3.9. cost aspects - ihe delft open courseware module water quality assessment 2 learning objectives...
TRANSCRIPT
1
- 3.9.-COST ASPECTS
3.9. COST ASPECTS
Mario Chilundo
UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education
Online Module Water Quality Assessment
2
Learning objectives
After completing this unit the student will have a basic understanding of:
• The concept of costs in monitoring activities
• Items to consider when budgeting monitoring activities
• Requirements to optimize water quality networks
For extra info, relevant links and papers discussing the concept of water quality monitoring costs and optimization are suggested
3
CONTENTS
1. Definitions
2. Costs of a WQ monitoring programme
3. Optimization of water quality monitoring
(WQM) networks
4. Case study: South Florida
4
The Concept of Cost in WQM
• Costs refers to:
– The burden sustained in order to perform certain activity, to
accomplish certain production activity, to achieve specific goals
– The value of money that has been used up to produce something,
and hence is not available for use anymore
• In WQM activities, costs refer to the total expenses
burden from the desk studies up to information
dissemination to appropriate level of end users
5
CONTENTS
1. Definitions
2. Costs of a WQ monitoring programme
3. Optimization of water quality monitoring
(WQM) networks
4. Additional reading
6
• At the first stage costs are determined
by the purpose of the program:
– Operational
– Surveillance
– Investigative
Costs of a WQ Monitoring Programme
Refer to books by Chapman (1996) and Bartram & Ballance (1996) for more details 7
Monitoring activities requires access to resources in all its stages
Costs of a WQ Monitoring Programme
Monitoring Activities
Field Equipment
Office Facilities
Others
Certified Laboratory
Qualified Personnel
Transport
All together these resources determine
the involved costs
8
Costs of a WQ Monitoring Programme
• Specifically, monitoring costs are composed of the
following items:
– Equipment and maintenance (field equipment, parts, man-
hours);
– Sample collection and shipment (man-hours, preservation,
shipping costs)
– Laboratory analysis (cost of analytical services)
– Results analysis and reporting (man-hours for data review,
analysis and reporting)
9
Costs of a WQ Monitoring Programme
• Pitfalls that increase costs, which have to be avoided:§ Lack of careful planning;
§ Absence of distinctive objectives;
§ Inappropriate equipment;
§ Erroneous programming;
§ Lack of systematic maintenance;
§ Change of activities focus, which is
not reflected on the equipment;
§ Incompatible add-ons
Increase on data analysis time due to mismatched/missing
data
High Monitoring Costs
Systematic planning is required to reduce costs 10
Costs of a WQ Monitoring Programme
• To avoid pitfalls programme, design should:1. Determine the general needs as well as produce a written
statement of the programme purpose;
2. Determine the type of information to be generated by the
programme;
3. Estimate the equipment and operational costs;
4. Determine the need for additional information (e.g. purpose,
collection method, interval) to be combined with monitoring data;
5. Determine how the data will be collected (automation, sampling
sites, frequency, etc.).
11
Costs of a WQ Monitoring Programme
• To avoid pitfalls program design should (Cont..):6. Determine the data to be collected and respective analysis
method;
7. Assess the validity of data. Establish QA/QC (quality
assurance/quality control) programme;
8. Determine the type of equipment required and its operation
(costs, configuration, calibration, maintenance, tolerance to
environment);
9. Get information of laboratory costs, conditions and analytical
methods. Check if a contract is needed;
10. Develop a record system and a maintenance schedule.12
CONTENTS
1. Definitions
2. Costs of a WQ monitoring programme
3. Optimization of water quality monitoring
(WQM) networks
4. Additional reading
13
Optimization of Water Quality Monitoring Networks
• Statistical Optimisation:
§ Is essential to increase monitoring performance while reducing
costs;
§ Important to simplify parameter schedules and therefore, to
save resources;
§ But is rarely achievable, since it requires large amounts of
statistic information on the monitored variables during the
programme design stage (but possible for existing
programmes; see Course 4)
§ Thus, system performance improvement should often be
considered, rather that optimization.14
Optimization of Water Quality Monitoring Networks
• Improvement of WQ Monitoring system
§ Is the collection or generation of the same information amount
(e.g. for decision makers) with less financial resources
demand;
§ Requires specific research to determine adequate amount of
data for specific purposes;
§ Requires objective functions relating information and costs in
order to select appropriate monitoring level;
§ First sampling stage (for 3 to 4 years) with dense monitoring
stations is required to generate baseline data.
15
16
EXAMPLE OF COSTS, NETHERLANDS
Annual cost as percentage of total programme cost) of the programme for monitoring the chemical water quality of the Dutch part of the North Sea, per cost component.
CONTENTS
1. Definitions
2. Costs of a WQ monitoring programme
3. Optimization of water quality monitoring
(WQM) networks
4. Case study: South Florida
17
• Formed in 1949 as local sponsor of the Central & South Florida Flood Control Project
• Florida Water Resources Act of 1972 broadened the agency’s mission to include:
Water supply Water quality protection Environmental management Flood protection
CASE STUDY: South Florida Water CASE STUDY: South Florida Water Management DistrictManagement District
46,439 kilometer2
2,898 km of canals22 major pump stations2,220 water control structures
InfrastructureInfrastructure
Environmental Monitoring Environmental Monitoring Environmental Monitoring Environmental Monitoring
TotalTotalProjected CostProjected Cost
$53 Million$53 Million$53 Million$53 Million++++ ++++ ====
SCADA & HydroSCADA & HydroData ManagementData ManagementSCADA & HydroSCADA & HydroData ManagementData Management
$23 Million$23 Million$23 Million$23 Million
Water Quality MonitoringWater Quality MonitoringWater Quality MonitoringWater Quality Monitoring
$18 Million$18 Million$18 Million$18 Million
Watershed & CERP Watershed & CERP / RECOVER/ RECOVERWatershed & CERP Watershed & CERP / RECOVER/ RECOVER
Regional:Regional:•• PeriphytonPeriphyton•• VegetationVegetation•• InvertebratesInvertebrates••FishFish••Wading birdsWading birds
$12 Million$12 Million$12 Million$12 Million
HydrometeorologyHydrometeorology Water QualityWater Quality BiologyBiology++ ++ == SFWMD EnvironmentalSFWMD EnvironmentalMonitoring ProgramMonitoring Program
3,200 Sensors:3,200 Sensors:•• FlowFlow•• StageStage•• Groundwater levelsGroundwater levels•• WeatherWeather••GeotechnicalGeotechnical
1,995 Stations1,995 Stations•• NutrientsNutrients•• Physical ParametersPhysical Parameters•• InorganicsInorganics•• PesticidesPesticides•• Mercury (ultraMercury (ultra--trace)trace)
Water Quality Water Quality Monitoring Monitoring
OPTIMIZATION/”REOPTIMIZATION/”RE--ENGINEERING”ENGINEERING”OPTIMIZATION/”REOPTIMIZATION/”RE--ENGINEERING”ENGINEERING”
§ Review objectives from ORIGINAL sources§ Question and evaluate all assumptions § Conduct statistical analyses§ Get expert input, top down and bottom up§ Involve users, internal and external§ Study geographic area and local resources § Refine sampling programmes and go through
review and revision process22
Costs of Environmental MonitoringCosts of Environmental MonitoringMust be Understood and Integrated Must be Understood and Integrated Costs of Environmental MonitoringCosts of Environmental MonitoringMust be Understood and Integrated Must be Understood and Integrated
§ Annual sampling trips to each site ($10,000 - $15,000 per year) § Travel is the majority cost ($3,000 – 7,000)§ Equipment installation/maintenance for automated sites
(~$5,000)§ Sampling accounts for a much smaller cost ($2,000 – 3,000)
§ Lab analyses (ca. $1,000 – 2,000)§ Data processing, quality assurance and management § Cost uncertain but long-term can be important
§ Data analysis, evaluation and reporting§ South Florida Environmental Report, more than $1
million to develop each year23
-442 square 442 square kilometers of kilometers of Everglades Everglades marshland marshland surrounded by surrounded by levees, canals levees, canals and other and other Everglades Everglades areasareas 24
Structures
EFA/RECOVER
TP Rule
STA Permit
EVPA, S.A.
TP & EVPA
TP & STA Permit
TP & EFA/RECOVER
S.A. & EFA/RECOVER
Existing Monitoring in WCAExisting Monitoring in WCA--2A2AExisting Monitoring in WCAExisting Monitoring in WCA--2A2A
25
§ Meet regulatory requirements (Permits)• Monitor water quality
• Estimate nutrient concentrations and loads
• Research the ecosystem
§ Track long-term status (Agency Mission)
Original WCA-2A Monitoring Objectives
26
Sampling Water Management Sampling Water Management StructuresStructures
§ Travel to structures biweekly & sample only if flowing
§ Results for one set of structures in WCA-2A• Approximately 25% of all discharge events
missed by more than two weeks• Approximately 50% of all sampling trips have
one or more stations with no samples• Overall, inefficient monitoring
27
CA27CA28
CA2-15
F1
F2
F4CA29
F3F5
E5U3
U1
C2
N1
N.25N2N4
C.25
C1C4
S.25
S1S2
S4
FS.25FS1.0
FS2.0FS3.0
CA223CA2-6
404Z1
CA224
CA222
CA217
TP Rule
WCA2A
EVPA
Original Project and Original Project and Marsh Monitoring Marsh Monitoring Station Overlap Station Overlap DiagramDiagram
41 stations
56 station visits per month Biweekly
MonthlyMonthly
E2
E0
E3
E4
E1
F0
U2
Threshold
Monthly
28
§ Unified marsh sampling methods§ Transferred 15 stations to water quality
monitoring team to eliminate duplicative trips§ Standardized frequency to monthly at seven
stations, reducing sampling trips§ Optimized existing stations
• 10 eliminated; 1 added
§ Reduced monthly station visits by 43% (56>>32) § Cut helicopter costs by > $100,000/yr
WCAWCA--2A Case Study 2A Case Study Marsh ResultsMarsh Results
29
E3FS.25
32 Monthly Stations
F1
F2
F4 F0
F3 U2
F5
U3E2
E0
E4E1
E5
U1CA223
404C2
C1
S4
N1
N.25
N4
CA2-6
CA29
FS1.0
FS3.0
CA217404Z1
CA224
CA222
WCA2RT
TP Rule
EVPA
ThresholdWCA2A STA
Reengineered WCAReengineered WCA--2A Marsh Monitoring2A Marsh Monitoring30
Refined WCARefined WCA--2A 2A Marsh Monitoring NetworkMarsh Monitoring Network
•• Fewer Fewer stationsstations
•• Better distributionBetter distribution
•• Standardized Standardized samplingsampling
•• Reduced costsReduced costs
31
Helicopter Sampling in the EvergladesHelicopter Sampling in the Everglades
Inefficient sampling trips are very wasteful Inefficient sampling trips are very wasteful
•• Must Must eliminate redundant eliminate redundant stations and stations and optimize sampling optimize sampling flights flights
•• Need Need to stop flights when to stop flights when marsh marsh is too shallow to sampleis too shallow to sample32
Reengineering Annual Costs SavingsReengineering Annual Costs Savings
§ Southwest Coastal $10,000§ Marsh Monitoring Frequency Change $30,000§ Recorded Flow Demonstration Project $15,000§ Redundant Station Reductions $30,000§ S38B/NSID1 Monitoring $10,000§ Biscayne Bay $30,000§ Trace Metals Reduction $5,000
Total $130,000
33
New Monitoring: Annual Costs SavingsNew Monitoring: Annual Costs Savings
§ Compartment C treatment wetland $124,500§ Compartment B treatment wetland $28,000§ Downstream STAs marshes $72,500§ Biscayne Bay marine water quality $20,000
Total $245,000
Other Costs Savings Other Costs Savings -- FutureFuture
• Compartment B Capital $264,500• Compartment C Capital $289,500
Total $554,00034
§ Re-engineered monitoring produces equal or more data and information for less money
§ Monitoring must be rethought from the ground up for long-term sustainability
§ More data is not always better; look at needs and cost-benefit analysis
§ Review all monitoring assumptions
§ Apply re-engineering concepts to monitoring plans for new projects.
Lessons Learned Lessons Learned
35