The URL can be used to link to this page

2001-24532 RESO RESOLUTION NO. 2001-24532 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING ADDITIONAL SERVICES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $43,000, FOR THE FIRM OF ARTHUR HILLS/STEVE FORREST AND ASSOCIATES, FOR DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES OF A HORIZONTAL WELLS IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR THE BAYSHORE GOLF COURSE RENOVATION PROJECT; APPROPRIATING FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $43,000 FOR THE ADDITIONAL SERVICES; AND FURTHER APPROVING THE ESTIMATED $1,100,000 ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR THE SYSTEM; WITH FUNDING AVAILABLE FROM THE GENERAL FUND UNDESIGNA TED FUND BALANCE, TO BE REIMBURSED FROM GRANTS AND OTHER FUNDING SOURCES WHEN FUNDS BECOME AVAILABLE. WHEREAS, on October 8, 1997, the City Commission approved a Professional Services Agreement with the firm of Arthur Hills/Steve Forrest and Associates (AH) for the design services, construction and bidding documents, construction observation, project administration, scheduling and cost estimating necessary for the renovation of the Bayshore Golf Course (the Project); and WHEREAS, the City and the AH have determined that there are more cost effective ways of irrigating the golf course than the currently used public water system; and WHEREAS, in order to obtain analyses of alternative water sources and evaluate different irrigation methods, on November 29, 2000, the Mayor and City Commission approved using the firm of Arcadis Geraghty & Miller (AGM) as a subconsultant for AH; and WHEREAS, preliminary cost analysis shows that there are substantial long term savings to the City by using alternative sources for irrigation; and WHEREAS, seven alternatives were analyzed from an engineering perspective as well as for economic feasibility and to determine the length of the permitting process by the applicable regulatory agencies; and WHEREAS, the eighth alternative is continuing with the irrigation system supplied from the public water as it is now; and WHEREAS, the AGM analyses show that one alternative, using horizontal wells and a golf course lake as a reservoir, is the best one from the economic and the permitting standpoints and avoids using brackish or high saline content water which would then require extensive water treatment; and WHEREAS, a life cycle analysis was made on all seven alternatives using the current cost of the public water service, which is estimated at $326,000 per year; and WHEREAS, the analysis shows that the horizontal wells system recommended by AGM would cost an estimated $1,100,000 for initial installation, and an estimated $50,000 per year to maintain; and WHEREAS, using the above as the economic base, the horizontal wells system would obtain a payback within the fourth year of the installation, with a six percent inflation factor; and WHEREAS, AGM has therefore concluded that using horizontal wells for the Bayshore Golf Course irrigation system would be economically and operationally advantageous to the City. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City Commission herein approve additional services, in the amount of $43,000, for the firm of Arthur Hills/Steve Forrest and Associates, for design and engineering services of a horizontal wells irrigation system for the Bayshore Golf Course Renovation Project; appropriating funds, in the amount of $43,000 for the additional services; and further approving the estimated $1,100,000 additional costs for the system; with funding available from the General Fund Undesignated Fund Balance, to be reimbursed from the proposed Gulf Breeze Municipal Loan Program, when they become available. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 18th day of July ,2001 11lYOR ATTEST: ~~p~ CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM & LANGUAGE & FOR EXECUTION AlJlJA.O,.II. 2-/()-rJ/ '~ Dale F:\WORK\$ALL\CHA TRAND\GOLFCLUB\IRIGRESO.WPD ..'~'f.~'-,;':'",~,~:,._,_:..~-.........,.~;,~.~:i~~';"":.';"'"",,,->.. '';'_. .....~;""'.;:.~~,.. :~';":\:,:";","~""-;:,,,~.;.-,,, ~",~~:";-~'~:~~i...~~,~.~~;,J.;...~.~~~,,..:...;.,:,:,. ~}.:.~.'rl.-,;:.:.:.' "~I'i~';:;"';~~"\~.'j 'a-',.;;\,..,.",.":t:r':'-,, :&.' PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY FOR BA YSHORE COUNTRY CLUB AND GOLF CO U RS E MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA ~ ARCADIS GERAGHTY &MILLER 21 March 2001 PRE PAR E D F 0 Arthur HillsiSteve Forrest and AssociateS and the City of Miami Beach ARCADIS GERAGHTY & MILLER To: Mayra Diaz-Buttacavol Assistant City Manager City of Miami Beach 1700 Convention Center Drive Miami Beach, FL 33139 Copies: Jorge E. Chartrand Construction Manager City of Miami Beach 1700 Convention Center Drive Miami Beach, FL 33139 ARCADIS G&M. Inc. 600 Sandtree Orlve Suite 106 Palm Beach Gardens Florida 33403 Tel 561 6940300 Fax 561 622 6379 MEMO WA TERlWASTE MANAGEMENT Ken Williams, Design Associate Arthur Hills/Steve Forrest & Associates From: Date: Thomas Tessier, P. G. 23 May 2001 Bill Lynch, P. E. Subject: ARCADIS G&M Project No.: Preliminary Evaluation of Alternatives for PFOOl105.000l Irrigation Water Supply for Bayshore Country Club and Golf Course Miami Beach, Florida In response to questions raised during our meeting at City Hall on April 2, 2001 and additionli!;' information provided to us after that meeting, we wish to provide the following additionoil information supplemental to our report of March 200 I. Irrigation Usage and Cost For purposes of comparisons in the report, it was estimated that the irrigation usage would average 0.5 million gallons per day (mgd). This was based on a preliminary estimate of 150 irrigated acres. We determined irrigation demand by applying the South Florida Water Management District revised Blaney- Criddle analysis which predicts that turfgrass irrigation demand will be 1.11 million gallons per year per acre (mgy/ac), with a maximum month demand of 0.178 million gallons per month per acre (mgmlac). A more current and accurate estimate of the irrigated acreage is 130. Therefore, the average-day demand will be 0.395 million gallons per day (130 acres/365 days x 1.11 mgy/ac) and the maximum-day demand will be 0.746 million gallons per day (0.178 mgmlac x 130 acres/31 days). Five horizontal wells have been anticipated to satisfy the project's water demand. However, because pumping capacity and depth to water at the horizontal wells will be limited to reduce the potential for saline intrusion, and depending on field conditions, more or less than 5 wells may be needed to satisfy the maximum-day demand. Alternatively, if more wells are needed, some water from the public supply could be used for "peaking". Page: 1/3 . P. ,~ ARCADlS GERAGHTY&MILLER The cost of obtaining water from the public supply was based on a price of $2.26 per thousand gallons, contained in a comparison of costs made by another consultant and provided to us previously. Jorge Chartrand has confirmed that this rate includes add-ons and surcharges. At 0.5 mgd, the annual cost would be $412,450. At 0.395 mgd, the annual cost would be $325,835. Table 2 has been revised to reflect the lower cost of water for Alternative I (public water supply). The costs of other alternatives are not significantly affected by the lower average-day demand. Golf Courses Using Horizontal Wells The following golf courses utilize horizontal wells for irrigation: Hawks Nest Golf Club, Vero Beach, FL. Tom Trammel: Phone 561-569-9409 . The Club at Pelican Bay, Naples, FL. Robert Bittner: Phone 941-597-2244 . Fair Winds Golf Course, St. Lucie County, FL. Chris Gamble: Phone 561-462-1773 . Spanish Wells Golf Course, Bonita Springs, FL. Keith Cantwell: Phone 941-992-662 The wells listed at Spanish Wells Country Club, and Fairwinds Golf Course are the longest performing in the group of golf courses. The Fairwinds Golf Course has the most wells and has been working for eight years. Other systems have been installed in south Florida, but the south Florida contractor with the longest period of experience has installed the listed wells. Ranking of Alternatives by Permitting Time and Issues I. Alternative 1 immediate no permitting issues 2. Alternative 2 6 mo. - I yr SFWMD concern over saline intrusion and arsenic migration 3. Alternative 8 9 mo. - 1 yr major Issues SFWMD (6 mo.) and FDEP (9 mo. - 1yr) concurrently, but no 4. Alternative 4 9 mo. - I yr SFWMD (6 mo. ~9 mo.) and FDEP (9 mo. - Iyr) concurrently, with SFWMD concern about saline intrusion and arsenic migration 5. Alternative 5 9 mo. - 1 yr SFWMD (6 mo.- 9 mo.) and FDEP (9 mo. - Iyr) concurrently, with SFWMD concern about saline intrusion and arsenic migration and FDEP concern about confinement and quality of brine reject 6. Alternative 6 1+ yr SFWMD (6 mo.) and FDEP (1 yr+) concurrently, with FDEP concern about quality of reject and confinement (may not be permittable) Page: 2/3 " ~ r ARCADlS GERAGHTY&MILLER 7. Alternative 3 1+ yr SFWMD (6 mo. - 9 mo.) and FDEP, USEPA and perhaps DERM (I + yr) with issue of toxicity to surface water 8. Alternative 7 1 + yr SFWMD (6 mo.) and FDEP, USEPA and perhaps DERM (I + yr) with issue of toxicity to surface water (may not be pennittable) Page: 3/3 J .-.1 J J J r J J I. J r I J i. J ] J J ] ] ] J J ] ARCADlS GERAGHTY& MILLER /~ L..I~-~_ Thomas L Tessier, PG 3/-,.,/01 William H. Lynch, PE " Preliminary Evaluation of Altematives for Irrigation Water Supply ~rflifOf: Arthur HillslSteve Forrest and Associates and the City of Miami Beach, Florida Prepared by; ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller Inc 600 Sa ndtree 0 rive, Suite 106 Palm Beach Gardens Florida 33403 Tel 561 6940300 Fax 561 622 6379 Our Ref.: PF00110S.0001 Date: 21 March 2001 This document is intended only for the use of the individual or entity for which ;r was prepared and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any dissemination, distribution. or copying of this document is stricffy prohibited. ARCADlS GERAGHTY&MILLER , L Table of Contents l , 1 Introduction 1 . . . : 2 Project Requirements 1 3 Source Evaluation 2 3.1 Public Water Supply 2 3.2 Reclaimed Water 2 3.3 Surficial Aquifer (fresh) 3 3.4 Bistayne Aquifer (brackish) 4 3.S Floridan Aquifer 4 3.6 Surface Water and Storm Water 5 3.7 Bay Water 6 4 Supply Alternatives 6 5 Conclusions and Recommendations 9 j I Tables Irrigation Supply Alternatives j 2 Opinion of Cost for Alternatives Appendices A Turf Grass Requirements B Irrigation Demand Analysis 1 . J j GlIrth.lrhil~-.ltfln.lYe5torwlttrsupply2.(\oC I 1 )-J :, ] ~-] ') ] I ] rJ I ] I ] I J r] I J I ] I J I ] .-] I J J LJ I J 1_ . . ARCADIS GERAGHTY&MILLER (modified Blaney-Criddle) available from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The "per acre" irrigation demand for a Miami area golf course, assuming 75% irrigation efficiency and a 0.8 soil type is shown in Appendix B. The maximum irrigation demand is predicted to occur in July in a 2 in I a-year drought. The SFWMD allocates irrigation water to permittees based on the revised Blaney- Criddle model. 3 Source Evaluation Source availability is the most important consideration in evaluating the water supply alternatives for Bayshore. Any source can be treated to provide the needed supply. It is assumed that the public water supply can serve as a backup to any primary supply selected. 3.1 Public Water Supply Public water supply historically has been used at Bayshore as the source of irrigation water. It is assumed that the supply quantity and quality have been adequate and will continue to be available. No treatment or storage is required. The only capital costs associated with this supply are expected to be piping costs to the central irrigation point. Operating costs will continue to be those W ASA charges, and will increase accordingly. Irrigation hours likely are from about 9 p. m. to 5 a. m. It is possible that a lower bulk water rate could be negotiated and should be explored. W ASA might be in a position to offer a lower bulk water rate for water delivered in off-peak hours. This might require some onsite storage. 3.2 Reclaimed Water Reclaimed water has not been considered previously. W ASA was contacted regarding the availability of reclaimed water. According to the W ASA representative, reclaimed water is available only from the North Miami plant where it is provided to the north campus of Florida International University. It is not reasonably available in this part of Dade County. According to staff of the SFWMD, Dade County is obliged to expand and make available its reclaimed water facilities. Typically, where available, reclaimed water is of adequate quantity and quality for golf course irrigation. In fact, reclaimed water often offers the increased benefit of reduction in usage of chemicals. GiriVfhil~rt.lIltemati'Iesfor"",","wpply2.doc PRELIMINARY EVALUATION 0 ALTERNATIVES FOR IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY . , ARCADlS GERAGHTY & MILLER Pennilling requirements should be nominal. Capital costs associated with the piping, possibly wet-weather storage, and groundwater monitoring may be needed. Operating costs would be the reclaimed water rate that is typically much less than the bulk water rate. Since reclaimed water is not currently available, this source was not evaluated further. 3.3 Surficial Aquifer (fresh) A thin lens of fresh water is available beneath the golf course. Based on reported results of testing by Kimley-Hom south of the Convention Center (Kimley-Horn and Associates, "Aquifer Storage and Recovery Demonstration Project-Phase II Final Report", 1998), the Biscayne Aquifer consists of unconsolidated sand and shell to a depth of about \3 feet below land surface underlain by limestone to greater than 50 feet below land surface. The deeper portions of the aquifer consist primarily of limestone, sandstone and shell. For purposes of this report, the upper, unconsolidated sand portion of the Biscayne Aquifer will be considered separately as the Surficial Aquifer. The Biscayne Aquifer has been assumed to be 120 to 200 feet thick in this area. The water above about 30 feet deep is fresh (indicated by total dissolved solids concentrations of 1000 mgIL or less). Below 30 feet deep, the groundwater is progressively more brackish and has a salinity that is 30 to 40% seawater at 50 feet deep. Beneath Bayshore Golf Course, the water may be fresher to a slightly greater depth (say 40 feet deep rather than 30 feet deep) because of the long history of irrigation with potable water. However, the water quality of the golf course lake system is currently unknown, and periodic inundation of bay water through the lake system (that has been reported) may have impacted the fresh water quality of the Surficial Aquifer. Assuming that the interface between fresh and brackish water lies at about 30 feet below land surface at Bayshore, the fresh water can best be captured by horizontal wells. In order to prevent upconing of brackish water, the depth of the . horizontal wells should be comoleted at ahout 10 feet below land surface (8 feet below the water table) and the water level should be drawn down only to about I foot above sea level in the pumped wells. We estimate that 5 horizontal wells, 10 feet deep, pumping 70 gallons per minute each will be needed to satisfy the demand. A horizontal well system must be pennilled by the South Florida Water Management District. Because of the shallow depth to brackish water, South Florida Water Management District will be concerned about upconing of brackish water into the horizontal wells and possibly into irrigation wells of nearby residences. It must be demonstrated that intrusion is not a significant threat. In addition, the SFWMD will be concerned about arsenic contamination in the maintenance area and potential migration. Testing is needed to validate the assumed perfonnance of horizontal wells. GI.ntlumillsfr~..hernttWesforwlW'UPflIy2.doo: PRELIMINARY EV ALUA TIO~ ALTERNATIVES FOR IRRIGATION WATER SUPPL1 I ARCADlS GERAGHTY&MlllER - a - "I ] II: ] '1'1 !, l 1 ] I ] I 1_] -] L] I r] L] I J --, , l .. r J LJ "J Capital costs include wells, centrifugal pumps, and electrical. Operating costs will be primarily electrical, with nominal production and water-quality monitoring. No treatment, storage or disposal is needed. 3.4 Biscayne Aquifer {brackish} Deeper portions of the Biscayne Aquifer can provide brackish water. According to Kimley-Hom (1998), a highly permeable wne is available below about 55 feet below land surface. One production well should be more than adequate to supply in excess of 1,000 gpm. Total dissolved solids at 50 feet deep is expected to be 10,000 to 15,000 mgIL and probably will increase with depth. Total dissolved solids concentration of about 18,000 mg/L can be expected from production wells about 100 feet deep. Even in the presence of salt-tolerant grasses, desalination treatment and disposal should be considered if total dissolved solids concentration exceeds about 1500 to 2000 mg/L. A brackish water supply system must be pennitted by the South Florida Water Management District. Since the aquifer is an underutilized resource and assuming that no significant water users are in the area, the only significant pennitting issue is the presence of arsenic. However, onsite testing will be needed to confirm the production and quality of the brackish portion of the aquifer. Capital costs include a well, pump, and electrical. Operating costs will be primarily electrical, with nominal production and water-quality monitoring. Treatment (reverse osmosis), and disposal of brine are needed. 3.5 Floridan Aquifer Brackish water is available from the upper Floridan Aquifer. Reese ("Hydrogeology and the Distribution and Origin of Salinity in the Floridan Aquifer System, Southeastern Florida", US Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigation Report 94-40 10, 1994) indicated that top of the Floridan Aquifer (top of Suwannee Limestone) was about 840 feet deep in Miami Beach. The transmissivity of the upper Floridan Aquifer in nearby Hialeah was about 10,000 square feet per day (sq ft/day). A transmissivity of 10,000 sq ft/day is adequate to support a well pumping rate of 1,000 gallons per minute. Two local wells penetrating the upper Floridan Aquifer (LaGorce and City of Miami Beach) produced water with a chloride concentration of about 2,500 to 2,600 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and a total dissolved solids concentration of about 4,800 mg/L. A water use pennit will be needed from the South Florida Water Management District. No pennitting issues are anticipated for this underutilized resource. No test well is Glantlurhilhlrepon.eltemiltivefofw.urwppIy2.doc 1 PRELIMINARY EVALUATION ( ALTERNATIVES FOR IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY 4 ~ 'J - ., J ] 1 1 -, , J J ] ] J ] ~ ] -] J ARCADIS GERAGHTY&MILLER needed as the Floridan Aquifer is a proven resource, so capital costs will be for a single production well, \,I 00 feet deep, a pump and associated piping. Operating costs will be primarily electrical, with nominal production and water-quality monitoring. Treatment and disposal costs are significant and will be discussed separately. 3.6 Surface Water and Storm Water The project's planned lake system could serve as a source of supply. We understand that stonn water will be routed into the lake system, as well. Withdrawals from lakes can be expected to have components of surface-water storage and groundwater inflow. Based on experience in south Florida, and depending upon the duration of pumping and the amount of drawdown, groundwater inflow can be expected to contribute 10 to 20% of the total flow. Typical project lakes have a width of about 100 feet, length of 500 feet, and are expected to be about 10 feet deep (top of the limestone). Assuming a tolerable drawdown of 3 feet (lakes should not be drawn down below sea level and aesthetics are a consideration) and 3: I side slopes for a typical project lake, surface- water storage may be expected to contribute about I million gallons and groundwater inflow can be expected to contribute (at 20%) about 0.2 million gallons. In order to provide 0.5 million gallons per day for 90 days during a drought (when no stormwater is available), 43 acres of ponds would be needed, assuming ponds are brimful at the beginning of the drought. If the ponds are incorporated in the surface-water system and no tidal inundations occur, the quality of the water should be similar to stormwater and adequate for irrigation. Some deterioration in water quality may occur at the end of a sustained drought period due to possible upconing of poor quality groundwater, but the overall quality consisting of surface water in storage and groundwater inflow should remain usable. A surface-water withdrawal system must be pennilled by the South Florida Water Management District. Since the aquifer is an underutilized resource and assuming that no significant water users are in the area, only the presence of arsenic in the maintenance area is expected to be a significant pennitting issue. Capital costs include possible wet well, pumps, and electrical. Operating costs will be primarily electrical, with nominal production and water-quality monitoring. No treatment, storage or disposal is needed. GI.nhurhillslreport-alwrNtilretforwater5Upply2.dol: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY 5 1 -~ I J 1 I '1 I ~ ] ] ] J ] J ] -J J ARCADlS GERAGHTY&MILLER 3.7 Bay Water Biscayne Bay and its tributary canals offer an unlimited potential brackish water source. Limited data in the literature indicate that the salinity of Biscayne Bay in the area between the Venetian and Julia Tuttle Causeways is very close to seawater (perhaps 80% seawater or a total dissolved solids concentration of 28,000 mgIL). The golf course has hydraulic connections to 2 tributary canals, the small and shallow Collins Canal to the south of the course and the larger and deeper Biscayne Waterway to the north of the course. Variability of water quality in these tributary canals may occur seasonally or due to tides. Water-use permitting should not be needed. Permitting of structures into the canals would be necessary. Capital costs include possible wet well, pumps, and electrical. Operating costs will be primarily electrical, with nominal water-quality monitoring. Treatment (desalination), and disposal of brine are needed. 4 Alternatives Analyses For the purposes of this preliminary analysis of technical feasibility and cost, it is assumed that 0.5 million gallons per day needs to be available on a continuous basis for irrigation. Twelve combinations of source, treatment, storage and disposal were considered, as shown on Table 1. Four (9-12) were rejected because the source water (Biscayne Bay, lakes and stormwater, and reclaimed water) quantity or quality to serve as a primary source was not available. Biscayne Bay was eliminated because of the expected variability in water quality that would make operation of a treatment system difficult. Lakes and stormwater were eliminated because of the acreage of lakes needed to supply water during a drought. However, lakes and stormwater could serve as a secondary, supplemental or partial backup source, depending upon the final design of the site's surface-water management system and the ultimate primary supply selected. It is possible that lakes and stormwater could provide water to small areas of the course (for example, tees and greens) either daily or as an emergency backup. Reclaimed water is not available at present; if available, it could serve as a primary source. Although cost of reclaimed water would have to be established, capital costs would be low and operating costs likely would be less than the annual cost of using potable water. The 8 remaining alternatives (1-8) were subjected to a technical feasibility and cost analysis. The cost analysis is shown on Table 2. Gf.muhillslreport.ahematiYel forwatet wP9fy2.doc PREUMINARY EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY 6 ... ] ARCADlS GERAGHTY&MILLER ] ] Alternative I - Continued use of the public supply for irrigation is certainly possible. An adequate quantity and quality is available. No treatment, storage or brine disposal is necessary. Minimal capital costs (primarily piping to a wet well) are needed. For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that Water use would continue under the same pricing structure and no consideration was made for a lower bulk rate for off-peak use which would have to be negotiated with W ASA. Therefore, annual operating and maintenance costs (primarily water purchase) are high. Because of the open-ended nature of the agreement with Miami-Dade W ASA, the public water supply is available as a supplementary or backup supply if another primary supply is selected. ] ] ] Alternative 2 - The Surficial Aquifer freshwater lens at the top of the Biscayne Aquifer is available. Quantity and quality should be adequate, based on the best available information, but onsite testing is needed. Water-quality data from the existing onsite lakes would be a good indicator of Surficial Aquifer water quality. Because of the potential for upconing of brackish water, the supply will be obtained from shallow horizontal wells (5 planned) Dumped at low rates while maintaining water levels in the wells at I foot or more above mean sea level. No treatment or brine disposal is necessary, but storage (lined pond) is advised so that low-rate daily pumpage can be continuous, pUlling less stress on the groundwater resource, thereby minimizing the potential for saline intrusion. Pennilling of the water use through the South Florida Water Management District will be lengthy due to the potential for saline intrusion and the presence of arsenic contamination in the maintenance area, but should be possible. Capital costs are moderate (compared to the other alternatives) for 5 horizontal wells and the pumps and piping needed to deliver the water back to a central storage location (Lake 10). Operating and maintenance costs are low, primarily for the power for pumps. The well system must be carefully operated and monitored to prevent upconing of saline water that would force reverse osmosis water treatment and disposal. If another primary supply is selected, the fresh Surficial Aquifer still could provide some or all supplementary or backup capacity. ] ] ] l ] ] ] Alternative 3 - The brackish portion of the Biscayne Aquifer can be a high-capacity source. Alternative 3 utilizes this source, reverse osmosis treatment, lined lake storage and brine disposal in a nearby canal (Collins Canal or Biscayne Waterway). Reverse osmosis treatment operates by forcing brackish water through a membrane that produces fresher water and residual brine. Brine disposal to man-made canals tributary to Biscayne Bay may be possible but will require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) pennit through the US Environmental Protection Agency (EP A), the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and Dade OJ -J Gfarthurilillsfl'tpOl't.almnMilles for waw supply2.dcK -1 PRELIMINARY EV ALUA TlON OF ALTERNATIVES FOR IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY 7 J ARCADIS GERAGHTY & MILLER ~ ] County Department of Environmental Resource Management (DERM). This is a difficult and lengthy process requiring extensive sampling and testing. Pennits are conditioned with detailed monitoring. A water use permit must be obtained from SFWMD, but that should not be difficult compared to the NPDES pennitting. Capital costs are high for this alternative, as the treatment system is costly and the testing, sampling and pennitting costs for disposal are substantial. Only a single supply well should be needed, but testing for production and quality should be undertaken. A lined lake is included for storage, so that the treatment plant can be operated at a lower sustained rate, rather than a high rate to meet daily peaks. This saves on the cost and size of the treatment plant. Operating and maintenance costs are moderately high, to account for power consumption, periodic membrane replacement, and the monitoring likely associated with the brine disposal. ] ] ] ] ] Alternative 4 - This alternative is similar to Alternative 3, except that the brine disposal is through an injection well into the lower Floridan Aquifer, 2000 feet or more below land surface. Although the pennilting process (through FDEP) is also lengthy and the disposal method itself is more costly, this alternative avoids the extensive sampling and testing prior to pennit issuance and reduces the amount of testing for permit compliance. Capital costs are higher than for Alternative 3, because a single injection well is needed. Operating and maintenance costs are slightly higher than Alternative 3 to account for injection pumping costs and periodic mechanical integrity testing. ] J J Alternative 5- This alternative is similar to Alternatives 3 and 4, but a single well in the (brackish) upper Biscayne Aquifer will be used to withdraw water. A single well in the (more saline) lower Biscayne will be used to dispose of the brine. It is assumed that suitable penneable zones exist in the upper and lower Biscayne, but a test well will be needed to detennine this and establish water quality. Permits will be required for the water use (SFWMD) and brine disposal (FDEP); the pennitting process may be lengthy, but should be successful. Capital, and operating and maintenance costs are in the same range as for similar alternatives. J J I Alternative 6 - The upper Floridan Aquifer would serve as a source of supply and the lower Biscayne Aquifer would serve as the brine disposal facility for this alternative. A water use permit is obtainable for the upper Floridan Aquifer. However, the upper Floridan Aquifer is a potential source of radionuclides that are concentrated in the brine by reverse osmosis treatment and may result in an exceedance of primary standards at the Biscayne Aquifer injection well. Before this alternative is seriously considered, at least water sample results should be obtained for the nearby LaGorce well(s). A test well into the lower Biscayne Aquifer is needed to demonstrate confinement and the ] ] ] ] GI~rhil~-altemMNelfOfW~9./flI)IyZ.doc: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY 8 r~ J~J J rJ ./ ] I I - J l -- ] ] .J J ] .J ] ] - J ] j ARCADlS GERAGHTY&MILLER presence of a permeable zone. Capital costs for this alternative are moderately high and in the same range as Alternatives 3 through 5. due to the expense of a Roridan Aquifer well and reverse osmosis treatment. Operating and maintenance costs are moderately low, due to low operating pressures needed for disposal. Alternative 7 - This alternative is similar to Alternative 6, except for canal disposal. A water use permit is obtainable from the SFWMD. Brine disposal to a canal will be difficult, costly and time-consuming to permit. If radionuclides are present and are elevated above primary standards by the reverse osmosis treatment process. canal discharge may not be allowed. Capital costs for this alternative are moderately high, due to the treatment process. Operating and maintenance costs are moderately low, but only if the discharge to a canal is approvable. Alternative 8 - Except for disposal into the lower Roridan Aquifer, this option is similar to Alternatives 6 and 7. A water use permit is obtainable from the SFWMD. Permitting of brine disposal to an injection well in the lower Roridan Aquifer is possible, and radionuclides disposal in the lower Roridan Aquifer is not an issue. Capital costs are highest for all the alternatives because of the cost of a supply well in the upper Roridan Aquifer and disposal in the lower Roridan Aquifer. Operating and maintenance costs are moderate. 5 Conclusions and Recommendations Eight water supply alternatives with reliable and consistent water sources are available for use. However, the upper Roridan Aquifer water source will produce radionuclides which, when concentrated by reverse osmosis treatment, may create a brine that is difficult to dispose of in surface water or underground sources of drinking water. Therefore, Alternative 7 is eliminated from further consideration. Alternatives 4 and 8 both involve reverse osmosis treatment and disposal of brine into the lower Roridan Aquifer. These are the most costly alternatives and are likewise eliminated. Alternative 3 involves disposal of brine to surface water which is likely very difficult to permit (if permittable) and monitor, and is also eliminated from further consideration. Alternatives 2, 5 and 7 are the lowest cost alternatives remaining in comparison with Alternative 1 (public water supply). There is no certainty that the disposal system for Alternative 5 can be permitted, although similar systems have been permitted elsewhere. For Alternative 7, there is no assurance that a suitably permeable injection zone exists below the underground source of drinking water (USDW) .but above the "Boulder Zone", the much deeper disposal zone where Dade County disposes of its wastewater effluent, so the potential injection well would have to be considered as an G'.-1I\urtIillsltepon...~fo'wetersuppty2.cIoc: PRELIMINARY EVAlUATION 01 ALTERNATIVES fOR IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY 9 .. - J J ] ] J J ] ~- J ] ] ] J I - ] j ] -] J - ARCADIS GERAGHTY&MILLER exploratory or test well until its performance can be proven. Alternative 2 is pennittable and its long-term cost is less than Alternative I within 3 years of operation. Based on the current project schedule and the time needed to perform testing and pennitting for Alternative 2 (horizontal wells), we recommend that the project be constructed and operations begun with Alternative 1 as the water supply. Negotiation of a more favorable rate should be considered. Simultaneously, appropriate testing should be perfonned and a water use pennit application fUed with the SFWMD for water use by Alternative 2. After pennitting of Alternative 2 at the South Florida Water Management District, horizontal wells can be installed to replace the public water supply source. Consideration should be given to placing horizontal wells so that tees and greens can be irrigated directly from those wells if necessary. In addition, the I public water supply connection should be maintained for supplemental water in case ;J- the yield or water quality of the horizontal wells deteriorates, or an emergency occurs. G'erthurtlillslnpor1.-e/tem;Mives for water supply2.doc PRELIMINARY EV ALUA liON OF ALTERNATIVES FOR IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY 10 , , E .s 1ii ~ 0 Ol.!!! 1ii 0 0 ."l!!" ~ G) .5 E . " ;: c: j G'sHJ ..~= ai Ol - " ~;;; Ol g fD "D .-:t: ~ ., .c " 0).- 0-0 ._ c:r co 0 mtG...J~.2 5l'lij Ol g.. .5E~oCl) ;!;l!!-gll. '" -CCCDcn - > 0. o.c (,) c =.Q. CD ~ .. E ~ 0 CQ)m-C ~ >- QS Z ~.!l .. i ~:f1i) ga.Eo.Q 0) as _ .... )( to ca .:'- .. ~3 o.!.o ... E .~ -8 cp1;;rnCD'iij Ol Ol .. ::;.;8 a;~&.:SU) Ol Ol > ;:,o-.c.c ~"'C=c: " " :S! 'D " " _.- - ::J 1i.i () c:.E";:J :::Jcamao 0 .. Ol 0 o 1E "'5 Cf) Q) .~ as Q) C>> 32-0:0< g. .. N '0 ., :0:::; Qi".2 0;'" fI) C CD c: :c Ol- " is -o~>c: E <11 " ::1.2 em:= .s - E'in "" IUBc:fU_ l!l 0 00'; '" J: ::I "'0 Q. to .... c: en II: 0l'0:g0 .. '6 .. 1-" E c: Q) Q) Q) .. 0. .. l!! " :l to c..-X- 00.2 <t .~ II: 0. o Ol -u. 'D ;;; .2; .. .. :!! HE .c " " ~O "0 " Ol 0 ! .2 Ol 0 .0 .- .0 .- ~g >0 !l _'0 _'0 _'0 " o .i: o ." 0'" '" ~ <11 ~ "0; "0; "0; 0''' .. "CSCI) Ol 0. :::::-0 >0" i;'! ~! '" :l .. .. Ol <11 ~ "\1" 5 i! ., :l " E1: EE E1: : .Q 2 0' -- _J!! ..Cl Cl Cl c .2: '" ., '" a; '" a; '" 0:0:2 !: 0 ::: .~ E g E g E g ~ '" ~ " c: .. :::JcnUi ~ !l .. ., E "'" .2" "'" 0.,., E 15 0 g.s gg <Il .0 - a; 1U >- .!!!- .c'O .c'O .c'O .00 :0 ~ .2' Q) 0., .2' ., .!9 c: .!!l 0 IE :f:c J:E iii ~ iii Z '" '" :l II: E II: .. .. .. ii .!! ~ el: ., .. Q 0 'S .!!! := <>- ~ "g. "C' :l if ., ~ . 0 is ~ Ol ~ c: < Ol it c: <11 Ol 0. Ol ., 0 0 ~ :S! Ol ii z z c ., " 0 >-" ~ ~ '" !l~ 'D lL 'ii .. .. el: ~ iii iii w ., ID II: :Ii ~ .l!! ., Ol II> ~ .. .... ~ .... ::e '" ., .. .. .. <11 .. c: -' -' -' -' 1 iii ~ 0 " " " " 'D 0 Z Ol Ol II> II> II> :;) - 1/1 " c: c: c c: .... ::; ::; ::; ::; ::; 0 lI.. .. .!!1 .. .. .... 1 0 'in .. 'in 'in - 0 0 0 0 l!l c E E E E w ~ II> II> .. .. .. l!l II: " " 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 Ol llJ II> ~ :J: Ol Z Z .. l!! 1/1 ~ ~ ~ Ol ~ ] I- > ~ ., II> Ol II> In II: II: II: II: :3 !!J !!J !!J !!J !!J iii ] i!: II> < ~ l iii ~ a; 00 ~ ~ ~ " ~ OJ ~ OJ OJ 1ii OJ Z :l C ~ 0 " " " " II: Q N '€ t: t: t: III ::; ." Ol Ol II> Ol ] ~ 0 > > > > el: I ~ "" ll. Q 0. ll. III 0. :2 :2 :2 " J :;) a: 1/1 .. <Il .. 1/1 W :2 :2 :2 Q .Il :2 " " e ]j z lii :0 .. .. .. 0 :l ~ e e e -S ~ Z ll. 0' 0 .!! ]j .!! < ] l!l 0 '0 .!! " II> 's -S 'S .. if III '" 'S 0' 0' 0' :S! !E > =' 0' < < < 0 ~ II> < II> Ol Ol lL_ :l OJ c: " c - Z _E '0 >- >- >- ~.c .. .. .. II> <Il ] III a:: C 'E g " " 8:32 .... III 0 '" .. '" In ~ (,) 00 iii iii iii =,lil el: . N ell .. .;, .., I- el: - <D ~ 1 r 'J ~ J J J ] ] ] ] ] ] J ] ] ] J ] ] 1 '6' ~ c 'E o .g. C c if 9 ... z u c ... lD :i c :i iii 3 u ... ... o Cl ... a: o :t: Ul > C lD iii ... > ~ z a: ... ~ c > ... ... ... :l Ul Z o ~ Cl if e: ~ ... ... lD i! .. .. 01 .. - c .. > 'C .. III is .s iii _ ! ~ ... E ="- E CI).!!! o:l",W.o ,.:CT oe ;ge-g[L~ CD >- as Z ca lh co - ~ rn aE:!~CD .c"O"cc:2 o C._ ;:, U .~ as Q) CI ::::J ~.~.~ c: c aiE~ii.2 C:Q)CDCD~ t'lJ 0..')(-(( U ., III .. 01 J!l c ~ 'C C ...1;: l>a = ::::J '" 0 :l ~ CT'C "0.80 C_" '" 0 0 " " .- O'-U .... .0._ :l :l ~ olllUi cI) Q) ! ...0 :0'5 .. " ~i;' II:E '5 &. .. is .. 'ii :l 'C 'ii '" a: .. 01 l! o iii E ~ 'ii ! I- .. o ~ :l o Ul o ... a: ... c iii z o u ... > j:: C z a: ... ~ < ,2! ':; CT <( " .. 'C .5 Ii:_ ~.<: ., Ul 8::2 ::::l g ~a .. " e .. c:J)o:g .!:;: - 0 "~r:- .,<:~ l'l .. it ~ x-g-lo! Q) aJ 0 .3 ~(;)'Er:r .. t:"- <( -SaG) .- "'0 C) en c (ij "0'<: II: 00 CD .~ Ul'C o 'ii ~:: CD ~ ~ ~'S E ffi :l": CT" 0 CT:e !-ga.. 8coiQ'lU=: ~ ~E]j~ 0~'O"''' U) 0 c: .f: ::::J CD 0 co Q) a ::0'- - ::> .. '0 'E-'- c:: "C Qi ... fI):zi as C CD 5i CD > m 0..')(- U ., g U .2!.rn .0 " iil.2 o:g "Ui ~! '" - ".<: ",a :l :l CTO .,-5 '" " ,.: oS --}: ~~ ~ e CT'C '00 ,,- III lG '05 ~~ts C ::::J .C ~cn(;) C".8! .,- - 0 ~ " Gii;' II:E (;j " '" U ,2! ':; ~ " '" '0 .g IT: t;; ~ o ... ., "'- .5 il " ::; ~ .5 '0 ., " ::; Ul .~ E Ul o ~ ~ ., II: Ul 'in o E Ul o ., Ul t;; > " II: !!! ~ (;j o 'E ~ !!! CD ~ 'ii o 'E ., > ,2! ':; CT <( " .. :2 l; Ii: t;; 0. 0. ::::l .x, a.,,, .S u as ics:g mfl';;.2 e)("OlL. :::J CD as .... g!!-g.5~ CD!SO:J :Q"'CmcCT as.m ~.- <( .C Q) ~. CD ~~~ ~ ~51i ~ ~L~ O'Ul'O g U .!!. (I) .0" il ,2 o~ "Ui ~l!! "C:,E .. a :l :l 0'0 ,!-o 'c E 'ii " '" U ., "'- .5 'C " " ::; " .2 1ii .5 (;j Ul ., o t;; 1ii ~ >- .. In Q) .5 (;j 2- >- .. In ., " >- l'l Ul iD cD u; co. CD .2 ,,"'- - .2.!! ~ ii as Q) c:: Q) '''",.~ E 1: (I) ._ _ ~ ~ 10 g' ~x:2.- CDCO-g -m.su .,,, 0. ~.: ~ ::J ...J 5-:0- e ~ .!!! 1ii ,s'C J!! t;; Ul 1ii .. ~ ~ Ul g ~ Ul ., ::5 ~ 0 5 ~ .!! ':; ~ " '" '0 ." o IT: ~ '" ... 'C ., " ::; " .2 1ii .5 (;j Ul ., o :. ~ i;' In Q) .5 (;j .!!!- >- .. In ., " >- .. g iD 6 ., :E ~ 'iij i:i 15 z ~o~ .!! ~.Q ...,U li _'C 'o.g 1;) ;';:::(5! ~ 1:1.1: ""a .o":l .,.<: 0 Qi;-o co~ 0 -Ul- ""U .~ CD CD s ~:c " ., :l .. ., " o Z ., " o Z ., " o Z ~ <; .. ,,-' "'0 o ., z" ::; ., " o Z ., " o Z Ul ., "'- ~ (;j " ~ " f; .<: 't ~~ <0.. ~E ;= .!!! 0::; ::; s=- Ul ~ ii; iij ~ E <; Ui 'C " .. Ul ~ .. -' 2 ~ .!l Ul ~ 'C ., E '0; ~c II: " .a c\,::: - " , ~ ~ . ~ ...j ~ j ) J ] ] ] ] ] ] J ] ] i 11 I ~ ii: 9 LL % u ~ III i c i w rn a: ~ o U LL ... o Cl w a: o :J: rn >- C III iii w > ~ z a: w ~ C >- ... II. II. ~ rn z o ~ Cl ii: !5 LL o rn Iii o u N w ... III ~ ... " ~ CD; 01: ~"C o m._ -0...J<5 LJ..a::"'O- ~ " LL " ,,~ 8: ::J~ :::J r:: ~ " 'C ~_ BO.....! LL.a:"CtG Iii ! CJ IS: :;j :::J r:: " ~ CD c: 'C ~ >- .!lo~B LLa:-o.!! iii ~~ c.. .-:l ~ ....I.... " " " ,.. "" B ..:,.. .!!!O~ ~ ~a:iiii i!l. .5 ~ Cl. ........ ~ .. '" .. ... .,. ,," < ..lIl:~ " .. 'r:: C:O...Jo >-0: "C - .. " LL (.) ,,~ .!! ::J ~ CD .... ., .,. " C ..: :goj~ 1;' D: " .. (.) "0 I/) .5 ffi ...J N .,. " ~ ~ .~ o...J 0 .2ZiZ '5 .5 en .... - ,.. a. Cl. " enOOO .2 z z z j5 " a.. c w II: w c iii z o u w > ~ Z II: W ~ C .... < en l- 0 Z a.. wwen W::.Clo Ol-<w D:<D:z ::>WO- OD:l-D: cn.....cncc 00000(1)(') Il)C')CI)Il)..-O.... gC\l,.... ll)"!."'ltO o N - " ... ...... ... 000001/)11) lI)C')O)OCD,-,.... g (\I"'" C\I~C') lit - " ... ......... 00000(')('1) LOC')O)ll)-O.,.... o C\I..... ..... C\I~ C') l.O.. 8 -- - " ... ...... ... 000000)(1) 00)(1)11).....,.... co 8......,.... ....."":C\I, - " ... ......... 8~~~~~~ g_"" LOUlC')CO. o - " ... ...... ... ggggg8~ g.,...."'" C\I ,,":C\I v~ o - " ... ......... o o 0... 8 - " ... 000 ...'" 0 ...'" - o <Xl ......... '" 0'" o o - " ... ~ <D C;; ...... ... "'... "'., - N ... ... 0.. - ... -"!. - ... ... o ., _N -"!. - ... ... :g~ -II!. - ... ... '" ., ~:g N ... ... :g:g -"!. - ... ... 00 '" on "':. - ... ... "'.. "'''' "'., ... ... 0>_"''''0> <QO('l)COO) C\I"'ltll)(D"'" NNNNN tI) t."t.. tit fi ......... C")Q)"'lItQ)ll).....<D OvO)C')COMf'oo,. ,...0 M.......O'Ilt....... ~...:...:NNN .............. ~ - ~ .. ~ Ui o o ii:'ii:'ii:'ii:'ii:'ii:'ii:' ~~~~i:~~ ,,-"-"-"-;11.;11."- CDU)(QUlICDCDCD "ill'll}} NM'll:tInCDI"-CD ~ ... ... ... ... ... ll- ea co ca m ca ca ca G) CD CD CD CD l>> II) ~~~~~~~ C;;U;-;;ii-;;-;;;U; 0000000 uuouuuu EE E E E E E ::1::1::1 ::1::1 ::1::1 ououoou 1i"i1i"ii1i'ii'iii ------- 0000000 l-l-l-l-l-l-l- Ui'D 0" u" -"'~ !.s ~ rn l!..- I- #'It. CD 0 UJ Q) -a.O o Ol .!O!:! o t! ,g ~Eg ~ca1i-;;_ ....CI)crJ ~.a::lO 0 ::J_..._ NOCO 00Q)CU _I.e. c oo6i-cn ;>.D.Cu 0 .... t'O 0 0 - II: C .!'E~g. c:o'i",":::: rom .__mc_&:- ;: E-go.! g'.2111!! 0 --CD.9+=I:EC-.. ~ro<<lc,gc:"-;:- _ cuee.t::;,OQ,,,,Clo D:l-l-CDenO Ow::;; l- >- Q. Cl. " .. .2 :is " Q. .. 'ii .. .c ,. o U E " u .. -" > ;: .. " ~ J!! iij ~ .. " >- r f By: Terry Buchen Golf AgronQnlVi ~r'I 7572203001j '.Sep-29-"0 S:1Sj Page 1/1 1'ERRY 8UCHl!N GOlf A6!lONOMv IN18lNAlIONAL. 4772 WIl..UAMsBUMSLAllE WIUJ:AMsBUR6, 1II:R6INIA Z3185-Z113 USA 7!i7.Z~ OffICe; 757-ZZD-3OOI FAX -."....,my....'" tbucl1em!'eralo...... . ..To: Mr. William H. Lynch, PE -t..x: 561.622.6379 '1hane: 561.694.0300 ". TERRY BUCHEN CGC5 MG 8usI..lss: AIlCAbIS ~TY "MIU.eR Pages~ I i Date: ~.29.C\O Be' City of Miami Beach Bayshorc Golf COUl"H i , CC ~. ~rthIr HUll, Ste.... Forrest ond Ken WilliolM U Urgent X For Review o "'- Convnent i o P~AqiIy o please Recycle 'I -km, . .,s requested, please find enclosed the general irrigation ~er ~Ulllity requirement guidslinu for growing quality ~ermlJdcrgrass. This information is for the possible use of ja R~ Osmosis (RO) plant for irrigating the above: referenced golf course: . -, .;;H Electrical Conductivity (EC) '-'odium Absorption Ratio (SAR) ,=.alcium (Ca) Magnesium (Mg) l)tossium (K) .dodium (NIl) [ron (Fe) - otel Alkalinity (CoC03) -=-bonate (C03) ~carbOl'lClte (HC03) - ~lo,.;d" (el) o:-.dfates (504) Salt Concentration (TD5) - J'ron (9) 6.5 2-5 mmhoslcm 3-7 40-1201119/1 6-24 1119/1 0.5-10 m9/1 0-50 Ingll 2-5 Ingll 0-100 mgll CaC03 0-120 1119/1 120-180 mgll 177-355 lng/I 0-414 mgll . 1000/1500 ppm 0.2-0.8 mgll Manganue (Mn) Copper (CU) rifle (ZrI) Aluminum (AI) , 0.5-2 mgll 0-0.21119/1 1-5 m9/1 0-5 111911 jank you and if you have ony questions or comments please let lIS'know at your earliest convenience. - J ~ ., <:ALCUtoA'I'1CftS Of' IIUWa.'tIQ{ ~ POll CDA5S--.~--- AAINPALL STATIaf: xtAMI J'" no ... APR ""y - JIlL 1WO S" OCT llOV """ TOTAL .... RAINF..... 2.58 2.a 2.44 ).42 6.39 6.85 5.86 6,2"1 8.111 B.86 2.72 2.01 58.35 'S\7APO't'AANSPIRATXc. 2.12 2.38 3.9fj 5.:13 6.69 1.3'7 i.BO 7,56 6.3'7 5.08 3.33 2.'" 60.32 A". IFY""""" RAIN 1.18 1.01 1.24 1.80 J.JS 3.69 J.J1 3.4' 4.32 4.04 1.32 0.96 2'.66 a-IN-10 UP. RAIN 1.02 0.88 1.08 1.56 2.91. :1..21 2.88 3.01 3."16 3.51 1..15 0.83 :25.81 AVEJUlGE IJUUGATItfi 0.9' 1.37 2.71 3.43 3.34 3.68 4.50 4.10 2.05 1.04 2.01 1.49 30.66 :2-tN-10 IMIGATION 1.09 1.50 2.88 3.66 3,77 4.16 4.93 '.55 2.62 1.5? 2.18 1.61 3".52 SUl'P~ CROP REWIREMS:N'l' .. 30.66 INCHES 1lAXD!UM HOm'H REQUlRDlEN'I' . to.93 DfCHES IOCCUI<S IN JULYl NllTES , 1. EI/APO"I"MNSPIRATION WAS o.x.cu1J\.1'ED ustw -a, )l)DIF1BD BLANItY-CRIDtlLB JG'J'JJOD, 2. KIWf IlUNPALL lQS AVERAGSD FaCIII '1 YPItS OF RBCORD AT MlAIU. ), AVBRJlGR EP?E:CTlVB RAINFALl.. IS THE AI!I:Mn' OF IlAIHPALL THAT tK:IUt.D BE SXP!:CTI!:D 'ro BZ USUUIo TO CROPS [KJP,DQ Mf AVEIlAGt 'RAIl. ... 8-IN-IO EPFl'<C'1'rVB RAINPALL Iii WHA'l' NQUl..t) BZ I!:XPBC'1'BD TO BE USEFUL POll CROPS wrnr A PROBMILITY 0' 8 YaMS IN 10 5. AV1CRAGJ: IJUUGATION 15 '1'HB NET A1IIICIUNT 'mAT SROU1.D U API'LIBD FOR lQXDrmI YIBLDS ~ ~ AVDNJI: YEM. 6. 2-rN-I0 UJlZGA'l'IOII IS 'l'H& NBT 1IMOUNT 'nIA'l' SHCIULtl BE APPLUD POR IWmR.DI Ylm..DS WITH It. PkOaABILI'1"Y OF IU!:Q:1U.DIIIN' or 'nIE AMOUNT SHC*N BEING <I: YF.AJlS IN .1 0 . 7.I&ASI:DOO .8SOIL'1TPB. 'l'IUS i'aOJBCT IS IIOT LOCATE:b XN ... ftBPl1Sm '1'IIUSltOt.D MIA ANn IS LOCATED m nm SOU'ft't MDE SEkV1CJ!: MEA. RAJlIP1oLI, STATICIf 'NH 0' ClOP D.R.1OA'l'I:D~ SOIL TYPE . m>III .. 0JtASS-.----~ 1 .. lllJUcaA'l"U*' SYSTEM URIGATION SYS'l'DI EP"tCIDICY AVBkAGE ~ SlJPPtoDGNl'AL CROP uatJtRDll!NT tWtlMUM MCNl'HLY IlBQUIRDmNT AVEUOE ANNt1AJ,. A1.LOCATtCM AVDAGE 10HNUAL A1.LOCATtCII MAXDIOIl 1I:RI'l'HLY N.LOCATXQ( M1t.XDIUII MCH'nUoy A,t.LOCATXQ( Sproy ." 30.6&014. 4.9:il6056 1.1091191 tG. 3.40138) ACll.BPPT .1783232 113, . '!i47t523 ACU F&:E.'T . CALCUt.ATIC*' OF :tRRl~TICJN J\EQVl~ """"""" THIS PROJiCT IS LOCATED IN 1'KE SOUTH DADE SBRVI.CE AJlU, . STAT'ICI<I: Mt>>U CROP: OJI.ASS------- ACRBIIGIE: 1.00 SYSTEM, Spt'.y SOIl.. TYI'E: .8 BFPICIBNCY , O. 7 5 . AVEIW3E ANNlJ1.L Sl1P~ REQUIRDIEN'l': 30.66 INoms AVERAGE AI'tNlu.1. Sl1PPLDII!U'l'AL WATD. USE, 30.66 m x 1.00 AC I 0.75 X .02715 ~/1t.C-IIiI 1.1llG MAJUMUM Ml'JN'nQ..Y SUPPL!XDlTAL CROP~: t.93 DfCHES . lO.XIHllM MmmU..Y 'lO,TESI. USE: 4.93 tN X 1,00 At: I 0 75 X .02"715 !lJ/1t.C:-DI . 0.178 lG ---~------~._-~-------------------------------------------.--------- . CALC'ULA'I'ED lOOtDlUM ANNUAL ALLOCA'I'IOO: 1.ll MQ :).41 ACM PUTI ANNUAL JU.LOCIt.T1ON I 1'O'l'AL IRRlGATsD ACltEACE AVB:RAQE: 40.87 tNOIES/ACRB .. CAI..CUI..ATED lOOCDIUII KON'mLY ALLOCATICti: I 0.178 lG 0.55 ACIU FEET) .. ~ I l ~;r.: \',. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139 lO TO: FROM: SUBJECT: If<Iq-o 1_ COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. DATE: July 18,2001 Mayor Neisen O. Kasdin and Members of the City Commission Jorge M. Gonzalez \ ~ City Manager O'~ - (J A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING ADDITIONAL SERVICES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $43,000, FOR THE FIRM OF ARTHUR HILLS/STEVE FORREST AND ASSOCIATES, FOR DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES OF A HORIZONTAL WELLS IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR THE BAYSHORE GOLF COURSE RENOVATION PROJECT; APPROPRIATING FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $43,000 FOR THE ADDITIONAL SERVICES; AND FURTHER APPROVING THE ESTIMATED $1,100,000 ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR THE SYSTEM; WITH FUNDING AVAILABLE FROM THE GENERAL FUND UNDESIGNA TED FUND BALANCE, TO BE REIMBURSED FROM GRANTS AND OTHER FUNDING SOURCES AS THEY BECOME AVAILABLE. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Resolution. FUNDING: Funds in the amount of $43,000 ,are available from the General Fund Undesignated Fund Balance to be reimbursed from grants and other funding sources as they become available. ANALYSIS: On October 8, 1997, the City Commission approved a professional services agreement with the firm of Arthur Hills/Steve Forrest and Associates (AH) for the design services, construction and bidding documents, construction observation, project administration, scheduling and cost estimating necessary for the renovation of the Bayshore Golf Course. The City and the consultants for the project have determined that there are more cost effective ways of irrigating the golf course than the currently used public water system. In order to obtain analyses of alternative water sources and evaluate different irrigation methods, on November 29,2000, the Mayor and City Commission approved using the firm of Arcadis Geraghty & Miller (AGM) as a subconsultant for AH. Agenda Item R 76- Date 7-1'6-0{ Commission Memorandum June 27, 2001 Bayshore Golf Course Appropriation Page 2 AGM provided the services of a hydrologist for the water sources analyses as well as the design of a water treatment system for the course irrigation. Preliminary cost analysis shows that there are substantial long term savings to the City by using alternative sources for irrigation. AGM analyzed twelve water source alternatives and eliminated four of them initially. These were eliminated because of unreliability, difficulty in permitting or lack of availability in our area. They further analyzed seven of the remaining eight alternatives from an engineering perspective as well as for economic feasibility. The alternatives were also analyzed to determine the length of the permitting process by the applicable regulatory agencies. The eighth alternative is continuing with the irrigation system supplied from the public water as it is now. The analyses show that one alternative, using horizontal wells and a golf course lake as a reservoir, is the best one from the economic standpoint as well as the permitting standpoint. Using the surficial aquifer as the source of water, avoids using brackish or high saline content water which would then require extensive water treatment. No residual disposal is needed and the operations and maintenance costs are reduced. All other alternatives, which would use the Biscayne aquifer or the Floridan aquifer would require the installation of a reverse osmosis water treatment system. This system involves treatment equipment, additional pumps, additional piping and the introduction of deep supply wells as well as various methods of disposal of the residuals after treatment. Some of these alternatives, according to AGM, are difficult to permit and sometimes are not approved. A life cycle analysis was made on all seven alternatives using the current cost of the public water service as it applies to the new proposed irrigation system. This public water source cost is estimated at $326,000 per year. The analysis shows that the horizontal wells system recommended by AGM would cost an estimated $1,100,000 for initial installation and an estimated $50,000 per year to maintain. Using the above as the economic base, the horizontal wells system would obtain a payback within the fourth year of the installation, including a six percent inflation factor. AGM has provided the City with names of other South Florida golf courses which are currently using horizontal wells for irrigation. They have also ranked the seven alternatives other than the public water supply for permitting time and issues. They fOlUld the horizontal wells system to be the easiest and shortest to permit. Initial testing for saline intrusion and arsenic migration will be required prior to determining the exact location and length of the horizontal wells but based on preliminary testing and available information, AGM believes that five wells, five hundred feet long and ten feet deep each will be sufficient. Commission Memorandum June 27, 2001 Bayshore Golf Course Appropriation Page 3 AGM has therefore concluded that using horizontal wells for the Bayshore Golf Course irrigation system would be economically and operationally advantageous to the City. Based on their recommendation, the Administration is requesting approval of the additional funds necessary to use this system and appropriation of funds, in the amount of $43,000 required for the additional design and construction documents services from Arthur Hills/Steve Forrest and Associates. The Administration is also requesting approval of the estimated $1, I 00,000 in additional costs for construction of the system. Funding to be available from the General Fund Undesignated Balance, to be reimbursed from grants and other funding sources as they become available. GOLF COURSES USING HORIZONTAL WELLS The following golf courses utilize horizontal wells for irrigation: . Hawks Nest Golf Club, Vero Beach, FL. Tom Trammel: Phone (561) 569-9409 . The Club at Pelican Bay, Naples, FL. Robert Bittner: Phone (941) 597-2244 . Fair Winds Golf Course, SI. Lucie County, FL. Chris Gamble: Phone (561) 462-1773 . Spanish Wells Golf Course, Bonita Springs, FL. Keith Cantwell: Phone (941) 992-6622