1 / 11

Santa Ana River Watershed Wasteload Allocation Model 2008

Santa Ana River Watershed Wasteload Allocation Model 2008. March 25, 2009. Project Scope. Task 1: Develop Calibration Hydrology Task 2: Calibrate WLAM Task 3: Develop Future Planning Scenarios Task 4: Evaluate Wasteload Allocation Simulations Task 5: Documentation. Today.

chiku
Download Presentation

Santa Ana River Watershed Wasteload Allocation Model 2008

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. Santa Ana River WatershedWasteload Allocation Model2008 March 25, 2009

  2. Project Scope • Task 1: Develop Calibration Hydrology • Task 2: Calibrate WLAM • Task 3: Develop Future Planning Scenarios • Task 4: Evaluate Wasteload Allocation Simulations • Task 5: Documentation

  3. Today • Wasteload allocation simulation results and conclusions • Review draft report comments and response to comments

  4. Review of Scenarios • Scenario 2 • Minimize discharge to SAR for permit TDS < 580 mg/L • Maximize discharge to SAR for permit TDS > 580 mg/L • Include pending Muni/WMWD diversion • Scenario 3 • Same as Scenario 2 w/o Muni/WMWD diversion • Scenario 4 • Assume no recycling and maximum plant discharge

  5. Review of Scenarios (cont) • Scenario 5 • Planned POTW recycled water discharge and reclamation • Scenario 6 • Planned POTW recycled water discharge and reclamation • EMWD discharge TDS increased from 650 mg/L to 700 mg/L • WMWD added March Wastewater Reclamation Facility discharge via Hole Lake • 2010: 2.3 MGD, 2020 4.3 MGD • TDS: 550 mg/L, TIN: 6 mg/L-N

  6. Results and Conclusions • Scenario 2 - Worst Case POTW Discharge with the Seven Oaks Diversion: this scenario brackets all scenarios except Scenario 4, the maximum mass discharge. • Based on estimated TDS and TIN concentrations for the August only, 1-year volume-weighted average, and 5-year volume-weighted average compliance periods, there is little difference between simulations with and without the Seven Oaks diversion. • Scenario 4 – Maximum Mass Discharge: this scenario results in the highest 1-year and 5-year volume-weighted TDS and TIN concentrations.

  7. Results and Conclusions (cont) • Based on estimated TDS and TIN concentrations for compliance metrics, there is little difference between Scenario 5 and Scenario 6 • Bunker Hill B: exceeds the TDS objective in all modeled scenarios and has TDS assimilative capacity. • Riverside A: exceeds the TIN objective in all modeled scenarios and has TIN assimilative capacity. • Chino South mz: all scenarios exceed TIN objective and there is no assimilative capacity for TIN.

  8. Comments • 27 comments from four agencies • 19 comments resulted in text changes or additions • Key clarifications: • Table 2-7 • Parks and schools impervious area was listed as 80% in table only. • Table 2-5 • Land use types were incorrectly linked with land use Anderson codes in the table only during report preparation • Table 4-5 • Data for Scenario 6 not Scenario 5 as in table header • EMWD discharge = 700 mg/L not 650 mg/L as shown

  9. Questions

More Related