3.A.3.2.d Hot spots (Russia)
Name Type Importance Indices Nature of Investment Transboundary Aspect(s) Preliminary Estimated Financial Requirement
Public Health Drinking Water Quality Aquatic Life Recreation Other Beneficial Uses Welfare and Economy Weighted Total Relative Importance Index
Rostov-on-Don Domestic 4 4 2 2 1 6 16,1 100 WWTP Extension F, H, B, L, P $21,000,000
Taganrog Domestic 4 3 2 3 1 5 15,1 94 WWTP Extension F, H, B, L, P $13,000,000
Sheskhoris Oil 2 1 4 5 1 6 15,1 94 WWTP Rehabilitation F, H, A $6,500,000
Azov Domestic 3 4 3 3 1 4 15,0 93 WWTP Extension F, H, B, L, P $10,500,000
Tuapse Port 2 1 4 3 1 5 12,9 80 WWTP Construction F, H, L, A $1,400,000
Anapa Domestic 2 2 1 2 1 2 8,3 52 WWTP Extension F, H, B, L, P $4,000,000
Gelendzhik Domestic 2 2 1 2 1 2 8,3 52 WWTP Extension F, H, B, L, P $4,000,000
Dzhoubga Domestic 2 2 2 2 1 1 8,3 52 WWTP Extension F, H, B, L, P $3,100,000
Transboundary Aspects: F = Fishing H = Habitat B = Biodiversity
L = Landscape A = Accidents P = Public Health

See also

3.A.3.2.d Hot spots (Russia)
3.A.3.2.a Hot spots (Bulgaria)
3.A.3.2.b Hot spots (Georgia)
3.A.3.2.c Hot spots (Romania)
3.A.3.2.e Hot spots (Turkey)
3.A.3.2.f Hot spots (Ukraine)
3.A.3.1 Hot spots overview
3.A.3.2 Hot spots (summary)
3.A.3.3 Estimated operation and maintainance cost