DOCSLIB.ORG

Process Control Improvements SEPA Checklist

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Process Control Improvements SEPA Checklist Budd Inlet Treatment Plant Process Control Improvements SEPA Environmental Checklist October 2015 LOTT Budd Inlet Treatment Plant Process Control Improvements This page left intentionally blank. LOTT Budd Inlet Treatment Plant Process Control Improvements TABLE OF CONTENTS A. BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................................... 3 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS ........................................................................................................... 6 1. Earth ..........................................................................................................................................6 2. Air ..............................................................................................................................................7 3. Water .........................................................................................................................................8 4. Plants ......................................................................................................................................10 5. Animals ...................................................................................................................................11 6. Energy and Natural Resources ...............................................................................................12 7. Environmental Health ..............................................................................................................13 8. Land and Shoreline Use ..........................................................................................................15 9. Housing ...................................................................................................................................16 10. Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................17 11. Light and Glare ........................................................................................................................17 12. Recreation ...............................................................................................................................17 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation ...........................................................................................18 14. Transportation .........................................................................................................................20 15. Public Services ........................................................................................................................21 16. Utilities .....................................................................................................................................21 C. SIGNATURE .............................................................................................................................................. 21 SEPA Environmental Checklist Page | i This page left intentionally blank. SEPA Environmental Checklist Page | ii LOTT Budd Inlet Treatment Plant Process Control Improvements A. Background 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Budd Inlet Treatment Plant Process Control Improvements 2. Name of applicant: LOTT Clean Water Alliance 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Matt Kennelly Engineering Project Manager LOTT Clean Water Alliance 500 Adams Street NE Olympia, WA 98501 (360) 528-5750 4. 4. Date checklist prepared: October 14, 2015 5. Agency requesting checklist: LOTT Clean Water Alliance (LOTT) 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction is currently expected to commence in June of 2018 with substantial completion to occur in October of 2019. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. This project is part of a broader improvement plan to enhance treatment processes at the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant, increase the reliability of treatment, and maintain LOTT’s facilities at optimal operational efficiency. Some projects have been completed over the past several years. Related projects are detailed in the Budd Inlet Treatment Plant Master Plan published in 2006. (LOTT Alliance, 2006). 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The following studies have been conducted for the project site, but are not specific to this project: • Notice of State Environmental Policy Act Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) LOTT Alliance Budd Treatment Plant Master Plan, 2007 SEPA Environmental Checklist Page | 3 LOTT Budd Inlet Treatment Plant Process Control Improvements • Budd Inlet Treatment Plant Master Plan- Primary Sedimentation and Biological Treatment Facilities: Biological Assessment and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment, 2008 (LOTT Alliance, 2008a) • Budd Inlet Treatment Plant Master Plan- Primary Sedimentation and Biological Treatment Facilities: Facilities Plan Environmental Report, 2008 (LOTT Alliance, 2008b) 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. There are no such applications at this time. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. The project will require: • Floodplain Permit, City of Olympia • Construction Permit, City of Olympia • Design Review, City of Olympia • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Baseline Construction General permit, Ecology 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The Budd Inlet Treatment Plant (Plant) provides wastewater treatment capacity for approximately 50,000 homes, apartments, and commercial/industrial connections in the LOTT service area (LOTT Alliance, 2008a). In response to increased performance requirements, and increasingly stringent discharge limits, the project would streamline the current biological treatment process to increase energy efficiency, improve operational flexibility, and improve the reliability of nitrogen removal at the Plant. The project also replaces aging equipment that is reaching the end of its useful life. The location of the Plant and the proposed improvements are shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3. The Plant’s current biological treatment system operates as a four-step process consisting of: 1) first anoxic basin; 2) first aeration basin; 3) second anoxic basin; and 4) second aeration basin. Nitrogen is selectively removed biologically by exposing the wastewater to controlled alternating anoxic and aerobic environments, which allow nitrification and denitrification to occur sequentially. The existing biological treatment system has met discharge requirements. However, the facilities are expensive to operate and consume large amounts of energy. Although the treatment plant currently treats wastewater to the most stringent standards on Puget SEPA Environmental Checklist Page | 4 LOTT Budd Inlet Treatment Plant Process Control Improvements Sound, even lower nitrogen limits may ultimately be required to achieve compliance with the ongoing Total Maximum Daily Loading (TMDL) effort for the Deschutes/Budd Inlet Basin. Therefore, LOTT has decided to take proactive measures to ensure its compliance. The project would reconfigure the existing first aeration basins, reducing the energy required to accomplish biological nutrient removal. The improvements would also include replacing oversized blowers and minimizing recycle pumping, which would reduce power consumption. In addition, the project would optimize methanol addition to the secondary process, enabling more precise control over the nutrient removal process. All process improvements at the Plant would be located within the existing site footprint, as shown on Figure 2. Major design components to be included in the improvements consist of the following (Figures 2 and 3): 1. Upgraded aeration control. Upgrades include new air control valves, expanded instrumentation, a revised control strategy, and a diffuser grid reconfiguration. 2. Expanded blower capacity. The capacity of aeration blower system would be expanded to provide full redundancy at the peak condition. A long-term plan for blower expansion and control integration would be developed to include upgrades to substation G/H to accomodate the new requirements. 3. Upgraded process control instrumentation. Process control instrumentation would be expanded and upgraded to include several in-situ probes, to monitor raw effluent and primary effluent, as well as operational processes in the aeration basins. All of these probes would occur within the Plant, and would involve minimal construction. 4. In-tank internal recycle and swing selector zones to include mixing capability where necessary. 5. Automated flow control gates. Flow control gates in the reconfigured First Aeration Basin, as well as in the Second Anoxic and Final Aeration basins would be upgraded to motorized models which would facilitate safe and reliable operation. 6. Foam trapping
Load more

Recommended publications
  • M Street to Israel Road Feasibility Federal Aid #: STPUS-5235(015)
    CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT COVER SHEET Author: Carol Schultze and Chrisanne Beckner Title of Report: Cultural Resources Inventory for the Capitol Boulevard – M Street to Israel Road Feasibility Federal Aid #: STPUS-5235(015) Phase 1 - Capitol Boulevard/Trosper Road Intersection Improvements Project, City of Tumwater, Thurston County, Washington Date of Report: July 2017 County(ies): Thurston Section: 34, 35Township: 18NRange: 2W Quad: Olympia and Maytown Acres: 53 PDF of report submitted (REQUIRED) Yes Historic Property Inventory Forms to be Approved Online? Yes No Archaeological Site(s)/Isolate(s) Found or Amended? Yes No TCP(s) found? Yes No Replace a draft? Yes No Satisfy a DAHP Archaeological Excavation Permit requirement? Yes # No Were Human Remains Found? Yes DAHP Case # No DAHP Archaeological Site #: Submission of PDFs is required. Please be sure that any PDF submitted to DAHP has its cover sheet, figures, graphics, appendices, attachments, correspondence, etc., compiled into one single PDF file. Please check that the PDF displays correctly when opened. Cultural Resources Inventory for the Capitol Boulevard - M Street to Israel Road Feasibility Federal Aid #: STPUS-5235(015) Phase 1 - Capitol Boulevard/Trosper Road Intersection Improvements Project, City of Tumwater, Thurston County, Washington Submitted to: SCJ Alliance (SCJA) Submitted by: Historical Research Associates, Inc. Carol Schultze, PhD, RPA Chrisanne Beckner, MS Seattle, Washington July 2017 This report was prepared by HRA Archaeologist Carol Schultze, PhD, RPA, who meets the Secretary of the Interior's professional qualifications standards for archaeology, and Chrisanne Beckner, MS, who meets the Secretary of the Interior's professional qualifications standards for architectural history. This report is intended for the exclusive use of the Client and its representatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report
    Final Draft THURSTON COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE Inventory and Characterization Report SMA Grant Agreements: G0800104 and G1300026 June 30, 2013 Prepared By: Thurston County Planning Department Building # 1, 2nd Floor 2000 Lakeridge Drive SW Olympia, WA 98502-6045 This page left intentionally blank. Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1 REPORT PURPOSE .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATES FOR CITIES WITHIN THURSTON COUNTY ...................................................................... 2 REGULATORY OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................. 2 SHORELINE JURISDICTION AND DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................................ 3 REPORT ORGANIZATION .................................................................................................................................................. 5 2 METHODS ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 DETERMINING SHORELINE JURISDICTION LIMITS ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • South Puget Sound Forum Environmental Quality – Economic Vitality Indicators Report Updated July 2006
    South Puget Sound Forum Environmental Quality – Economic Vitality Indicators Report Updated July 2006 Making connections and building partnerships to protect the marine waters, streams, and watersheds of Nisqually, Henderson, Budd, Eld and Totten Inlets The economic vitality of South Puget Sound is intricately linked to the environmental health of the Sound’s marine waters, streams, and watersheds. It’s hard to imagine the South Sound without annual events on or near the water - Harbor Days Tugboat Races, Wooden Boat Fair, Nisqually Watershed Festival, Swantown BoatSwap and Chowder Challenge, Parade of Lighted Ships – and other activities we prize such as beachcombing, boating, fishing, or simply enjoying a cool breeze at a favorite restaurant or park. South Sound is a haven for relaxation and recreation. Businesses such as shellfish growers and tribal fisheries, tourism, water recreational boating, marinas, port-related businesses, development and real estate all directly depend on the health of the South Sound. With strong contributions from the South Sound, statewide commercial harvest of shellfish draws in over 100 million dollars each year. Fishing, boating, travel and tourism are all vibrant elements in the region’s base economy, with over 80 percent of the state’s tourism and travel dollars generated in the Puget Sound Region. Many other businesses benefit indirectly. Excellent quality of life is an attractor for great employees, and the South Puget Sound has much to offer! The South Puget Sound Forum, held in Olympia on April 29, 2006, provided an opportunity to rediscover the connections between economic vitality and the health of South Puget Sound, and to take action to protect the valuable resources of the five inlets at the headwaters of the Puget Sound Basin – Totten, Eld, Budd, Henderson, and the Nisqually Reach.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Eye of the European Beholder Maritime History of Olympia And
    Number 3 August 2017 Olympia: In the Eye of the European Beholder Maritime History of Olympia and South Puget Sound Mining Coal: An Important Thurston County Industry 100 Years Ago $5.00 THURSTON COUNTY HISTORICAL JOURNAL The Thurston County Historical Journal is dedicated to recording and celebrating the history of Thurston County. The Journal is published by the Olympia Tumwater Foundation as a joint enterprise with the following entities: City of Lacey, City of Olympia, City of Tumwater, Daughters of the American Revolution, Daughters of the Pioneers of Washington/Olympia Chapter, Lacey Historical Society, Old Brewhouse Foundation, Olympia Historical Society and Bigelow House Museum, South Sound Maritime Heritage Association, Thurston County, Tumwater Historical Association, Yelm Prairie Historical Society, and individual donors. Publisher Editor Olympia Tumwater Foundation Karen L. Johnson John Freedman, Executive Director 360-890-2299 Katie Hurley, President, Board of Trustees [email protected] 110 Deschutes Parkway SW P.O. Box 4098 Editorial Committee Tumwater, Washington 98501 Drew W. Crooks 360-943-2550 Janine Gates James S. Hannum, M.D. Erin Quinn Valcho Submission Guidelines The Journal welcomes factual articles dealing with any aspect of Thurston County history. Please contact the editor before submitting an article to determine its suitability for publica- tion. Articles on previously unexplored topics, new interpretations of well-known topics, and personal recollections are preferred. Articles may range in length from 100 words to 10,000 words, and should include source notes and suggested illustrations. Submitted articles will be reviewed by the editorial committee and, if chosen for publication, will be fact-checked and may be edited for length and content.
    [Show full text]
  • Budd Inlet Model Analysis
    Capitol Lake and Puget Sound. An Analysis of the Use and Misuse of the Budd Inlet Model. 8. REFERENCES. AHSS 2014. “Alliance for a Healthy South Sound” meeting, July 17 2014. Ahmed, Anise and Greg Pelletier. 2014. Presentation to AHSS group, July 17 2014; cites an updated Redfield ratio (mass C to mass N in organic matter) as 7x; that is, mg C = 7x mg N. (See AHSS 2014 above) Ahmed, Anise, Greg Pelletier, Mindy Roberts, and Andrew Kolosseus. 2013. South Puget Sound Dissolved Oxygen Study. Water Quality Model Calibration and Scenarios. DRAFT. Wa. State Dept. of Ecology Olympia, WA. (SPSDOS 2013. I refer to the draft issued for external review October 10, 2013. I have not seen the final product.) Ahmed, Anise, Greg Pelletier, and Mindy Roberts. Pers. comm. March 20, 2014. Response to questions by D. H. Milne. With copy to Lydia Wagner, Department of Ecology Water Quality Program. Aura Nova Consultants, Inc., Brown and Caldwell, Evans-Hamilton, J. E. Edinger and Associates, Ecology, and the University of Washington Department of Oceanography. 1998. Budd Inlet Scientific Study Final Report. Prepared for the LOTT Partnership, Olympia, Washington. (The “BISS Report.”) BISS Report 1998. Budd Inlet Scientific Study. See Aura Nova Consultants … above. CH2M-Hill (consultants) 1978. Water Quality in Capitol Lake. Olympia, Washington. A Report prepared for the State of Washington Departments of Ecology and General Administration. Ecology Publication no. 78-e07. June, 1978. Clark, Dave [HDR, Spokane Office]. 2016. Pers. Comm. to R. Wubbena (CLIPA) January 28, 2016. CLIPA (Capitol Lake Improvement and Protection Association) 2010. Historic photos on CLIPA website.
    [Show full text]
  • Changes in Water-Associated Bird Abundance on Budd Inlet and Capitol Lake, WA from 1987 to 2017
    CHANGES IN WATER-ASSOCIATED BIRD ABUNDANCE ON BUDD INLET AND CAPITOL LAKE, WA FROM 1987 TO 2017 by Tara Newman A Thesis Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Environmental Studies The Evergreen State College June 2018 ©2018 by Tara Newman. All rights reserved. This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree by Tara Newman has been approved for The Evergreen State College by ________________________ John Withey, Ph. D. Member of the Faculty ________________________ Date ABSTRACT Changes in water-associated bird abundance on Budd Inlet and Capitol Lake, WA from 1987 to 2017 Tara Newman The abundance of water-associated birds has been changing around the world in recent decades. Population trends vary by species and by location, and likely contributing factors are changes in food source availability and environmental contamination. While some studies have been done in the Puget Sound region, research has not yet investigated population trends locally on Budd Inlet and Capitol Lake in Olympia, Washington. Capitol Lake is an artificial reservoir that was created by constructing a dam preventing flow of the Deschutes River into Budd Inlet, and because of the unique characteristics and history of these sites, there may be factors that influence bird populations locally in ways that are not observed at the regional scale. This analysis seeks to fill the knowledge gap about this local ecosystem by using generalized linear models to determine the direction and significance of changes in water-associated bird abundance on Budd Inlet and Capitol Lake from 1987 to 2017, focusing on surface-feeding ducks, freshwater diving ducks, sea ducks, loons, and grebes.
    [Show full text]
  • Shellfish at Work – Reducing Nutrient Pollution in the Budd Inlet Watershed
    Final Project Report- Shellfish at Work – Reducing Nutrient Pollution in the Budd Inlet Watershed National Estuary Program (NEP) Toxics and Nutrients Award No. G1300037 Prepared for Washington Department of Ecology Post Office Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Prepared by 120 State Avenue NE #1056 Olympia, WA 98501 December 2014 This project has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under Puget Sound Ecosystem Restoration and Protection Cooperative Agreement grant PC-00J20101 with Washington Department of Ecology. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Suggested citation: Pacific Shellfish Institute. 2014. Shellfish at Work – Reducing Nutrient Pollution in the Budd Inlet Watershed. Final Project Report for National Estuary Program Toxics and Nutrients Award No. G1300037. Prepared for the Washington Department of Ecology by Aimee Christy, Bobbi Hudson and Andrew Suhrbier of the Pacific Shellfish Institute, Olympia, WA. December 2014. 80pp. Shellfish at Work (NEP #G1300037) Final Report-- i Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 3 History of study area ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • It's 1841 ... Meet the Neighbors
    IT'S 1841 ... MEET THE NEIGHBORS 8. KAI-KAI-SUM-LUTE ("QUEEN") (?1800 -1876 Mounts Farm, Nisgually, WT) In July of 1841, a group of sailors from the Wilkes Expedition were guided from Fort Nisqually to the Black River by an older Indian woman they referred to as the "squaw chief." She was the niece of Chief Skuh-da-wah of the Cowlitz Tribe, and was known as Kai-Kai-Sum-Lute or Queen. Queen agreed to furnish the American NO explorers with horses, a large canoe and ten men to carry supplies overland. She PICTURE kept her promise. As Commander Wilkes wrote, the success of the mission was YET "owing to the directions and management of the squaw chief, who seemed to exercise AVAILABLE more authority than any that had been met with; indeed, her whole character and conduct placed her much above those around her. Her horses were remarkably fine animals, her dress was neat, and her whole establishment bore the indications of Indian opulence. Although her husband was present, he seemed under such good discipline as to warrant the belief that the wife was the ruling power. .. " At the end of July, the expedition again wrote about Queen. She came to their aid during a severe wind storm at Grays Harbor, taking the sailors safely to a less exposed shore in her large canoe. More than a decade later, George Gibbs, an ethnologist who was present at the Medicine Creek Treaty negotiations in 1854, spoke of this important Nisqually woman. He transcribed her name as Ke-Kai-Si-Mi-Loot, and recorded several Indian legends she related.
    [Show full text]
  • Budd Inlet Model Analysis
    Capitol Lake and Puget Sound. An Analysis of the Use and Misuse of the Budd Inlet Model. David H. Milne PhD February, 2016. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. The Washington Department of Ecology’s Report, “Supplementary Modeling Scenarios” purports to demonstrate that Capitol Lake’s effect on Puget Sound lowers the dissolved oxygen content of Sound waters and is responsible for violations of water quality standards there. The Report presents outputs of a complex computer simulation, the “Budd Inlet Model,” that are said to support the authors’ claims. That is not the case. In fact, errors and shortcom- ings aside, data in the Report, not recognized even by its authors, support the view that Capitol Lake’s effects on Puget Sound are actually beneficial. The following problems with the Report are noted. (There are others, too many for a single page summary.) 1) Water Quality standards violations in Capitol Lake itself were vastly overestimated; 2) The calculations of Total Organic Carbon (from plant growth) entering the Sound from the Lake or Estuary scenarios overstate the amount of TOC in the Lake case and understate it in the Estuary case; 3) An inappropriate technique was used to calculate East Bay water residence times; 4) The authors mistakenly assume that Capitol Lake’s ecology is phosphorus limited and base several pages of irrelevant discussion and calculation on that assumption; 5) The Budd Inlet model produces many demonstrably wrong answers where compared with observed data; yet the authors consider every dissolved oxygen calculation accurate
    [Show full text]
  • Study of Cultural & Spiritual Values Associated with Future Alternatives
    Study of Cultural & Spiritual Values Associated with Future Alternatives for Capitol Lake Basin January 5, 2009 Prepared by AHBL, Inc., for the Department of General Administration AHBL, Inc ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS State of Washington Staff Donovan Gray, Historic Preservation Planner, State Capitol Campus Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Nathaniel Jones, Senior Planning and Asset Manager, Department of General Administration Capitol Lake Adaptive Management Plan (CLAMP) Advisory Committee Neil McClanahan, CLAMP Chair, City of Tumwater Joe Hyer, City of Olympia Martin Casey, Department of General Administration George Barner, Port of Olympia Jeff Dickison, Squaxin Island Tribe Richard Blinn, Thurston County Water and Waste Management Department Sally Toteff, Washington State Department of Ecology Michele Culver, Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife Todd Welker, Washington State Department of Natural Resources Consultant Team AHBL Inc., Prime Consultant Julia Walton, AICP, Principal‐in‐Charge Betsy Geller, Project Manager and Primary Author Irene Tang Sparck, AICP, Project Planner and Contributing Author Allan Ainsworth, Ph.D., Anthropology Subconsultant Cover Photo: The USS Constitution sailing out of Deschutes River Basin, c. 1933 Source: Unknown 2 January 5, 2009 Study of Cultural & Spiritual Values Associated with Future Alternatives for Capitol Lake Basin Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 5 I. Introduction .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map 72
    WASHINGTON DIVISION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES GEOLOGIC MAP GM-72 Maytown 7.5-minute Quadrangle February 2009 123°00¢00² R 3 W R 2 W 57¢30² 55¢00² 122°52¢30² 47°00¢00² 47°00¢00² GEOLOGY PLEISTOCENE GLACIAL DEPOSITS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Phillips, W. M.; Walsh, T. J.; Hagen, R. A., 1989, Eocene transition from oceanic to arc volcanism, Qgt af Qp Qgos Qa Qgos southwest Washington. In Muffler, L. J. P.; Weaver, C. S.; Blackwell, D. D., editors, Proceedings Glacial ice and meltwater deposited drift and carved extensive areas of the southern Puget Vashon Recessional Outwash, Nisqually/Lake St. Clair Source This project was made possible by the U.S. Geological Survey National Geologic Mapping Qp Qgok of workshop XLIV—Geological, geophysical, and tectonic setting of the Cascade Range: U.S. Qgt Qgos Lowland into a complex geomorphology that provides insight into latest Pleistocene glacial Program under award no. 07HQAG0142. Geochemical analyses were performed at the Qa Qgok Five trains of recessional outwash from the Nisqually/Lake St. Clair area have been noted by Geological Survey Open-File Report 89-178, p. 199-256. processes. Throughout the map area the many streamlined elongate hills (drumlins) reveal Washington State University GeoAnalytical Laboratory. We thank Kitty Reed and Jari Roloff Walsh and Logan (2005). They are, from youngest to oldest, units Qgos, Qgon4, Qgon3, Pringle, P. T.; Goldstein, B. S., 2002, Deposits, erosional features, and flow characteristics of the late- Qgos Qgok the direction of ice movement. Mima mounds (Washburn, 1988) cover parts of the for their editorial reviews of this report and Anne Heinitz, Eric Schuster, Chuck Caruthers, Qa Qgon2, and Qgon1.
    [Show full text]
  • Budd Inlet Scientific Study: an Overview of Findings
    LOTT August 2000 Wastewater Resource Management Plan Budd Inlet Scientific Study: An Overview of Findings The LOTT Partners – Lacey, Olympia, Tumwater, and Thurston County – have invested over $3 million in an 18-month long scientific study of Budd Inlet. The results helped show to what extent Budd Inlet could be relied upon for continued and/or expanded discharge of the community’s treated wastewater flows in the future. If environmentally acceptable, additional winter discharge could offer a comparatively low cost way to gain reserve capacity as LOTT moves toward new wastewater recycling options. The scientific study final report was published in August 1998, and findings are also summarized in LOTT’s Wastewater Resource Management Plan. Summary of Study Findings The Budd Inlet Scientific Study is designed to answer several questions What’s Inside? which are key to LOTT’s Wastewater Resource Management Plan. The following presents a capsule summary of some answers offered by the Budd Inlet’s “Bathtub Theory” is Down the Drain ....... page 2 study: • Initial modeling results confirm that increased winter LOTT discharge Beachcombers Contribute to Budd Inlet Study .......... page 2 won’t harm Budd Inlet. Dissolved oxygen levels and other key water Study Pinpoints Bacteria Sources ............................... page 3 quality factors will remain largely unchanged. • Circulation in Budd Inlet is much stronger than previously under- Dissolved Oxygen Impacted by Plankton Growth ...... page 3 stood. Follow the Nutrients ................................................. page 3 • Circulation is good in both winter and Sediments Don’t Muddy the Waters .......................... page 3 summer months – it takes just 8 to 12 Scientific Information Collected days to replace the for Budd Inlet Study .................................................
    [Show full text]