Going to Town in Fort Worth

Transcription

1 Going to Town in Fort Worth Central Reclaimed Water Delivery System Feasibility Study Sarah Seamands, PE & Ellen McDonald Ph.D., PE Frank Crumb, PE & Andy Cronberg PE

2 Project sponsored by: With funding assistance from: Consultant Team: Alan Plummer Associates, Inc. in conjunction with CP&Y, Inc.

3 The City has a Master Plan We should have a serious conversation about how we ensure future generations have the same access to water we do. Water is a tough challenge that requires us to think 30 to 50 years ahead. - Mayor Betsy Price on her to-do list for the City in her next mayoral term. ( Let our advance worrying become advance thinking and planning. - Winston Churchill

4 Wise County Denton County ^_ Collin County TRA Denton Creek Plant Existing Fort Worth Mary's Creek Plant Future Parker County Tarrant County ^_ Dallas County ^_ ^_ TRA Central Regional Plant Existing Hood County Vicinity Map of Study Area Legend Johnson County Local Wastewater Treatment Facilities Path: F:\projects\0318\050-01\GIS\MXD\Figure 1 Vicinity Map of Study Area_for_Presentation.mxd ^_ ^_ Existing Treatment Plant Future Treatment Plant Study Area (Approximate) City Limits of Fort Worth Sources: Esri, DeLorme, HERE, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Ellis County swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Reclaimed Water Master Plan: Service Areas Eastern Central Southern Northern Western Miles Date: 5/7/2014

5 Eastern System Phase I of Master Plan Operated since 2011 Serves Arlington, Euless, & DFW Airport

6 Project Goals Evaluate 2 pipeline routes to deliver reclaimed water from Village Creek Water Reclamation Facility (VCWRF) to the Central City. Determine life cycle unit cost to deliver this water. Develop alternative & life cycle cost for constructing a satellite WRF to serve the Central City. Evaluate economic feasibility of the recommended Title XVI Reuse Project. Consider both quantitative & qualitative benefits

7 Potential Reuse Customers in Study Area Village Creek WRF

8 Potential Anchor Customers 155 MG per year projected use Irrigation of green space & athletic fields 3 Campus cooling towers Requires short return on capital $ to construct lines & improvements for onsite reuse system.

9 Potential Anchor Customers 55 MG per year projected use Matching water quality with specific uses in Zoo facility. Irrigation & wash-down of cages, sidewalks, etc. Pools/ water features Sophisticated treatment system may add add l uses with further study.

10 Potential Anchor Customers 40 MG per year projected use Multiple smaller customers in one area Irrigation & water features Water quality must be maintained for cooling towers Low ammonia levels, Consistent quality Kimbell Art Museum, Photo by Mario Rosado Modern Art Museum, Photo by C. Kolar

11 Potential Anchor Customers 250 MG per year projected use for water body augmentation & irrigation. Water quality water body may require Nitrogen and/or Phosphorus removal to control algal growth. Water quality modeling efforts continue as plans for project progress. TrinityRiverVision.org

12 3 Reuse Options Evaluated

13 6-in 6-in 4-in 20-in 20-in 18-in 6-in 6-in 4-in 24-in Option 1: Northern Route, VCWRF to Central City 24-in 24-in #* 76 Northern route along TRE right-of-way 4-in 26 8-in #* #* #* 4-in 4-in in 4-in 6-in in 18-in in 12-in 10-in 56 55#* #* 70 UT 4-in in #* #* in 6-in 2 8-in 24-in 57 6-in 24-in 18-in 24-in 6-in 12-in 12-in #* #* in 12-in 1 MG Ground Storage Tank Figure 10: Option 1: Reclaimed Water from VCWRF to Central City along Northern Pipeline Route 12-in 30-in 1 MG Ground Storage Tank & Booster Pump Station ÚUT 24-in 12-in 12-in #* GIS ID Level Customer Category GIS ID Level Customer Category 1 1 TCU Irrigation 34 1 Museum of Science & History Irrigation 2 1 TCU Cooling Tower 35 1 Museum of Science & History Cooling Tower 3 1 TCU Cooling Tower 36 1 Will Rogers Memorial Center Cooling Tower 4 1 TCU Cooling Tower 37 1 Thistle Hill Irrigation 5 1 TCC Trinity River West Campus Irrigation 38 1 McFarland House Irrigation 6 1 TCC Trinity River West Campus Cooling Tower 39 1 National Cowgirl Museum Irrigation 7 1 TCC Trinity River West Campus Water Feature 40 2 Community Arts Center Irrigation 8 1 TCC Trinity River East Campus Irrigation 41 2 Community Arts Center Cooling Tower 9 1 TCC Trinity River East Campus Cooling Tower 42 2 Casa Manana Irrigation 10 1 TCC Trinity River East Campus Water Feature 43 2 Casa Manana Cooling Tower 11 1 UNT Health Science Center Irrigation 44 1 Fort Worth Convention Center Cooling Tower 12 1 UNT Health Science Center Cooling Tower 45 1 Fort Worth Convention Center Irrigation 13 1 Chesapeake Building Irrigation 49 1 Harris Methodist Hospital Irrigation 14 1 Chesapeake Building Cooling Tower 50 1 Harris Methodist Hospital Cooling Tower 15 1 Trinity River Vision Water Feature TRV 53 2 Cook Children's Hospital Irrigation 16 2 Trinity River Vision Irrigation 54 2 Cook Children's Hospital Cooling Tower 17 1 Gateway Park (Existing) Irrigation 55 2 Baylor All-Saints Hospital Irrigation 18 1 Gateway Park (Expansion) Irrigation 56 2 Baylor All-Saints Hospital Cooling Tower 19 2 Gateway Park (Ultimate Master Plan) Irrigation 57 1 Zoo Irrigation 24 2 Heritage Park (future) Irrigation 58 1 Zoo Water Feature 25 1 Trinity Park (Near 7th Street) Irrigation 59 1 Zoo Washing 26 1 Colonial Golf Course Irrigation 63 1 Burnett Park Irrigation 27 1 Amon Carter Museum Irrigation 64 1 Water Gardens (includes fountains) Irrigation 28 1 Amon Carter Museum Cooling Tower 65 1 Lancaster Landscapes Irrigation 29 1 Modern Art Museum Irrigation 66 1 General Worth Square Park Irrigation 30 1 Modern Art Museum Cooling Tower 69 1 Trimble Technical High School Fields Irrigation Village Creek WRF & Reclaimed Water Pump Station Legend Proposed Reuse System (Pipelines by Diameter) Demand Categories Irrigation Cooling Tower Make-Up 31 1 Modern Art Museum Water Feature 70 1 Paschal High School Fields Irrigation 32 1 Kimbell Art Museum Sources: Irrigation Esri, DeLorme, 71 1HERE, La Grave TomTom, Field Intermap, increment Irrigation P Corp., GEBCO, Water USGS, Feature FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, 200 Kadaster MG NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri 33 1 Kimbell Art Museum Japan, Cooling METI, Tower Esri China 76 (Hong 2 Commercial Kong), Development swisstopo, Irrigation and the Irrigation GIS User Community City Limits of Fort Worth Trinity Vision Project Area Village Creek WRF 4 to 8-inches 10 to 12-inches 18 to 20-inches 24-inches 30-inches Washing Miles Ú Potential Customer Category #* Demand Magnitude (Annual Avg. MG) Level 1 Level 2 < 1 MG 1-5 MG 5-10 MG MG MG MG MG MG MG Path: F:\projects\0318\050-01\GIS\MXD\Report Figures\Figure 10 Northern Pipeline Route_24inch.mxd Date: 6/28/2014

14 Option 2: Southern Route, VCWRF to Central City

15 Option 3: Central Route, Satellite WRC to Central City

16 Reuse Options: Cost Comparison Cost without funding assistance Cost with funding assistance from USBR (25% of Capital Cost) Option 1. Northern Route: VCWRF to City Annual Yield (MGD) Peak Day Flow (MGD) Reuse Options: Cost 2. Southern Route: VCWRF to City 3. Central Route: Satellite WRC to City Option 1. Northern Route: VCWRF to City 2. Southern Route: VCWRF to City 3. Central Route: Satellite WRC to City Comparison Net Present Value ($ Mill) Cost ($/1,000 gal) $ 50.8 $ $ 55.3 $ $ 94.8 $ 4.49 Annual Yield (MGD) Peak Day Flow (MGD) Net Present Value ($ Mill) Cost ($/1,000 gal) $ 38.6 $ $ 41.8 $ $ 77.4 $ 3.66

17 Potential Cost Savings Measures Receiving funding support from USBR Reuse Option 1: Northern Route Shared use of the VCWRF Reclaimed Pump Station Shared use of the 30-inch reclaimed line to connection with the Eastern System Reuse Option 2: Southern Route Shared use of the VCWRF Reclaimed Pump Station Purchase and rehab 30 inch raw water line from TRA to use as conveyance from VCWRF to Lake Arlington area

18 Traditional Water Supply Alternatives from Region C Water Plan

19 Integrated Pipeline Project (IPL): 2020

20 Marvin Nichols Reservoir: 2030

21 Toledo Bend Reservoir: 2050

22 Traditional Water Supply Alternatives: Cost Comparison Option 1. Integrated Pipeline Project (IPL) 2. Marvin Nichols Reservoir 3. Toledo Bend Reservoir: Ph. 1 Scheduled Year Annual Yield (MGD) Annual Yield (AFY) Net Present Value ($ Mill) Cost ($/1,000 gal) ,000 $ 1,751.5 $ ,000 $ 4,104.4 $ ,000 $ 1,946.3 $2.59

23 Selection of Title XVI Reuse Project

24 Cost Comparison of Water Supply Strategies Rank-Ordered Option Unit Cost ($/1,000 gal) Unit Cost ($/AF) Integrated Pipeline Project $ 1.60 $ 523 Marvin Nichols Reservoir & System $ 2.02 $ 659 Reuse Op 1: Northern Route $ 2.35 $ 766 Reuse Op 2: Southern Route $ 2.45 $ 799 Toledo Bend Reservoir & System $ 2.59 $ 844 Reuse Op 3: Satellite WRC to City $ 4.49 $ 1,462

25 Challenges to Implement Project Cost! Public acceptance Recruiting Customers They think shorter term than the engineers/planners do. Water quality for cooling system applications must be maintained. Construction in urban area cost & inconvenience

26 Why implement the Title XVI Reuse Project? Fort Worth & surrounding communities continue to grow. Reuse is a key part of the City s & TRWD s plans to achieve the highest practicable levels of water conservation & efficiency needed to develop new water supplies in other basins. Region C says Fort Worth will develop a 14.4 mgd reuse system by Marvin Nichols has many challenges to overcome before it can be implemented as a new regional water supply.

27 Why implement the Title XVI Reuse Project? The City has control over how to use the 110 MG of effluent from VCWRF each day. A direct non-potable reuse system for the City will provide customers with water at a cheaper rate that will not be bound to potable drought restrictions or schedules. Reuse customers will see an initial savings (75% of potable rates), which will grow over time in relationship to the City s raw water rates (62.4% over the next 10 years).

28 Projected Water Rates ($/1,000 gal) Raw Water Rates for City of Ft. Worth Fort Worth (In District)

29 Projected Water Rates ($/1,000 gal) Raw Water Rates for City of Ft. Worth Fort Worth (In District) Cost of Linear Trendline Cost with Fixed End Points Fort Worth (In District) Cost with Flat Trendline

30 Extra Slides

31 2014 City Water Rates