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

3. 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

4. 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)

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

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

7. 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

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

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

10. 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

11. Basin Specific Feasibility Studies Feeder Canal Basin Map

12. 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

13. 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 156 58

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

15. 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

16. Feeder Canal Basin Alternatives Summary of Preliminary Findings 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 58 27 4 2006 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

17. 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 +2 0 +5 Alt. 2 Base Condition 0

18. Questions?

19. Basin Specific Feasibility Studies L-28 Basin Map

20. 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

21. 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 39 39 No change from baseline flows and loads *

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

23. 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

24. L-28 Basin Alternatives Summary of Preliminary Findings 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 39 4 2006 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

25. 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 +2 -2 0 +4 Alt. 2 Base Condition 0

26. Questions?

27. Basin Specific Feasibility Studies C-11 West Basin Map

28. 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

29. Base Base Condition * Condition** Parameter Baseline (2006-2036) (2036-2056) Avg. annual flow, ac-ft/year 194,167 18,283 885 Peak daily flow, cfs2,880 2,933 2,930 Avg. annual TP load, kg/year4,063 493 31 Flow weighted mean TP conc., ppb 17 22 28 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

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

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

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

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

34. 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

35. C-11 West Basin Alternatives Summary of Preliminary Findings 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 24 21 4 2006/2036 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 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

36. 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 0 +4 +1 -2 -3 Alt. 2 STA +1 -2 0 +5 Alt. 3 Base Condition 0

37. Questions?

38. Basin Specific Feasibility Studies North New River Canal Basin Map

39. 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

40. 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 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 *

41. 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)

42. 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

43. North New River Canal Basin Alternatives Summary of Preliminary Findings Alt. 1 CTSS 32 80 * 15 10 4 2006 30.99 0.58 31.86 379,328 Alt. 2 G-123 off in 2006 40 100 * NA 4 2006 0 Alt. 3 Base Condition 30 76 * 18 16 2018 0 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

44. 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 0 +4 +1 -2 -3 Alt. 2 G-123 off in 2006 0 Alt. 3 Base Condition 0

45. Questions?

46. Basin Specific Feasibility Studies North Springs Improvement District Basin Map

47. 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

48. 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 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 *

49. 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)

50. 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

51. North Springs Improvement District Alternative 1 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)

52. 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

53. 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) 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

54. North Springs Improvement District Basin Alternatives Summary of Preliminary Findings Alt. 1 Temp. Diversion 293 100 NA 4 2006 26.98 0.08 26.06 88,956 Alt. 2 Perm. Diversion 293 100 NA 4 2006 107.97 0.29 110.51 7,543 Alt. 3 Base Condition 287 98 39 5 2007 0 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

55. 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 0 +4 +3 0 Alt. 2 Perm. Diversion +2 +4 +3 0 Alt. 3 Base Condition 0

56. Questions?

57. Basin Specific Feasibility Studies ACME Basin Map

58. 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 505 505 Avg. annual TP load, kg/year 3,660 2,745 Flow weighted mean TP conc., ppb 94 71 * Assumed 25% TP load reduction due to source controls

59. 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

60. 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

61. 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

62. 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)

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

64. 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 2,361 86 71 11 2013 27.42 0.26 33.00 280 Alt. 2 CTSS 1,701 62 27 10 3 2006 26.11 1.26 53.66 631 Alt. 3 STA 1,979 * 72 * 19-27 12-15 6 2008 21.81 0.26 27.22 275 Alt. 4 STA 2,011 * 73 * 17-26 10-14 7 2009 22.63 0.26 27.81 277 ACME Basin B Alternatives Summary of Preliminary Findings * Adjusted for start-up conditions and implementation schedule Alt. 5 STA 1E 2,162 79 15-24 10-11 4 2006 7.52 0.25 12.06 112 Evaluated by Burns & McDonnell

65. 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 0 +4 +3 0 Alt. 2 CTSS +1 +4 +1 -2 -3 Alt. 3 STA +1 +2 +1 0 +5 Alt. 4 STA +1 +2 +1 0 +5 ACME Basin B Alternatives Summary of Preliminary Findings Alt. 5 STA-1E 0 +1 +2 Evaluated by Burns & McDonnell

66. Questions?