performance of ten mile canal filter marsh project anura karuna-muni, p.e., lee county roland...

Performance of Ten Performance of Ten Mile Canal Filter Marsh Mile Canal Filter Marsh ProjectProject

Anura Karuna-Muni, P.E., Lee County

Roland Ottolini, P.E., Lee County

Tim Denison, Johnson Engineering, Inc.

Lee County Division of Natural Resources

Performance of Ten Mile Performance of Ten Mile Canal Filter Marsh ProjectCanal Filter Marsh Project


Presentation Outline:•Layout of the filter marsh

•Monitoring of water quality and flow

•Data analysis and trends, assuming the filter marsh as a blackbox

•Maintenance of the marsh

•Summary

Ten Mile and Six Mile Ten Mile and Six Mile WatershedsWatersheds(approximate area = 43,000 acres)(approximate area = 43,000 acres)

Ten Mile Canal WatershedTen Mile Canal Watershed

(Approx. 13 square miles)(Approx. 13 square miles)


Filter Marsh Cell Orientation and Operation

North Settling Cell/ Filter Marsh

North Filter Marsh

South Settling Cell/Filter Marsh

South Filter Marsh



Water Quality Monitoring Locations



Water Level Monitoring Locations




Filter Marsh Inflow and Outflow (acre-ft)

0

100

200

300

400

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Jun

Jul

Aug Sep Oct

Nov

Dec

ac-f

t Inflow

Outflow



Filter Marsh Inflow and Outflow Trendlines(established using 5th order polynomials)

0

100

200

300

400

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Jun

Jul

Aug Sep Oct

Nov

Dec

ac-f

t

Inflow

Outflow

Trendline(inflow )Trendline(outf low )



Effect of Rainfall on Flow

0

100

200

300

400

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Flo

w V

olu

me

(a

c-f

t)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Ra

infa

ll (i

n)

InflowOutflowRainfall



Water Quality and Level Monitoring Equipments

Avalanche® Multi-bottle, Multi-function Sampler



Total Nitrogen Concentrations

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Jun

Jul

Aug Sep Oct

Nov

Dec

mg

/l

Total Nitrogen(in)

Total Nitrogen (out)



Total Phosphorus Concentrations

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Jun

Jul

Aug Sep Oct

Nov

Dec

mg

/l

Total Phosphorus (in)

Total Phosphorus (out)



Total Nitrogen Load Removal

71%71%

55%38%

80%49%

58%78%

99%

91%

99%

100%

0

100

200

300

400

500

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Ju

n

Jul

Aug Sep Oct

Nov

Dec

Mo

nth

ly L

oad

(kg

)

Load InLoad OutPercentages

2008 Total Load Reduction = 68% (1920 kg)



Total Phosphorus Load Removal

99% 89%100%

89%

100%

66%

79%

91%

56%74% 88%

87%

0

5

10

15

20

25

Jan

Fe

b

Ma

r

Ap

r

Ma

y

Jun

Jul

Au

g

Se

p

Oct

No

v

De

c

Mo

nth

ly L

oa

d (

kg

)

Load InLoad OutPercentages2008 Total Load

Reduction = 82% (78.9 kg)



Maintenance Activities

4/15/2008 Aquatic Plant Removal 7 cy mixed

4/15/2008 Aquatic Plant Removal 1 cy chara

5/15/2008 Harvest Cell No. 4 8 cy native



Performance of Ten Mile Canal Performance of Ten Mile Canal Filter Marsh ProjectFilter Marsh Project


Nitrogen Load Entering the Filter Marsh

during dry season (706 kg)

during wet season (2115 kg)

Nitrogen Load Leaving the Filter Marsh

during dry season (62 kg)

during wet season (839 kg)



Phosphorus Load Entering the Filter Marsh

during dry season (17.2 kg) during wet

season (79.5 kg)

Phosphorus Load Leaving the Filter Marsh

during dry season (1.1 kg)

during wet season (16.7 kg)



2008 Filter Marsh Performance Summary:Upper limitUpper limit (considering the filter (considering the filter marsh as a blackbox)marsh as a blackbox)

Total Nitrogen Total Nitrogen RemovedRemoved

1920 kg1920 kg

Nitrogen Removal Nitrogen Removal EfficiencyEfficiency

68%68%

Total Phosphorus Total Phosphorus RemovedRemoved

78.9 kg78.9 kg

Phosphorus Phosphorus Removal Removal EfficiencyEfficiency

82%82%



2008 Filter Marsh Performance Summary:Upper limitUpper limit (considering the filter (considering the filter marsh as a blackbox)marsh as a blackbox)

Lower limitLower limit (considering the inflow (considering the inflow to be equal to to be equal to discharge – no losses)discharge – no losses)

Total Nitrogen Total Nitrogen RemovedRemoved

1920 kg1920 kg 506 kg506 kg

Nitrogen Removal Nitrogen Removal EfficiencyEfficiency

68%68% 36%36%

Total Phosphorus Total Phosphorus RemovedRemoved

78.9 kg78.9 kg 33 kg33 kg

Phosphorus Phosphorus Removal Removal EfficiencyEfficiency

82%82% 65%65%



Observations and Recommendations:• The efficiency can be determined in different ways. This study focuses on efficiency based on load in the water column.

• Efficiency and load reduction depends on a number of factors such as loading rate, amount of discharge, residence time, maintenance, volume loss due to seepage, ET, leaks, etc.

• Focus on removing nutrient loads during the wet season

• Coordinate monitoring of water quality and flow

• Stay on top of maintenance schedule

• Develop a simple design that is easy to operate and maintain

• Make aware of factors influencing the efficiency

Web Site:www.lee-county.com/naturalresources

Contact Information•[email protected]

•[email protected]

•[email protected]

Questions & Comments

performance of ten mile canal filter marsh project anura karuna-muni, p.e., lee county roland...

Documents

kgnitrogen load

lee countytim denison

lee countyroland ottolini

j totaltotal phosphorus3

dry season

kgduring wet season

function sampler performance

johnson engineering