific Feasibility Studies L-28 Basin Alternatives Alternative 1 - Biological Treatment Alternative 2 - Base Condition

L-28 Basin Alternative 1 Optimum STA Configuration 50% SAV and 50% PSTA 4 cells in series Treatment area = 1,088 acres Total 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

L-28 Basin Alternatives Summary of Preliminary Findings Alt. 1 STA 2,639 * 66 * Alt. 2 Base Condition * 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

L-28 Basin Alternatives 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. 1 STA Alt. 2 Base Condition 0

Questions?

Basin Specific Feasibility Studies C-11 West Basin Map

C-11 West Basin Alternatives Base 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

Base Base Condition * Condition** Parameter Baseline ( ) ( ) Avg. annual flow, ac-ft/year 194,167 18, Peak daily flow, cfs2,880 2,933 2,930 Avg. annual TP load, kg/year4, Flow weighted mean TP conc., ppb C-11 West Basin Alternatives 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

Basin Specific Feasibility Studies C-11 West Basin Alternatives Alternative 1 - Chemical Treatment Alternative 3 - Base Condition Alternative 2 - Biological Treatment

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

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

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

C-11 West Basin Alternative 2 Facility Operations 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

C-11 West Basin Alternatives Summary of Preliminary Findings Alt. 1 CTSS ** ** ,560 Alt. 2 STA 121 * 39 * ** ,024 Alt. 3 Base Condition / * Adjusted for start-up conditions and implementation schedule, assumed no outflow from reservoir from ** Average of and values 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

C-11 West Basin Alternatives 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. 1 CTSS Alt. 2 STA Alt. 3 Base Condition 0

Questions?

Basin Specific Feasibility Studies 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

Basin Specific Feasibility Studies NNRC Flows and Loads Base Parameter Baseline Condition * Avg. annual flow, ac-ft/year 1,781 1,781 Peak daily flow, cfs Avg. annual TP load, kg/year Flow weighted mean TP conc., ppb No change from baseline flows and loads through 2018 *

Basin Specific Feasibility Studies 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 Optimum CTSS Configuration Total Area = 56 acres Inflow Outflow FEB 30 acres CTSS Works 10 MGD Residual Solids Management 1 acre Bypass Blending Basin 3 acres

North New River Canal Basin Alternatives Summary of Preliminary Findings Alt. 1 CTSS * ,328 Alt. 2 G-123 off in * NA Alt. 3 Base Condition * 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 * Includes TP load reduction due to CERP

North New River Canal Basin Alternatives 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. 1 CTSS Alt. 2 G-123 off in Alt. 3 Base Condition 0

Questions?

Basin Specific Feasibility Studies North Springs Improvement District Basin Map

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

Basin Specific Feasibility Studies NSID Flows and Loads Base Parameter Baseline Condition * Avg. annual flow, ac-ft/year 6,168 6,168 Peak daily flow, cfs Avg. annual TP load, kg/year Flow weighted mean TP conc., ppb No change from baseline flows and loads through 2007 *

Basin Specific Feasibility Studies 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

North Springs Improvement District Alternative 1 Temporary Diversion Assumptions 1. Diversion for 1 year only (2007) 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)

North Springs Improvement District Alternative 2 Permanent Diversion Storage Facility Land area = 1,300 acres Total storage volume = 7,100 ac-ft IMPOUNDMENT D IMPOUNDMENT C ROCK PITS IMPOUNDMENT B IMPOUNDMENT A S-39A New PS NSID Basin Seepage PS N.T.S

North Springs Improvement District Alternative 2 Permanent Diversion Assumptions 1. Permanent diversion (no NSID flows to CERP) 2. No bypass to EPA (storage volume for 100% of NSID flows) ,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 Findings Alt. 1 Temp. Diversion NA ,956 Alt. 2 Perm. Diversion NA ,543 Alt. 3 Base Condition TP Load Reduction TP Load Reduction, kg/yr TP Load Reduction, % TP Flow-weighted Mean, ppb TP Geometric Mean, ppb Schedule Implementation Schedule, yrs from 2003 Completion Date Cost Capital Cost, $ million O & M Cost, $ million/yr 50-yr Present Worth, $ million Cost Effectiveness, $/kg * Includes TP load reduction due to CERP

North Springs Improvement District Basin Alternatives 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. 1 Temp. Diversion Alt. 2 Perm. Diversion Alt. 3 Base Condition 0

Questions?

Basin Specific Feasibility Studies ACME Basin Map

ACME Basin B Alternatives Flows and Loads Base Parameter Baseline Condition * Avg. annual flow, ac-ft/year 31,499 31,499 Peak daily flow, cfs Avg. annual TP load, kg/year 3,660 2,745 Flow weighted mean TP conc., ppb * Assumed 25% TP load reduction due to source controls

Basin Specific Feasibility Studies 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 Canal Assumptions 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

ACME Basin B Alternative 2 Optimum CTSS Configuration Inflow Outflow Total Area = 287 acres FEB 200 acres CTSS Works 25 MGD Residual Solids Management 52 acres Bypass Blending Basin 9 acres

ACME Basin B Alternative 3 Optimum STA Configuration 100% SAV 3 cells in series Treatment area = 297 acres Total area = 375 acres (District-owned land only)

ACME Basin B Alternative 4 Optimum STA Configuration 100% SAV 3 cells Treatment area = 346 acres Total area = 415 acres

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 Diversion 2, Alt. 2 CTSS 1, Alt. 3 STA 1,979 * 72 * Alt. 4 STA 2,011 * 73 * ACME Basin B Alternatives Summary of Preliminary Findings * Adjusted for start-up conditions and implementation schedule Alt. 5 STA 1E 2, Evaluated by Burns & McDonnell

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 Diversion Alt. 2 CTSS Alt. 3 STA Alt. 4 STA ACME Basin B Alternatives Summary of Preliminary Findings Alt. 5 STA-1E Evaluated by Burns & McDonnell

Questions?