HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017.10.24 AWAC Agenda AS LAND WATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER: 4:00 PM, Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 26, 2017
IV. PUBLIC FORUM
V. WATER MASTER PLAN— CONSERVATION MODEL
A. Presentation and run through of conservation model
VI. AWAC CHARGE
A. Discuss current charge of group
VII. NOVEMBER/DECEMBER MEETING DATES
A. Recommend postponing next meeting until January due to holidays
VIII. ADJOURNMENT: 6:00 PM
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND WATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE
September 26t",2017
These minutes are pending approval by this Committee
CALL TO ORDER
John Williams called the meeting to order at 4:03 PM
Committee Members Present: Darrell Boldt,Joe Graf, Rich Miller, Pat Acklin,Alex
Amarotico, Kate Jackson, John Williams(chair), Don Morris, Michael Morris(Council
liaison)
Committee Members Absent: Donna Rhee
Staff present: Tami De Mille-Campos, Scott Fleury, Steve Walker, Michael Morrison,
Greg Hunter, Kevin Caldwell, Julie Smitherman, Paula Brown
Staff absent: None
Consultants: Jeff Ballard (RH2)
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Paula Brown gave background on herself and the committee then gave around the
room introductions.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 27, 2017
Boldt/Graf m/s to approve minutes.Approved unanimously.
PUBLIC FORUM
None
NEW 2.5 MGD WATER TREATMENT PLANTICROWSON II RESERVOIR PROJECT
UPDATE
Brown shared with the committee that she has been back as Public Works Director for
three weeks and one of the things she asked about when she became Director was
where are we and what has been happening. In the past three weeks a few things have
happened which brings her to recommend taking a pause and allow time to finish the
siting study which should be finalized before the next meeting. Keller and Associates
lost an intricate member of the group and because of this staff felt it was appropriate to
part ways with Keller and look at what phase II brings.With phase II we need to look
closer at what problem the committee is looking to solve and why we would want to
build a new plant while continuing to operate the old plant. She is a bit perplexed as to
why we would operate two plants for a town of our size. She is proposing a phase II for
the committee which would be a much deeper review and would include hiring a new
consultant to evaluate our existing plant from the standpoint of what lifespan does that
plant have left and what risks currently exist and look at what is fiscally responsible.
Brown said a lot has changed since the committee re-formed,one of the biggest things
is we now have TAP(Talent Ashland Phoenix Intertie). Brown would like the committee
to look at what the policy is for using TAP and what is the realistic expectation for TAP.
She wonders how we should best use it, if we are"paying for it' maybe we should be
using it more than we are. She feels there should be a more detailed analysis and
doesn't feel we have the necessary information right now to move forward with a new
plant. Brown questions if the old plant won't last longer than ten years, should we decide
to scrap it and just build a new one or if it turns out that the existing plant will last twenty
years, then it may be a good deal to keep the old plant and not build a new plant. If the
old plant will last between ten and twenty years for a reasonable price then that is a
debate we may need to have. She suggests that we spend roughly fifty to seventy five
thousand to do a detailed study of a fifty year time period and what the costs of
retrofitting the old plant would be versus building a new plant. This study could take
three to six months with a new consultant. She is going to put together an RFP(request
for proposal) before the next meeting. commented[Tci]:This is still being worked on and
pending a cost analysis.
There was discussion amongst the committee regarding what has transpired since the
committee began its work and Brown said she had a pretty good handle on what this
committee has been looking at and in her discussions with support staff she has looked
at risk versus affordability and she doesn't feel comfortable moving forward without
taking a deeper look at what is best for the community. Acklin shared when they came
up with the plan they didn't think there was a good enough solution to the flooding,
landscape, seismic issue and they felt like that was a precarious place for the sole
treatment plant to be,the thinking was that we have to find another location at some
point because it is susceptible. She agreed that several things have changed since they
made their original recommendations, including TAP. She also feels if we do not know
more about what citizens are willing to conserve we will know a lot more in the future as
a result of the computer modeling which is currently underway. While this committee
has discussed TAP, they have been circular discussions and the committee hasn't
necessarily arrived at a conclusion for how often we use it. She feels it would be foolish
to not stop and look more carefully. Graf shared he thought the vision of this committee
always was that there would be one plant(the new plant)and the recommendation that
came out was a compromise because there was a lot of difficulty amongst the
committee in regards to TAP and other things. They landed on 2.5mgd largely because
that was the average winter consumption. He doesn't think anyone had any desire in
operating two plants long term. Williams shared that for him the idea of a new treatment
plant came out of an economic analysis and when looking at the cost of continuing to
use the old treatment plant, given the information that was available at that time, it was
so close to the cost of building a new treatment plant with the additional advantages of a
new treatment plant that was a no brainer for him and that is why he supported that
recommendation. Brown said she would love to have a new 7.5mgd treatment plant that
does everything we want it to but she would be remiss in not taking these options and
the various cost options to City Council. Jackson shared as a continuing member of this
committee she feels we need to understand how the decision was made, she can't
recall how they decided, other than what Graf eluded to which was there was a lot of
disagreement. She's wondering how the committee should reopen the discussion
without revisiting all of the old arguments. Councilor Morris recalled at the Council level
the discussion was all about the redundancy of running two plants. He shared that he
never saw enough of the technical side. His personal opinion is he has always felt that
Ashland's problem isn't the impoundment of treated water but it is more the
impoundment of untreated water(reservoir) but he never saw real numbers on that at
the council level. Boldt shared that when the committee started this process there were
two key factors they were keeping in mind were reliability and redundancy and based on
the information they spent a lot of time looking at different options for conservation and
with climate change coming along we know that is going to be even more critical. The
information they got on the existing plant all weighed into the fact that it has a limited life
span that won't be easily extended which then made a lot more sense to phasing the
old one out and building a new plant.The redundancy part of the equation was TAP and
now that TAP is in place this changes the equation. He is never opposed to going back
and revisiting something just to verify that we are going in the right direction. He agrees
with Brown's recommendation to step back and make sure the right decision is being
made and it is justifiable.
Brown estimated this cost analysis would probably take three to six months and cost
maybe fifty to seventy-five thousand. Ballard said a seismic evaluation creates a whole
different level of evaluation. Williams said there was a lot of talk about how much money
was going to need to be spent on keeping the old plant going and it was adding up and
they just want to make sure that even if it does have some lifespan left that it makes
financial sense. Brown doesn't believe we have spent bad money at the existing plant
and this plant has served the city well through three floods in recent history, there is
capacity that may be untapped and there are risk issues that haven't been fully
addressed but we owe it to the community to spend the money wisely. Graf said he
expected this committee would have to wrestle with the notion of a 2.5mgd plant and it
sounds like this is the data staff feels they need in order to make a recommendation and
he is fully supportive of moving ahead with this study. He also indicated he has always
thought operating two plants is a bad idea.Acklin said as she remembers the process,
Pieter Smeenk was instrumental in helping us get what we needed out of Carollo.
Brown said the information we have from Carollo and Keller is great information and not
something you throw out but she isn't sure if it went deep enough, but we can go
deeper. Brown will draft the phase II RFP and hopefully get it out for publishing before
the next committee meeting. If there are things that she missed we will bring it back and
get those added. She will give an update to the City Administrator and then the plan
would be to take it to the November 6, 2017 Council Study Session for their input. The
committee voiced unanimous agreement for Brown to draft the phase II RFP.
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE
Jeff Ballard, Rh2 Engineering passed around a handout(see attached)and Brown
passed around the original committee charter(see attached).
Ballard shared they have all the information they need and the modeling is going
through the final steps of calibration and then they will move on to the system
evaluation. They are in the process of working with the conservation consultant and
should be able to bring that information to the October meeting. He is continuing to build
the Water Master Plan Update document itself, but the conservation element will be a
big part of it. Thus far there haven't been many surprises, there could be some zone
change recommendations made but other than that the system is fairly simplistic with
the water all flowing downhill.
Ballard presented the Level of Service Goal recommendations(see attached),those
shown in red are his recommendations.
Walker shared that cross-connection (backflow)is really important to make sure we
don't have a user who infects the entire supply. Currently we satisfy the Oregon Health
Authority regulations requirement which is that we have a database that tracks the
testing of the backflow devices that we know of in town. One of the areas that this
community hasn't gotten to is going around property by property and identifying hazards
on that property and ensuring the homeowner has the proper level of protection
installed. That is a huge task and politically it is a hot topic if not handled properly, there
is a lot of public outreach to be done to ensure it is handled properly. He said that is a
pretty simplistic explanation of it but he hopes this is something we can take a look at in
the future. Brown said in addition to the water plant having cross connections,the waste
water plant also has cross connection issues. She thinks we will at some point be
asking Council to update the ordinances to give the City permission to monitor, check
and report on every residential backflow situation, along with the public outreach
component which the water conservation division has already been trying to do when
they are out with property owners doing irrigation audits.
Acklin asked what the potential is to have power generated with all of our gravity flow.
Ballard answered that we started to go down that path as part of the water master plan
update, he isn't against evaluating it but where they landed is that within the existing
system we have limited locations where there is steady flow which is needed to
generate good power. They City's system operates on pressure reducing valves
(PRV's)so it allows water to come through as there is demand, you need a large
volume of water at a consistent flow rate. There are places where you could generate
power but it comes down to cost effectiveness. Graf said with the Climate Energy Action
Plan (CEAP)we are going to desperately being looking for ways to save energy and
this may come up again because we may come up against a limit as to where we are
going to save. Brown said she would like to explore that but that would be a future
phase to the plan.Williams said we spent a lot of time talking about a fifty year climate
prediction study for our watershed and staff may want to research and see if they did a
more recent study during the CEAP process. Ballard said they are using updated
climate data for the supply model and so we will want to make sure to have that
conversation at the end of next month to make sure we are consistent with what
Williams is talking about.
Brown asked the committee to review the original committee charter(year 2010
estimate) handout between now and the next meeting and come back to the next
meeting with any questions or comments.
Meeting adjourned at 5:40 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Tami De Mille-Campos
Public Works Administrative Supervisor
ASHLAND WATER REUSE AND CONSERVATION STUDY
WATER MASTER PLAN
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
CHARTER
..........
PURPOSE:
Ashland is committed to undertaking an integrated Water Reuse and Conservation
Study and Water Master Plan Water Program) to address long-term grater supply
including luding climate change issues, security and redundancy, watershed health,
conservation and reuse, and stream health. The Water Pr gran will address Ashland's
multiple grater sources & multiple options for combining them to meet demands while
considering climate change, improving reliability of supply and increasing environmental
stewardship. The-purpose of the Ashland Water Advisory Committee i'tt is to provide a link
with the community and to involve impacted persons and interest groups with Ashland's
Neater Supply Planning Program and Utility. The -Advisory Committee will provide
critical local input to the planning and policies that will guide the Water Supply Utility t
defining goals, objectives and rate structure.
DUTIES:
Identify and prioritize community issues, goals, and concerns related to the-Water
Master Plan including grater conservation, grater recycling, public health protection,
grater supply reliability, and water quality.
2. Work with City staff, the Technical Review w-Committee, and the consultant-team t
adopt level of se-rwce-goals for the Neater Master Plan.
3. Review planning alternatives--- and planning recommendations and comment on
their ability to satisfy the established level of service goals- and address- other
identifiedcomm-unity g als, issues, and concerns. ._
. Assist in gaining community input into the planning process- and educating the
community about grater planning issu s.
AUTHORITY.
The Ashland Water Advisory Committee A IAC is to be established in accordance
with-Ashland's committee policies and will be in existence throughout development n t
implementation of the program. The purpose- of this Committee is to serge as an
advisory group to the City and its water staff. As such, its authority will be limited d t
collecting information, conducting analyses and making recommendations. All position
statements r recommendations f the Committee mitt will be trans itt d by its Chairman t
the City Council.
ORGANIZATION:
The AEI AC will be-chaired by a person [appointed by the Mayor r] s6l t d- by
fellow
Task Force members. The Chairperson will establish the ruffs of order and conduct all {
meetings. Each member will have one vote except for the Chairperson who will serge
as a non-voting member except in the case of ties. City staff will provide direct support
to the Committee and its Chairperson.
A Technical Review Committee consistingf the Director f the Talent Irrigation .
District
the Ashland Water Department Project Manager,r, Treatment Plant Operator, Distribution System Operator and Water r Conservation Officer will provide technical support, input
i
and oversight to the AWAC.
It is anticipated that the Committee will meet approximately once every two months over
the next 16 months. The day of creek and time for meetings rill be established by the
Task Force at its initial meeting. The actual date of each meeting will be set by the
Chairperson. As the program takes Sharpe additional meetings or subcommittee
meetings may -be requested by the Chairperson. An initial schedule for cony ?t
p committee
meetings,with suggested agendas is attached.
The agenda for each meeting will be established the Chairperson and distributed d to
each member prig to the meeting. Suggestions for agenda items may be made to the {
Chairperson by any member. A majority of the total n .rnb r of Task Force members
may amend the agenda at any meeting.
Position-statementsregarding issue papers must be a rolled b ar -majority of the
p p � ty total
-number of Committee members.
The Chairperson wil-I document issues raised-by the Committee as well as a-ray recom-
mendations from the Comm ttee .are -transmit them to the City. Meeting summaries Will
be kept by Project--staff and transmitted with the agenda and supporting materials to
each member prior to the subsequent meeting. All summaries or other written
comn-runications from the Committee nay..be amended with approval of a majority f the
total number of Committee members,,
r
Members of the Com m ittee gill_not be compensated for their s rvloes or the expense of
attending meetings.
REPRESENTATIOW.Lsuggested
City Council Member; Neig hbo-rhood Community Group ; School District Committee;
Ashland Downtown Association; Chamber of Commerce, Home Builders Association;
Ashland os ita 1, Ashland Fire Department;ent; WISE Project, Ashland Coalition, utility
System Development Charges S C Committee, League of Women ea oters,
Environmental Groups , others.
Suggested Committee size of 9.
PROPOSED MEETING SCHE LEITOPI : (suggested)
• February — Kick--off, Intro to Program and background, Intro to Level of Service
Goads
April — Finalize Level of Service Goads
.dune—Water Rights, Environmental Impacts, Climate Charge
• August—Supply Alternatives
October -Alternatives Analysis and Selection Workshop
* December— Draft Water Reuse and Cnsrvartion Study
• February — Draft Plaster Plan and S C R -tes
• April — Final Meeting
PROPOSEID ASSOCIATED MEETINGS: (suggest d
• March — Public Dearing (-Program Intro and Public Listening Session)
• May — Report to City Council
• September— Public Hearing (Program Update and Listening Session)
• I em er— Report to City Council
• Aril --Final Report to City Council
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
��IIII
IE; N G II IN E E R
P L. A N N 1E°
II E III i SIT S
ENGINEERING,
September 26, 2017 Ashland Water Advisory Committee
���l��.uIII �:,�;,�� N111,,I���:.1I�ww�,,l,.i Meeting Talking Points
Level of Service (LOS) Goals Discussion
2.3 WCRS LEVEL OF SERVICE GOAL
WASHINGTON LOCATIONS
Table 2.1 Selected LOS Goals
IIII I��I���u°"'IIII°°'�°°°�IIIIIIIIIIII'IIII IIII
lii%114 OFFICI''''' Goal Area Goal
°';i'"�1`�,IL.:'rive°i!III: &w,ftir��G';1" Iwo
II °wN 1 �� W,111.\9IO2:°II
Water System Have sufficient supply to meet projected demands that have
Capacity reduced based on 5 percent additional conservation base year
2009. However, City will have a goal of achieving 15 percent
conservation.
IIIIIIIIIIIII!' °"'IIII°°'WHiLik""'IIII""'C°°°IIIIIIIIIIII'IIIIIIIIIIII
Water System Community will accept curtailments of 45 percent during a severe
IIIIIII! lulll Reliability drought. The City will prioritize source
drought conditions.
IIII III IIII A 1111
Water System Implement redundant supply project to restore fire protection and
Illy""IP11PIII' Redundancy supply for indoor water use shortly after a treatment plant outage.
Supply ADD with redundant supply.
OREGON LOCATIONS Regulatory Meet or exceed all current and anticipated regulatory requirements
Requirements including crosss.
III)I� RTI A,14
III woN"'Hand„I'1i'l I
IIII IIII IIII��'���w��'IIIIII°IIII''���
09/26/17 1:35 PM Z:\BOTHELL\DATA\COA\1016-096 WMP 2016\MEETING DOCUMENTS\TALKING POINTS AWAC 5.23.17.DOCX
19 11 LOC Goals AWAC
q E- September 26, 2017
u w
Page 2
2.4.1 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM PIPING
Table 2.2 Distribution System Criteria
Parameter Criterion
Minimum Service Pressure under Peak Hour Demand 30 psi
Minimum Service Pressure under Peak Day Demand plus Fire Flow 20 psi
120 High Pressure Limits
Pipe Velocity Maximums
• During normal operation 5 fps
• During emergency conditions 8 p S
sizedAll new mains providing fire flow will be
flow at a minimum residual pressure of 20 .
lines• Residential shall be looped 8 -inch min
business• Commercial, , industrial and school areas shall ®-
Isolation inch min
S will be installed in the lines to allow individual pipelines to be 1000 ft max
shut down for repair or installation of water appurtenances. A minimum of
three valves will be provided per cross and two valves per .
City.Individual pressure reducing valves must be installed in all customer service Pressure > 80 psi
lines in the
dwellingsFire Hydrant Spacing
• Fire hydrants serving detached single-family or duplex Travel path < 300'
hydrants• Fire not serving detached
single-family
09/26/17 1:35 PM Z:\BOTHELL\DATA\COA\1016-096 WMP 2016\MEETING DOCUMENTS\TALKING POINTS AWAC 5.23.17.DOCX
19 11 LOC Goals AWAC
q L- September 26, 2017
��� u� �r��������w� Page 3
2.4.2 PUMP STATIONS
Table 2.3 Pump Station Evaluation Criteria
Parameter Criterion
Supply Maximum Day Demand to service zone assuming
Capacity for service levels with storage the single largest capacity pump is off line (i.e., firm
facilities capacity)
Capacity for service levels with no storage Supply Peak Hour Demand and fire flow assuming the
facilities single largest capacity pump is off line (i.e.,firm
capacity).
Power Supply New pump stations require a main power source and
an emergency source.
Secondary power source for new pumps stations to be
sized to meet full pump station demands.
C
ity will plan and design facilities to optimize energy
efficiency
09/26/17 1:35 PM Z:\BOTHELL\DATA\COA\1016-096 WMP 2016\MEETING DOCUMENTS\TALKING POINTS AWAC 5.23.17.DOCX
19 11 LOC Goals AWAC
q L- September 26, 2017
u w
Page 4
2.4.3 PUMP STATIONS
Table 2.4 Storage Evaluation Criteria
Parameter Criterion
0.25 x Maximum Day Demand of the area served by each
Operational Storage reservoir
Evaluate actual operating storage volume (based
station start/stop levels)
Equalization Storage ES = (PHD
- ,
but in no case less than zero
Where:
ES=Equalization Storage in Gallons
PHD = Peak Hour Demand, in
Qs = Sum of all installed and active sources,
except
emergency supply,
in gpm
Fire Storage Provide volume for single most severe required fire flow
and duration for each reservoir service area.
System-wide, provide volume for two largest fires.
Emergency Storage 0.5 x Maximum Day Demand of the area served by each
reservoir
nestingNesting. The City will allow f fire flow and emergency storage
system.exiting storage facilities throughout the
Emergency Storage. With the establishment supplies, does the City
sufficient emergency storage.?
09/26/17 1:35 PM Z:\BOTHELL\DATA\COA\1016-096 WMP 2016\MEETING DOCUMENTS\TALKING POINTS AWAC 5.23.17.DOCX
rl
r*4
0
U
O
/ i
........ ......... ........ ........ ........ ......... ........ ........ ........
� j r
(/�
66
M
........ ......... ......... ........ ........ ........ ........ ......... ........ ......... ........ ........ ........ ......... ........ ........ ........ ........ ......... ........
=3
cu
Q)
Q)
Qj -0cn
E Q) >0 0- Q)
Ln
4.j
Ln +.j
ca
4=J >- ra 3
0
V }, Ln
CL) ul
0 Q) CL L40 Cr C
>-
(1)
4-A
>
U-
E E
0 Q) > 4-J CL
Q) (A D
0
> U Q)
E
Q) E Q)
> 4-J b-0 u u
Q0 ro
LU 0 ro
raO u > C:
ro c (1) bn ra (IJ
(D ru
0 4-J
0 LU m 0
+j ro 0 Ln 4-j
=3 >
C: 0 E +-j w w E
0 0
o
0 QJ
=3 cr W m w
LU
UO LU (1) Q) 0
ro
rO =3 4-J x Q) ra
DC ,76 U) —
(2) Q)
cl� CL — +5 4-J Q) jZ Q) O O (u -C 0
0
4-)
0
w w 0 W bz 0 U Ln
C u E o
CL) (L)
-0 o U Lf) 4-J 0
_0
E
_0 4-J 0 >
U 1—0 61 1 (ul
N (A > -S
Ln Ul =3
M Ln M m 06
M oC U w — L- 0) (1) 0 =3 u V)
Q) -J ro 0 E 2 0 -i Ln u u Lh a LU
ul—i Ul) Ul)
0 N ro Ln Q0 r*-,. 00 Ql 0 Ln il-0 r*-". 00 m 0 =3
Ln Q0 r,%%,"Oo 0) r-i r-i r-i r-i r-i r-i, r-i r-i N N N N N N N N N N m Ln
ca...................
0
V)
0
r1i
r-i
0
r*4
Cc o
4-1
f� d � R io r'
u
> o 0
VI N � r-4 Ln ONCI
0 - 00 C*4 w L r-4 r--,.. win
C 3 N O ukk 0 m N N M r'-4 W
r*4
0
Q O pp
C"i N Ill oo o
ate+ � 1£0 70 0, 0 0 n 0
a 0 0 N o a`
0 N Jill 64% 1;4- 1% Ln
Ln Ln
0
N y m E rn o0 0 .tiLin r,,4, *ONON
Lr) Lr)
< 3 udi o
o
Lr) N 41* 0
M
ro L-
czV d
E
C 3 �
� � � .a 00 00 00 N,,o No00 0 V-4 a Ln
00 Ln
0
00 0 rj M rn
� � a
t.0 N CY)
u aa+ m CY) in CY)
'0 3 a N � Owl. V)
M
.O } o N o �
0
0
Ln
_0
I�
r-I
0
O O }' }' }'
U U O
N _
.0 E .0 ,c C6 C6 C6 0
u
a� a�
E
C: C =3
ra
E °
a) w v
Ln -0 Ul � Q Q Q
ra v v
0 0
v o -0 v � m
Q _ +J +_ � U
_ U _ U _ N _
v 1 ca .v L a to co
U W
ca v ra ,� v ca E c6 E ca E ca
aA O `U t�0 N Co v ca N c6 - v
.� o � � L � � L- nA � � nA � � no � �
2 U Q U Q
I
V � 6V0 Z
e
L170 Z
CL
e o
Si70 Z
oil" EtO Z
cu "I e %11
Zi7OZ
o
0: 6E 0 Z
IIIIIIIIIIVV� 40
0 LEOZ
SEOZ
". Z E 0 Z
NQ
6ZOZ
e O,
01,
40 LZOZ
40
SZ 0 Z
o Ni °
Vliuuimu \ E Z 0 Z
1 TZOZ
O 4
6Z0Z
LIN
luma
liuumu 0
SZ 0 Z
w
EZOZ
IIIIIIIIIIV """" �
Iluuu
I„� V
ul� ZZOZ
u�
�m���uw�� �IIIIOWIIIIIIIIOWIIIIIIOWIIIIIIIIO
600 Z c�
IIIIIII Iuul
L00 Z
n
I _
S00 Z a�
O
0
o 0 0 0 0 0 0
r-I Ln
•
Projected Demand
,,,LANES, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Cost Effectiveness
Demand Projection Cost Effectiveness
Average Demand Demand Projection Program A 10% Program B 15% Program C 23%
Historical Average without Plumbing Average Demand Average Demand Average Demand Average Demand
Demand Code with Plumbing Code with Plumbing Code with Plumbing Code with Plumbing Code
Year (mg/year) (mg/year) (mg/year) (mg/year) (mg/year) (mg/year)
2005 11220
2006 1,251
2007 11218
2008 1,196
2009 11073
2010 950
2011 943
2012 969
2013 1,059
2014 968
2015 990
2016 11000
2017 11080 11080 11070 11070 11070
2018 11085 11083 11063 11060 11059
2019 11091 11085 11062 11055 11055
2020 11096 11088 11059 11042 11026
2021 11102 11091 11057 11032 11001
2022 1,107 11093 11055 11023 976
2023 11113 11096 11053 11014 952
2024 1,118 11099 11051 11005 929
2025 1,124 11102 11050 11003 927
2026 11130 11105 11048 11001 925
2027 11135 11108 11048 11000 924
2028 11141 11111 11048 11000 924
2029 11147 11114 11048 11000 924
2030 1,152 11118 11051 11002 926
2031 1,158 11121 11053 11004 928
2032 1,164 1,124 11056 11007 931
2033 119170 1,127 11059 11009 933
2034 119176 11131 11062 11012 936
2035 11181 11134 11065 11015 938
2036 11183 11133 11064 11014 937
2037 11184 11132 11063 11012 936
2038 1,185 11132 11062 11011 935
2039 1,186 11131 11061 11010 933
2040 1,187 11130 11060 11009 933
2041 1,189 1,130 11059 11008 932
2042 11190 11129 11058 11007 931
2043 11191 11128 11057 11006 930
2044 11192 11128 11056 11005 929
2045 11193 11127 11056 11004 928
2046 11195 11126 11055 11003 927
2047 1,196 11126 11054 11002 927
2048 1,197 11125 11053 11001 926
2049 1,198 1,125 11053 11001 925
2050 119199 1,124 11052 11000 924
DSS Model: Demand Table Preliminary Draft October 17, 2017