Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Bill 05/21/2001 (27)
Attachment C. Mr: Gordon C,ulp•'s Memorandum on SCWA 's Proposed Approach (April,30, 2001) • • F) ,_< -1V N- SMITH Management, U L P Engineering' Facilitation • ONSULI IN Partnering: U Training MEMO TO: Mike Ban • FROM: Gordon Culp DATE April 30, 2001 SUBJECT: Comparison of Sonoma County'WaterAgency proposed wastewater treatment approach with thosein the Water Recycling Facility Project Report • (November,.2000.by Caroll&Engineers). Background • On April 19,;2001 the.Sonoma,County Water',Agency'(SCWA) submitted a:letter to the City of Petaluma describing4anapproach to:wastewater reclamation that differs from.the treatment alternatives descnbedin the November, 2000 Water Recycling Facility. Project Report (WRFPR). The SCWAapproach includes aerated lagoon treatment, the existing ponds, microfltration and chlorination. During the irrigation season, the reclaimed`water would`be recycled to;;a storage • pond. The aerated lagoon:treatmentwould be achieved by,deepening ponds 1 and2iby 5-6 feet and adding 300 horsepower of aeration'`to pond 1 and 150 P p odified,ponds would be acting as horse owerof aeration to ond;2. The m facultative ponds. SCWA suggests thattheir altemativetreatment=system could be constructed in three phaseswithia total cost of about $42 million which is substantially less than the alternatives described in theWRFPR. SCWA,also notes:that extended"aeration could be used in place of aerated lagoons at an estimated added cost'of$10 million (total cosfof$52 million). Comparison The layout of the,SCWA,aerated lagoonaaltemative is very similar to WRFPR Alternative-2B, Aerated Lagoorrwith dissolved;air floatation (DAF) and filtration, in the WRFPR ('see attached:drawings). Neither alternative requires the acquisition.of added'land The SCWA alternative,substitutes'microfiltration;for . DAF and filtration fac ilities;and omits several features included:in the W. RFPR alternatives: Although thESCWAalteniative layout:is;similarto Alternative 26, the SCWA proposal is for a.substantially different treatment;facility. The-attached table compares costs and also serves to',illustrate the differences'in the proposed facilities. The tableincludes two alternatives.from°the WRFPR: the selected 653 Ravel Court • Phone: (702) -360-1120 Fax (702) 838-3426 Las Vegas NV +89.128-8628 e:maiL smithculp@aol.com extended aeration approach, altemative 5B, and the.aerated lagoon:approach,. altemative72B. The WRFPR approaches shown inthetable are the sub- altematives using DAF and filtration becausethey are:most comparabletoahe • SCWA approach. As shown in the table, the WRFPR:reported that:the aerated, lagoon approach°wasdower in cost than extended aeration. The greateradver'se environmental impact(larger ecological footprint) of theaerated lagoon.;approach was a major consideration in the City's selectiion`of the more costly extended aeration approach. As can,be seen from the=attached table, the SCWAapproach is based ona substantially.:differenttreatment facility because it.does not include The following facilities'that were included in the WRFPR alternatives: • Odor control • Sludge lagoon • • Sludge dewatering • Oxidation pond upgrade • Nitrifying rock.filter (Alt. 28 only) • Effluent flow meter • Publib amenities/education • Demolition of Hopper Street facilities The costs of the WRFPR aerated lagoon alternative include facilities (nitrifying' „ • rock flter)to convert ammonia nitrogen to nitrate nitrogen to avoid fish toxicity " issues related to=ammonia"nitrogen:The'SCWA aerated lagoon;-altematwe proposes;to add critic acid to the final effluent during Criticat discharge periods,'to lower the pHi:in an attempt.to avoid the higher pH that createsthe'toxicunionized ammoniaform of ammonia nitrogen. It:remains Wipe seen'if the regulatory agencies would accept this approach. I:am,unaware of any proposed or actual • use of such arrapproach!(addinTacid.to effluent to.contrdl ammonia tonicity in receiving water)'for meeting regulatory limits on unionized ammonia. The SWCAestimate of'costs of the 12 mgd microfiltrationfacilities appears reasonable based on costs for other microfiltraton installations. The WRFPR estimates for DAF and:filtration are about $2 millionless than;the:SCWA estimate of costs for microfiltration:The•microfiltration,facilities4re more costly than the DAF and'filtration;facilities.thatthey'would°replace under the SCWA proposal. So, it all of the features of the WRFPR alternativesare retained, substitution of microfiltration for DAF and filtration would result in a cost increase:. . Omission of the previously listed WRFPR°features in the SCWA alternatives accounts forthe lower cost of the.SCWA alternatives: Microfiltrationwould provide an excellent:level of treatment:but, as noted;in the SCWA proposal, pilot studies would'be needed to verify the suitability of the process to Petaluma's treatment system. I am not aware of any long-term operating•ezperience wherethe microfiltration•process has been applied to algal= 411 laden oxidation:pond effluent.,Microfilters are potentially applicable'to:oxidation pond effluent but pilot tests would be,required especially to evaluate,the ability to 0 control,biological fouling of the microfiltration membranes in such an application. Microfiltration will producean effluent extremely low in suspended solids, less than 1 mg/L. Many,small communities havebeen attracted to Microfiltration for water treatment because it:simplifies operationby eliminating the need for chemical coagulants used in a conventional treatment`plant and because it provides a positive'bamer against Cryptosporidium;and Giardia, two pathogens specifically regulated in the dnnking'water standards. There are chemical, cleaning steps required;for the microfiltration membranes and the membranes must be periodically-replaced so microfiltration+does not eliminate operational issues but microfiltration is,;generallyviewed'as simplifying.day=to-day operation when compared to:conventional.chemical coagulation-sedimentation (or flotation)-conventional filtration plants. Most;of the applications of microfiltration in water treatment have been in smalliplants (less than 1 mgdin capacity) where the simplicity of operation ista major,advantage and where the potential for biological fouling g is,much less than i n wastewater applications. It has been difficult for microfiltration to compete economically in,large plants because there is little economy of scale with the microfiltration.proeess., The SCWA proposal discounts the greater release of methane gas and associated larger ecological footprint of the aerated lagoon alternative by citing data that show methane releases fromwastewater treatment plants are "a statistically insignificant:amount of the total annual' methane gas production in the United States. Suchia dismissaliofthe effects of the:effects of greater methane production is not consistent with the;City ssustainability;philosophy. The SCWA proposal suggests a phasing approach that would produce more highly treated reclaimed Water by 2003. Their-approach involves installing the microfiltration facilitiies:in the first phase'to provide treatment of the effluent from the City's existing treatment system Construction of the aerated lagoons would occurin the SCWA second.phase.by,late 2004. UV disinfection and co ntrol structures between ponds would be.added with construction in 2005 in the SCWA approach. lithe City so desired, the DAF and filtration facilities.could be fast tracked in a similarmanner to provide more treatment.of the effluent from the existing"facilities while the other facilities are being constructed. Summary 1. The lower cost of-the SCWA alternatives result from the omission of facilities found in.the WRFPR aerated lagoon and extended aeration;alternatives such as odor control, sludge lagoon, sludgedewatering, oxidation pond.upgrade, nitrifying rock filter lagoon alternative), effluent flow meter, public amenities/education, and demolitionrofHopper Street;facilities. Some of these facilities omitted by SCWA are necessary to have an operable system (e.g • , sludge processing),and some are necessary to have an acceptable system (e.g., nitrification, odor control): 2. Adoption of the aerated lagoon approach would require a change in the City's sustainability philosophy, 3. Microfiltration is a potential alternative to DAF and filtration facilities that may offer some operational'advantages but will likely result in a costfincrease=if`all other features of the WRFPR alternatives=are retained. • • • • lc c o C 0 C ) m o a • U b a m :.O m o ° ° m � 'o o m E c c - _ u co aE ° ._ ,a L cu m m E .m co ° c m a¢ C ? m m ill O ;o a m m m c7 x m ° a "E m c �' m (� 0 ° 7 -5 al ° O 'N 3 C m I E E a 03 , - 00 o c E £ _ a) a .a) m m: o m E co J C U CT 9 CO .0 . -0 7 C 'o O .m Q ° m 'T. N c N ':9 a) u) .O . O m•co C -0 CO - m E y '• N m .O;u. .0 a. Q7 E m 0 p m E E w- o f E C m 'm c E o m m.€E r a � , _ _ '.y mN a c N.. a 0 C aCo > oE o c .(omc ° 0 Q' o aa)) :m co c a ,5 o 0 o_° _ E c m o '� , o .a) ' o ,ET) — 7 0 U C N W - o O ,.a'� m o c L a -0 0 �OU to o 0 'x 'U < CO o m m o o m Q m u ..-. z .0 'V• -o o am Cl.. > aai o. C > U ''f � . ¢ 0 u. m Z Z 1` cC m _ Z la u) c a Z 9 y m :: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m — CC o C 0 .» 069 69 69 0 0 o 0 6» 6A o »6A 0 0 ,C 0 o ° 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 o. o c t U- O (0 , R C)) CO 0 N CO 0 O O co O C rU p. LC ;CD )- it (O CO O) 0 n n n CO 0) `• O Q' W N V O IO 69 'r N CO . -O` co '� (0 'tl) F- U -p 'm (A 69 f9 , f9 69 10 CO .0 m ice.. m CC .CD m 69 0a ac L d a) o =I o Qo L a j O (i a _ N m � °CC Uw 'O) H (n. > m m ` oc U _ _ -__. __ _ _, .. _ C .I c m W c 0 o o 000: o 001 —000 0 0-001 loo ? a aCc 0 069 0 69 69 69 69 0 0 i 0 069 69 069 69 0 0 ' - C — o 'o O .c o o o 0 0 0 0 o o — m ,n a `0 W 00 c•`'� O O 0 0 N O O 0, W 0 C C 3 C °- o to co ofrr- n m.' .j o 3 ao m• 110 0 CO in o `� 691 69169 > U a, N o N U -m r ° c rn 7 ¢ < 0 °a-- g ° :c 0 LL Q m oNm U 0 - 0)) 61:11 0 m. c J 00 0000 0 00' 000 0 00 00 —I m - x ` � 75 U o 0 0 0 0' 010 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 o m ° ` } 0 0 0 0.0 0. o o 0 coo o 0 0l c) o IO C U a m O(N or- viof O co 0 (o (oc_oCO o O of 1)). o."c oL r ;E w m 1n n CO o n CO n CO n _ CO : C) ' 0 0 0 (O (o m C -- 7 'O 0 c co -a- NO6D In 10 (O0 NCO Cr) 10 10 V O (p O = CC C o N W n V' r nj 69 f9 . � r U .a 0 m y 6. It 0 LL S. (�i 69 69 E9 — ' 69 69 69 E9: FA f9 69 669 ' lL .a [A m .3 C w LL O 3 .< g a3tv 1° u 0. E U 'rn .� U Q, Q C m U U) Q ° o c m CO• ` 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 y Q °)` o)Ce O 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _m W !� c c U a m 000 o 0 0 0 0 00 000 0 o o. o o m o .a LL m LL Co(V c0 CO CO-O) .9 l W.' m O v O co- O , O r N Inn CO 01 9COof n' CO -9 n0In 0 0. 0 v0 0 ¢ m m .a Q m LL L' CO O u) n t` 1O. CO LL') CO 0 N CO) r 0 I0: 9 0 NI —V ;m m Y CD a �i69n rih.r10 f n oi6969 rr 'N- m x 7 `> .m m o .r Z Q' ....„Li- f9 69 69 69 69 69 . 69 69 69 69 69 69 r. CO a U 'O '0 CO °69 ER3 co- CO to N C a) N 2 '0 N E 2 co U m mmmw -D) OC C �(� LL 'm C ::_oi O m m E E .° m '4 E 0) 101 - .c :3 LL U C m '0_m m O ` m C W (n t9 QUOm Q :12a 7° c b (n m . 5 c m m a u c u_ m a m -c a w. `m aO1i o In w 7 a c U E0°) 0 0 m aO u_ Co O � N '.E d..� a J � ¢ Q C C m -. C J :O m m c m m ;o _ C m O E _ 'C , C 'O Y x — O ° a 'm J O ;m w ,N $ ¢ O O J m 0 O W Q m 3U •c a> cu u_ `� u ° m m C w 0 o cUQ ca 3 (o ¢ 'o E � - oa 'man � w• ° - m3 ,c E EaEaaF mNNti) ° u CD m 'Omx > > .x " [Q: U > ?m o 1 D °) 7m c CO. o -- -al= c) Uc Io < w (n (nozl IO5 t inliiw Q faow 0F: zla < . al(n cw • Tu4�4 �-F CC Q o i•- Zi 1 m'.o o . mF Z z S w J, . �. r 0 t Q V L. }3 N,y S` a r 0 3 0a ig I AVMHBIH TIlIA3HV1. } <o Q, £rte- -1 , j . 4 'I 9p yY II 19:Z J4 . :,, ill 1111 8p !' '.-: : LI I Y ' Ias c. • i. ii a II J � a ) Y. r .g deg 9t 9g It ;7 1 l 6y. - l° � g s , •% • M!: 0 ire a o ,111 1 FROM SCWA PROPOSAL 0' Headworks/Dewatering - Sludge Lagoon LAKE\ILLE HIGHWAt Partially Mixed Cells • It ! EXisting OxidatiOn Ponds with 11 Improvements • : I 1 I b Filtration/ DAFs,1, , - Disinfection - I Facilities') - Recycled Water Storage Nitrifying Rock Filter FROM Figure 6.7 ALTERNATIVE 2B - AERATED LAGOON S . • LAYOUT (DAFs) • CITY, OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PROJECT • . Attachment D Caron° Engineer's Memorandum on SCWA 'sProposed Approach (May 3, 2001) • • • • _ c^r®tLo' Dv,li,nten In irvnliue, 'e in G 1 re a `e re ;5' '00!?'t quality;alutinn.s • y, /10W v rrur. • May3, 2001 6069Al2:T03; MAY _ 4 4001 J Mr:;:MichaelJ'.'Bar P.E, WATER RESOURCES • Engineering Manager aND cONSERVanON City,ofPetaluma Water Resources'&Conservation' • • 11 EnglishStreet - Petalurna,•C'A 94952-2610 • subject: Water Recycling Facility, Project • Phase 2 Project Development SCW A,Letter-Dated:April 19,#2001 Dear Mr. Ban:: • Carollo Engineers haslreviewed'the Sonoma County-Water Agency,(SCWA),letter of April 19, 2001 regarding Wastewater Treatthent 19;2001 'regarding WasteWatdt Treatrrient Optionsand has the:following comments: Our • comments are outlined.below and responses tospecificissues'--..are included on Table 1. Treatment:Process The treatment process recommended in the November2000.Project Reportdis:illustrated on . Figure:1. Therprocess includes a,headworks,.extendedsaerationrsecondary treatment which includes nitrification (ammonia removal), existing oxidation:ponds fortreatmentand storage, wetlands for algae removal and metals;polishing;(or DAF.s;for algae-removal), tertiary treatment including filtration, disinfection and solids treatment and:handling. The SCWA proposal is shown.on Figure2. The process includes headworks, aerated and • facultative lagoons:for secondary treatment, oxidation ponds storage,tertiary.treatment. including nlicrofiltrationand disinfection, and effluent'pH control.. The Nave-Fiber 2000 Project Reportalso identifiedan;aerated lagoon;alternative as shown on Figure 3 Thisalternative.:requires additional'storage located on Parcel-C (Brazil': property). The SCWA proposal:does notaddress fourmajorissues previously-identified-by Carollo Engineers and City Consultants including:, Algae.removal;The City-of Petaluma': oxidation ponds;provide storage with long detention times conduciveto'+algae growth. The•oxidation ponds are necessa y to-store water so the City can:meet,the:NPDES,permitrequirements of zeroriver discharge from May 1st to • October 20th. Recent oxidation pond algae solids concentrations are shown on Figure 4. No algae removal process:is provided by the proposal. The niicrofiltration process has not beerrpllot tested:oh oxidation pond effluent. There are no microfiltration systems in H:\Client\Petaluma NCO\6969a10P hase2Pre0esign\SCWA\ean0501011tr.dac 2700'YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD, SUITE!..300 rt WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA,94598 • (925) 932-1710 •,FAX (925) 930-0208 Mr. Michael J. Ban, P.E. City of'Petaluma May13, 2001 Page 2 • • • operation fo this'type cifwastewatermeeting Title 22:requirements. SCWA's microfiltration • pilot iwork was for an aerated lagoon process with low algae.concentrations:.Therefore, for the City:of Petaluma, algae'removal facilities'are necessary upstream ofthefiltration process. AriR mmoia• emoval: SCWA's proposaldoes not include nitrification facilities forammonia removal: Ammonia removal is required for effluent`toxicity control and to meet the receiving` water ammonia'requirements. SCWA's proposal was to,add Acid`to the effluent to'lower the pH of the effluent so"that the,toxic, unionized'fraction of ammonia would remain,low,enough for the fish to•survive:in the laboratory bioassay test. However, as soon'aelthe effluent mikes with the River, which'is ata higher pH, then,the toxic,unionized fraction of ammonia?will increase. We do not recommend:adding Acid the effluent. The extended aeratienprocess is a biological process-forremoval ovammoniato nomtoxiclevels. Solids Treatment and Handling: In theSCWA proposal, the:solidsgenerated in the secondary process will collectin‘the facultative portion::of the pond. No solids,treatmerit system;is.provided andthe solids will accumulate overtime. Solidskwill increase the potential'for pond odors"and decrease the treatment capacity of the,ponds overtime: Solids •will have tote removed from the,ponds in the future. We recommend the'City provide solids treatment~!and handling:facilities. , • Storage:The November 2000 Project Report estimateththat 900'acre•feetof istorage.was necessary to maintain'and operate this facility`and meet NPDES permit;requirements of zero discharge from Mart st to October 20th. Theostorage is also necessary in/orderto ry. g y r j Report meet the va in :needs of the rec cled Water users. November�2000'Pro ect� alternatives included 900;acre-feet,of storage.;For Atiaaeratedllagoon alternative:shown on Figured; additional storage is=needed,andwouldbe,located on,Parcel C. We evaluated deepenirig Ponds•1 and 2, however,,due to the:groundwater levels, the ponds can;notsbe sufficiently deepened. Therefore, for the SCWA:proposal, the.assumption'that theiponds can be deepened in notvalid andadditional storage&wouldbe necessaryWhich would require:the use of-Parcel C. Type of Tertiary'Filtratioh The SCWA proposal substitutes.microfitration folihe aigae removal facilities.and the continuous backwash (CBW) sand filtration. As part ofthepre-aeeigrekscope, Carollo Engineers is currently reviewing g two typesrof tertiary filtration Including GBW filtration.and. microfiltration. The CBW°filtration system's ability to handle algaesolids;has'been proven at • .aJtiuMber Of oxidation pond facllities,including Napan$anitation'District (NSD) 'NSD,has oxidation ponds followed by an algae removal;process'followed',byCBW:filtration which produces Si mgd:of Title 22}water. The,microfiltration process could be utilized in lieu of'the,. CBW filters, but algae"removal facilities wouldbe,requiredprior to-the microfiltersias, discussed:above. Either altemative:could be fast-tracked. • • • • H:\Client\Petalu ma!NCO\6069a1 OPhase2Pre0esign\SCWA\Ban0501011trAoc • Mr. Michael J:,Ban, RE. City<of Petaluma • May,3; 2001: Page'3. • • • Costs The preliminary;cost,estimates presented in theSCWA proposal were compared to the cost estimates developed by Carollo Engineers for both type"s of filtration. These:costs are shown on Table 2. Part of the cost comparison outlines•the items`,included in both systems. The costs are comparable foremost iter is; Carollo Engineers estimates that the CBW f ilters will have a.lower construction`cost than the microfiltration units. Overall:the cost for the two projectsare the;same when comparing extended aeration:with•CBW'filters°to the aerated lagoon process with microfiltration..However, once.the;cost for extended aeration is,added to the cost of the,SCWA proposed treatment train the cost increases and is`more.expensive. Construction Costs for thoseSitemsinciuded in both;systems;in;current_dollars+(ENR —SF 7452)'areashown below: SCWA,Proposaf • (Brelje & Race) Carollo Aerated'Lagoon;.with Microfiltration $33,865;000• Extended Aeration with`CBW,filters • $33,535;000 Extended Aeratibrvwith;Microfiltration, $43,865,000 $39,986,000 • In addition, Part 2:of`thecost comparison lists the items,that-were excluded'-in the . SCWA.proposal,,.but included in the November 2000 Projeci Report These include facilities Lakeville Highway roadway'',improvements;plant access+and egress improvements,.sludge stabilization and:dewatering;,algae removal required prior to filtration, as well as:other items to provide a complete treatment facility'. Schedule • The schedule presented<farthe SCWA;proposal is intended to fast•track#ertiary•facilities in order to provide Title 22swater toxiffset potable water supplies forirrigation. The SCWA proposal,does not,address the reclaimed water distribution system infrastructure that has to be constructed throughout the City,,..including piping andlpumping, which is required to deliver Title 22 water toiusers. • Our current,schedule for completion of the:Water RecyclinglFacility Project is mid 2006. We have prepared a schedule to,accelerate•the'design and:construction of the treatment . ,portion;of theFplantes shown on Figure 5:.Under this scenario; the tertiary{treatment facilities could be operational by mid>2004. Theschedule for microfilters would be longer than the CBW filters because we would need to;pilot test'the microfiters prior to design. The:accelerated:tertiary treatment facility schedule{needs to be coordinated'.with,the City's schedule for the.Title 22 infrastructure: The City is^currently in theplanning phasefor the Title 22;infrastructure (water resources:element of the`General`Plan update). Once planning is complete pre-design •CEQA permitting, final design•and construction can follow. It is unlikely the Title'l22 infrastructure•cart be operational by mid 2004. The City's current schedule is to complete the:Title22 infrastructure by mid:2006, Which matches the current • H:\ClienAPelaiuma_WCO\6069a10Phase2PreDesign\SCWA'$an05010117.doe Mi..Michael .1, Ban, P:E, City of Petaluma May3, 2001 Page 4 10 sdhedule.for,the.Water Recycling Facility PrOjeot.•Therefore, there ip no need to accelerate thetertiary treatrnentlacilities at the:plant. Please let Us know if you have'questions or comments or neediadditional informatiOn. Siricerely? CiNROLLOENGINEE8S, RC: 6&0' IHM27015"AZU Susan aStuti=McDonald, 13,;E: Doug*. Wing, P':E. SES:,OVVVV7ngS Enclosures: Table 1. Caroni.) COmments to the SCWA April 19, 2001 Letter HACIlent Petaluma_WCON6069a10Phase2PreDesign\SCA\Band:501011r doe >, cl >, C.) m a) a a) a o es 0 oa 1.-, 0 ? -9 i., _ .- l) a) .. co ,.., .) 0 - „ a - 0 Tz _ -- as a a. Ei 0 • o h. co -a .4-• ,,,.,-.-, 0••• . rt ,.. = •- ciz, i) - — .0 ›, a. >-• -t - ..= o E -9, ..-. a ,... c , a - es o - •-• C Ca = z C --r C M -0- 0, = Of , . .5: -o •- 3 c ca a a ‘,.r.i, o c 3 I) .0 0 s., _ a a, 0 ,..., "0 0 = Cr at 4■0 ^" ,.., ..0 ct, ct ct , 0 i -a-. •-• I.) 0 Z h. ,-c 0 ,( tr. z 0 - 0 t Ct. z t2 c -e 0 I-. c4 7,1 0 ..-. cn 0 0 0 Cl. ^" 1.) i Q •- •-, t cn 71 -2; F 0 .,.4 , 0 n 73. t .',... I CA 'ETS ":1 ' ' E '. E -9 E 0 E •- o c c h- , c i-. = 0 ..., .... ,c-19 0- 1-• -- a) -c ... ac. _ , c cc: ,.c u 0 C■ a) co a.) co c. - •-• cat; as c - ;-• -c ' c ;A • c ..... z en c c gi o w c,i u i- ....., c 0 ._ 0 • ,_, 0 ,... > o > .-. > = 0 u w ni.) •,---,7 ,— ,-. rcalE -OcgT) 0 ---, E 2 c,....c : a) ' 0 a o o 1- _.„ . g ... a ,- .4... 't .- ;---a 0 a• a a... a) a) a C4J 0.. p .4-. C "" cPUt MOO 000 rfluict A, ...d..-. '... '''- '... (,.) c a g E (?) 2 . o 4-. -c '10 0 -. cc ,-. a, a) 1442taa ' 0 co .- > a) c uto '0 ..c E2gcc o .-- a) ---. <4- 3 ,-- o ,4-. en c E u c c --4-. 4_, 0 0, -1114 a-. 0 0 -C cl) 0 a) - 0 t+- t,4o ,c .0 : o 1.) s- V cn T.) 0 -•-• E, 0 .-• 0 000 -• 0 C.) -0 •-• ch , 0 ••-• 0 ••-• = cn 0 I-. .c. -,- yv ...9, ,1/4.4 CZ 0 "" n -= 0 - 0 ct 0 cr'-''' ci) .M' it,' ;-• z 10 0 E . as 0 -rzi 0 r3 to rn 70 4.- 4a030. 0 . .... 0. 0 = E tni." ..011 h.. fulTh aJ -42 0 -=,., 0 0 .1--1 r.. (6.- 0.4 ,- 8 ;4,, 4- ..., r Q AS) .4, 0 0 = II __. , C.) 0 = `Ig 0 col = 2 c .7,-,,..-- ,_ 0 .? 2 ...... 0 ..c ..4- z o .-4-' 5?.., ti < Cr: W an -S al E- 2 s- 3 5 s 2 -a -0 -0 H. -a ,cll -01 0) 0 0 --. LI 4- — 0 . 4 och, 0 .3 NIP E 0 N a 64 CI 4)-o ..- > ... h.. ea c o o ra pc -, .... „, ..... o .- a) h. ' . . a at. h. T ow/ Si -• 0 ° 'ICUtt 0 . .1 51 J° 0 04) Za. eS 0 0 , 0 a I' cL) -I-1 0 ‘.0 .,... 0. .0 • 0 ea 2 m c ce cic a " z en La rn "-I E., d..) U 4-' z , , Q > E • > c ..., o ea c c.c ---, > u mo "2 -la E. w 2 c/ ‘c ...... o ae c cut• c.t _c a c • . o p t tcl u 0 u c CI +a CO co -,. c.) C.) 0 • ael 4- 0 -10 f. 6. ch E .2 "th. ql u ...c z 1.) t 0 CO `t el) sy c., cn ca .C4 74 ... 3. a 0.4 .) . = © C T) 0 -.- I- 0 2 '..: 0 2 To 0 -a ,4 ,... 1 C c.) , .., >, 0 es 0 74 t.... al ca a.) 0 e tii 'A '&5 CV Q --, a 1 = = co 0 z 0 6 a tr; ,t h.. > E -. ct u in eu E r. ea ca c 0 O c 4_, a) E•4 8 •- e. I!) C cu: _ 0 -0, .0 , 0.. 0 , H -a. H 0 0 ;-.. •4., 0 -;-. os _ ti E-1 0 Z C i re; tn . • - ,0 ai ,2 4 h. o ao o 0 .0 Q ca o — 1) 0 - ca c4 ■-• - a) s- -a t 3 >-, cu co -c as az p ,_ €4., ct 0 'ht. "0 lir 4... •—• 1... C 0. C am•• 5. ‘-'-. I) -- ct x P. (..c; E- c 0 o • o cr -E-c. ';c" 3-2,c 2 is 0 ei.) _ . Q- -7, c., • 0 v- a.) . = 0 .-' 0 CD -b-' 0 0 •5 tn c... tn C1-. g '-' c-g cn „Ct al . 4.... ... ...c5 -a >-, a) .0 0 0 0‘ •— 0 0 0"■ ^-' 1- r) - c 2 - r.) sz cl, C) "C:1 '11:1 cr, cio 75 • 0 th 0 q) c: c •-• th ‘ 4.' P., 0 ,--. cn 0 I -. CA u E 1.) 1-- ,, 73 C - - C. 0 6 CC "0 .-' ... 000 , © I) 0 a. E •-• ., .... .... ,n ,__ o „, c, . ,, ct - 4_ ir4 0 7 N c... 0 a cu 5' i.1.1 0 (NI 3 c`I') et) - > - -h- csc‘ 5 > • 4-' uto 13,., do .1-. o-. ,2 Z 0 0 -- , p Ciri ••• CD 0 0 tl) 48 F., E-. i•-• ---. = 0+T.) c 'Ca C) = Ct..17 t cz C) w 1... tO W th. 0 ,-) 0 •-• - ,. . r. . 0 ... - t Os c..) 0 0.) 0 1-1 '0 „. ■.-, I-. 5 5 4-it -60020 0 .. CElau g s) = G. - c.-, 0 0 ..g ..,-. ,- c 0 ch. 04 a , - o p- 0. ..c 0 0 - 0 c> >.' z_,.•I- 0 < chs - N I-1 0 < c I- 5 I. 7 0 C4J 0 0 0 z 0. --. •-• >, c' '--1 C. 0 0 c.,) C. 11) 0 r.) 0• ° •- cts ao C.) ...... > cco0 .-- ,,, c cas 0 rn 0 -I-, -4-, C.) 5 0.) 0 I-' 4” U 0 5•a cc= 0 ce) E t ' 1 n Q co, N 05. ca 0 0 -0 -5) ° •-• c t• a.) 0 ,,... - ..c - ic 0 h - -c •-• - rn -•-• co iti-• *a* c To .t-1 cp --. -0 ..= en c rio w "-• 5 2 •-•cc' ,.. P.. r c 0 h. . ty 0 0 <...0 1... c..) 4-•■ 0.. - 0 ..t.- 0 -0 0 ,0 0 r) 0 -0 0 -0 0 = 1-i-1 .1) q > - -o CJ c tts 0 ,n az = c 4.) us 0 az 0 gs.) T-i ;-. ÷, ta, = c4 0) -0 -,E4 Q 0 .72 _. -, 0 R it cb, - 2 4, • 8 , — c -,-) m > = ,- ,±) -c 0 - 0 -:. P. s - - 0 -. = 4.9.0 0 0 0 0 -= = u ort 0 0 U .0 E-P ... CO I. ,..c cti u) H to '-' c 3 a. H to 'r:. t 3 2 - w. ....-,0 2 2 g t c .7 a ".1 -,;• o g 0 a " 'C -7, 0 a ...; "'" t° co >-■ 0 O 0 0 w 2 s v: •c• o • >g th _ th o in "a, ''-u• 0 -2 c e 0 cz g ra. .0 0 Ct .t aa 0 vi >■ C $.. .0 0 .-i .N .2 0 O 1) 0 4) G 0 a) ^0 0tH7 a, M. 0 , .- 4) E 0 C 71 0 .7 0 0 C z = 0 .0 -c-t1 Ct . . C 2'4 O 0 0 5 6 cit 0 to 3 3 •"' N -7 7 "C N I C C g C,, o --- x 0 a. ..." ,.. Tr to go 0 �p N c U 0 O O O 'D 7 C d. ,'� O O 'F" U U O .y y > .O N p d C i L '6 N .0 R. A.) 7 - . c E. °'• c i Q'`o 'o El_ c,4 o �d 3 • d a y co �; U • -4) C; t0 o N > V"O Ni .. `�" Oi o C ;N C 0 .O C CD ti G :.. . a w' N o • • a"i .E •;n 0,,Q Cr), p i Q• a) 0 o. R c L p c s m' _ = '° V. 3� 0,:E ,t) N 3 Ei w al Via, N 7 � QE • w `" z ;o >' �, 30 � • - �.. 00: mac- o 0 •U 0 ci C .N m• m • •U s s. 1, y Es C: en x• tic C ' E 0 °TCk U cA c•;49 -,`5 c 0° v ; Ec co — . c > o: a 0, o' ^ ,v • ro c c 0 � > v ,y E 0.., "0 0 0 "o cna 'c 0 in' m ;c ,� .. �. 0 c L .. y = m. o N c a ° i a ° en ca y A ° , v N , °::c N N 0p yaz 0, OO C0a li • p N C .N..b O :a o r 'c 'b 0 O 7 . .. O'N O O O.k:,.a Z ia 11:1,Z O 0. y .C = p v 'b C C L a) .0 ' O V '� 1 ca• .d � 3 N m '^ C O 0 ',-23,-'3.. m .0 O , +eil.,ca £ s ^ A o Ca ;a ;03:'^0 c ._.Q >. o o U" ra c3 '' s .. a s a F — 46. Q a Z °a ca .' .E 'i '3 1 ' c :92. as E- N F a C C C tr.,. • O o L 4,N a..a ro '° u CI .Z ca a, a C t , a 0 ,0, O •N O.. Q I) - �.ro . a F" "C .R 0 rA o 2 b v O G U N U as is 7 c� O � �as N.0. 2• 42 O: I C' E . 1.4.'N 0., 0' 3'. L DO cC C 'O V7 v ^ o 7 X- .'O 'C in 0 ) NI c C, N . .y JC,C CD y . � L . A. U - O a'.c . o C- " L' . m 'O c O O N c 0 = O y. . N U o y C � 'Q C. U' O T . r. C, O y ,p — 'U. as ¢ F •• •• •• •• •• �' -0 a 'VJ y y. y d. • ,0': 'U 0 -0 C r: `p'�O en n` y ° Ua c c, • 0 a C' 7) • .• • Hi•a .11111P Table 2`Project;Cost Comparison wi City of'Petaluma Current ENR,(March'i2001) I PARTI Process Area �$�arolloDesign Y, • •,ecycled Water Storage • Prefilter Pump Station; • Mlcrofiltration Faulities'&Support Ippon Chlorine Contact Chamber Secondary Treatment(r) SC. RAS/WAS. Blowers) Headworks • Flow;Control Structures UV:Disinfection Estimate Subtotal _ _ _ _ Mob/Sitewgrk/Ptpt•tg/E'&I Subtotal Construction Cost .Estimating Contingency(2570). • Total Construction Cost " • Percent Increase in,Carollo Constructian'Co over Brelje and Race - • WITH Estended Aeration PART II:-Extia+Items'included in Canino f,: Benefits Additional Mob/DemGb/Sitewoik/E&S he Hwy Rd.Imp..access/ee:e:;s) • Existing Pond,Upgrades . Aerated Sludgy.Lagoon._ Centrifuge(Mudge pewatet:Mg) Wetlands/Wetlands`PS, Ieta's Polishing/Deuitritication Flow Split Structures iWW1 Flexibility Effluent Flow Meter Piles on suppottedstrucflires ;rigs in.Pond 10 Admin/Maintenance/Ops • Public Amenities ...._ • Subtotal Extra.Items -I - - ." .. Subtotal Eram Fart l Total CoustructronCos[ ----- Escalation '-Point of Coast.) Land Acquisition-'Parcel-A&B • Demo of Hopper Street Subttal Project Cost Project Multiplier t61 Project;Cost,Contingency Teta'Project Cost W[THIExtended-Aeration: - : rA (1) Brelje&Race Memorandum to SCWA, (2) Assumes aerated lagoons as the secondary (3) Assuming extended aeration/miciofiltiani (4)..Assuming extended aeration/,CBW"sand • (5) These costs include the25%:estimating cm (6) The City of Petaluma uses 355,v/filch Inc, H:\Clien[\Petaluma_WCO\6069aloPhase2PreDesign\DIv\TNSCosts\cosi estiuiate <IS 5/3/01 • S m N ai m m m (7.3 t'=')I 2L f-¢ U .♦ � N --' 0' o 0 o ZO, Q,LL.1 Z c W,2 LL.F- - aaaJ 9 m r W, U + _,LL 5 dGa� QQ"cz 12 IL 1 • LL WW;,Q"�j U I - Q',W'd }0 f T ¢,o 0 1 :21 I N ICE W I I W I =a 1 a U ti co—m Q 1 m - d 3api11 m U 1 0 a i IN m L.1 "_)I IC.' A m1 I m 2 x1 . IL m� �_ I • m °�..I 1 a o'ri-i rIc • c al mZp1 m 1 d N N1 �'I' �o OI I f ... I I 1 1 . 1 f _ 1 �. o w 1 . ..-1 'm c a g%N' Dac a¢ I 1 b c c I __m.. 3 it t _I , ' U !NI O 3 0 0 N._ U R III d II 0 °HD au E 15 a m m J , o m .c A i a r ro ' . o c 'o °. c w w m. c 3 30 c-'o r j 'c:CO 0 O — N L tr, U 3 mm m o l' : m p a, x, w,a'- O c_ Z o ;;.4 15 C ma � m O n cc > c • _ c o m,,o �,�, xom m '- 0 N y . ;o.:- E n U a 0 m. _1 I, m N 1 I- N' m II a a m N m. CV F,= =0 r2 ti c r_ _ Q w 1c7 Z III = �L'Q d _� Q_U r x p CC Oa U �CC -' < i _QCC cC- der c U1" Q r , ry aa0 0 1 dca-2 ,U- V U- ., °u. a.3Q _z J M 0C ,W CJ LA MI w.ma } LL. wc . '�=„rte Y w o •t.51 LU I` ►V e ^ Q ozi - t ky � L es o 9I F m n b °.: y m o'.— m c ca j c a v. . - w 1. O m p :< o E II It; 05 a v.- E a♦\ / '.d • m w �3010 ym 3qt.''0t Li m 'o pp . lL 111 R c C, p p N 3 j CL I- C U O O O co EO ! -p a II �. j. iii m OL R D N C CL t-0 'g"' c _ Q d `o0-a)000 ", Q # 4 m. D. N 1 U c a, L O O: _ F- C. c a. :. II C' O8 C C U: O p LO m o' w..N a 'aa. Ts m m �. co y� LL: tL±_ LL . C. m' m:cu --71: O 1 m 0 Q g c I s o U-. w o TO• a > zttl 'm I IA L /C _ , II 8 . 1 0 v Et tji a a L d ,> N w • I-.Q( it O Q 1 . WwooCr '�' � 7....o 1c> LL W aQQZ z > Z J 1 - 1c wOPEuo ♦ OL.L.. CC 06 a }it .0 QQ W cc u.I I tT d I = s .-. .O: I Z E LI c0Q I 1 .v. I. y ':N'.N. 'O'_:LL co l.. f C;Q, R O :V 7 t? D N. t 1' 3-- — m 1 Y N • I v w O I I 22?GGG C,--• 'O' C O 1 X: O I „B. o) I Imo'.. -��3.y,:..n .N'.CC'. fA ?i O - -.� O; O7' 0 y U O II _ n to J .E.. U d U N RG ,e 2U / N E v U to v D,� a.,.X Ti. co p as a ;� g E•. tE U a A. L_ t a� 3. O C .L O \ - n U c0 «S II.: C_D_ .:In N O ,O r- cE' O LO'Rns :X N N 7 7 Ce E: '.O CD "CD LL LL,LL i O '.CU •C. C - Q, C CO U y—,, oco 0 > o CO CO a - :a R 'm ,�. a a cC.O Q a . i CO a) I f1- O U Z a : J' i ti a • a preferred appears to have been driven almost entirely by the fact that methane gas releases-would be negligible. The relative significance of the methane.gas issue in the selectionof a long-range water recycling project for the City depends upon the perspective of the reviewer. The EPA estimates that methane is responsible for 17% of the current problem. They,also indicate'that`methane has 21 times the potential of carbon dioxide with respect:to relative contributions to global warning. (Carollo Engineers used a multiplier of56 in determining=":ecological footprints" in the final Project Report). On the other hand,,muriicipal wastewater treatment plans accounted for only 0.5%of total methane. emissions in the United States in 1997. By comparison, sanitary.landfills accounted for 37.1%; cattle, sheep and goats produced 19.0%;. natural gas systems 18:7%; coal mining 10,5%;, and livestock manure management,9.5%.. Ironically,the major source of natural methane production is wetlands. In summary, methane;gases;dhcontribute to the greenhouse effect and-global warming. However, municipal wastewater treatment plants account foma.statistically insignificant amount'of the total annual-methane gas production,Inthe United States. • The third issue relates to project costs. _Proposedcapacities and treatment requirements were the same in all three studies,yet costs escalated from$36.1 million to $55.2 million to $90.6 million in less than three years: Most of the first increase could be explainedby project"enhancements"which • were believed necessary to assure=compliance with:future waste discharge requirements. Reasons for the second, and more dramatic.increase, are less apparent Increases due to time delays and inflation might be partially responsible: ,However,;it woul'd'appearas.if most of the increase was due to a more conservative approach to estimating,,or more extensive•improvements, or both. In any event, a more detailed evaluation of the cost estimates would appear to be in order if project costs are of concern. ALTERNATIVE PROJECT • A preliminaryjayoutfor a simplified;approach`to the development of Recycled Water;Facilities to serve the City ofPetaluma•is shown on the attached drawing. Basic facilities would include a new -headworks, which would discharge into the existing aerated lagoon;, The aerated lagoon would be equipped with-floating-aerators totaling;380 H.P. Pond l would-be deepened by approximately six •feet to create,a facultative pond equipped with floating aerators totaling 300 RP. Pond 2 would,also be deepened by five to six feet The westerly end would be designed to function as a facultative pond- It would,be equipped with aerators'.totaling 150 H.P. The easterly end of Pond No 2 would function as a settling pond with only minimal:aeration as needed.to maintain aerobic conditions in the upper-layer. The remaining ponds,Nos:r3 through 9, would remain in their current configuration. At some time • in the:future, it might prove advantageous to rebuild the transfer structures between the existing ponds to increase their useable'storagecapacities. • WWIWIRP712472k123memo.doc + • recognition of the preliminary nature bf the design effort to thispointt. An additional allowance of 25% has been added for incidental expenses which would include engineering, construction -management, administrative,legal and planning costs. Finally, a cost escalation Of 3.0% per year has been.used to arrive at final estimates:. Table.1 Preliminary. Cost-Estimates Description 'Estimated&Cost ($1,000) Phased 1 'Phase 2, I Phase 3 Earthwork $ 00 I $1,050 Roadways • 340.1._ 200. Prefilter Pump Station 500. Microfiltration-Facilities•' _ 9,300 Microfiltratiom& Operations Building, 1,1'00 • '500 Chlorine ContacttChamber.Additions • 500. Aerators 400 Pond Liners • 750 I Head.Works 1,200 Flow Control Structures 400 600 UV Disinfection 3,500 Subiotal • 12,240- 4,500 4,100 Mobilization, Sitework, Piping, Electrical &, ' Instriimentation(30%%) Total Construction 15,910` 5,g50 1,230 •' 50:1 5,330 Contingency (25%)_ -3,980-., .1,460 1,330 • hieidentals (25%) • 3,980 1;460 1:330 Escalation;(3%/Year) • 460 -350 480 TOTAL COST $24,330 .$9,120 $8,470 USE' I $24,500. $9,500 I $8,500 Phase i,costs are estimated at$24.5 million. 'Costs;for Phase;2.are estimated at $9:5 million. The combined costs fot:both phases would be'$34.0 million. The improvements in Phase-3 would add.58.5'million-to the totalaproject-costs. The need for the • Phase3 improvements would be;detentmed after'the Phased facilities were;placed intoservice:and anew water balance model'was developed which would:include all recycledwaterdemands. Optional!Proj eet • If it is determined that methane gas releases from aerated ponds would be of sufficient concern to eliminate that approach from further consideration, an extended aeration system could become the Phase 2 project. A layout similar to that proposed in the Agency study could probably be constructed in less time than aerated ponds: It is estimated that costs would,be approximately$10.0 million higher. The extended'aeration.approach would also alleviate any concerns that might exist about potential,toxicity problems related to pond effluent. W:I WIRPT.2472k123memo.doc' 6 . .. . . . . . . ;Iv . • . • . . • . . ' . . . . \2172\DNIC\1472ALTI OK NEW PSI .1-0-01 - . •- - ' . . . . . • , . 1... ■11 . . . . . . • . . • .. . , . ' • il • ' 0 ' ' 1 r o . m i • 2 8 * . . .11 1.el 72M C-C. -11 Q 5'• \ • 1,1 0 14 fn A. • . - ''- • - .• - . • .,. - • . .7 . . E 2 2 r., . 5 • . , . ' ., . fialliir . -. ...t.24.. .24.7.4.52:5r.;..:. , . . _ . , y y y 4 mr.s . • 4 .. u i::: I all" •-..--..,.-.",-.-e*.-.-",..-...... <r • . ,-< • . $.*.*.momox..v.m.1-44444, n 4 \ ' . .1 N -6, §' 14 s A c I • • • _____, \. 'A a a A A .., •rsa- 1 . . 4 1 I i '.., . - .., + ' Irr P-- • A s Iiit■AM■SIIIIMMO L,,, SI1 . - • 4 13.- ..<■ . . -0 1 us -• , . 33 C c51 . ' • A. 1, . • z g . . . I g 4. S S • iP . . ..?,.... ... . ._, .... ■'3- -‹.t... ' [ - . 41 Ai 1 , 4 . - . , .. . a I . . . liras■navaiI■ra. .■ A A �v®� . : C Y Y ' . •-•;.:;;;;;;;;;;;; . , ..._. 4 , f 1 37 -5 3- 11 K1 .A . , c , -— ' I ci . • 91/ . E g . ' s , ,:s ,k _L . .. (-- - . . Ills . trais) ); i 2 ._ antes 1 n rn , . — Al m,-., ' • I - Ai z, . . m > 0 1- •LAKEVILLE ' HIGHWAY- . ..,c . .., . • UTrK '0‘..> lg. 'il•g! geztrn '9;! p LA, .6 * : • 1 .7 0 ,,,.,-1 . 0 . • ii..-0,, 71.'ai • rn \ rn ' 1 > M . > C ;" • ,A? . .. 0 —I .A' . I 2 . z K . F., , r 71.-NNH m • Ic=1*.H , m . ' • • °1 \ ,-> z ■ r- -1 - -1 • • ' S? -• MO -il I— 'Z Si' • . • • --I —4 . < • . • . • .._ . - p ,!y"4--- ., .. ' � ; d. - 1,—fet �'�� ,�:A j. - i—_� 0.] wT�+mac `^? 10 a,1 Ws 1 13 r.147, — O1g ,1 j N4 'S� 's5 �F fi • x Zt-aP —'ts'' . ... ,$ '" c•ii�6 � ' ` ri'' ."'sY-5s e'.2t z #S y3r '(aT3ti �_� Si 'o �®its L1 �t ti rte`_ 1Y� - tea" K.�, -;:t#'71- +tti /-� 'T'4 Yy .54f -ice r i v 1j -z -- i 3 mr .5 li�y c' _ Cy''At _ " `�'U z '4f a ®,222 f -' �"✓< ff i Item No Desch.tioner`r� . 1 Secondary Di ester . 2 Two-Primary-Trickling eat "' . `T � , �- � it.s,�r ,�. 3 Primary Sedimentation{ � 4 Intermediates Sedimen itV - „ 4 5 Primary Digester �h .x 6 Final:Sedimestation T ` �-.y� 7 Final'Tnckling Filter '$' t � � 8 Centrifuge ;� x " �y _ s 9 Headwerks,and Influe '44 - � 10 Aerated Grit,Tank and 1-h..",vim , 11 Primary Sedimentatiot� s' ,�'� z :. y12 Blower Building 3, �. "�` +s c,; ..-s- 13 Aeration Tank No 1 �'" � 14 Aeration Tank;No 2 > k Y. � 15' Secondary Sludge Str > �r i' ��' 16 Activated Sludge Planar '4�� t r a f u II. � � . 17' Chlorine Contact Tank :� _, � ' �, y`l 18 Sludge Lagoon.No 2S_" 1'9 Sludge Lagoon No 1 ,� t' 20 Aerobic Digester" Figure 1 9 'cc, 21 Administration>'BtiildineiNG HOPPER STREET WWTP 22 Pond lnfl .entPump.StlOF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA A 23 Mobile B ;Filter PressRECYCLING FACILITY PROJECT PU90011F196069.CDR: 0 ■ mil_' _ % -• °6- BOOSTER POMP' .. (' t STATION 2 I¶pj 1': i _ � I uar-u \iSEPVAATj I I I I1" "[ , �xg ! 4.AL"): 4; �atncr-' '"f." i 11 Hi]t ''- C.---__111; - t- . I 1,•. Am PMXfVEV _IT I 111 t\ -uu --- m 41E��1i,�ip 1 ��miT ?yC I�. �- E 'L _Ms� L! {LBR _ JY _ _:Sin _ __ — _L— �_ BU'ETEP NMF 1 -i \'>-'" :°ln 44,.,k,„,. v J Bup R 1 • 1\ w �'; y / �l PART( _ L / 4 Q 4" � I IF gg P - - WI I NpRm4MCOONEU BOMUvARC 11� mnnim6 � (1 III I � '�/ 1��.—. - � j — 3 ! tie,: i` �� i /Fi ( I l �1- `\.,. 'uil 7m TI J ��f* _ _ ii1FF _ MAIN PUMP Srnnwl a� p .1111[ In �F I Vet 4 ' 11 LEGEND 1 FIGURE 2 IRRIGATED WITH AQUEDUCT WATT URBAN RECYCLED WATER • i _ IRRIGATED WITH WELL WATER PROGRAM IRRIGATED WITH RECYCLED WATI PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA NOT IRRIGATED I Scale 1" =1700' Print Date: May 2001 By: J. Lopez 0 cm o N Q C C �i . it m • 0 N . Y ✓ W d ❑ f d N N c_ E E -p • z X •d m W W ❑ N o— •• � N r , , . Q M E4 I CI C G to 1 L Iff, [ IL 1 tti c) 7 y co ree• ease) •e• emn m lir = 9 7 V O E u t E — • RNA C Z'' CO E ThH - Q.I o' N' �y C N I 0 0 c 'Jr o _, d I> y ° . . m C N N O. IU O O C C c C U '2. E cn p dOQ NS OL .N 'y:. C' .� C N ',m V. '(J N 0.5:E d, ..a' a. N. d 0 N N 0 '0 '- -"'a U.'.. 'ea N. > fa c •o o 0 .o c v , c o Q, 0' 0 ❑ )n a 3 .N. L d ;� in d Y _.N IT o N c o 'a :0) 7Q C 0 '- O` .C :V. U N :O j N d t:O) N r, :47 C '� .� od•U i� m .tO �, r _ E Q > c _ . ai '.3 y, 2 d O . ,T o o Q o. ,� ..m • m m B' m o H .2 n tp .N 'Q' d d « c- j N I C c. an d « d « a, z. 'a 27 .o p b0 cc a •a .a 0 0 '(O 0 'W J C, d '0 .0- '0 a C. ',m ,U '2 U w d• N d O °m U o co 111I 'T L.75 • U I- U I- O N co V N to n W a O N. M V b. (O r. c0 O) N N N N O N a❑ 0 co 0 0 N 6 1 ,U C to . I O 2 y • C 0 ism I y N . co d m F • II N N C N E E O m a; m oN W W 0® a. it • [ E V 4 iipE AL;"" • j (y .� �'' co m O a" rci ° • p .. 5 2 to a Q o o— N m Q C m • N N m m E !S. 2 o• CC, C U m •_ C to m O U, 'o c e C .O_ C C° 0 o m m� O N J�� O .� O • - - -O m• E m �. ,.a m. .m- Q w m m b 0) m U •m' > Ix' c. o m - 'm o 0 m m !c. t m m «' - o 0) • U) < m U m `J N` T V 'C Q• In.>w m ' m •y' m, c N O N �` 7 • m e m m m `m m -a, 'o a m m �' m �u d 0 C. E •- '> m m 'm 7 °' C C m. d .a' d '� d =' a Z' O C' ! .=0 Z m a a a m �o 0 w it ;d 0 a U. a. y on 0 2 0 CO N o Y V - m m C m O r ul F d O 0 m I pp II ipI = 0 N n 'o .n <° Ir CO (�. °. 1� IN �. 9�'. CO (Ir �m „rn 1N.ER,. �N 0.0 • • `I U 10 9 co. O (Nil n i <11 • I i ic i 4 hull :: - - Iol .o O • o N o Y o N • I F !p N N- c E E I • N N N o'. I n X' m N W u— @ - �B W ❑ `a Q j c • fled GO t'l 0 . 1 [ • � u m U .� a O a® E ;7 q U • 5555 E D •� 111 NV I Ic I' 3 O E > . m o 'O K N C T V o I 0 c N 0 O' E 2 o m m ° .o �. ¢ ,� m :ea w > im>8 . p 0) p g w a U > K c o d o Oa, m aoi o '''''';E: 3 N 7'5 8:8°02( o CO o p o o 5:=;21 H 6. . c o- � d m � c c � M• a, E 0 U C Q p N d d 0 �, N O N. ` 6 C O A al N d O - W a' N a' a U co .N N N N d G. O c Ot N T N 2, 0. = -0 T O O A w K a .a n_ co w O W J a -U a U �:. N [D U U W• yb m .W 0. U) fi y i zo U- N N i ii 0 I 1R I II I F ❑_T IN fM a Ln �o r m Im o N IN in Ia Ian I<o r m Irn o 'N IN o m a❑ • I II U1 O' o) RI' ,I N dl; a: II 1 iII I l U OI Jil -)I a) C■ O` m C O OI, N N 0 Nall • H 2 0 CO CO C II E E EN • m co N X z 0 OI W W ❑ TS, a ES _I en ° Nil 4, 1 [ � ° �au co ,.. 6 "0 R U E 7 a7 c E v i-, _ o m N el -1) ; ° a I0I • M N a ' c J 4l. y co . O N N O '00 0 I- In 6 d c J co D.. O U 0 U c C co c c c c 4 c E2 w .Q v y >' rn. .0 m 0 m c o rn 1 cE 16 a_ 0 K K. a m o ..Q ❑ �0 ❑ rn 0 rn Q T.) - 0 ._ c'. .0. 0 c .y, m o > > 00 0$ .0 c o I- , 0 B "' E' 22 O T U C a. O E. N E N 0 N 0 'N' 2. d o IP E go .:�' a a n U N W E a .c co a ¢ a c a U a c r v N7' > N d d aT. Z O > C O_) d .T. d ._P. d ` -O IC. O L O yl I _K a s d;�,O pc (0 C7 W J K d U O_ U d y (0 i.21%. O '(/) y 0 0 C Nm m O N n Fla ❑ O o . co N� �IIIIIIIII�I III�IIIII ��NN��t1ItINI I� L ❑:.- IN co p0 10 I(O Ir co 1'.O !10 II 11" III III i, IIO I-- Ia IO N N N N W❑