Introduction
Spokane County Utilities provides wastewater management for residential,
commercial and industrial customers in the Spokane Valley and North
Spokane service areas. In recent years, the County has rapidly expanded
its wastewater collection system to reduce the number of septic tanks
located over the Spokane Aquifer. This sewer expansion program is
projected to continue through the year 2015 to provide wastewater
service to all existing development within the County’s sewer service
area. Along with the sewer system extensions, the County’s sewer
service area is projected to experience significant growth over the next
twenty years. Both factors will sharply increase the quantity of
wastewater that must be responsibly managed.
Currently, wastewater generated in the County is sent, via a sewer
network, to the Spokane Advanced Treatment Plant (SAWTP) which is owned
and operated by the City of Spokane. A 1980 interlocal agreement
established the basis for the City to treat up to 10 million gallons per
day of County generated wastewater. The County expects to exceed that
capacity by the end of 2007. Due to physical, environmental and
implementation constraints, additional capacity at the SAWTP may not be
available for use by the County, or may be insufficient for the County’s
long-term needs.
Given this situation, the County has begun a planning process to develop
long-term wastewater management strategies that will provide reliable
service, protect the environment, and be economical to local
ratepayers. In so doing, the County will integrate its planning with
other regional service providers to identify opportunities for increased
efficiency or enhanced benefit to the watershed. Balanced with these
considerations is the County’s need for solutions that can be reliably
implemented should regional or intergovernmental approaches prove too
difficult, expensive or slow.
This Basis of Planning Report provides the foundation for subsequent
identification, evaluation and selection of appropriate wastewater
management strategies. It identifies the goals and objectives of the
planning process, describes the current characteristics of the planning
area, projects future wastewater flows and loadings, defines key water
quality and water resource issues, reviews the capabilities of existing
wastewater systems, and presents insight into the values and concerns of
interested stakeholders.
Goals and Objectives
Chapter BPR-1 describes the goal, objectives, and planning elements for
the development of the Facilities Plan and EIS. At the outset of the
planning process, the following goals were established to guide
development of a successful wastewater management program for Spokane
County:
§
Provide reliable wastewater service – both near-term
(20-years) and long-term (50-years)
§
Protect public health
§
Protect and improve the region’s water resources – surface
water and groundwater
§
Provide cost-effective solutions for County ratepayers
§
Provide for growth in concurrence with the Growth
Management Act
§
Ensure the County has adequate authority and control to
meet future wastewater needs
§
Gain approval by the public, elected officials and
regulatory agencies
§
Provide for growth consistent with goals and policies of
the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan
To support these goals, the project team also identified a range of
project objectives. The objectives describe specific measures of
success used to guide the project and gauge its outcome.
The Basis of Planning report is just one element of the County’s current
wastewater planning efforts. A Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan (CWMP)
Update is being prepared under a separate contract by Engineering and
Economic Services. The demographic and flow projections developed in the
CWMP Update serve as the basis for the flow and loading projections
presented in the Basis of Planning Report. The County is also working to
develop a new interlocal agreement with the City. Key areas of focus
will be the future allocation of capacity at the SAWTP and within the
City’s conveyance system, methodologies for equitable cost sharing, and
the responsibilities and rights of the City and County. Finally, this
report will serve as a springboard for development of the Wastewater
Facilities Plan and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
These documents will provide the County with a recommended wastewater
management strategy that meets both near-term (20 year) and long-term
(50 year) needs, and is environmentally responsible.
Planning Area Characteristics
The planning area comprises many varying features which impact
wastewater management and treatment. These characteristics are described
in Chapter BPR-2.
Planning Area Definition
The planning area for this facilities plan consists of two land masses:
one located in North Spokane and one located in the Spokane Valley (see
Drawing ES-1. Planning Area). The 20-year boundaries for
these planning areas are defined by the Draft Urban Growth Area (Draft
UGA) and the service boundaries between the County and the nearby City
of Spokane and Liberty Lake Sewer and Water District No. 1. The Draft
UGA was established as part of the County’s on-going long-range
planning, and has yet to be approved by the Spokane County Board of
County Commissioners.
While the Facilities Plan will examine infrastructure requirements for a
50-year planning horizon, this is a longer horizon than the Growth
Management Act (GMA) requires public agencies to consider. However, it
is assumed that only areas contiguous with the Draft UGA will be served
in the future by the County’s wastewater program.
Physical Environment
Spokane County is located in northeastern Washington adjacent to the
Idaho border. While the County has an array of landscapes ranging from
the mountainous area in the northeast to the semiarid basalt plains in
the southwest, the planning area is nearly all urban landscapes with
flat to moderately-rolling hills. The climate in the planning area is
relatively temperate, with average monthly temperatures ranging from
approximately 30 degrees F in January to just over 70 degrees F in July.
Precipitation is relatively low, averaging 17 to 21 inches per year and
ranging from approximately ˝-inch to 2.5 inches per month. Soils in the
planning area are porous with low water-holding capacity, although soils
in the southeastern and northern parts of the County are fine- to
medium-textured with moderate to slow permeability. These areas support
much of the County’s farming.
Water Resources
Many significant water resources are located in and around the planning
area (Drawing
ES-2. Surface and Ground Water Sources). By far, the most
significant groundwater resource is the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie
Aquifer, which serves as a source of drinking water for over 400,000
people. In the planning area, the aquifer is recharged along its margin
on all sides from percolation through porous soils overlying the aquifer
and through seepage from the Spokane River. Because of its importance as
a primary drinking water source, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency has declared the aquifer a “sole source” aquifer. Many
other aquifers, most of them also drinking water sources, are located
within the County. Because of the high permeability of soils overlying
much of the aquifer, contamination by surface and subsurface activities
is always a primary concern.
In addition to its rich groundwater resources, Spokane County has many
surface water bodies that provide a variety of economic, recreational
and aesthetic benefits and uses. The Spokane River is the principal
surface water body in the planning area. It begins in Idaho at Lake
Coeur d’Alene and flows west through Washington and finally into Long
Lake. Various reaches of the river gain water from or lose water to the
Spokane Rathdrum Aquifer. This interaction is also observed in lower
segments of the Little Spokane River, which originates north of Spokane
County and flows south to Long Lake. The other primary surface water
feature in the planning area is Latah Creek, which originates in Benewah
County, Idaho and flows north to a confluence with the Spokane River at
the west side of the City of Spokane.
Human Environment
Growth in Spokane County has increased since 1890, with a steady
increase of approximately 2 percent per year since 1940. The current
(1999) population in the County is 414,000, of which 121,000 are located
within the planning area and over 58,000 are currently served by the
County’s sewer system.
Land use within the planning area is primarily suburban residential,
with the City of Spokane and surrounding areas providing the economic
and cultural center for much of eastern Washington and northern Idaho.
This change has largely occurred over the last 60 years as orchards and
vegetable farming were replaced by urban uses. This conversion of land
use resulted from accessibility to roads, a dependable supply of water,
and level land characteristics with few physical constraints to
development. Prime farmland still exists directly north of the planning
area, and on the western and southeastern boundaries of the County.
A wide range of governmental agencies has interest in wastewater
management issues in Spokane County. These agencies span many
jurisdictional levels: local, regional, state and federal. Local
wastewater service providers include the County, the City of Spokane,
the Town of Millwood, and the Liberty Lake Sewer and Water District.
Many other agencies have an interest in the facility plan because of
their regulatory functions, responsibility for facilities located within
the watershed, interest in the surface and groundwater resources, or
ability to impact development or implementation of the plan.
Planning Projections
Chapter BPR-3 develops planning projections for three planning horizons:
2020, which coincides with the planning horizon used in Spokane County’s
Growth Management Plan; 2025, which provides the County with a 20-year
management strategy after the recommended plan has been
implemented; and 2050 for long-range planning. Planning projections
include the following three primary elements:
§
Population and land use forecasts
§
Wastewater flow projections
§
Wastewater loading projections
Population and Land Use Forecasts
Planning projections given in the Basis of Planning Report rely on
projections of population growth and development of industrial and
commercial properties developed through the CWMP Update. These
projections account for current users of the system, existing residents
and commercial/industrial facilities within the current Urban Growth
Area that have not yet been connected to the County’s system (i.e., are
served by septic tanks), and new development within the planning area.
These projections are shown in Figure ES‑1. Because the CWMP
Update only provided estimates of development through 2020, several
assumptions were made to estimate the increase in development between
2020 and 2050.


Figure ES‑1. Population and
Commercial/Industrial
Development Projections
Wastewater Flow Projections
Wastewater flow projections include both base sanitary flow from
residences, businesses, institutions, and industrial establishments, and
extraneous flow (groundwater or stormwater) that enters the separated
sewer system. Average flow projections were calculated by starting with
the 1999 base flow determined through meter readings at three
City/County connections, and adding:
§
Future residential, commercial, and industrial sanitary
flow based on the population and land use estimates reflected in
Figure ES‑1, and
§
Inflow and infiltration (I/I) estimated at 2 gallons per
capita per day (gpcd) in 2000, increasing to 10 gpcd in 2020, and
remaining steady at 10 gpcd through 2050.
§
Total County average wastewater flow is projected to
increase to 20.6 mgd by 2020, 21.9 mgd by 2025, and 27.3 mgd by 2050.
These values were summed to generate the total flow projection shown in
Figure ES‑2. Flow peaking factors were evaluated to determine the
maximum month, week, day, and peak instantaneous flow.

Figure ES‑2. Wastewater Flow Projections
Wastewater Loading Projections
Wastewater loading projections reflect a combination of the baseline
flows described above, unit loading rates, and peaking factors that
reflect maximum month, week, and day conditions. To develop a reasonable
projection of future wastewater loadings, an assessment of County and
City data was supplemented by a review of other local wastewater
utilities with generally similar service area characteristics. Average
concentrations for utilities in the area are generally lower than
literature values. Because the County’s data are limited (quarterly
sampling has been conducted over three years), the Facilities Plan will
be developed using literature unit loading values. However, it is
recommended that the County’s recently implemented sampling program be
continued to generate more reliable local data. Wastewater peaking
factors were developed based on the average peaking factors for other
communities in the area. The final projected wastewater loadings are
shown in Table ES‑1.
Table ES‑1. Projected Wastewater Loadings
|
Year |
BOD |
Total Suspended Solids |
Total Nitrogen |
Total Phosphorus |
|
Average Day,
1,000 lb/day |
Maximum Month, 1,000 lb/day |
Maximum Week, 1,000 lb/day |
Maximum Day, 1,000 lb/day |
Average Day,
1,000 lb/day |
Maximum Month, 1,000 lb/day |
Maximum Week, 1,000 lb/day |
Maximum Day, 1,000 lb/day |
Average Day,
1,000 lb/day |
Maximum Month, 1,000 lb/day |
Maximum Week, 1,000 lb/day |
Maximum Day, 1,000 lb/day |
Average Day,
1,000 lb/day |
Maximum Month, 1,000 lb/day |
Maximum Week, 1,000 lb/day |
Maximum Day, 1,000 lb/day |
|
Peaking Factor |
|
1.2 |
1.5 |
2.7 |
|
1.3 |
1.6 |
2.7 |
|
1.2 |
1.5 |
2.0 |
|
1.2 |
1.5 |
2.7 |
|
1999 |
14 |
17 |
26 |
71 |
14 |
18 |
23 |
38 |
2.8 |
3.3 |
4.1 |
5.5 |
0.43 |
0.52 |
0.62 |
1.15 |
|
2000 |
16 |
19 |
29 |
80 |
16 |
20 |
26 |
43 |
3.1 |
3.7 |
4.6 |
6.1 |
0.48 |
0.58 |
0.70 |
1.29 |
|
2005 |
24 |
30 |
45 |
123 |
24 |
31 |
39 |
66 |
4.7 |
5.6 |
7.0 |
9.3 |
0.73 |
0.89 |
1.07 |
1.98 |
|
2010 |
33 |
41 |
62 |
167 |
33 |
43 |
53 |
90 |
6.3 |
7.6 |
9.5 |
12.6 |
1.00 |
1.21 |
1.46 |
2.69 |
|
2015 |
43 |
53 |
80 |
216 |
43 |
55 |
69 |
117 |
8.2 |
9.8 |
12.3 |
16.3 |
1.29 |
1.57 |
1.89 |
3.49 |
|
2020 |
46 |
57 |
86 |
233 |
46 |
59 |
74 |
126 |
8.8 |
10.5 |
13.2 |
17.5 |
1.39 |
1.69 |
2.03 |
3.76 |
|
2025 |
49 |
60 |
90 |
245 |
49 |
62 |
78 |
132 |
9.3 |
11.0 |
13.9 |
18.4 |
1.46 |
1.77 |
2.14 |
3.95 |
|
2030 |
51 |
62 |
95 |
257 |
51 |
65 |
82 |
138 |
9.7 |
11.6 |
14.6 |
19.3 |
1.53 |
1.86 |
2.24 |
4.14 |
|
2035 |
53 |
65 |
99 |
269 |
53 |
69 |
86 |
145 |
10.2 |
12.1 |
15.3 |
20.3 |
1.60 |
1.95 |
2.35 |
4.33 |
|
2040 |
56 |
68 |
104 |
280 |
56 |
72 |
90 |
151 |
10.6 |
12.7 |
16.0 |
21.2 |
1.68 |
2.03 |
2.45 |
4.52 |
|
2045 |
58 |
71 |
108 |
292 |
58 |
75 |
93 |
158 |
11.1 |
13.2 |
16.6 |
22.1 |
1.75 |
2.12 |
2.55 |
4.72 |
|
2050 |
61 |
74 |
112 |
304 |
61 |
78 |
97 |
164 |
11.6 |
13.8 |
17.3 |
23.0 |
1.82 |
2.21 |
2.66 |
4.91 |
Water Quality and Water Resources Issues
Chapter BPR-4 reviews the characteristics of key water resources that
may be impacted by the County’s wastewater management program – the
Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer, and the Spokane and Little
Spokane Rivers. These water bodies comprise the major components of a
large, hydraulically interconnected water system in the Spokane region.
As such, actions affecting one of the resources may have direct or
indirect impacts on the other resources as well. The chapter also
reviews regulations. Water quality issues and other factors that will
shape quality requirements for discharge of effluent to receiving
waters, beneficial reuse of effluent and beneficial reuse of biosolids.
Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer System
The prolific exchange of surface water and groundwater through the
hydraulic connection between the rivers and the aquifer can have
significant implications with regard to the quality and quantity of the
surface and groundwater resources in the County. Permits for water
purveyors using the Spokane aquifer total 1,009 cfs, which is
approaching the natural supply of the aquifer and may actually exceed
the aquifer’s ability to meet demand. If more groundwater is pumped than
is available, the water table will be lowered and flow in the Spokane
and Little Spokane rivers may decrease. With minimum streamflows in
these rivers established by state regulation and by recommendations of
the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and with ongoing
watershed planning in the state, the future may see a situation where
little or no “new” water will be available for consumptive use.
Water quality in the aquifer has been monitored routinely for the past
20 years. This data shows that while the quality of water in the aquifer
is generally good to excellent, the aquifer is clearly impacted by
development. In unsewered areas with residential and commercial
development, clear trends exist toward increasing contaminant
concentration in some wells. Stormwater injection through drywells also
leads to degradation of water quality. On a positive note, in areas
where sewering has occurred and/or development has slowed or stopped,
contamination levels have fallen.
Surface Waters
The surface water features of interest in the planning area – the Middle
Spokane River (from Nine Mile Bridge to the state line), the Little
Spokane River, and Long Lake – are designated for “characteristic uses”
such as water supply; stock watering; fish and shellfish rearing,
spawning, and harvesting; wildlife habitat; primary contact recreation;
and commerce and navigation. To preserve the designated characteristic
uses, instream water quality must comply with the numerical and
narrative guidelines given in the Washington State Surface Water Quality
Standards. Water quality standards for the Spokane and Little Spokane
River system are established for fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen, total
dissolved gas, temperature, pH, turbidity, toxic materials, radioactive
materials, aesthetics, and nutrients. There are currently seven
permitted point source discharges to the Spokane River between Coeur
d’Alene Lake and Long Lake, and two point source discharges to the
Little Spokane River.
Potential effluent quality requirements for new surface water discharges
in the study area are impacted by the water quality standards described
above, and by Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) which have been
established or are being established to address identified water quality
limitations. Table ES‑2 below shows likely effluent quality
requirements for discharge of wastewater to the Spokane or Little
Spokane Rivers. Actual values will be determined by Ecology through the
NPDES program, and the County must be able to demonstrate that the
effluent discharge will allow the receiving water to meet water quality
standards. Consequently, the values shown in Table ES‑2 must be
regarded as speculative at this time.
Table ES‑2. Potential Effluent Quality
Requirements
|
Parameter |
Spokane River |
Little Spokane River |
|
Summer |
Winter |
Summer |
Winter |
|
BOD, mg/L1 |
10-20 |
30 |
10-20 |
30 |
|
Total Suspended Solids, mg/L |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
|
Ammonia-Nitrogen, mg/L1, 2 |
1-2 |
4-8 |
1-2 |
4-8 |
|
Total Nitrogen, mg/L |
No limit |
No limit |
No limit |
No limit |
|
Total Phosphorus, mg/L3 |
0.3-0.6 |
No limit |
0.3-0.6 |
No limit |
|
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L1 |
>6.0 |
No limit |
>6.0 |
No limit |
|
Fecal Coliform, cfu, 100 mL |
200 |
200 |
200 |
200 |
|
Chlorine Residual, mg/L2 |
Approx. 8 |
Approx. 8 |
Approx. 8 |
Approx. 8 |
|
pH (s.u.) 4 |
6.0-7.8 |
6.0-7.8 |
6.0-7.8 |
6.0-7.8 |
|
Lead, mg/L5 |
Approx. 2 |
Approx. 2 |
Approx. 2 |
Approx. 2 |
|
Zinc, mg/L5 |
Approx. 60 |
Approx. 60 |
Approx. 60 |
Approx. 60 |
|
Cadmium, mg/L5 |
Approx. 0.2 |
Approx. 0.2 |
Approx. 0.2 |
Approx. 0.2 |
1.
Required value will be defined by dissolved oxygen TMDL process.
2.
Required value will be defined by mixing zone study for toxicity.
3.
Required value will be defined through negotiation with Phosphorus TAC.
4.
Instantaneous value.
5.
Required value will be defined based on monitoring of actual effluent
metals concentration.
Effluent Reuse
With appropriate levels of treatment and system management, reclaimed
water has been used successfully for many applications. Reuse programs
in the study area must consider the state’s guidance provided in the
Water Reclamation and Reuse Standards, which outlines four classes of
reclaimed water that can be used for different applications. These range
from Class A water, which has the most stringent treatment requirements
but minimal restrictions on use, to Class D water which has limited uses
which must be accompanied by strict controls to minimize human contact.
Reuse must also be protective of groundwater quality. Potential reuse
opportunities and some of their considerations are listed below.
Irrigation: Water quality requirements are typically impacted by
the opportunity for human contact, the opportunity for contact with food
for human consumption, and the level of sterilization the food crop will
receive before reaching the consumer. The classification of the
reclaimed water (A through D) as well as management practices impact
acceptable reuse for irrigation.
Impoundments: Restrictions on the use of reclaimed water in
impoundments varies depending on the level of treatment the water has
received.
Industrial and Commercial Applications: Class D reclaimed water
can only be used for sanitary sewer flushing, whereas Class A reclaimed
water has a variety of potential industrial and commercial applications.
Additional treatment requirements may be imposed by the specific needs
of the end user.
Wetlands: The Washington reuse standards establish conditions
under which reclaimed water may be used to create or enhance wetlands.
Natural or constructed wetlands that receive reclaimed water are
considered waters of the State, and are differentiated from treatment
wetlands, which are considered part of the wastewater treatment process
and not waters of the State. In addition to the designated reclaimed
water classes, Washington uses restrictions on total suspended solids (TSS),
nutrients, and metals to assure that water quality in the constructed
wetlands and any downstream waters of the State are protected.
Streamflow Augmentation: This application is defined as use of
reclaimed water for a beneficial purpose such as in-stream flow
enhancement, irrigation supply, water right replenishment, and fisheries
propagation, and must meet the requirements of the federal water
pollution control act.
Groundwater Recharge: Both surface percolation and direct
injection of reclaimed water require a minimum of Class A reclaimed
water quality. Additional nitrogen reduction must be provided for
surface percolation, and direct injection to a potable aquifer requires
significant additional treatment beyond that needed for the Class A
designation.
Biosolids Management
Land application, composting and landfilling are the biosolids
management techniques typically used in Eastern Washington and Northern
Idaho. These uses are regulated by Ecology using rules which closely
follow those promulgated by the U.S. EPA under 40 CFR 503 (“Part 503
regulations”). These regulations use three measures to determine the
level of restriction placed on the application practice: 1)
concentration of trace elements, 2) quantity of pathogens, and 3) vector
attraction. Several degrees of pathogen reduction are recognized, with
associated differences in the level of restriction placed on reuse of
the treated biosolids.
Existing Wastewater Facilities and Programs
The County’s wastewater management facilities are integrated into a
regional network of conveyance and treatment facilities serving the
greater Spokane area. A simplified schematic of the regional network is
shown in Figure ES‑3.
Figure
ES‑3 reflects that the County’s interceptor system receives flow
from the City of Millwood, and has agreed to accept “excess” flow from
the Liberty Lake Sewer and Water District No. 1. All flow from these
dischargers and from most sewered areas of the County are treated at the
City of Spokane Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant (SAWTP) and
discharged to the Spokane River.
Conveyance Facilities
Through the end of 1999, the County’s collection system included 270
miles of sewer. These sewers serve two distinct systems, one serving
Spokane Valley and one serving North Spokane. The Spokane Valley system
includes two main interceptors that discharge to the City’s collection
system: the Spokane Valley Interceptor (SVI) which serves the area south
of Interstate 90, and the North Valley Interceptor (NVI) which serves
the area north of Interstate 90. Because of the topography of the North
Spokane area, five major pumping stations are used to lift wastewater to
the City’s collection system. Flow from these pumping stations is
combined in a single interceptor that discharges to the City.
Through a 1980 interlocal agreement, Spokane County purchased capacity
in the City’s collection system to convey 10 mgd of County wastewater to
the SAWTP. If the County needs to send wastewater flows in excess of its
current capacity allowance, improvements to the City’s collection system
will be needed. However, the nature, cost, and implementation time frame
for these improvements will be determined in part by the City’s on-going
combined sewer overflow (CSO) planning effort.
Treatment Facilities
Nearly all of the wastewater generated in the Spokane County service
area is conveyed to the SAWTP for treatment and disposal. A small
portion of the wastewater is treated at five satellite wastewater
treatment facilities that are owned and operated by the County. These
treatment facilities have capacities ranging from 22,500 to 86,000
gallons per day. One facility is scheduled to be removed from service
within 5 years; three others will be removed from service within 20
years. The Hangman Valley Treatment Plant is the only small facility
that is planned to remain in service for the foreseeable future.
The SAWTP is located in northwest Spokane along the north bank of the
Spokane River. It was initially constructed as a primary treatment plant
in 1958, and has since been upgraded and expanded to its current
capacity and process configuration, which includes the following:
§
Screening, flow measurement, and aerated grit removal
§
Venturi meter to split divert excess flow (over 77 mgd) to
CSO primary clarifiers, where flow is either stored and returned to the
plant for full treatment, or clarified and combined with effluent from
the secondary treatment process
§
Preaeration and primary clarification
§
Activated sludge treatment with alum addition and
secondary clarification for removal of carbonaceous BOD, TSS,
ammonia-nitrogen, and phosphorus (through process modifications,
nutrient removal is only practiced during the summer permit season)
§
Chlorination/dechlorination
§
Gravity thickening of primary sludge
§
Dissolved air flotation thickening of secondary sludge
(soon to be eliminated through solids handling improvements)
§
Anaerobic digestion
§
Belt filter press dewatering (currently being upgraded
through solids handling improvements)
Effluent from the treatment process is discharged year-round to the
Spokane River, while dewatered biosolids are beneficially used through
land application to agricultural fields in Spokane and Lincoln counties.
The plant has generally been viewed as having an average dry weather
capacity of 44 mgd and a maximum secondary treatment capacity of 77 mgd.
The preliminary treatment facilities have a hydraulic design capacity of
146 mgd and the CSO treatment system has an estimated storage capacity
of 70 mgd. This capacity is being re-evaluated in light of a new NPDES
permit, which was issued to the City in March of 2000. This permit
included changes in the ammonia-nitrogen and metals discharge criteria.
Preliminary results of this current investigation indicate that
near-term capacity bottlenecks will occur in the liquid stream, solids
handling, and activated sludge processes. A phased solids handling
improvements program has been approved by the City, and will be
completed in 2004.
Stakeholder Values and Concerns
Stakeholders from various sectors of the community were interviewed
during the Basis of Planning phase to gain an understanding of the
various community priorities, issues and concerns regarding wastewater
management. The objective was to understand the variety of community
issues early in the planning process so they could be considered during
the review and identification of wastewater management alternatives.
Twenty-two representatives from various agency, business association,
development, industry, environmental, and neighborhood stakeholder
groups were interviewed during the summer of 2000. A set of fourteen
questions were asked, and the following summarizes the comments:
§
Most of those
interviewed felt the County has been providing good sewer service,
however, concerns were raised regarding the current City/County
wastewater management arrangement. There was strong support for both
the County expanding its wastewater management services and for
developing a comprehensive regional wastewater management approach.
§
Most (85%) felt that
County rate payers or all in the region should help pay for City of
Spokane Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) reduction. This was typically
supported because it could provide additional capacity for County
wastewater flows at the Spokane Area Wastewater Treatment Plant or
because all in the region benefit from cleaner rivers and lakes.
§
The top wastewater
priorities were public health, aquifer/drinking water protection, and
Spokane River water quality protection.
§
Support was expressed
for a new effluent discharge to the Spokane River; use of the Liberty
Lake treatment plant; use of reclaimed wastewater for agricultural
irrigation, urban irrigation, creation of wetlands, and underground
storage for irrigation or stream flow augmentation. However, there were
varied opinions and concerns regarding a new effluent discharge to
Little Spokane River, and using highly treated wastewater for irrigation
of school and park landscapes. The majority of those interviewed felt
recharge of the Spokane Aquifer with treated effluent would not be a
viable option due to public health concerns and public perceptions.
§
Most supported
recycling of treated effluent and biosolids, with some concerns
expressed, and most indicated they would pay more to achieve recycling
benefits. Half of those interviewed supported including recreational
enhancements at new wastewater treatment facilities, and many ideas were
shared on how the County might increase public benefit from new
facilities.
§
Various
recommendations and suggestions were provided during the interviews.
The County was encouraged to consider industrial reuse in the Valley,
use of mini treatment plants, and increased conservation, public
education, and CSO reduction.
The planning team will consider all provided comments as the wastewater
management alternatives and recommendations are developed.