Draft Wastewater Facilities Plan

   

 

 

 

 

 

Home
Basis of Planning
Environmental Impact
Facilities Plan

 

 

Draft Wastewater Facilities Plan
Table of Contents
Next

Executive Summary.

Introduction.

Overview of the Recommended Plan.

Coordinated Planning Approach.

Basis of Planning.

Public Involvement Program.

Alternatives Considered.

Elements of the Recommended Plan.

Siting the New Spokane Valley Plant

Expected Performance/Water Quality Issues.

Program Costs.

Financing.

Schedule.

Implementation.

1                      Chapter 1 ONE Introduction.

1.1       Background.

1.2       Goals.

1.3       Objectives.

1.4       Planning Method.

1.5       Public Involvement Program..

1.6       Authorization.

2                      Chapter 2 TWO Basis of Planning Summary.

2.1       Basis of Planning Report

2.2       Goals and Objectives of the Basis of Planning.

2.3       Planning Area Characteristics.

2.3.1    Planning Area Definition.

2.3.2    Physical Environment

2.3.3    Water Resources.

2.3.4    Human Environment

2.4       Planning Projections.

2.4.1    Population and Land Use Forecasts.

2.4.2    Wastewater Flow Projections.

2.4.3    Wastewater Loading Projections.

2.5       Water Quality and Water Resource Issues.

2.5.1    Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer System..

2.5.2    Surface Waters.

2.5.3    Effluent Reuse.

2.5.4    Biosolids Management

2.6       Existing Wastewater Facilities and Programs.

2.6.1    County Conveyance Facilities.

2.6.2    City of Spokane System..

2.6.3    Treatment Facilities.

2.7       Stakeholder Values and Concerns.

3                      Chapter 3 THREE Alternatives Evaluation Methodology.

3.1       Introduction.

3.2       Evaluation Process.

3.3       Alternatives Brainstorming and Screening.

3.4       Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives.

3.4.1    Summary of Alternatives Developed.

3.4.2    Design Criteria.

3.4.3    Development of Costs.

4                      Chapter 4 FOUR Demand Management

4.1       Introduction.

4.1.1    Load Reduction Versus Load Diversion Programs.

4.1.2    Organization of the Chapter

4.2       Water Conservation Alternatives

4.2.1    Water Conservation – Public Education.

4.2.2    Water Conservation – Economic Incentives.

4.2.3    Water Conservation – Metering.

4.2.4    Water Conservation – Physical Devices.

4.2.5    Impact of Water Conservation on Wastewater Management

4.3       Infiltration and Inflow Control

4.3.1    Sewer Rehabilitation.

4.3.2    Disconnect Sumps.

4.3.3    Review Codes, Inspection and Enforcement

4.4       Industrial and Commercial Load Reduction.

4.4.1    Pretreatment Requirements.

4.4.2    High Strength Surcharges.

4.4.3    Water Recycling and Waste Minimization.

4.5       Comparison with Evaluation Criteria.

5                      Chapter 5 FIVE Effluent End Use Alternatives

5.1       Introduction.

5.1.1    Existing Effluent Disposal

5.1.2    Projected Effluent Quantity.

5.1.3    Projected Effluent Quality.

5.2       Alternatives Descriptions.

5.2.1    Listing of Alternatives Surviving Initial Screening.

5.2.2    Basis of Economic Comparison.

5.3       Discharge to Surface Waters.

5.3.1    Concept

5.3.2    Discharge to the Spokane River

5.3.3    Discharge to the Little Spokane River

5.3.4    Discharge to Tributaries.

5.4       Irrigation of Agricultural Land.

5.4.1    Concept

5.4.2    Applicability to Spokane County.

5.4.3    Effluent Quality Requirements.

5.4.4    Implementation.

5.4.5    Facility Requirements and Cost

5.4.6    Key Advantages and Disadvantages.

5.5       Irrigation of Poplar Farms.

5.5.1    Concept

5.6       Irrigation of Urban Greenspaces.

5.6.1    Concept

5.6.2    Applicability to Spokane County.

5.7       Industrial Reuse.

5.7.1    Concept

5.7.2    Applicability to Spokane County.

5.8       Wetlands Creation or Enhancement

 

5.8.1    Concept

5.8.2    Applicability to Spokane County.

5.9       Groundwater Recharge.

5.9.1    Concept

5.9.2    Applicability to Spokane County.

5.10     Discussion of Alternatives Relative to Evaluation Criteria.

5.10.1  Capacity.

5.10.2  Technical/Operations.

5.10.3  Conveyance.

5.10.4  Implementation.

5.10.6  Risk.

5.10.7  Regulatory Compliance.

5.10.8  Water Resource Enhancement

5.10.9  Environmental Impact

5.10.10    Community Impact

5.10.11    Economics.

6                      Chapter 6 SIX Treatment and Conveyance Alternatives.

6.1       Introduction.

6.2       Development of Representative Treatment Systems.

6.2.1    Expansion of the SAWTP.

6.2.2    New Treatment Plants with Year-Round Discharge.

6.3       Development of Conveyance Requirements.

6.3.1    Conveyance to New or Expanded Treatment Plants.

6.3.2    Sale of Conveyance Capacity.

6.3.3    Reuse Conveyance.

6.4       Treatment Alternatives.

6.4.1    Alternative 1 – All Flow to Spokane Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant (SAWTP)

6.5       Alternative 2 – New Mid-Valley Plant Combined with SAWTP and/or New North Spokane Plant

6.5.1    Overview.

6.5.2    Sub-Alternative 2A – SAWTP at 10 mgd; No Plant in North Spokane.

6.5.3    Sub-Alternative 2-B – SAWTP at 10 mgd with North Spokane Plant

6.5.4    Sub-Alternative 2-C – Increased Flow to SAWTP.

6.5.5    Sub-Alternative 2-D – North Spokane Only to SAWTP.

6.5.6    Sub-Alternative 2E – No Flow to SAWTP

6.6       Alternative 3 – New In-City Plant Combined with SAWTP and/or New North Spokane Plant

6.6.1    Overview.

6.6.2    Sub-Alternative 3A – SAWTP at 10 mgd; No Plant in North Spokane.

6.6.3    Sub-Alternative 3B – SAWTP at 10 mgd with North Spokane Plant

6.6.4    Sub-Alternative 3C – Increased Flow to SAWTP.

6.6.5    Sub-Alternative 3D – North Spokane Only to SAWTP.

6.6.6    Sub-Alternative 3E – No Flow to SAWTP.

6.7       Alternative 4 –  Multiple Mid-Valley Plants Combined with SAWTP and/or New North Spokane Plant

6.7.1    Overview.

6.7.2    Sub-Alternative 4A – Two Mid-Valley Plants; No Plant in North Spokane 

6.7.3    Sub-Alternative 4B – Two Mid-Valley Plants with North Spokane Plant

6.8       Alternative 5 – No Action.

6.9       Cost of Alternatives.

6.9.1    Capital Costs.

6.9.2    Operating Costs.

6.10     Screening of Alternatives to Identify Finalists.

6.11     Discussion of Final Alternatives Relative to Evaluation Criteria.

6.11.1  Capacity

6.11.2  Technical

6.11.3  Conveyance

6.11.4  Implementation

6.11.5  County Control

6.11.6  Regulatory

6.11.7  Water Resource

6.11.8  Impact

6.11.9  Economics

6.11.10    Financial Risk

7                      Chapter 7 SEVEN Biosolids Management Alternatives.

7.1       Introduction.

7.1.1    Projected Sludge Quantity and Characteristics.

7.1.2    Summary of Regulations.

7.1.3    Existing Solids Treatment and Reuse.

7.2       Development of Biosolids Alternatives.

7.2.1    Listing of Alternatives Surviving Initial Screening.

7.2.2    Basis for Comparing Alternatives.

7.2.3    Alternative B-1:  Class B Biosolids and Land Application.

7.2.4    Alternative B-2: Class A Treatment (Thermal Treatment ) and Land Application 

7.2.5    Alternative B-3:  Composting.

7.2.6    Alternative B-4: Treatment at SAWTP

7.2.7    Alternative B-5: Privatized Management

7.2.8    Alternative B-6:  Co-Incineration with Solid Waste.

7.3       Discussion of Alternatives Relative to Evaluation Criteria.

7.3.1    Capacity.

7.3.2    Technical/Operations.

7.3.3    Conveyance.

7.3.4    Implementation.

7.3.5    County Control of Destiny.

7.3.6    Risk.

7.3.7    Regulatory Compliance

7.3.8    Water Resource Enhancement

7.3.9    Environmental Impact

7.3.10  Community Impact

7.3.11  Economics.

8                      Chapter 8 EIGHT Public Values Evaluation

8.1       Introduction

8.2       Stakeholder Interviews

8.3       Questionnaire on Wastewater Management

8.4       Public Meetings

8.4.1    September 2000 Public Meeting

8.4.2    January 2001 Public Meetings

8.4.3    May 2001 Public Meetings

8.5       Business Forums

8.6       Spokane County Water Quality Advisory Committee Meetings.

9                      Chapter 9 NINE Recommended Plan.

9.1       Introduction.

9.2       Demand Management

9.3       Conveyance and Treatment

9.3.1    Overview.

9.3.2    Conveyance.

9.4       Treatment

9.4.1    Spokane Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant

9.4.2    New Spokane Valley Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant

9.5       Effluent Management

9.5.1    Spokane Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant

9.5.2    New Spokane Valley Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant

9.6       Biosolids Management

9.7       Cost Estimate.

9.7.1    Capital

9.7.2    Operating

9.8       Expected Performance/Water Quality Issues

9.8.1    Discharge of Effluent from SAWTP

9.8.2    Discharge of Effluent from Spokane Valley Plant

9.8.3    Reuse of Effluent From the Spokane Valley Plant

9.8.4    Impact on Combined Sewer Overflows

10                     Chapter 10 TEN Implementation Plan.

10.1     Introduction.

10.2     Refinement of Effluent Quality Requirements.

10.2.1  Coordination with Dissolved Oxygen TMDL Process.

10.2.2  Outfall Modeling.

10.2.3  Consultation with Ecology and Other Regulatory Stakeholders.

10.3     Siting and Land Acquisition.

10.3.1  Siting Process for Treatment Plant

10.3.2  Siting Process for Pumping Stations.

10.3.3  Environmental Impact Statement

10.3.4  Property Acquisition.

10.4     Refinement of Recommended Facilities.

10.4.1  Determination of City’s Interest in Spokane Valley Plant

10.4.2  Preliminary Design of SAWTP Improvements.

10.4.3  Preliminary Design of Spokane Valley Plant

10.4.4  Preliminary Design of Conveyance Facilities.

10.4.5  Staffing Requirements.

10.5     Continued Investigation of Reuse Opportunities.

10.6     Environmental Documentation and Permitting.

10.7     Alternative Delivery Approaches.

10.8     Governance.

10.9     Financing Plan.

10.9.1  Estimated Capital Requirements.

10.9.2  Funding Source.

10.9.3  Anticipated Rate Impacts.

10.9.4  Outstanding Issues.

10.10   Implementation Schedule.

A                      Appendix A Public Participation Process

A.1      Meeting with Department of Ecology, February 10, 2000.

A.2      Chartering Workshop, March 15, 2000.

A.3      First Agency Symposium, August 17, 2000.

A.4      First Public Meeting, September 21, 2000.

A.5      Plant Capacity Workshop, November 8-9, 2001.

A.6      Second Agency Symposium, November 29, 2000.

A.7      Meeting with City to Discuss Combined Sewer Overflow Control, December 28, 2000 

A.8      Second Series of Public Meetings, January 10 and 11, 2001.

A.9      Meeting with City to Discuss Evaluation of Wastewater Management Alternatives, March 28, 2001 

A.10    Meeting with Ecology to Discuss Wastewater Management Alternatives, April 12, 2001 

A.11    Third Series of Public Meetings, May 23 and 24, 2001.

A.12    Third Agency Symposium, June 20, 2001.

A.13    Meeting with Department of Ecology, July 19, 2001.

B                      Appendix B Alternatives Screening and Brainstorming

C                      Appendix C Potential Water Reuse Sites

D                      Appendix D SAWTP Expansion Costs

E                      Appendix E Comparison of Capital Costs

F                      Appendix F Alternative Delivery

G                      Appendix G Dissolved Oxygen Analysis

H                      Appendix H Dilution Analysis

 

List of Tables

 

Table ES‑1.  Demand Management, Effluent End Use and Biosolids Management Alternatives.

Table ES‑2. Projected Effluent Quality that will be Produced by Spokane Valley Treatment Plant (Monthly Average Values Unless Noted Otherwise)

Table ES‑3.  Summary of Capital Costs.

Table 2‑1.  Projected Wastewater Loadings.

Table 2‑2.  Potential Effluent Quality Requirements.

Table 3‑1.  Evaluation Criteria.

Table 3‑2.  Summary of Initial Brainstorm and Screening Session.

Table 3‑3.  Alternatives Subjected to Detailed Analysis.

Table 3‑4.  Redundancy Criteria for Unit Treatment Processes.

Table 3‑5.  Illustration of Capital Cost Estimating Procedure.

Table 4‑1.  Low-Flow Fixture Requirements.

Table 4‑2.  Projected Water Conservation Effectiveness.

Table 4‑3.  Project Water Conservation Effectiveness.

Table 4‑4.  Significant Industrial Sources.

Table 4‑5.  Evaluation Criteria.

Table 5‑1. Projected Effluent Flow.

Table 5‑2. Projected Effluent Quality for Surface Water Discharge.

Table 5‑3. Capital Cost of Surface Discharge to Spokane River ($/MGY)

Table 5‑4. Capital Cost of Surface Discharge to Little Spokane River

Table 5‑5. Capital Cost of Surface Discharge to Tributaries.

Table 5‑6. Irrigation Demand for Designated Agricultural Areas.

Table 5‑7. Capital Cost of Agricultural Reuse.

Table 5‑8. Capital Cost of Poplar Farms.

Table 5‑9. Urban Irrigation Reuse Potential

Table 5‑10. Urban Golf Course Sites.

Table 5‑11. Monthly Irrigation Demand for Golf Courses.

Table 5‑12.  Urban Parks, Schools and Cemeteries.

Table 5‑13. Capital Cost of Urban Reuse.

Table 5‑14. Capital Cost of Industrial Reuse at Inland Empire Paper

Table 5‑15. Capital Cost of Wetlands Creation.

Table 5‑16. Infiltration Area for Groundwater Recharge.

Table 5‑17.  Capital Cost of Groundwater Recharge.

Table 5‑18. Cost Comparison of Effluent End-Use Alternatives.

Table 6‑1.  Allocation of Projected Average Flows from Spokane County in 2025.

Table 6‑2.  Allocation of Projected Average Flows from Spokane County in 2025.

Table 7‑1.  Projected Sludge Generation Rates.

Table 7‑2.  Pathogen Reduction Processes for Class “B” Biosolids.

Table 7‑3.  Pathogen Reduction Processes for Class “A” Biosolids.

Table 7‑4.  Vector Attraction Controls.

Table 7‑5.  Concentration Limits for Biosolids Applied to Land.

Table 7‑6.  Loading Rate Limits for Biosolids Applied to Land.

Table 7‑7. Alternative B-1 Facility Requirements.

Table 7‑8.  Biosolids Haul Truck Trip Requirements for 12-mgd Plant.

Table 7‑9.  Capital Costs for Alternative B-1.

Table 7‑10.  Annual O&M Costs for Alternative B-11.

Table 7‑11.  Present Worth for Alternative B-1.

Table 7‑12.  Biosolids Haul Trips.

Table 7‑13.  Capital Costs for Alternative B-2.

Table 7‑14.  Annual O&M Costs for Alternative B-2.

Table 7‑15.  Present Worth for Alternative B-2.

Table 7‑16. Alternative B-3 Compost Facility Requirements.

Table 7‑17.  Capital Costs for Alternative B-3.

Table 7‑18.  Annual O&M Costs for Alternative B-3.

Table 7‑19.  Present Worth for Alternative B-3.

Table 7‑20.  Capital Costs for Alternative B-4.

Table 7‑21.  O&M Costs for Alternative B-4.

Table 7‑22.  Present Worth for Alternative B-4.

Table 7‑23. Alternative B-5 Facility Requirements.

Table 7‑24.  Capital Costs for Alternative B-5.

Table 7‑25.  Annual O&M Costs for Alternative B-51.

Table 7‑26.  Present Worth for Alternative B-5.

Table 7‑27.  Summary Comparison of Costs.

Table 9‑1.  Summary of Capital Costs.

Table 9‑2.  Projected Effluent Quality that will be Produced by Spokane Valley Treatment Plant (Monthly Average Values Unless Noted Otherwise)

Table 9‑3.  Summary of Summertime Model Runs for DO Impacts.

Table 9‑4.  Summary of Wintertime Model Runs for DO Impacts.

Table 9‑5.  Results of Temperature Evaluation.

Table 10‑1.   Summary of Permit Requirements.

Table 10‑2.  Estimated Capital Costs Through 2020.

Table 10‑3.  Projected Capital Facilities Rates.

Table A-1.  Chronology of Key Public and Agency Participation Opportunities.

Table A-2.  Attendance at September 21, 2000 Public Meeting.

Table A-3.  Summary of Effluent Quality Currently Produced During Dry Weather and Target Effluent Qualities for Future Capacity Increases (Based on Scenario 3 Regulatory Condition)

Table A-4.  Flow Projections Used in Preliminary Assessment of Capacity Potential for SAWTP.

Table A-5.  Participants of January 10, 2001 Public Meeting.

Table A-6. Participants of January 11, 2001 Public Meeting.

Table A-7.  Attendees of May 22, 2001 Business Forum.

Table A-8. Attendees of May 22, 2001 Public Meeting.

Table A-9.  Attendees of May 23, 2001 Business Forum.

Table A-10. Attendees of May 23, 2001 Public Meeting.

 

List of Figures

 

Figure ES‑1.  Spokane County Utilities Service Area.

Figure ES‑2.  Population and Commercial/Industrial Development Projections.

Figure ES‑3.  Wastewater Flow Projections.

Figure ES‑4.  Schematic of Regional Collection and Treatment Facilities.

Figure ES‑5.  Components of the Overall Wastewater Management Concept

Figure ES‑6.  General Locations of Potential Sites for New Wastewater Treatment Facilities.

Figure ES‑7.  Comparison of Treatment Location Alternatives with Evaluation Criteria.

Figure ES‑8.  Wastewater Flow Schematic for the Recommended Plan (Distribution of Projected Spokane County Flows in Year 2025)

Figure ES‑9.  Location of Major Facilities.

Figure ES‑10.  Projected Cash Flow.

Figure ES‑11.  Implementation Schedule.

Figure 1‑1. Major Planning Components.

Figure 2‑1.  Population and Commercial/Industrial  Development Projections.

Figure 2‑2.  Wastewater Flow Projections.

Figure 2‑3.  Simplified Schematic of Regional Collection and Treatment Facilities for Municipal Wastewater

Figure 3‑1.  Components of the Overall Wastewater Management Concept

Figure 4‑1.  Evaluation of Demand Management Alternatives.

Figure 5‑1.  Process Schematic for Baseline Effluent Quality.

Figure 5‑2.  Major Rivers and Tributaries near the Planning Area.

Figure 5‑3.  Existing Dischargers and River/Aquifer Interaction.

Figure 5‑4.  Irrigation of Agricultural Land.

Figure 5‑6.  Net Irrigation Requirement for Crops in Spokane County.

Figure 5‑7.  Timing of River Flow and Irrigation Demand.

Figure 5‑8.  Irrigation of Urban Greenspaces.

Figure 5‑9.  Potential Urban Irrigation Sites.

Figure 5‑10.  Water demand for Urban Irrigation.

Figure 5‑11.  Industrial Reuse.

Figure 5‑12.  Potential Industrial Reuse Sites.

Figure 5‑13.  Western Concrete Products Demand.

Figure 5‑14.  Temperature of SAWTP Effluent (1996)

Figure 5‑15.  Acreage of Wetted Surface Area Needed to Accommodate All Spokane County Flow

Figure 5‑16.  Schematic of Surface Percolation System.

Figure 5‑17.  Schematic of Direct Injection System.

Figure 5‑18.  Aquifer and Well Locations.

Figure 5‑19.  Comparison of Alternatives with Evaluation Criteria.

Figure 6‑1.  Anticipated Future Process for SAWTP.

Figure 6‑2.  Anticipated Future Treatment Process for New Plant

Figure 6‑3.  Projected Unit Capital Cost for New Treatment Plants.

Figure 6‑4.  General Locations of Potential Sites for New Wastewater Treatment Facilities.

Figure 6‑5.  Alternative 1 – All Wastewater Routed to SAWTP (Year 2025 County Flows)

Figure 6‑6.  Alternative 2A – 12 mgd Mid-Valley Plant, SAWTP at 10 mgd, No North Spokane Plant (Year 2025 County Flows)

Figure 6‑7 Schematic of Current City of Spokane Interceptor System.

Figure 6‑8.  Alternative 2B – 7 mgd Mid-Valley Plant, SAWTP at 10 mgd, 5 mgd North Spokane Plant (Year 2025 County Flows)

Figure 6‑9.  Alternative 2C – 7 mgd Mid-Valley Plant, SAWTP at 15 mgd, No North Spokane Plant (Year 2025 County Flows)

Figure 6‑10.  Alternative 2D – 17 mgd Mid-Valley Plant, SAWTP at 5 mgd, No North Spokane Plant (Year 2025 County Flows)

Figure 6‑11.  Alternative 2E – 17 mgd Mid-Valley Plant, No Flow to SAWTP, 5 mgd North Spokane Plant (Year 2025 County Flows)

Figure 6‑12.  Figure 6-12.  Alternative 3A – 12 mgd In-City Plant, SAWTP at 10 mgd, No North Spokane Plant (Year 2025 County Flows)

Figure 6‑13.  Alternative 3B – 7 mgd In-City Plant, SAWTP at 10 mgd, 5 mgd North Spokane Plant (Year 2025 County Flows)

Figure 6‑14.  Alternative 3C – 7 mgd In-City Plant, SAWTP at 15 mgd, No North Spokane Plant (Year 2025 County Flows)

Figure 6‑15.  Alternative 3D – 17 mgd In-City Plant, SAWTP at 5 mgd, No North Spokane Plant (Year 2025 County Flows)

Figure 6‑16.  Alternative 3E – 17 mgd In-City Plant, No Flow to SAWTP, 5 mgd North Spokane Plant (Year 2025 County Flows)

Figure 6‑17.  Figure 6-17.  Alternative 4A – Two Mid-Valley Plants (7 mgd & 5 mgd), SAWTP at 10 mgd, No North Spokane Plant (Year 2025 County Flows)

Figure 6‑18.  Alternative 4B – Two Mid-Valley Plants (4 mgd & 3 mgd), SAWTP at 10 mgd, 5 mgd North Spokane Plant (Year 2025 County Flows)

Figure 6‑19.  Comparison of Treatment Location Alternatives with Evaluation Criteria.

Figure 7‑1.   Representative Liquid Treatment Process Use As Basis for Developing Sludge Quantities 

Figure 7‑2.  Alternative B-1 – Class “B” Treatment and Land Application.

Figure 7‑3.  Alternative B-2 – Class “A” Treatment & Land Application.

Figure 7‑4.  Alternative B-3 - Composting

Figure 7‑5.  Alternative B-4 – Treatment at SAWTP.

Figure 7‑6.  Alternative B-5 – Privatized Management

Figure 7‑7.  Comparison of Biosolids Management Alternatives with Evaluation Criteria

Figure 9‑1.  Wastewater Flow Schematic for the Recommended Plan (Distribution of Projected Spokane County Flows in Year 2025)

Figure 9‑2.  Location of Major Facilities.

Figure 9‑3.   Projected Distribution of County Flows to SAWTP (average flow)

Figure 9‑4.  Projected Distribution of County Flows to SAWTP (peak flow)

Figure 9‑5.  Projected Flow Distribution and Capacity Phasing for Spokane Valley Plant (average flow)

Figure 9‑6.  Flow Distribution and Expansion Phasing for Spokane Valley Plant (peak flow)

Figure 9‑7.  Anticipated Future Treatment Process at SAWTP.

Figure 9‑8.  Representative Treatment Process for Spokane Valley Plant

Figure 9‑9.  Representative Site Layout for A 24-mgd Plant (Average Flow) Constructed in 4-mgd Modules

Figure 9‑10.  Example of Architectural Treatment of Wastewater Treatment Plants – Edmonds, Washington 

Figure 9‑11.  Example of Architectural Treatment of Wastewater Treatment Plants, Vancouver, Washington

Figure 9‑12.  Projected Cash Flow (Based on 2.5% Annual Inflation)

Figure 9‑13.  Projected Annual Operating Cost (Based on Initial Rate of $1,200/MG and 3% Annual Inflation)

Figure 9‑14.  Incremental DO Decrease vs. River Mile (Scenario 2)

Figure 9‑15.  Influent and Effluent Temperature at SAWTP (Year 2000)

Figure 10‑1.  Preliminary List of Siting Criteria.

Figure 10‑2.  Implementation Schedule.

 

List of Drawings

 

Drawing 2-1.  Planning Area

Drawing 2-2.  Surface and Ground Water Sources

 


 

Executive Summary

                                    This site was last updated on:  Thursday November 08, 2001