Community Program Community Program Advisory CommitteeAdvisory Committee

Monday, January 10, 2005Monday, January 10, 2005

Today’s MeetingToday’s Meeting

• Program Update

• Results of Ottawa River LTCP meeting

• Overview of Maumee River CSO alternatives

• Next Meeting

Program UpdateProgram Update

• Bay View

• River Road

• Point Place

• General

Results of Ottawa River Results of Ottawa River LTCP meetingLTCP meeting• Like idea of flow reduction/rerouting. Understand difficulty of managing the program.

• Like “green solutions,” but understand that they are typically just an enhancement.

• Reducing – better yet, eliminating – overflows to the river is important.

• Concerned that some untreated overflows may still occur with some of the options.

Results of Ottawa River Results of Ottawa River LTCP meeting continuedLTCP meeting continued• Some confusion that the construction projects at

Bay View won’t take care of problem.

• Do not like the idea of using Joe E. Brown Park.

• Like the idea of using old Jeep plant, old Chevy plant in Ottawa River area.

Maumee River/ Swan Creek Maumee River/ Swan Creek AlternativesAlternatives

• Maumee River/ Swan Creek CSO control alternatives are under development

• Alternative concepts will be presented to the public for initial input on January 24 and February 10, respectively

• Today’s presentation is a partial preview of the information to be presented to the public

Assistance neededAssistance needed

• The project team is evaluating alternatives from a regulatory, technical and cost perspective.

• We need input on • Items of concern that are identified by the CPAC –

particularly items of neighborhood concern

Maumee Maumee River & River & Swan Swan Creek Creek CSOsCSOs

CSO CSO Overflow Overflow FrequencyFrequency

Type of AlternativesType of Alternatives

• Alternative selection is a combination of performance and suitability considerations. There are a number of types of alternatives.

CSO Control OptionsCSO Control Options

• There are three basic control options• Storage (holds excess flow until capacity is

available)• Treatment (cleans flow before it is discharged –

disinfects and removes pollutants)• Separation (provides new sanitary or storm

sewers so that combined sewers are eliminated)• Flow reduction/ rerouting can enhance the

above options

Storage / Treatment Basic Storage / Treatment Basic InformationInformation

• Type of facilities: either concrete tanks or tunnels

• Type of treatment: screening (minimum), potentially disinfection

• Land area required: 3 – 10 acres• Typical siting locations: waterfront property,

parks, other vacant parcels near rivers• Other requirements: some sewer work to bring

flow to the site

Storage FacilitiesStorage FacilitiesStorage alternatives can be below grade as basins or Storage alternatives can be below grade as basins or tunnels. Generally some access hatches or support tunnels. Generally some access hatches or support structures are present.structures are present.

Storage/ Treatment Storage/ Treatment Facilities Pros and ConsFacilities Pros and Cons

• Pros• Most work is limited to one location and the

adjacent areas are not disturbed• Water is either stored (small storms) or partially

treated (large storms)

• Cons• Treatment generally requires construction of a

relatively large building.• Construction activities are generally 2 – 3 years in

duration limiting the use of sites during that period.

Treatment FacilitiesTreatment Facilities

Three large treatment facilities in the Detroit Three large treatment facilities in the Detroit Area. These facilities generally require a Area. These facilities generally require a fairly large building.fairly large building.

Sewer Separation BasicsSewer Separation Basics

• Constructs a new sewer to separate flow

• Generally requires 3 – 6 months to complete work on a street; 1 – 2 years to complete work in an area

• Generally doesn’t involve land acquisition

Sewer Separation Pros and Sewer Separation Pros and ConsCons

• Pros• Upgrades the sewer system

• Eliminates CSO discharges

• Doesn’t require property

• Cons• May increase total load of pollutants to the

waterways• Disruptive to individual property owner

Sewer SeparationSewer Separation

Sewer separation requires construction of new Sewer separation requires construction of new sewers in areas where a single pipe system existssewers in areas where a single pipe system exists

Flow Reduction / Rerouting Flow Reduction / Rerouting Pros and ConsPros and Cons

• Pros• Addresses problem at the source

• Could be considered best environmentally

• Could reduce basement or surface flooding

• Cons• Generally not adequate to solve the entire

problem• Most disruptive to individual property owner• Administratively intensive program

Flow Reduction / Flow Reduction / Rerouting PhotosRerouting Photos

EPA CriteriaEPA Criteria

• The EPA’s primary concern in other CSO Plans around the country is the frequency at which CSOs discharge

• EPA generally wants to see control of bacteria

• Other items of concern to EPA• Volume of discharge• Pollutants in discharge• Measureable impacts on waterways

Storage or Storage or Treatment Treatment Alternative Alternative (Basins)(Basins)

Storage Storage Alternative Alternative (Tunnels)(Tunnels)

Hybrid Hybrid Alternative Alternative (Storage or (Storage or Treatment; Treatment; Partial Sewer Partial Sewer Separation; Separation; Management Management Techniques)Techniques)

Siting Issues/ ConcernsSiting Issues/ Concerns

• Consider• Areas of open space (sites), reasonably close to

outfalls• Current use of existing sites & associated impacts

due to construction or long term use• Ownership of sites• “Fatal flaws” such as environmental or geotechnical

issues• Opportunities for secondary benefit – e.g.

brownfield reuse, coordination with other projects

Potential SitesPotential Sites

• Potential sites• Potential sites have been identified based on location

of open space• Currently evaluating the feasibility of these sites• No decisions have been made about the use or non

use of any site

Potential Sites – Storage or Potential Sites – Storage or TreatmentTreatment

Potential Sites – Storage or Potential Sites – Storage or TreatmentTreatment

Potential Sites – Storage Potential Sites – Storage or Treatmentor Treatment

Potential Sites – Storage Potential Sites – Storage or Treatmentor Treatment

Potential Sites – Storage Potential Sites – Storage or Treatmentor Treatment

Potential Stormwater Potential Stormwater DetentionDetention

Potential Stormwater Potential Stormwater Detention; ReroutingDetention; Rerouting

Evaluations Are ContinuingEvaluations Are Continuing

• Additional cost development and comparison to benefits

• Better definition of potential sites and discussions with property owners/ operators

• Development of tunnel storage option

• More technical evaluations (will support cost assessment)

Public MeetingPublic Meeting

• Objective for Public Meeting• Provide information to the public on the potential

impacts to them during construction/ post construction

• Describe the benefits to the river from various alternatives

• Discuss the public preference for various alternative types (storage/ treatment/ separation)

• Present information on the variation in project cost versus project benefit

Next meetingNext meeting

• Other issues

• Next meeting date, time