My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2004-176
CBCC
>
Official Documents
>
2000's
>
2004
>
2004-176
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/13/2016 10:17:15 AM
Creation date
9/30/2015 7:52:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Official Documents
Official Document Type
Application
Approved Date
07/20/2004
Control Number
2004-176
Agenda Item Number
11.J.3
Entity Name
St. Johns River Water Management District
Subject
Alternative Water Supply Construction
Cost-Share Program Application Form 2004-2005
Grand Harbor Mosquito Impoundment
Mangrove Restoration
Archived Roll/Disk#
3210
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
4194
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
SJRWMD Alternative Water Supply Construction Cost-Sharing Application Form 2004-2005 <br /> pilot project, clearly distinguish the water savings of the pilot project from the future full-scale <br /> project. Also, for reclaimed water system extensions, clearly described how the water savings was <br /> determined. <br /> Cost per million gallons per day (mgd) $11216,700.00 <br /> Example Calculation <br /> Total construction cost for Project A (should be the same as listed in B. 1) $338,365 <br /> Amount of alternative water supply developed with Project A (mgd) 0.326 mgd <br /> (Explain how this was estimated.) <br /> Dollar cost per mgd for Project A: $338,365 divided by 0.326 mgd = $927,027/mgd <br /> 6c. If applicable, will the project have meters for individual users or efficient zone management via <br /> meters? Yes No�_ <br /> Provide explanation or describe other methods used for managing the alternative water supply <br /> efficiently. <br /> EVALUATION FACTORS related to question 11-6: <br /> a. Will water from this project directly and effectively take the place of an existing or proposed <br /> higher quality water source? b. Will the project be cost-effective? c. Will the project use the new <br /> alternative water supply efficiently? 0-20 points. Based on rater's assessment of the effectiveness and <br /> efficiency of the project at saving potable water and apparent relative cost-effectiveness. Because of the great <br /> variation in types of projects, calculations of cost-effectiveness for widely dissimilar projects, such as urban <br /> reuse and agricultural freeze protection ponds, will not be directly compared. <br /> Does the project contribute to recovery of violated minimum flows or levels? This will be determined <br /> for you by SJRWMD staff. 040 points. Yes = 10; no = 0. <br /> A-5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.