2012 ACJ Annual Report Drafted 04-01-13 by Onondaga County Save the Rain

Onondaga County, New York ACJ 4th Stipulation 2012 Annual Report Joanne M. Mahoney, County Executive

Prepared for

Onondaga County, New York Prepared by

April 2013

Salina Industrial Power Park, One General Motors Drive Syracuse, New York 13206 - Ph: 315/434-3200 - Fx: 315/463-5100

April 1, 2013

Ms. Valarie Ellis Stephenson Onondaga Lake Monitor New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) 615 Erie Boulevard West Syracuse, NY 13204-2400 Re:

2012 Annual Report, ACJ Fourth Stipulation

Dear Ms. Stephenson, On behalf of Onondaga County, please find attached, for your approval, three (3) copies of the 2012 Annual Report. Each report includes a CD-ROM with electronic versions of the report and appendices.

Sincerely,

Christopher Schmidt CDM/C&S cc:

Tom Rhoads, Commissioner, OCDWEP (hard copy) Samuel Sage, ASLF (hard copy) Kenneth Lynch, P.E., NYSDEC - Region 7 (e-copy via email) Mark Klotz, NYSDEC – Albany (e-copy via email) Mary Jane Peachey, NYSDEC – Region 7 (e-copy via email) Scott Crisafulli, NYSDEC – Albany (e-copy via email) Thomas Vigneault, NYSDEC – Region 7 (e-copy via email) Joseph Zalewski, NYSDEC – Region 7 (e-copy via email) Debra Banks, NYSDEC – Region 7 (e-copy via email) Kathleen McGrath, NYSDEC/CNYRPB (e-copy via email) Norman Speigel, NYS Office of Attorney General (e-copy via email) John Davis, NYS Office of Attorney General (e-copy via email) Matt Millea, Onondaga County Executive Office (e-copy via email) David Coburn, Onondaga County Office of the Environment (e-copy via email) Gordon Cuffy, Onondaga County Attorney (e-copy via email) Kathy Dougherty, Onondaga County Law Department (e-copy via email) Luis Mendez, Onondaga County Law Department (e-copy via email) Carrie Vanderhoof, NYSEFC (e-copy via email)

Ms. Valarie Ellis-Stephenson 2012 ACJ Annual Report Page 2 of 2 Jimmy Ng, NYSEFC (e-copy via email) Mike Lannon, OCDWEP (e-copy via email) Nick Capozza, OCDWEP (e-copy via email) Jeanne Powers, OCDWEP (e-copy via email) Janaki Suryadevara, OCDWEP (e-copy via email) Hongbin Gao, ASLF (e-copy via email) Chuck Dworkin, ASLF Counsel (e-copy via email) Douglas McKenna, USEPA – Region II (e-copy via email) Seth Ausabel, USEPA – Region II (e-copy via email) Christopher Deere, USEPA – Region II (e-copy via email) Michael Shaw, USEPA – Region II (e-copy via email) Diane Gomes, USEPA – Region II (e-copy via email) Larry Gaugler, USEPA – Region II (e-copy via email) Robert Kukenberger, CDM/C&S (e-copy via email) Robert Palladine, CDM/C&S (e-copy via email) Matthew Marko, CH2M HILL (e-copy via email) Rita Fordiani, CH2MHILL (e-copy via email) BJ Adigun, CH2MHILL (e-copy via email)

Table of Contents Appendices ............................................................................................................................................................... iii List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ................................................................................................................ iii Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... ES‐1 Section 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1‐1 1.1 The Fourth Stipulation of the ACJ ........................................................................................................... 1‐1 1.2 SPDES Permit Requirements .................................................................................................................... 1‐2 1.3 Report Sections ............................................................................................................................................... 1‐3 Section 2 CSO and Water Quality Monitoring ............................................................................................ 2‐1 2.1 Combined Sewer System Overview ....................................................................................................... 2‐1 2.2 CSO Monitoring ............................................................................................................................................... 2‐1 2.2.1 Work Completed in 2012 ........................................................................................................... 2‐2 2.2.2 Proposed Work for 2013 ............................................................................................................ 2‐2 2.3 Water Quality Monitoring .......................................................................................................................... 2‐3 2.3.1 Work Completed in 2012 ........................................................................................................... 2‐3 2.3.1.1 AMP (Tributary Sampling) ........................................................................................ 2‐3 2.3.1.2 AMP Modifications (Enhanced Tributary Sampling) ..................................... 2‐6 2.3.1.2 Microbial Trackdown Project ................................................................................... 2‐8 2.3.2 Proposed Work for 2013 ............................................................................................................ 2‐9 2.3.2.1 AMP Modifications ........................................................................................................ 2‐9 2.3.2.2 Sewer Separation Projects ...................................................................................... 2‐10 2.3.3 Overall Sampling Schedule ..................................................................................................... 2‐11 2.3.4 Reporting Requirements ......................................................................................................... 2‐11 2.3 CSO BMP Annual Report .......................................................................................................................... 2‐12 Section 3 SWMM Update ................................................................................................................................... 3‐1 3.1 USEPA SWMM 2009...................................................................................................................................... 3‐1 3.2 Summary of SWMM Updates .................................................................................................................... 3‐1 3.3 Baseline Annual CSO Capture ................................................................................................................... 3‐5 3.3.1 Comparison of Capture Results between Updated and Previous Models ................. 3‐5 3.3.2 Computation Methodologies ........................................................................................................ 3‐5 3.3.2.1 Previous Combined Sewage Methodology .......................................................... 3‐6 3.3.2.2 Updated Combined Sewage Methodology .......................................................... 3‐6 3.3.2.3 Comparison of Methodologies ................................................................................. 3‐7 3.4 2012 Conditions Model Update and Validation ................................................................................ 3‐7 3.4.1 Projects Included in the 2012 Conditions Model ................................................................ 3‐8 3.4.2 Green Infrastructure Modeling Methodology ....................................................................... 3‐8 3.4.2.1 USEPA SWMM’s LID Module ..................................................................................... 3‐8 3.4.2.2 GI Modeling Approach .............................................................................................. 3‐11 3.4.2.3 Constructed GI Projects ........................................................................................... 3‐12 3.4.3 Model Validation ............................................................................................................................ 3‐12

Table of Contents

3.4.3.1 CSO Flow Metering ..................................................................................................... 3‐12 3.4.3.2 Radar Rainfall ............................................................................................................... 3‐12 3.4.3.3 Validation Results ....................................................................................................... 3‐13 3.4.4 2012 Conditions Model Results ............................................................................................... 3‐13 3.5 Projection to 2018 Conditions ............................................................................................................... 3‐14 Section 4 CSO Project Status ............................................................................................................................ 4‐1 4.1 Gray Infrastructure ....................................................................................................................................... 4‐1 4.1.1 CSO 044 Conveyances...................................................................................................................... 4‐2 4.1.2 Harbor Brook Interceptor Sewer Replacement ................................................................... 4‐4 4.1.3 Clinton CSO Storage Facility ......................................................................................................... 4‐6 4.1.4 Lower Harbor Brook CSO Storage Facility ............................................................................. 4‐8 4.1.5 Sewer Separation of CSO Areas 022 and 045 ..................................................................... 4‐10 4.1.6 CSO 063 Conveyances Project ................................................................................................... 4‐12 4.1.7 Proposed New Projects for 2013 ............................................................................................. 4‐14 4.1.8 Gray Infrastructure O&M Requirements .............................................................................. 4‐14 4.2 Green Infrastructure .................................................................................................................................. 4‐15 4.2.1 Projects Completed through 2012 .......................................................................................... 4‐15 4.2.2 Projects Currently Under Construction ................................................................................ 4‐15 4.2.3 GI Projects Proposed for 2013 and Beyond ........................................................................ 4‐15 4.2.4 Gray Infrastructure O&M Requirements .............................................................................. 4‐22 4.3 Facility Planning .......................................................................................................................................... 4‐23 4.3.1 Floatables Plan ................................................................................................................................ 4‐23 4.3.2 CSO 022, 027, 029, 052, 060, 077 and 067 Facility Plan ............................................... 4‐24 Section 5 Public Outreach ................................................................................................................................ 5‐1 5.1 Save the Rain Program ................................................................................................................................. 5‐1 5.1.1 Branding ................................................................................................................................................ 5‐1 4.1.2 Public Outreach Activities ............................................................................................................. 5‐2 5.2 Project Specific Outreach ............................................................................................................................ 5‐3 5.3 Public Relations/Media/National Recognition ................................................................................. 5‐3 5.4 Signature Projects .......................................................................................................................................... 5‐4 5.5 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................... 5‐5 Section 5 Intergovernmental Cooperation ................................................................................................. 6‐1 6.1 City‐County Green Infrastructure Initiatives ..................................................................................... 6‐1 6.2 Public Private Partnership ......................................................................................................................... 6‐2 6.3 Inter‐municipal Agreements ..................................................................................................................... 6‐3 6.4 Ordinances ........................................................................................................................................................ 6‐4 Section 7 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 7‐1 7.1 CSO Compliance Schedule .......................................................................................................................... 7‐1 7.2 ACJ Milestone Compliance .......................................................................................................................... 7‐1 7.3 Program Assessment .................................................................................................................................... 7‐2 7.4 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................... 7‐3

Table of Contents

Appendices Appendix A – SPDES Permit #NY 002 7081 for Metro Appendix B – 2012 CSO Flow Monitoring Data for Representative CSOs Appendix C – AMP Tributary Non‐Compliance Summary Reports Appendix D – AMP Modifications 2012 Sampling Program Summary Appendix E – AMP April 2013 Quarterly Status Report Appendix F – AMP 2012 Annual Data Report Appendix G – 2012 CSO BMP Annual Report Appendix H – Review of Onondaga County’s SWMM Files, Model Updates, Calibration and Green Modeling Approach Appendix I – ACJ Quarterly Meeting Presentation Appendix J – 2012 Condition Model Validation Results

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ACJ AMP ASLF AWQS BMP cfs cfu CMOM CSO CSS DEC DPW EBSS EOY FCF GI GIF GIS HB HBIS HGL IMA Metro LC LF LHB LID

Amended Consent Judgment Ambient Monitoring Plan Atlantic States Legal Foundation ambient water quality standards Best Management Practices cubic feet per second colony forming units capacity, management, operation and maintenance combined sewer overflow combined sewer system New York State Department of Environmental Conservation City of Syracuse Department of Public Works Erie Boulevard Storage System end of year Floatables Control Facility Green Infrastructure Green Improvement Fund geographic information systems Harbor Brook Harbor Brook Intercepting Sewer hydraulic grade line Inter‐Municipal Agreement Metropolitan Syracuse Wastewater Treatment Plant Ley Creek linear feet Lower Harbor Brook Low Impact Development

iii

Table of Contents

LIDAR MG ml MIS N/A NEXRAD NOAA NRDC NTS NYS OC OCDWEP OEI PLC RDII RTC RTF SCADA SF SPDES STR SUN SWMM TBD TOGS USEPA WEF WERF

Laser imaging detection and ranging million gallons milliliters Main Intercepting Sewer not applicable Next‐Generation Radar National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Natural Resource Defense Council Not to scale New York State Onondaga Creek Onondaga County Department of Environmental Protection Onondaga Environmental Institute programmable logic controller Rainfall‐derived inflow and infiltration Real time control Regional Treatment Facility supervisory control and data acquisition square feet State Pollution Discharge Elimination System Save the Rain Syracuse United Neighbors the stormwater management model to be determined the Technical & Operational Guidance Series United States Environmental Protection Agency Water Environment Federation Water Environment Research Foundation

Executive Summary Save the Rain Program Onondaga County’s Save the Rain (STR) Program was created in response to Fourth Stipulation of the Amended Consent Judgment (ACJ), entered into by Onondaga County, New York State and Atlantic States Legal Foundation (ASLF) on November 16, 2009. The ACJ specifically identified Green Infrastructure (GI) as an acceptable technology to significantly reduce or eliminate the discharge of untreated combined sewage into Onondaga Lake (Figure ES‐1) and its tributaries, and bring the County’s effluent discharges into compliance with the applicable water quality standards for the receiving waters. The ACJ includes a phased schedule for Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) compliance (Table ES‐1) that uses an incremental approach to meeting the new goal of capture Figure ES‐1: Onondaga Lake for treatment or elimination of, within the meaning of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National CSO Policy, no less than 95 percent by volume of CSO by 2018. To meet this new goal the County initiated the “Save the Rain” program which will implement a combination of green and gray infrastructure that focuses on the removal of stormwater from the combined sewer system through Table ES‐1 CSO Capture Compliance Schedule GI, CSO storage with conveyance to the Compliance Percent capture Compliance deadline Metropolitan Syracuse Wastewater stage CSO by volume Treatment Plant (Metro), and elimination of CSO discharge points. Stage I 89.5 % December 31, 2013 Building on the success of the 2011 “Project 50” campaign, the STR program Stage III 93.0 % December 31, 2016 experienced another impressive year in 2012 with over 50 GI projects completed. Stage IV 95.0 % December 31, 2018 In addition, the County completed a number of gray infrastructure construction projects including the Harbor Brook Interceptor Sewer (HBIS) Replacement and CSO Abatement, CSO 044 Conveyances, and the CSO 022/045 Sewer Separation projects. Construction of the Clinton Street Storage Facility and Lower Harbor Brook Storage and Conveyances projects continued to progress towards the milestone completion date of December 31, 2013. Stage II

91.4 %

December 31, 2015

The NYSDEC also issued a new State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit for Metro on March 21, 2012. The permit requires the County to issue an annual report for CSO Best Management Practices (BMP) (Section VI.15) and CSO Compliance (Section X.C.1). As suggested in the new SPDES permit, the required information was compiled into this ACJ Annual Report to consolidate the submission of information rather than duplicate it.

ES‐1

Executive Summary

Combined Sewer System Overview The CSS tributary to Metro includes an area of 7,155 acres, or approximately 11 square miles. Dry weather flow from the two major combined sewer areas are transmitted to Metro via the HBIS and the Main Interceptor Sewer (MIS), with additional flow from the upper Butternut/Grant Trunk Sewer and the Hiawatha Trunk Sewer. During periods of heavy rainfall and snowmelt, the combined sewer system can become overwhelmed and the excess combined sewage is discharged to Harbor Brook, Ley Creek and/or Onondaga Creek. Table ES‐1 details the pre‐abatement and current number of active CSO locations, as well as drainage areas tributary to Metro and how the Metro drainage has changed since 1998, the inception of the lake cleanup program. The abandonment of two CSOs (022 and 045) in 2012 means the County has now abandoned 26 of 72, or 36%, of the Pre‐ACJ active CSO locations since 1998. Table ES‐2: Pre‐ACJ and Current CSOs and Drainage Basins Tributary to Metro Pre‐ACJ # of Active CSO Locations (1998)

Current # of Active CSO Locations

Combined Sewer Area (acres)

Percentage of Total Combined Sewer Area

Harbor Brook

1,384

19.3%

Onondaga Creek

5,527*

77.3%

Ley Creek

244

3.4%

Drainage Basin

Total 72 46 7,155 * Includes 175 acres of combined sewer area directly connected to the MIS.

100.0%

CSO Monitoring In accordance with the ACJ Fourth Stipulation and Order, Paragraph 14I, Determination of Compliance, the County installed flow meters at 11 representative CSOs by December 31, 2011, and in 2012 the meters were maintained and data was collected. The data was transmitted wirelessly and included depth in inches, velocity in feet per second, and flow rate in millions of gallons per day at each site recorded at 60‐minute intervals during dry weather and 5‐minute intervals during CSO discharge events. The remaining meter installations at CSOs 027 and 036 will be completed prior to December 31, 2013.

Water Quality Monitoring The 1998 ACJ required a series of improvements to the County’s wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure and an extensive Ambient Monitoring Program (AMP) to document the improvements achieved by these measures. One of the primary objectives of tributary monitoring is to collect data at the temporal and spatial scale required to assess compliance with ambient water quality standards in Onondaga Creek, Harbor Brook, and Ley Creek. The Metro SPDES, Compliance Action Section for Combined Sewer Overflows also requires sampling of each water body that

ES‐2

Figure ES‐2: EBSS CSO 080 outfall to Onondaga Creek.

Executive Summary

receives a CSO (Onondaga Creek, Harbor Brook and Ley Creek). The sampling locations are detailed in table ES‐3. Table ES‐3 Representative CSO Flow Monitoring and Sampling Locations Outfall

Receiving Water

Metering Device

Sampling Location

003

Harbor Brook

Flow Meter

FCF on Harbor Brook

004

Harbor Brook

Flow Meter/ Ultrasonic Level Sensor

Upstream side of Hiawatha Blvd. bridge Brook access at Fowler High School

014

Harbor Brook

Flow Meter

018

Harbor Brook

Flow Meter

Dam at end of DePalma Avenue (1)

027

Onondaga Creek

Flow Meter

Upstream side of Water Street bridge

030

Onondaga Creek

Flow Meter

Upstream side of Walton Street bridge

034

Onondaga Creek

Flow Meter

Upstream side of Dickerson Street bridge

036

Onondaga Creek

Ultrasonic Level Sensor

044

Onondaga Creek

Flow Meter / Ultrasonic Level Sensor

N/A N/A

052

Onondaga Creek

Flow Meter

Upstream side of West Colvin Street bridge

060/077 Onondaga Creek 063

Harbor Brook

(2)

Flow Meter (3)

Upstream side of South Avenue bridge (4)

Flow Meter / Ultrasonic Level Sensor

N/A Upstream side of West Genesee Street bridge

080 Onondaga Creek Flow Meter Note: (1) – Location requires manhole modifications and/or multiple meters (2) – Ultrasonic sensor to be activated after completion of gray infrastructure project (3) – Flow meters exist at both CSO 060 and 077 (4) – Permanent ultrasonic sensor to be installed after completion of the gray infrastructure project

As part of the routine AMP, Onondaga Creek; Harbor Brook; and Ley Creek continued to be sampled on a biweekly basis from January through December 2012. The 2012 AMP data confirm that ambient water quality standards (AWQS) for fecal coliform in most of the tributary influent streams, including the CSO streams, were exceeded. In urban waterways, bacteria can come from many sources: storm‐ water runoff, illicit discharges, leaking septic systems, sanitary sewer overflows, stream sediments, wastewater effluent, and leaking sanitary sewer systems. Some of these sources contribute pollutants during dry weather and some during wet weather. Sources of natural inputs include wildlife, birds, soil erosion, in‐stream bacterial growth facilitated by high summer temperatures and presence of decaying organic matter. Following the completion of the Gate Chamber modifications for EBSS in 2011, as required by the Fourth Stipulation of the ACJ, OCDWEP implemented a program, as part of the AMP Modifications, to evaluate in‐stream water quality conditions during CSO events and compare in‐stream water quality conditions during wet weather with the NYS Ambient Water Quality Standards (AWQS). Two (2) sampling events were conducted in May 2012, at evaluate the Onondaga Creek water quality at the Plum Street bridge sampling location, approximately 2,640 feet downstream of the EBSS outfall. Based on a compliance evaluation of the Fecal Coliform data collected during each of the two (2) sampling events, non‐compliance was indicated. Several sampling program changes are proposed for 2013, to determine if the discharge from the EBSS during the wet and dry weather events, is causing or contributing to a violation of the applicable AWQS in the receiving water. A study of pathogens in Onondaga Creek and Harbor Brook identified potential bacteria inputs into Onondaga Creek and Harbor Brook during dry weather in 2008 and 2009. As a result, an updated version of the Microbial Trackdown Phase II workplan, dated April 5, 2012, was prepared and

ES‐3

Executive Summary

implemented in 2012 to monitor presence of fecal coliform in Harbor Brook, Ley Creek, and Onondaga Creek, as a follow‐up to the findings of the Phase I study. Results of the study will be evaluated to identify potential contributions from point‐sources in Onondaga Creek, Harbor Brook and Ley Creek. Going forward the County will draft the 2013 Enhanced Tributary Sampling Plan consistent with the approach outlined in EPA’s “CSO Post Construction Compliance Monitoring Guidance” for review and approval and implement a post‐construction monitoring program to verify the separation of sanitary and storm flow performed under the CSO 022 and 045 Sewer Separation Project.

BMP Annual Report As a requirement of the Metro SPDES permit OCDWEP has prepared an annual report summarizing the implementation of the Best Management Practices listed on pages 16, 17, and 18 of the permit. This report discusses the implementation of the nine minimum controls and is attached to the ACJ as an appendix.

Stormwater Management Model (SWMM) Update In 2012, Onondaga County performed a comprehensive update to their USEPA SWMM 2009 baseline input files, in accordance with the Fourth Stipulation of the ACJ Paragraphs 14H (viii and ix) and I. The update included an upgrade to software version 5.0.022; the incorporation of the Low Impact Development (LID) module; and the inclusion of more accurate physical data, LIDAR topology, an aerial survey of imperviousness, USDA soil survey parameters, the 2012‐2013 regulator weir survey , ArcHydro sub‐catchment delineation, intra‐sub‐catchment routing, and real time control (RTC) programming. The model update documentation and re‐calibration of baseline (2009) conditions is described in Appendix H. In addition, the model upgrade updated the methodology used to calculate the total annual combined sewage volume collected. The previous methodology utilized a 110 percent straight‐line baseline was used to define the start of the collection of combined sewage volume which underestimated the collection volume by ignoring the portion of combined sewage volume that is conveyed and treated while the flow rate is less than 110 percent of peak dry weather flow (DWF). The updated model uses a dynamic baseline of 101 Figure ES‐3: Schematic of Annual Capture Based on 101% DWF Methodology (not to scale) percent of dry weather flow to determine the wet weather period as illustrated in Figure ES‐4. The improvements in computing techniques and computer technology make it common today in professional practice to use 101 percent (or even 100 percent) of DWF as a baseline while avoiding errors generated due to computer simulation.

ES‐4

Executive Summary

2012 Conditions Model Update, Validation and Results The 2012 conditions model was developed by adding gray and green projects constructed after December 31, 2009 to SWMM. These include sewer separation projects in the 013, 016, 017, 022 and 045 areas; the Harbor Brook Interceptor Sewer (HBIS) replacement project, the EBSS gate modifications, the CSO 044 conveyance project and Ninety‐seven (97) GI projects. The GI projects were simulated using the SWMM LID module or traditional methods that utilize SWMM model objects. The 2012 conditions model was then validated with 2012 flow monitoring data as well as radar rainfall data for a period of two (2) weeks from April 22 to May 8, 2012. Although the 2012 conditions model run slightly over‐predicts the overflow at most of the locations, the validation results, in general, show a reasonable fit. The 2012 conditions model results show the annual combined sewage volume capture increased by 133 million gallons due to the contributions from constructed green and gray projects since 2009 (Table ES‐4). As a result of this increased combined sewage volume capture, a total of 74 million gallons of CSO was eliminated since 2009, equivalent to a 1 percent increase in system‐wide capture. To evaluate CSO reduction contribution from GI, the 2012 conditions model results were compared to a model run without GI. Contributions from gray infrastructure were evaluated by comparing the 2012 conditions model results without GI to the updated 2009 baseline. The green and gray contribution results are shown in Table ES‐5. Table ES‐4: 2012 Capture Results

Average Annual Combined Sewage Volume Captured* or Eliminated** (MG) [1]

Additional Annual Combined Sewage Volume Captured by Green/Gray Infrastructure or Eliminated** (MG) [2]

CSO to Creek or Brook (MG) [4]

Total Annual Combined Sewage Volume Collected by the Metro Sewer Service Area (MG) [5] = [3] + [4]

Total Annual Combined Sewage Volume Eliminated** or Captured (MG) [3] = [1] + [2]

Percent Capture [6] = [3] / [5]

Hiawatha RTF

641

643

644

99.8%

Harbor Brook

931

950

165

1115

85.2%

EBSS

159

164

167

98.2%

Clinton

761

833

189

1022

81.5%

Franklin FCF

912

921

213

1134

81.2%

Maltbie FCF

87.5%

Midland RTF

1728

1732

1773

97.7%

Sewer Separation Areas

128

150

100.0%

Total

5337

133

5470

623

6093

89.8%

Sewer Service Area/ Proposed Facilities

* ‐ Conveyed to Metro or treated by RTF ** ‐ Eliminated by sewer separation

ES‐5

Executive Summary

Table ES‐5: Comparison of Green and Gray Infrastructure Benefits Between 2009 and 2012 SWMM Condition Average Annual CSO Reduction Captured for Treatment or Eliminated (MG)

Average Annual Stormwater Reduction Captured for Treatment or Eliminated (MG)

Average Annual Total Combined Sewage Volume Captured for Treatment or Eliminated (MG)

Green

Gray*

Total

133

Infrastructure

*Includes sewer separation

The Clinton Storage Facility, Harbor Brook Storage Facility, East Fayette Street Sewer Separation, and 94 GI projects are planned for the future, with some scheduled to be completed in 2013. Table ES-6 shows the projected numerical goals to reach 95 percent capture. Table ES‐6 Projection to 2018 Conditions

Metro Service Area

Total

[1]

[2]

[3] = [1] + [2]

[4] = [1] / [3]

Total Annual Combined Sewage Volume Captured for Treatment or Eliminated (MG)

CSO to Creek/Brook [MG]

Total Annual Combined Sewage Volume Generated by the Metro Combined Sewer Service Area (MG)

Percent Capture for Treatment at Metro or Eliminated

5788

305

6093

95.0

Gray Infrastructure Projects The ACJ requires the County to construct and commence operation of the specific gray infrastructure projects to assist with meeting the CSO capture compliance goals. The projects are listed in Table ES‐7 along with their specific milestone requirements and compliance status. Additional Gray projects underway, but not detailed in the ACJ are shown in Table ES‐8 Table ES‐7 ACJ and Additional Gray Infrastructure Milestone Schedule and Compliance Status Milestone Type Plans and specs to NYSDEC for review and approval Minor CSO 044 Conveyances Commence construction Minor Complete construction and commence operation Major Plans and specs to NYSDEC for review and approval Minor Harbor Brook Interceptor Commence construction Minor Sewer Replacement Complete construction and commence operation Major Plans and specs to NYSDEC for review and approval Minor Erie Boulevard Storage System Modifications Complete required modifications Major Plans and specs to NYSDEC for review and approval Minor Clinton Storage Facility Commence construction Minor Complete construction and commence operation Major Plans and specs to NYSDEC for review and approval Minor Harbor Brook Storage Commence construction Minor Facility Complete construction and commence operation Major * ‐ Date reflects ACJ Milestone extension approved by the NYSDEC on November 4, 2010 N/A – Milestone component not applicable to this item Project

ES‐6

Milestone Description

Milestone Compliance Date Status 06/01/2010 Achieved 12/31/2010 Achieved 12/31/2011 Achieved 08/17/2009 Achieved 01/01/2010 Achieved 12/31/2013 Achieved 09/01/2010 Achieved 12/31/2011 Achieved 02/01/2011* Achieved 10/01/2011* Achieved 12/31/2013 In Progress 04/29/2011* Achieved 12/31/2011* Achieved 12/31/2013 In Progress

Executive Summary

Table ES‐8: Additional Gray Infrastructure Projects and Implementation Schedules Project CSO 022/045 Sewer Separation Project

CSO 063 Conveyances

Task Description

Date

Plans and specs to NYSDEC for review and approval Commence construction Complete construction and commence operation Submit Final Design Report and 50% design Plans and specs to NYSDEC for review and approval Advertise for bid Commence construction Complete construction

06/06/2011 01/24/2012 12/31/2012 11/16/2012 02/22/2013 05/01/2013 07/15/2013 10/01/2014

In addition, where possible the gray infrastructure projects included a “Greening the Gray” component which allowed the constructed facilities to operate more sustainably and further manage the stormwater to connected systems within the project footprint. A brief synopsis of the major gray projects is provided below including the general scope, greening the gray component where applicable, and the status of the project.

CSO 044 Conveyances Project Project Location: West Castle Street between South Avenue and Midland Avenue in the City of Syracuse. Scope of Work: 500 linear feet (LF) of 96‐inch diameter conveyance pipeline connected to Midland RTF, CSO 044 regulator structure, and two flushing chambers. Greening the Gray: Bio‐retention area, two rain gardens, a butterfly garden, a path from South Avenue to the Midland Avenue Bridge over Onondaga Creek, and educational kiosks.

Figure ES‐4: Rain garden construction

Project Status: Complete and operational.

HBIS Replacement and CSO Abatement Project Project Location: Along Harbor Brook between West Fayette Street and Velasko Road in the City of Syracuse. Scope of Work: 7,503 LF of HBIS, 5,222 LF of local sewers, rehabilitation of 1860 LF existing sewers; abandoned CSOs 013 and 016; rehabilitation of 2500 LF of brook Culvert; and 4,100 LF of water mains. Greening the Gray: Approximately 80 tree basins with enhanced infiltration and a rain garden and bio‐ retention basins at Delaware and Grand Avenue Project Status: Sewer work complete and operational. GI work 90 percent complete.

Figure ES‐5: Delaware‐Grand Rain Garden porous gravel path and concrete sidewalk installation

ES‐7

Executive Summary

Clinton Street CSO Storage Project Project Location: In Downtown Syracuse near Armory Square. Scope of Work: Underground storage facility, above ground structures for servicing and maintenance, odor control, on site conveyance piping, force main to the MIS, and new parking lot. Greening the Gray: Green roof and bioretention basins to collect stormwater from the west structure and its surrounding surfaces, and reuse of the stormwater from the eastern half of the parking lot to flush the storage tanks.

Figure ES‐6: 84‐inch West Jefferson Street on‐site conveyance sewer and west chamber construction– May 2012

Project Status: Approximately 60% complete. Projected to be complete and operational by December 31, 2013.

Lower Harbor Brook (LHB) CSO Conveyances and Storage Project Project Location: State Fair Blvd. at Harbor Brook in the City of Syracuse. Scope of Work: Partially underground storage facility, odor control, 1,200 LF of conveyance piping, 830 LF of regulator sewers, force main to transmit flow to the HBIS, and restoration of the site. Greening the Gray: Storm water reclamation system to collect, store, and reuse storm water for tank cleaning

Figure ES‐7: Slurry wall installation at the LHB Storage Facility – November 2012

Project Status: Approximately 60% complete. Projected to be complete and operational by December 31, 2013.

CSO 022/045 Sewer Separation Project Project Location: North Franklin and West Genesee Streets in the City of Syracuse. Scope of Work: 3,900 LF of sanitary and storm sewers, 20 manholes, 33 catch basins, and 15 private property plumbing modifications. Greening the Gray: Pocket park rehabilitation with green components and 22 new street trees with enhanced infiltration basins. Project Status: Sewer work complete and operational. GI 90% complete.

ES‐8

Figure ES‐8: CSO 022 Green Infrastructure. Enhanced tree pits and pocket park at North Clinton and West Genesee streets

Executive Summary

CSO 063 Conveyances Project Project Location: Emerson Avenue and Erie Blvd. West near Harbor Brook in the City of Syracuse. Scope of Work: 3,000 LF of conveyance piping, and new regulator and outfall Project Status: Approximately 60% complete. Projected to be complete and operational by December 31, 2013. Figure ES‐9: CSO 063 Conveyances Project location

In addition, in 2013, the County anticipates to be in the planning and design phases for the Sewer Separation of CSO Area 061 within the Midland Avenue CSO Service Area. CSO 061 is located at the intersection of Crehange Street and Kirk Park Drive on the eastern bank of Onondaga Creek

Green Infrastructure Projects The County continued its commitment to Green Infrastructure and the Save the Rain program through the completion of thirty‐five (35) GI projects in 2012. In all, ninety‐seven (97) projects have been completed since the inception of the program. There are also an additional thirty‐two (32) projects currently under construction and an additional sixty‐two proposed for 2013.

Figure ES‐10 Completed GI projects: (From Left to Right) Water Street Gateway, Connective Corridor Phase 1, Sunnycrest Park Golf Course parking lot, and the Townsend B County parking lot

Facility Planning The ACJ requires the County to prepare an assessment and characterization of the floatables component of each CSO in addition to preparing a facilities plan to address the abatement of CSOs 022, 027, 029, 052 and 060/077, as well as assess the Newell Street Facility (CSO 067) for reconstruction or replacement. During 2012, a limited floatables assessment was performed on the remaining untreated CSOs in the Onondaga Creek and Harbor Brook sewer service areas. The Floatables Control Facilities Plan Amendment was prepared and submitted to the NYSDEC on March 12, 2013, for review and approval. The amended plan recommended the County augment the City’s current MS4 program through the repair and/or retrofit of the remaining un‐hooded catch basins in the CSOs sewer sheds and increase catch basin cleaning, develop and implement a targeted public education and outreach program to address floatables control in the CSO sewer sheds including street litter and flushables, and continue

ES‐9

Executive Summary

the operation of both the Inner Harbor skimming boat and Harbor Brook FCF to provide additional floatables capture and prevent floatables from entering Onondaga Lake. The conditionally approved CSO 022, 027, 029, 052, 060/077, and 067 Facility Plan describes the development and evaluation of conceptual level CSO control and recommend specific projects and/or combinations of projects to meet the required 95 percent CSO volume capture and water quality standards. A particular emphasis was placed on identifying the most cost‐effective options for achieving in‐stream water quality benefits through pollutant discharge load reductions. A conceptual design for implementing infiltration tree trenches and bio‐retention basins in CSO 067 is now being evaluated for capture of the 1‐year, 2‐hour storm event that would eliminate the need to restore the Newell Street swirl concentrator. Public outreach has been initiated and design is expected to commence in 2013.

Public Outreach Building on the success of the 2011 “Project 50” campaign, the STR program experienced another impressive year in 2012 with over 50 GI projects completed. STR continued its approach to rebuilding neighborhoods, developing strong community relationships, and advancing signature projects to solidify its place as a national leader in stormwater management. In addition, STR continued a comprehensive public education and outreach program to engage the local community and provide continued support for program activities. The STR program received numerous awards and recognition in 2012 including the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) 2012 Global Community Leadership award, a feature in Water Environment and Technology magazine, presenting at the White House for a conference hosted by the EPA and Council on Environmental Quality, and being featured as a “spotlight city” for the 2012 Urban Water Sustainability Leadership Conference, held by the U.S. Water Alliance in Cincinnati, Ohio. The 2012 STR Public Education and Outreach Team continued to engage the general public to raise Figure ES‐11: Onondaga Earth Corps awareness of the benefits of green infrastructure and constructs Rain Garden at Catholic Charities the County’s efforts to implement the program. The outreach campaign included community presentations, demonstration projects, school outreach and the street tree planting program. In addition, STR either coordinated or participated in over 30 project‐related public meetings.

Municipal and Private Cooperation Many of the projects, green or gray, associated with the Save the Rain Program required coorperation between the County and the City of Syracuse or other municipalitites. Bi‐weekly meetings were held with the City of Syracuse to discuss GI implementation and develop a consensus approach to design, construction, and maintenance issues and achieve repeatable standards with clear responsibilities. The result from this cooperation, the City of Syracuse’s Green Infrastructure Permission Ordinance, produced significant efficiencies for both the City and County in the way projects are adminstered and approved for construction. One of these efficiencies was the process developed to improve the road cut permit application process in 2012.

ES‐10

Executive Summary

The County has also continued support of the Green Improvement Fund (GIF) to provide incentives for implementation of GI on private lands. GI projects that divert storm water runoff from the combined sewer system are funded based on multiple metrics, including volume of runoff reduction, quantity of GI installed, and regulatory requirements. The program continues to receive submittals on a rolling basis, and 2012 was the most successful year yet for the program. In addition, Inter‐municipal Agreements (IMAs) are another tool used by the City and County to Figure ES‐12: Otisco Street Green Corridor. deal with property access or transference, utility This City Street in need of repair became the first work, mitigation, or fund transfers. In 2012, residential green street to utilize curb extensions legislation was enacted to include terms and and bio‐retention swales which also provides a conditions, as well as enabling the transfer of “traffic calming” effect to increase safety in the neighborhood. funds, for work associated with SUNY Upstate Medical University projects, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry projects, the City of Syracuse Road Reconstruction program, the Syracuse City School District Joint School Construction Board program, the City of Syracuse Bank Street Improvement Project, and the Connective Corridor Project. Currently, the County and the City of Syracuse are advancing multiple pieces of legislation that will allow for the implementation of additional GI within city boundaries by modifying existing stormwater, sidewalk and tree ordinances. In addition, Local Law #1 of 2011 established a program to promote capacity, management, operation and maintenance of the public sewers and related purposes.

Program Assessment Building on the Project 50 campaign of 2011, Onondaga County’s “Save the Rain” program progressed significantly in 2012. To date the County has constructed 97 green infrastructure projects with another 94 projects either under construction or anticipated to begin construction in 2013. In addition, major sewer work was completed on the HBIS replacement, and CSO areas 022 and 045 were separated. The County also initiated its water quality monitoring and flow metering program which obtained samples from points within the receiving waters and data from representative CSOs throughout the system. The metering data, combined with the County’s updated SWMM (which allows the model to incorporate GI) allowed the County to factor into the capture models the benefits of GI implementation as it equates to CSO abatement for the first time. The gray infrastructure portion of the Save the Rain program continued its construction pace leading up to the 2013 capture goal. The 2 major CSO storage projects, representing over $100 million, continued towards the milestone completion date of December 31, 2013. The CSO 022/045 Sewer Separation Project was completed in 2012 and provided a significant upgrade to the sewer system in downtown Syracuse and the south side. In addition, the County embarked on new projects such as the West Fayette Street Sewer Separation and CSO 063 Conveyances which will both provide necessary capture of combined sewage from CSOs tributary to the MIS and HBIS. As a result, it is anticipated that the County will meet the Stage I compliance milestone of 89.5 percent capture by the end of 2013.

ES‐11

Executive Summary

The two recommended changes to the current plan going forward that address floatables capture and the successful implementation of the recommended plan for the CSO Facilities Plan for CSOs 022,027, 029, 052, 060/077and 067 conditionally approved on August 5th, 2011, would greatly assist the County with meeting its ultimate goal of capturing no less than 95 percent by volume of CSO by 2018.

Figure ES‐13: Clinton Storage Facility under construction in November of 2012.

ES‐12

Section 1 Introduction 1.1 The Fourth Stipulation of the ACJ On November 16, 2009, Onondaga County, New York State, and ASLF entered into the Fourth Stipulation of the ACJ which specifically identified GI as an acceptable technology to significantly reduce or eliminate the discharge of untreated combined sewage into Onondaga Lake and its tributaries and bring the County’s effluent discharges into compliance with the applicable water quality standards for the receiving waters. The ACJ included a phased schedule for CSO compliance Table 1‐1 CSO Capture Compliance Schedule (Table 1‐1) that used an incremental approach to Compliance Percent Compliance deadline capture meeting the new goal of capture for treatment or stage CSO by elimination of, within the meaning of EPA’s National volume CSO Policy, no less than 95 percent by volume of CSO 89.5 % December 31, 2013 by 2018. To meet this new goal the County will Stage I 91.4 % December 31, 2015 implement a combination of green and gray Stage II 93.0 % December 31, 2016 infrastructure that focuses on the removal of Stage III 95.0 % December 31, 2018 stormwater from the combined sewer system Stage IV through GI, CSO storage with conveyance to Metro, and elimination of CSO discharge points. Under the original Lake Improvement Program which was limited to the construction of gray infrastructure, the County completed numerous projects which resulted in CSO or floatables capture. These projects, by abatement method, were: 

Regional Treatment and/or Storage Facilities at Midland Avenue, Hiawatha Boulevard, and Erie Boulevard



CSO Pipelines for Midland Avenue and Clinton Street



Sewer Separation of CSO Areas 024, 038, 040, 046A, 046B, 047, 048, 050, 051, 053, 054, 057, 058, and 059



Pump Station Upgrades at Kirkpatrick Street

Under the ACJ the County is allowed to construct, maintain and implement GI projects necessary to satisfy the CSO discharge limitation set forth in Table 1‐1. The County will utilize a wide variety of GI technology including, but not limited to, porous concrete and asphalt; rain gardens; infiltration trenches and/or beds, bio‐retention trenches; tree basins and/or enhanced street trees; vegetated roofs; rain barrels; and wetland CSO treatment. Figure 1‐1 shows an example of multiple GI technologies installed in the City of Syracuse.

Figure 1‐1: Water Street Gateway. Complete overhaul of the 200 & 300 blocks of Water Street with porous paver parking lanes and tree planters to infiltrate runoff.

1‐1

Section 1  Introduction

In addition, specific gray infrastructure projects were identified in the ACJ whose construction and commencement of operation were critical to meeting the compliance schedule set forth above. The projects, as stated in the ACJ, are the: 

CSO 044 Conveyances [Major sewer work is complete and the pipeline is operational as of 12/31/11. Green infrastructure and other finishing work are still under construction.]



Harbor Brook Interceptor Sewer Replacement [Major sewer work is complete and the pipeline is operational as of 4/24/12. Green infrastructure and other finishing work are still under construction.]



Harbor Brook Storage Facility [Under construction]



Clinton Storage Facility [Under construction (see figure 1‐2)]



EBSS Gate Chamber Modifications [Completed and operational as of October 2011]

The County was also required to prepare two plans under the Fourth Stipulation of the ACJ which addressed abatement of specific CSOs in the Clinton/Lower MIS and Midland Service Areas and assessed all of Figure 1‐2: Clinton Storage Facility. the remaining County CSOs with respect to The West Chamber of the facility being, constructed above, is where collected CSO will be pumped from via floatables control. A detailed facilities plan force main to the MIS for treatment at Metro. to address CSO 022, 027, 029, 052, 060/077 and 067 was submitted to NYSDEC by the milestone date of November 16, 2010 and was subsequently conditionally approved on August 5th, 2011. The plan for CSO 067 also assesses the existing Newell Street facility and provides a recommended plan going forward. The FCF plan was submitted to NYSDEC by the consent order date of November 16, 2010. However, based upon the regulatory comments received in 2011, the County reassessed their approach to floatables control and prepared a new plan that dealt with floatables in a more holistic and sustainable manner. The revised plan was submitted to the NYSDEC on March 12, 2013. The ACJ also contains specific requirements regarding reporting and determination of compliance. Each year, beginning April 1, 2011, the County must submit an annual report which details the work completed or progressed in the previous calendar year and the proposed work for the following calendar year. The County must also, by the end of 2011, install and maintain flow metering or monitoring devices at representative CSOs. In addition, the County shall update the SWMM on a yearly basis using the monitoring data to verify, reconcile, and re‐calibrate (as necessary), SWMM values and outputs. The DEC will utilize the data from the CSO monitoring devices, the SWMM, and other models and outputs to determine the County’s compliance with the CSO discharge volume reduction obligations. The DEC’s annual compliance determination will start in 2014 after the submittal of the 2013 Annual Report.

1‐2

Section 1  Introduction

1.2 SPDES Permit Requirements The NYSDEC issued a new SPDES Permit for the Metropolitan Syracuse Wastewater Treatment Plant (#NY 002 7081) on March 21, 2012. The permit requires the County to issue an annual report for CSO Best Management Practices (Section VI.15) and CSO Compliance (Section X.C.1). The final, approved SPDES permit for Metro is attached to this report as Appendix A. The County has included the required annul reporting items in this report, as suggested by the SPDES permit, with the intention of consolidating information rather than duplicating it. The County is required to implement BMPs for CSOs which will, in general, produce operation and maintenance procedures for each CSO, maximize the existing treatment facility and collection system to the extent practicable, and maximize pollutant capture and minimize water quality impacts from CSOs through sound planning, design, and construction (SPDES, 16). The ACJ Annual Report will include the annual report summarizing the implementation of the BMPs as per Section VI.15 of the permit. In addition, as part of the “Schedule of Compliance” section of the SPDES Permit, the County is required to submit to the NYSDEC “an annual report consistent with the Department‐approved Ambient Monitoring Plan which addresses the compliance with the USEPA CSO strategy requirements, the SPDES permit, the ACJ, and water quality standards (SPDES, 24).” As suggested in the permit, the County will be including this information in this and subsequent ACJ annual reports for the foreseeable future. Section 1.3 below will detail where the information can be found in this report to guide the reader. In addition, this entire report and all of its contents shall be certified by a NYS licensed professional engineer per the requirements of the ACJ Section 14H and SPDES permit section X.C.3.g.

1.3 Report Sections The 2012 Annual Report will detail the progress made towards meeting the requirements of the ACJ Fourth Stipulation. The report will present, in detail, the status and progress of various green and gray infrastructure programs and/or projects during the 2012 calendar year. In addition, the annual report will identify the proposed programs and projects for the 2013 calendar year. The following information required by Section 14H of the ACJ, is listed below along with its corresponding section in this report: Section 2 – CSO Overview and Monitoring 

An overview of the Combined Sewer System (SPDES Sect. X.C.1.1)



Discussion of the Ambient Monitoring Program (SPDES Sect. X.C.1.2 and 3.a‐c)



Best Management Practices annual reporting (SPDES Sect. VI.15)

Section 3 – Stormwater Management Model (SWMM) 

SWMM Update

Section 4 – CSO Projects Status 

Descriptions of current and proposed green and/or gray projects (SPDES Sect. X.C.1.3.d and f)

1‐3

Section 1  Introduction



Operation and maintenance requirements for the green and/or gray project(s)



Ownership, control, access and terms of use of the subject properties for the green and/or gray project(s)

Section 5 – Save the Rain Program 

A green infrastructure outreach plan to advise the community of the benefits of green infrastructure and encourage cooperation with its implementation

Section 6 – Intergovernmental Cooperation 

Specific actions to coordinate and provide incentives for projects to be undertaken with the cooperation and/or participation of the City of Syracuse and private property owners

Section 7 ‐ Summary 

Program reassessment including estimated CSO capture, compliance with ACJ milestones, and recommendations (SPDES Sect. X.C.1.3.e)

1‐4

Section 2 CSO and Water Quality Monitoring 2.1 Combined Sewer System (CSS) Overview The combined sewer system tributary to Metro includes an area of 7,155 acres, or approximately 11 square miles. The two major drainage basins tributary to Metro are Harbor Brook basin, via the HBIS, and the Onondaga Creek basin, via the MIS. In addition, the upper Butternut/Grant Trunk Sewer and the Hiawatha Trunk Sewer discharge their excess storm water to Ley Creek. Their dry weather flow, however, is conveyed to Metro via the MIS. The combined sewer system is utilized to the maximum extent to capture and treat combined sewage. During periods of heavy rainfall and snowmelt, the combined sewer system can become overwhelmed and the excess combined sewage is discharged to Harbor Brook, Ley Creek, and/or Onondaga Creek. Table 2‐1 below details the pre‐abatement and current number of active CSO locations, as well as drainage areas tributary to Metro. Table 2‐1: Pre‐ACJ and Current CSOs and Drainage Basins Tributary to Metro Pre‐ACJ # of Active CSO Locations (1998)

Current # of Active CSO Locations

Combined Sewer Area (acres)

Percentage of Total Combined Sewer Area

Harbor Brook

1,384

19.3%

Onondaga Creek

5,527*

77.3%

Ley Creek

244

Drainage Basin

Total 72 46 7,155 * Includes 175 acres of combined sewer area directly connected to the MIS.

3.4% 100.0%

In 2012, two CSOs (022 and 045) in the Onondaga Creek drainage basin were abandoned by separating the sanitary and storm flow tributary to each CSO. The County has abandoned 26 of 72, or 36 percent, pre‐ACJ active CSO locations since 1998. An updated list of all pre‐ACJ active CSOs is included in Table 2‐2, located at the end of this section. In accordance with the ACJ Fourth Stipulation and the County’s SPDES Permit Section X.C.1, the table includes each outfall number, location, outfall status (active or abandoned), receiving water, CSO characteristics, basin description, proposed or implemented CSO abatement strategy, scheduled CSO abatement completion date, and flow monitoring devices where applicable. Figure 2‐1, located at the end of this section, graphically delineates each CSO basin listed on Table 2‐2. Please note, Table 2‐2 and Figure 2‐1 have been updated to reflect the CSOs listed in the SPDES Permit issued on March 21, 2012; and as a result, some information may be different than what was included in the 2011 ACJ Annual Report.

2.2 CSO Monitoring In accordance with the ACJ Fourth Stipulation and Order, Paragraph 14I, Determination of Compliance, the County installed flow meters at representative CSOs by December 31, 2011, and in 2012 data was received from the installed flow metering devices.

2‐1

Section 2  CSO and Water Quality Monitoring

2.2.1 Work Completed in 2012 Onondaga County maintained flow meters for 11 of the 13 representative CSO outfalls in 2012. The meter installations at CSOs 027 and 036 will be completed prior to December 31, 2013. One of the remaining overflow points, CSO 027, may need structural modifications prior to installation of one or more flow meters. The CSOs included in the Flow Monitoring Program are shown in Table 2‐3. The data was transmitted wirelessly and included depth in inches, velocity in feet per second, and flow rate in millions of gallons per day at each site recorded at 60‐minute intervals during dry weather and 5‐minute intervals during CSO discharge events. The monthly flow monitoring reports which summarize the CSO overflow events, rainfall data, dry weather flow, and inspection sheets are included as Appendix B. Table 2‐3: Representative CSO Flow Monitoring Locations and Installation Status Outfall

Receiving Water

Metering Device

Required Installation Date

Installation Status

003

Harbor Brook

Flow Meter

12/31/2012

Complete

004

Harbor Brook

Flow Meter/ Ultrasonic Level Sensor

12/31/2012

Complete

014

Harbor Brook

Flow Meter

12/31/2011

Complete

018

Harbor Brook

Flow Meter

12/31/2011

Complete

(1)

027

Onondaga Creek

Flow Meter

TBD

To be installed by 12/31/2013

030

Onondaga Creek

Flow Meter

12/31/2013

Complete

034

Onondaga Creek

Flow Meter

12/31/2013

Complete

036

Onondaga Creek

Ultrasonic Level Sensor

12/31/2013

To be installed by 12/31/2013

(2)

044

Onondaga Creek

Flow Meter / Ultrasonic Level Sensor

12/31/2011

Complete

052

Onondaga Creek

Flow Meter

12/31/2011

Complete

12/31/2011

Complete

060/077 Onondaga Creek

(3)

Flow Meter (4)

063

Harbor Brook

Flow Meter / Ultrasonic Level Sensor

TBD

Interim Installation Complete

080

Onondaga Creek

Flow Meter

12/31/2011

Complete

Note: (1) – Location requires manhole modifications and/or multiple meters (2) – Ultrasonic sensor to be activated after completion of gray infrastructure project (3) – Flow meters exist at both CSO 060 and 077 (4) – Permanent ultrasonic sensor to be installed after completion of the gray infrastructure project

2.2.2 Proposed Work for 2013 The County will continue to monitor the installed metering stations for 11 CSOs during 2013. The data including depth in inches, velocity in feet per second, and flow rate in million of gallons per day at each site will be recorded and transmitted wirelessly for download by the County. In addition, the County will provide any routine maintenance necessary to allow the metering devices to continue to monitor the CSOs. CSO 027 and CSO 036 will be further inspected to document existing conditions. The information gathered during the site visit will be evaluated to identify potential monitoring configurations, address any safety or access concerns, identify necessary structural modifications required prior to the installation of the flow monitoring devices, and install monitoring devices during 2013.

2‐2

Section 2  CSO and Water Quality Monitoring

2.3 Water Quality Monitoring The 1998 ACJ required a series of improvements to the County’s wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure and an extensive monitoring program (the Ambient Monitoring Program) to document the improvements achieved by these measures. One of the primary objectives of the Tributary Monitoring Program is to collect data at the temporal and spatial scale required to assess compliance with ambient water quality standards in Onondaga Creek, Harbor Brook, and Ley Creek. The Metro SPDES Permit Number NY 002 7081, Compliance Action Section for Combined Sewer Overflows also requires sampling of each water body that receives a CSO (Onondaga Creek, Harbor Brook and Ley Creek). The Fourth Stipulation of the ACJ, also required the County to submit a plan, with a schedule for implementation for proposed modifications to the tributary component of the County’s established Ambient Monitoring Program. The AMP Modifications Workplan, Final dated December 2011, outlines proposed modifications designed to enhance monitoring of tributary water quality in those tributaries impacted by CSOs to determine the effectiveness of the gray and green infrastructure projects (a post‐construction monitoring plan). The workplan outlines the proposed plan to monitor the quantity and quality of CSO discharges to determine compliance with water quality standards and capture requirements. The workplan includes sampling sufficient to evaluate the effectiveness of CSO controls and their impacts on water quality.

2.3.1 Work Completed in 2012 2.3.1.1 AMP (Tributary Sampling) As part of the routine AMP, Onondaga Creek, Harbor Brook, and Ley Creek continued to be sampled on a biweekly basis from January through December 2012.

Compliance Evaluation Summary During 2012, a non‐compliance report of results which did not comply with the ambient water quality standards applicable to those waterbodies sampled, was transmitted to NYSDEC and ASLF on a monthly basis. One of the objectives of the AMP is to track changes in the inflow of bacteria to Onondaga Lake during wet weather. The abundance of fecal coliform bacteria in the lake tributaries during wet weather is affected by stormwater runoff and functioning of the combined sewer system. Several CSO remedial measures and improved stormwater management measures are underway. The AMP also tracks bacterial abundance during non‐storm periods; these data provide a means of identifying potential connections of sanitary waste to the stormwater collection system or portions of the sewerage infrastructure in need of repair. Compliance with the AWQS for fecal coliform bacteria is specified by the DEC as the geometric mean of a minimum of five observations per month being less than or equal to 200 cfu per 100 ml. The 2012 AMP data confirmed that AWQS for fecal coliform in most of the tributary influent streams, including the CSO streams, were exceeded during the sample event. Appendix C includes a summary of the monthly non‐compliance reports from January through December 2012. Figures 2‐2, 2‐3 and 2‐4 include Fecal Coliform bacteria data plots of Onondaga Creek, Harbor Brook and Ley Creek from 1998 through 2012. A detailed evaluation of the AMP Tributary bacteria data for Onondaga Creek, Harbor Brook, and Ley Creek will be included in the 2012 AMP Annual Report. In addition, a new section in the report will include a separate trend analysis for "dry/wet” weather and "all" tributary sampling events conducted during the AMP time period. Assessments are underway by the County and as part of the Microbial Trackdown Study (Phase II) to identify

2‐3

Section 2  CSO and Water Quality Monitoring

Figure 2‐2: Fecal Coliform Concentrations in Onondaga Creek (1998‐2012)

Figure 2‐3: Fecal Coliform Concentrations in Harbor Brook (1998‐2012) 2‐4

Section 2  CSO and Water Quality Monitoring

Figure 2‐4: Fecal Coliform Concentrations in Ley Creek (1998‐2012) potential sources contributing to the elevated bacteria concentrations observed at several of the AMP tributary sampling sites. The Phase II Study findings will be evaluated as part of a Source Trackdown Study. NYS AWQS for arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb) and zinc (Zn) are based on measurements of the total dissolved form. Total recoverable concentrations of these parameters have been measured as part of the AMP. Compliance was assumed when the concentration of the total form was less than the standard. However, compliance could not be evaluated when the total recoverable concentration exceeded the AWQS. Based on a review of the percentage of observations in compliance with NYS AWQS at four (4) tributary sampling locations (Onondaga Creek, Ley Creek, Harbor Brook, Ninemile Creek), it is noted that: (i) during the 10‐year interval (2002‐2011), not a single measurement from these sampling locations exceeded the standards for As, Cr, Ni, or Zn; (ii) Exceedances of standards for Cd, Cu, and Pb were very infrequent from 2002‐2006 and have not occurred in five (5) consecutive years (2007‐2011); and (iii) 100 percent compliance with the AWQS for cyanide has been reported at sampling locations other than Ley Creek since 2003. The standard for Cyanide is based on free Cyanide (HCN+CN‐). The OCDWEP Environmental Laboratory started to analyze for mercury in the dissolved form in September 2012 [USEPA Method 1631 CVAFS0 (Revision E)]. The NYS AWQS of 0.7ng/l was exceeded at several of the Tributary sampling locations based on data collected during the November 2012 quarterly sampling event. This parameter was not considered exclusively as a pre‐treatment parameter as there are other sources, including atmospheric deposition, known to contribute mercury

2‐5

Section 2  CSO and Water Quality Monitoring

to aquatic systems leading to exceedances in Water Quality Standards. In addition, there are no known industrial users in Onondaga County of mercury in their manufacturing processes..

2.3.1.2 AMP Modifications (Enhanced Tributary Sampling) The AMP Modifications Workplan, Final dated December 2011 and approved by the DEC, outlines proposed modifications designed to enhance monitoring of tributary water quality in those tributaries impacted by CSOs to determine the effectiveness of the gray and green infrastructure projects. The overall objectives of the Enhanced Tributary sampling Program are to: 

Evaluate in‐stream water quality conditions during the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) events



Compare in‐stream water quality conditions during wet weather with the NYS Ambient Water Quality Standards (AWQS)

Erie Boulevard Storage System In October 2011, the gate chamber (GC) modifications for EBSS were completed as required by the ACJ. The County estimated that the GC modifications would increase system wide CSO capture by at least 0.2 percent or 8MG on an annual basis. The EBSS is a “real‐time control” facility fully automated through the use of level sensors and PLC‐based controls that utilize telemetry communications for integration into the County’s SCADA at Metro. If maximum storage capacity of the EBSS is reached based on current set‐ points and the MIS conveyance capacity is reached, the incoming CSO flows to the EBSS are discharged to Onondaga Creek (see Figure 2‐5). The volume for EBSS capture (before and after gate modifications) is a calculated volume based on the model output and the average annual year. The gate set point heights and the HGL based on the model projections have been verified. As with other CSO discharges, there is no real‐time Figure 2‐5: EBSS outfall to Onondaga Creek. verification of a totalized capture volume.

In‐stream Sampling Following the completion of the Gate Chamber modifications for EBSS in 2011, OCDWEP implemented a program to collect in‐stream data from Onondaga Creek in 2012. The objective of the sampling program was to evaluate compliance with the NYS AWQS, specifically when the EBSS facility is overflowing (during wet weather events). For the two‐year period of 2012 and 2013, in‐stream sampling for four (4) events was planned. Two (2) sampling events were conducted in May 2012, to evaluate the in‐stream water quality at Plum Street, a bridge sampling location approximately 2,640 feet downstream of the EBSS outfall. OCDWEP compiled a sampling summary and proposed several sampling program recommendations for NYSDEC and ASLF consideration based on a re‐evaluation of sampling program objectives, sampling sites, protocol, data, parameters, event initiation (based on time of travel calculations), and an improved understanding of the EBSS operational performance during 2012. An evaluation of

2‐6

Section 2  CSO and Water Quality Monitoring

available site‐specific data from the Microbial Trackdown Study project (collected during dry weather conditions), and the AMP were referenced in the sampling summary, submitted to NYSDEC in November 2012. The sampling summary was revised in response to DEC comments dated February 1, 2013, and is included as Appendix D.

Compliance Evaluation (Event 1 and 2) A compliance evaluation was conducted for in‐stream data collected from the sampling location downstream of the EBSS outfall (Onondaga Creek at Plum Street) during each of the two (2) sampling events. Sampling for Event 1 included the parameters Fecal Coliform and Nutrients (total Phosphorus and total Nitrogen). In addition to Fecal Coliform and Nutrients, Event 2 included the Priority Pollutant parameters. Fecal Coliform bacteria data were evaluated based on the NYS AWQS of a monthly geometric mean of a minimum of five (5) samples. Based on the evaluation, Fecal Coliform data from Event 1 and 2 indicated non‐compliance with the AWQS. As a follow‐up to the findings the following measures were instituted as part of a “Source Trackdown.” 

OCDWEP staff investigated the conditions in EBSS in November of 2012, that were contributing to the high bacteria samples collected as part of the Microbial Trackdown Study in 2012. It was discovered that a large concrete support beam had collapsed and was restricting the EBSS outfall to Onondaga Creek. It was also determined that Gate Chamber 1 seal was leaking and allowed a small volume of captured CSO to leak under the gate during the storage mode. Gate Chamber 1 seal was repaired in December of 2012, and a purchase requisition was issued for contract services to remove the concrete and grit obstruction from the EBSS outfall location.



Water quality sampling of the EBSS overflow discharge as part of the next sampling event (Event 3) is planned in 2013 in conjunction with the flow monitoring data, to evaluate load reductions specifically during wet weather conditions. These data will be used to assess progress towards compliance with the objectives of the ACJ’s CSO Program.



Results of the Microbial Trackdown Study to identify contributions from point sources between the EBSS outfall and in‐stream sampling locations will be compiled and evaluated.

A limited compliance assessment for Nutrients and Priority Pollutant parameters was conducted, due to the following 

Nutrients (event 1 and 2) o



Total Phosphorus (TP) and total Nitrogen (TN) data from Event 1 and 2 could not be assessed as Nutrient Criteria for flowing waters are pending.

Priority Pollutants (Event 2 only) o

The AWQS for the priority pollutant metals, including arsenic; cadmium; chromium; copper; lead; mercury; and zinc are based on measurements of dissolved forms of these metals. Because Total Recoverable forms were measured, compliance with standards could not be assessed directly. However, compliance was assumed when the concentration of the total form was less than the standard. The standard for cyanide is based on free cyanide (HCN + CN‐), whereas measurements were for the Total form. The AWQS for silver is expressed in the ionic form and could not be assessed, as analysis was for the Total Recoverable form. Compliance could not be

2‐7

Section 2  CSO and Water Quality Monitoring

assessed for the parameter mercury, as the sample was not collected during the event. Analysis of the dissolved forms of metals and free cyanide are proposed for the 2013 AMP. o

Compliance for several Priority Pollutant parameters could not be evaluated as the reported results had no measurable concentrations. Compliance with AWQS was also not assessed for a number of analytes due to either sample matrix and the associated interferences with that matrix or the limitation of the analytical methodology to achieve concentrations at levels of the water quality standards. Also, several Priority Pollutant parameters have no AWQS. Compliance of the PCB Aroclors could not be completed as these samples were not included in the analysis.

2.3.1.3 Microbial Trackdown Project A study of pathogens in Onondaga Creek and Harbor Brook (undertaken as a joint project of OEI and OCDWEP (Microbial Trackdown Project), with OEI as the principal partner) identified potential bacteria inputs into Onondaga Creek and Harbor Brook during dry weather in 2008 and 2009. The updated version of the Microbial Trackdown Phase II workplan, dated April 5, 2012, outlined a comprehensive study implemented in 2012 to monitor presence of fecal coliform in Harbor Brook and Onondaga Creek, as a follow‐up to the findings of the Phase I study. Follow‐up sampling of point sources identified under Phase 1, routine sampling at pre‐determined locations to identify potential spatial effects along the stream corridor, and temporal sampling to identify site‐specific temporal effects, was conducted in 2012. Point sources include any pipe, culvert, CSO, storm drain or, on occasion, crack in concrete structures which discharge an “appreciable” amount of water. The dry weather discharge at CSO locations may be attributed to several sources including residual CSO volume remaining in the overflow pipe, ex‐filtration into sub‐sewer underdrain pipes, or cross‐ connections. Dry weather CSO discharges need to be confirmed at the overflow manhole at the time of sample collections. This will help determine whether the observed discharge from the CSO during dry weather originates from the sewerage system, or represents groundwater flux. In addition to Onondaga Creek and Harbor Brook, several sampling locations on Ley Creek were included in the Phase II scope, due to the elevated bacteria counts observed at Park Street during the AMP sampling events.

Onondaga Creek Phase I Microbial Trackdown Study data from the Onondaga Creek in‐stream sampling locations (Water Street, West Genesee Street and Plum Street) from 2008 and 2009 collected during dry weather conditions (defined as less than 0.08 inches of rain during the preceding 48 hour period) was compiled and evaluated. Based on the data collected from several of the Onondaga Creek sampling locations, there is evidence of “baseline” bacteria levels in Onondaga Creek. In urban waterways, bacteria can come from many sources including storm‐water runoff, illicit discharges, leaking septic systems, sanitary sewer overflows, stream sediments, wastewater effluent, and leaking sanitary sewer systems. Some of these sources contribute pollutants during dry weather and some during wet weather. Sources of natural inputs include wildlife, birds, soil erosion, in‐stream bacterial growth facilitated by high summer temperatures and presence of decaying organic matter. The Microbial Trackdown Study (Phase 1 and II), focusses on the identification of potential point source(s) to Onondaga Creek during dry weather conditions.

2‐8

Section 2  CSO and Water Quality Monitoring

EBSS Outfall EBSS overflow data from 2008/2009 and preliminary data from the 2012 Phase II Study, collected during dry weather conditions, was compiled. OEI recommended a Trackdown study as part of the Phase I Study report, based on the findings of the EBSS outfall data, indicating discharge of sewage diluted by groundwater. Fecal Coliform data collected between 2008 through 2012 from the EBSS outfall, as part of the Onondaga Creek Point Source sampling task ranged from 310 ‐ 340,000 count per 100 ml, indicating residual bacteria in the base flow of the facility. This base flow is composed of stormwater and infiltration. Based on the 2012 flowmeter data, the base flow on May 27, 2012, (during dry weather conditions) was estimated to be an average of 600 gallons per minute. This base flow value varies seasonally. As a follow‐up to the measures undertaken in November of 2012 by OCDWEP at the facility outfall, sampling of the outfall is planned in 2013 to evaluate reductions specifically during dry weather conditions, at this location.

Harbor Brook The Phase I Microbial Trackdown study documents thirteen (13) point sources identified and sampled on Harbor Brook during dry weather in fall of 2008, of which eleven (11) were characterized by low counts of indicator bacteria. Harbor Brook has low flow, typically less than 10cfs during dry weather, so dilution of point source inputs is limited and point sources can have a detectable impact on water quality. Four (4) point sources of potential concern were identified on Harbor Brook: HB‐PS100 (also CSO 078), HB‐PS101B (also CSO 018), HB‐PS103, and HB‐PS112. Two (2) were identified as CSOs, although sampling was conducted under dry weather conditions. Three (3) point sources were sampled in 2012. These include HB‐PS100 (also CSO078), HB‐PS103, and HB‐PS109. HB‐PS101B (also CSO018) was not accessible at the time of sampling, due to construction related activities. HB‐PS101B has a GI‐Wetlands with Floatables Control planned.

Ley Creek As part of the Microbial Trackdown Study Point Source identification for Ley Creek, several point sources were identified and sampled in the main stem and South Branch during 2012. Findings of this study will be summarized in the Phase II Study report.

2.3.2 Proposed Work for 2013 2.3.2.1 AMP Modifications In February 2013, NYSDEC transmitted review comments on the County’s November 26, 2012, sampling summary submittal. The County is drafting the 2013 Enhanced Tributary Sampling Plan for NYSDEC and ASLF review and NYSDEC approval, taking these review comments into consideration. Based on the evaluation of data collected from Event 1 and 2, the several sampling program recommendations listed below were proposed to NYSDEC and ASLF for consideration, consistent with the approach outlined in USEPA’s “CSO Post Construction Compliance Monitoring Guidance” dated May 2012. 

Select an alternative in‐stream sampling site at West Genesee Street, a location closer to the EBSS outfall and with fewer intervening inputs

2‐9

Section 2  CSO and Water Quality Monitoring



Add an upstream in‐stream sampling Site (at Water Street) to determine contributions immediately upstream of the EBSS outfall during the sampling events



Discontinue depth sampling for the in‐stream sampling program. Propose a single grab sample from mid‐depth, at each of the three (3) lateral transects (retained as mixing distance analysis considers West Genesee Street often too close to the EBSS outfall for sampling)



Although the Priority Pollutant sampling program has not been defined, consider a limited frequency of sampling to capture samples during the first flush (Cycle 1 only)



Collect “grab” samples from the EBSS outfall during the dry and wet weather sampling event



Add “pre‐storm” and “baseline” samples. Adjust the sample timing and frequency according to facility operation modes [Storage Mode ‐ Gate 1 closed, storage Mode ‐ Gate 1 open; and Drain down Mode ‐ Gate 1 closed] during the rain event to allow for sample collection prior to and over the entire duration of the facilities discharge to Onondaga Creek to capture the pre‐storm, first flush and post‐storm impacts to the Creek



Identify and evaluate potential contributions from point sources between the EBSS outfall and in stream sampling locations

2.3.2.2 Sewer Separation Projects The County will also implement a post‐construction monitoring program in 2013 specifically designed to verify the separation of sanitary and storm flow performed under two (2) sewer separation projects completed in 2012, to improve the water quality of Onondaga Creek, and to reduce system‐wide overflows from the combined sewer outfalls in accordance with the Fourth Stipulation of the ACJ. These include CSO 022, located in the vicinity of Wallace and West Genesee streets, and 045 located in the vicinity of West Castle and Hudson streets. During significant wet weather events, CSOs 022 and 045 would overflow to Onondaga Creek. The regulator sewers within the regulator manholes were sealed in order to eliminate sanitary connections to the outfalls for CSO 022 and 045, and these outfalls became the storm sewer outfalls to the creek. Consistent with the requirements of SPDES Permit Number NY 002 7081, a post‐construction monitoring plan will be implemented in 2013 to document that CSO outfalls 022 and 045 are not causing or Figure 2‐6: New storm manhole installed on contributing to violations of water quality existing CSO 045 outfall converted to storm standards in the receiving waters. The post l construction monitoring plan will be designed to monitor these two outfalls (Onondaga Creek at West Genesee Street and Onondaga Creek at South Avenue) and include water quality parameters related to combined sewer overflows and an observation of floatables, debris and odors. Results indicating the presence of sewage overflow or discharge will be reported to NYSDEC consistent with SPDES permit requirements. In lieu of sampling, the County petitioned the Department to consider an alternate method of determining sewer separation effectiveness. Pending the outcome of discussions, an alternate plan may be initiated during 2013. However, until written approval from NYSDEC has been

2‐10

Section 2  CSO and Water Quality Monitoring

received by the County, monitoring will be completed as described above consistent with current SPDES permit requirements.

2.3.3 Overall Sampling Schedule The overall in‐stream sampling schedule is consistent with the EPA CSO Guidance for Monitoring and Modeling and is designed to coincide with the completion of major gray or green infrastructure projects in a particular CSO basin. As requested by the DEC, the ambient water quality conditions downstream of the representative CSOs will be conducted as soon as practicable following the completion of the gray improvements. The majority of the sampling is targeted following the completion of the Harbor Brook and Clinton storage tanks; once the County has received operational control for these facilities. The sampling schedule for CSO discharges from the 014, 018, 027, 052 and 060/077 service areas will be determined based on the approved facility plans. Monitoring and evaluation are required through 2018; design of future years will be modified based on progress with construction and the information obtained from previous efforts. Table 2‐4 presents the 10 CSOs targeted by the sampling program, the associated gray infrastructure project and completion schedule. Table 2‐4: In‐stream Water Quality Sampling Locations for CSOs CSO Service Area Harbor Brook

CSO

Harbor Brook

004

Harbor Brook

014

Harbor Brook

018

Clinton

027

Clinton

030

Clinton

034

Clinton

080

Midland

052

Midland

060/077

003

In‐stream Sampling Location FCF on Harbor Brook

Gray Project Storage Tank

Completion Date 12/31/2013

Sampling Event Targeted Schedule 2014‐2015

Upstream side of Hiawatha Blvd. bridge Brook access at Fowler High School Dam at end of DePalma Avenue Upstream side of Water Street bridge Upstream side of Walton Street bridge Upstream side of Dickerson Street bridge Upstream side of West Genesee Street bridge Upstream side of West Colvin Street bridge Upstream side of South Avenue bridge

Storage Tank

12/31/2013

2014‐2015

Floatables Plan

TBD

Wetlands Treatment w/Floatables Control CSO Facilities Plan

TBD

Storage Tank*

12/31/2013

2014‐2015*

Storage Tank*

12/31/2013

2014‐2015*

EBSS

12/31/2011

2012‐2013

CSO Facilities Plan

TBD

CSO Facilities Plan

TBD

Notes: * ‐ As required for the two‐year period when CSO outfalls 030 and 034 are scheduled to be sampledand stated by the DEC’s April 18, 2011 letter which conditionally approved the engineering report for the Clinton CSO Storage Facility.

2.3.4 Reporting Requirements The reporting requirements below are attachd to this report as required by the NYSDEC.

Quarterly AMP Status Reports A quarterly report summarizing the status of the AMP events completed and analytical results (raw data as available from the OCDWEP Environmental Laboratory) from December 1, 2012, through February 28, 2013, is included as Appendix E.

2‐11

Section 2  CSO and Water Quality Monitoring

Annual AMP Data Report Included as Appendix F is a copy of the analytical results and measurements from all AMP related sampling conducted in 2012.

2.3 CSO BMP Annual Report As a requirement of the Metro SPDES permit issued on March 21, 2012, OCDWEP will submit an annual report summarizing the implementation of the Best Management Practices listed on pages 16, 17, and 18 of the permit. This report on implementation of the nine minimum controls will be included on an annual basis with the submission of the ACJ Annual Report that is due on April 1 of each year as required under section 14H of the ACJ Fourth Stipulation. The 2012 CSO BMP Annual Report (included as Appendix G) summarizes the following activities: 1.

CSO Maintenance and Inspection

Maximum Use of Collection System for Storage

Industrial Pretreatment

Maximize Flow to POTW

Wet Weather Operating Plan

Prohibition of Dry Weather Overflows

Control of Floatables and Settleable Solids

Combined Sewer System Replacement

Combined Sewer Extension

10. Connection Prohibitions 11. Septage and Hauled Waste 12. Control of Run‐off 13. Public Notification 14. Characterization and Monitoring

2‐12

Table 2-2: CSO Outfall Information

Active

Hiawatha Blvd. (West side of HB)

43° 03' 20" N

76° 11' 07" W

‐

95.9

1.5

0.1

0.9

004

Active

State Fair Blvd.

43° 03' 13" N

76° 10' 54" W

‐

337.0

2.5

0.1

0.9

005 006

Active Active

W. Genesee and Sackett Street Park Ave. and Sackett Street (West side of HB)

43° 03' 11" N 43° 03' 07" N

76° 10' 38" W 76° 10' 35" W

‐ ‐

4.6 15.1

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.6

81 61

0.4 0.5

006A

Active

Park Ave. and Sackett Street (East side of HB)

43° 03' 07" N

76° 10' 35" W

‐

16.0

0.3

0.2

0.4

007

Active

Richmond Avenue and Liberty Street

43° 03' 00" N

76° 10' 26" W

‐

31.3

0.6

0.2

0.5

008 009

Active Active

Lakeview Avenue and Liberty Street W. Fayette Street (West side of HB)

43° 02' 57" N 43° 02' 47" N

76° 10' 59" W 76° 10' 33" W

‐ ‐

5.1 14.5

0.0 0.4

‐ 0.3

‐ 37

‐ 1.4

010

Active

W. Fayette Street (East side of HB)

43° 02' 45" N

76° 10' 21" W

‐

11.3

0.2

0.6

011

Active

Gifford Street at Fowler HS (East side of HB)

43° 02' 34" N

76° 10' 23" W

‐

38.6

0.1

0.2

0.5

‐ ‐ 43° 02' 24" N

‐ ‐ 76° 10' 29" W

V 10 RP ‐

‐ ‐ 121.9

‐ ‐ 0.7

‐ ‐ 0.3

‐ ‐ 43

‐ ‐ 0.7

mostly commercial; some residential mostly commercial and residential; some community facilities and open space mostly commercial and residential; some community facilities and open space mostly commercial and residential; some community facilities and vacant land ‐ mostly residential and open space; some commercial mostly commercial and public; some residential mostly commercial, community facilities, and residential; some industrial and vacant land ‐ ‐ mostly residential; some vacant land

43° 02' 20" N

76° 10' 38" W

‐

49.4

0.4

0.2

0.8

mostly residential; some vacant land

‐

‐ mostly residential and vacant; some commercial and public facilities

Status

Location

Latitude

Longitude

Slope (%)

Area (acres)

003

Outfall

CSO Overflow Volume (MG) 8 Rainfall Trigger Intensity Imperviousne ss (%)

CSO Closure Documentation

Basin Characteristics

Land Use

CSO Abatement Strategy (completed items in bold)

Status or Scheduled Completion Date (completed items in bold)

Flow Monitoring

Harbor Brook Drainage Basin

012 013 014 015 016

Abandoned Gifford Street at Fowler HS (West side of HB) Abandoned Seymour Street Active Delaware Street Active

Herriman Street and Grand Avenue

Abandoned Lydell Street

mostly residential; some commercial and community facilities mostly residential; some commercial

017

Active

Hoeffler Street

43° 02' 12" N

76° 10' 47" W

‐

72.1

0.3

1.1

018

Active

Rowland Street (discharge at basin)

43° 02' 07" N

76° 11' 05" W

‐

78.4

0.5

0.1

1.3

mostly residential; some recreation

063

Active

Emerson Ave.

43° 03' 35" N

76° 11' 33" W

‐

366.6

3.2

0.1

1.2

mostly residential; some commercial

078

Active

Bellevue and Velasko

43° 02' 08" N

76° 11' 19" W

‐

126.3

0.4

0.2

1.3

mostly residential; some recreation

43° 03' 17" N 43° 03' 16" N

76° 09' 26" W 76° 09' 25" W

‐ ‐

637.9 54.6

4.7 5.3

0.1 0.1

52 70

1.4 0.6

mostly residential; some commercial mostly commercial; some residential

Harbor Brook Storage Facility Green Infrastructure Harbor Brook Storage Facility Green Infrastructure Floatables Plan Floatables Plan Green Infrastructure Floatables Plan Green Infrastructure Floatables Plan Green Infrastructure Green Infrastructure Floatables Plan Green Infrastructure Floatables Plan Green Infrastructure Floatables Plan Green Infrastructure Closure Separation Floatables Plan Green Infrastructure Floatables Plan Green Infrastructure Separation Floatables Plan Green Infrastructure ‐ Wetland Treatment with Floatables Control Harbor Brook Storage Facility Green Infrastructure Floatables Plan

12/31/2013 12/31/2018 12/31/2013 12/31/2018 Plan Re‐submittal 3/12/13 Plan Re‐submittal 3/12/13 12/31/2018 Plan Re‐submittal 3/12/13 12/31/2018 Plan Re‐submittal 3/12/13 12/31/2018 12/31/2018 Plan Re‐submittal 3/12/13 12/31/2018 Plan Re‐submittal 3/12/13 12/31/2018 Plan Re‐submittal 3/12/13 12/31/2018 Completed (1) Completed 12/31/2011 Plan Re‐submittal 3/12/13 12/31/2018 Plan Re‐submittal 3/12/13 12/31/2018 Completed 12/31/2011

Temp. Flow Meter/Ultrasonic Level Sensor, Sampler (6) Temp. Flow Meter, Sampler (6) Water Level Sensor (4) Water Level Sensor (4) Water Level Sensor (4) Water Level Sensor (4) Water Level Sensor (4) Water Level Sensor (4) Water Level Sensor (4) Water Level Sensor (4) N/A N/A Flow Meter, Sampler Ultrasonic Level Sensor (5) N/A

Plan Re‐submittal 3/12/13 Water Level Sensor (4) 12/31/13 ??

Flow Meter, Sampler

10/1/2014 Water Level Sensor (4) 12/31/2018 Plan Re‐submittal 3/12/13 Water Level Sensor (4)

Onondaga Creek Drainage Basin 020 021

Active Active

Butternut Street and I‐690 Burnet Avenue and I‐690

022

Abandoned West Genesee Street (East side of OC)

‐

PCV 9

‐

024 025 026

Abandoned Water Street Abandoned Abandoned

‐ ‐ ‐

RP V 10 ‐

‐ ‐ ‐

Notes: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Actual completion date unknown at this time Outfall closed and flow is transmitted to CSO 066 and the Maltbie Street FCF Upstream subcatchment areas tributary to EBSS Event Indicator ‐ record date and duration of overflow event Water levels to be used to approximate flow rate

(6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Permanent Flow Monitoring to be installed during construction Existing facility with flow metering Existing facility with flow metering Post‐construction verification to take place in 2013 Completion pre‐dates ACJ. Visual documentation only.

Franklin Street FCF Franklin Street FCF Green Infrastructure Separation Green Infrastructure Separation Separation Separation

Completed 2000 Completed 2000 12/31/2018 4/30/2013 4/30/2013 Completed 2001 Completed (1) Completed (1)

Existing Flow Meter (7) Existing Flow Meter (7) Post‐Construction Monitoring N/A N/A N/A

Abbreviations: V = Visual Temp. = Temporary N/A = Not Applicable TBD = To be determined RP = Record Plans PCV = Post‐Construction Verification

2‐13

Slope (%)

CSO Overflow Volume (MG) 8 Rainfall Trigger Intensity Imperviousne ss (%)

Basin Characteristics Area (acres)

CSO Closure Documentation

Table 2-2: CSO Outfall Information

Land Use

027

Active

West Fayette Street (East side of OC)

43° 02' 55" N

76° 09' 28" W

122.9

1.2

0.2

0.6

mostly commercial

028

Active

Walton Street (West side of OC)

43° 02' 53" N

76° 09' 27" W

23.7

0.3

0.7

mostly commercial and residential; some vacant

029

Active

Walton Street (East side of OC)

43° 02' 53" N

76° 09' 27" W

9.9

0.6

0.1

0.8

mostly commercial

Outfall

Status

Location

Latitude

Longitude

CSO Abatement Strategy (completed items in bold)

Status or Scheduled Completion Date (completed items in bold)

Flow Monitoring

Onondaga Creek Drainage Basin (continued)

030

Active

West Jefferson Street (East side of OC)

43° 02' 50" N

76° 09' 27" W

302.3

3.2

0.2

4.0

031

Active

West Jefferson Street (West side of OC)

43° 02' 49" N

76° 09' 28" W

23.9

0.4

0.2

0.7

032

Active

Tully Street

43° 02' 45" N

76° 09' 28" W

23.2

0.2

0.6

033

Active

Dickerson Street

43° 02' 40" N

76° 09' 19" W

‐

15.4

0.3

0.1

0.3

034

Active

Clinton and West Onondaga Street

43° 02' 37" N

76° 09' 17" W

‐

172.9

4.7

0.1

1.6

035

Active

Gifford Street (West side of OC)

43° 02' 37" N

76° 09' 17" W

‐

22.8

0.4

0.1

0.9

036

Active

West Onondaga Street

43° 02' 33" N

76° 09' 18" W

‐

164.1

1.3

0.1

2.7

037

Active

East Adams Street

43° 02' 32" N

76° 09' 18" W

‐

39.0

0.4

0.5

1.6

038 039

Abandoned Taylor Street Active Tallman Street (East side of OC)

‐ 43° 02' 12" N

‐ 76° 09' 19" W

RP ‐

‐ 479.7

‐ 0.3

‐ 0.4

‐ 43

‐ 0.6

040 M01 042

Abandoned Tallman Street (West side of OC) Active Midland RTF Main Outfall (previously CSO 041) Active Midland Avenue (West side of OC)

‐ 43° 02' 00" N 43° 01' 59" N

‐ 76° 09' 30" W 76° 09' 29" W

RP ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ 274.0

‐ ‐ 0.0

‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ 41

‐ ‐ 1.3

mostly commercial, open space, residential, and community facilities mostly commercial and residential; some vacant land and open space mostly commercial; some residential and community facilities mostly commercial; some residential and community facilities mostly commercial and community facilities mostly vacant land, commercial, and community facilities mostly residential, some commercial and vacant land mostly commercial and community facilities

M02

Active

Midland RTF Emergency Outfall (previously CSO 043)

43° 02' 01" N

76° 09' 30" W

‐

447.1

‐

‐ mostly community facilities; some commercial ‐ ‐ mostly residential; some open space and vacant land ‐

044

Active

West Castle Street and South Avenue

43° 01' 50" N

76° 09' 34" W

‐

62.5

0.0

‐

2.0

mostly residential; some vacant land

045 046A/B 047 048 049 050 051

Abandoned Abandoned Abandoned Abandoned Abandoned Abandoned Abandoned

Hudson and West Castle Street Onondaga Avenue South Avenue near Centennial Drive South Avenue near Kirk Avenue Kirk Avenue Rockland and Hunt Avenue West Colvin Street and Hunt Avenue

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

PCV 9 RP RP RP RP RP RP

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

(6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Fac Plan ‐ Regulator Modifications, Screens, GI Implementation Green Infrastructure Clinton Street CSO Storage Facility Green Infrastructure

8/5/2018 12/31/2018 12/31/2013 12/31/2018

Flow Meter ‐ TBD during engineering design (5) Water Level Sensor (4) Flow Meter ‐ TBD during engineering design (5)

Fac Plan ‐ Regulator Modifications, Screens, GI Implementation

8/5/2018

Green Infrastructure Clinton Street CSO Storage Facility Green Infrastructure Clinton Street CSO Storage Facility Green Infrastructure Clinton Street CSO Storage Facility Green Infrastructure

12/31/2018 12/31/2013 12/31/2018 12/31/2013 12/31/2018 12/31/2013 12/31/2018

Not accessible

Clinton Street CSO Storage Facility

12/31/2013

Water Level Sensor (4)

Clinton Street CSO Storage Facility Green Infrastructure Clinton Street CSO Storage Facility Green Infrastructure Clinton Street CSO Storage Facility Green Infrastructure Clinton Street CSO Storage Facility Green Infrastructure Separation Midland Avenue RTF Green Infrastructure Separation Midland Avenue RTF Midland Avenue RTF Green Infrastructure Midland Avenue RTF Green Infrastructure Midland Avenue RTF Green Infrastructure Separation Separation Separation Separation Separation Separation Separation

12/31/2013 12/31/2018 12/31/2013 12/31/2018 12/31/2013 12/31/2018 12/31/2013 12/31/2018 Completed 2005 Completed 2008 12/31/2018 Completed 2005 Completed 2008 Completed 2008 12/31/2018 Completed 2008 12/31/2018 12/31/2011 12/31/2018 4/30/2013 Completed 2005 Completed 2006 Completed 2006 Completed (1) Completed 2008 Completed 2009

Temp. Ultrasonic Level Sensor (5) (6)

Ultrasonic Level Sensor (5)

Temp. Ultrasonic Level Sensor (5) (6) Water Level Sensor (4) Water Level Sensor (4) Water Level Sensor (4) N/A Ultrasonic Level Sensor (5) N/A Existing Flow Meter (7) Ultrasonic Level Sensor (5) Existing Flow Meter (7) Water Level Sensor (4) Post‐Construction Monitoring N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Abbreviations: V = Visual N/A = Not Applicable TBD = To be determined RP = Record Plans PCV = Post‐Construction Verification

2‐14

Table 2-2: CSO Outfall Information

Latitude

Longitude

Slope (%)

Land Use

43° 01' 15" N

76° 09' 21" W

‐

143.9

0.6

0.2

4.8

mostly residential

CSO Overflow Volume (MG) 8 Rainfall Trigger Intensity Imperviousne ss (%)

Location

Area (acres)

Status

CSO Closure Documentation

Outfall

Basin Characteristics CSO Abatement Strategy (completed items in bold)

Status or Scheduled Completion Date (completed items in bold)

Flow Monitoring

Onondaga Creek Drainage Basin (continued)

053

Abandoned Marguerite and Hunt Avenue

‐

054 055 056 057

Abandoned West Brighton and Hunt Avenue Abandoned Abandoned Abandoned West Genesee Street (West side of OC)

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

RP V 10 V 10 RP

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ 43° 01' 25" N

‐ ‐ 76° 09' 17" W

RP RP ‐

‐ ‐ 409.9

‐ ‐ 3.0

‐ ‐ 0.1

‐ ‐ 39

‐ ‐ 2.6

‐ ‐ mostly residential; some vacant land

Fac Plan ‐ Regulator Mods, Screens, Flow Mgmt, GI Green Infrastructure Separation Green Infrastructure Separation Separation Separation Separation Green Infrastructure Separation Separation Facilities Plan

43° 01' 19" N

76° 09' 18" W

‐

Separation

To be determined (TBD)

‐

V 10

‐

Eliminate

Completed (1)

Maltbie Street FCF

Completed 1999

N/A

Maltbie Street FCF Green Infrastructure

Completed 1999 12/31/2018

Existing Flow Meter (7)

Facilities Plan ‐ Screens, Aggressive GI, Demolish Newell St. Facility

8/5/2018

Existing Flow Meter (7)

052

058 059 060/077 061 062

Active

Elmhurst and Hunt Avenue

Abandoned Tracy Street Abandoned Park Avenue Active West Colvin Street (East side of OC) Active

Crehange St.

Abandoned W. Brighton East

065

Active

Maltbie St.

43° 03' 20" N

76° 09' 37" W

‐

9.4

0.2

1.4

066

Active

Maltbie St.

43° 03' 20" N

76° 09' 41" W

‐

93.9

0.8

0.1

0.7

‐ mostly community facilities; some vacant land and commercial mostly commercial; some residential

067

Active

W. Newell St.

43° 00' 58" N

76° 09' 28" W

‐

42.0

0.2

0.3

0.5

mostly residential; some open space

071 075

Active Active

Spencer St. Bypass Hiawatha Blvd.

43° 03' 26" N 43° 03' 54" N

76° 09' 41" W 76° 10' 25" W

‐ ‐

‐ 68.8

‐ 0.1

‐ 0.6

‐ 57

‐ 1.2

076

Active

Brighton and Midland

43° 01' 09" N

76° 09' 18" W

‐

53.8

0.5

0.4

1.0

‐ mostly commercial and residential; some vacant land and community facilities mostly commercial; some residential

080

Active

Erie Blvd. (East side of OC) A ‐ James Street Relief Sewer B ‐ Fayette Street and Irving Avenue C‐ South Crouse Avenue and Washington Street D ‐ Burnet Avenue and Elm Street E ‐ East Washington Street and Pine Street F ‐ South Beech and Canal Street G ‐ Burnet and Sherwood Avenue H ‐ Burnet and Teall Avenue I ‐ East Genesee and Westcott Street

43° 03' 08" N

76° 10' 36" W

‐

651.5 367.5 139.4 44.5 49.2 38.4 70.7 62.7 216.7 13.2

0.1

0.9

1.8

mostly residential; some commercial

Captured up to 2‐year storm Capacity Upgrade Green Infrastructure Floatables Plan Green Infrastructure Erie Blvd.. Storage System (EBSS) EBSS Gate Modifications Green Infrastructure

8/5/2018 12/31/2018 Completed 2003 12/31/2018 Completed 2003 Completed (1) Completed (1) Completed 1999 12/31/2018 Completed 1999 Completed 1999 8/5/2018

Temp. Flow Meter, Sampler (3) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Temp. Flow Meter, Sampler (3) Water Level Sensor (4), Post‐ Construction Monitoring (TBD) N/A

Completed (1) Existing Flow Meter (7) Completed (1) 12/31/2018 Plan Re‐submittal 3/12/13 Water Level Sensor (4) 12/31/2018 Completed 2002 Completed 2011 12/31/2018 Flow Meter, Sampler. Event indicators at sub‐basin CSOs A‐I

Ley Creek Drainage Basin 073

Active

Teall Ave.

43° 04' 42" N

76° 07' 25" W

‐

238.4

2.3

0.3

1.4

mostly residential

074

Active

Hiawatha Blvd.

43° 04' 36" N

76° 10' 19" W

‐

6.0

0.0

‐

1.9

mostly residential; some commercial

Notes: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

(6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Teall Brook FCF Green Infrastructure Hiawatha Blvd. RTF Green Infrastructure

Complete 2001 12/31/2018 Completed 2001 12/31/2018

Existing Flow Meter (7) Existing Flow Meter (7)

Abbreviations: V = Visual N/A = Not Applicable TBD = To be determined RP = Record Plans PCV = Post‐Construction Verification

2‐15

Figure 2‐1: CSO Basins and Sewer Service Areas

2‐16

Section 3 SWMM Update 3.1 USEPA SWMM 2009 In 2012, Onondaga County performed a comprehensive update to their USEPA SWMM 2009 baseline input files, in accordance with the Fourth Stipulation of the ACJ Paragraphs 14H (viii and ix) and I,. The 2009 SWMM baseline was developed using SWMM version 4.4h and was substantially limited in detail and accuracy by available technology at the time. Although the 2009 SWMM baseline was converted to SWMM version 5 in 2010, very few model elements were updated, and greater subcatchment detail is required to enable modeling of green infrastructure (GI). USEPA’s SWMM version 5.0.019 was a substantial software upgrade that added a Low Impact Development (LID) module specifically for the purposes of simulating GI. The current (2012) SWMM is version 5.0.022. In addition, the following list of updated data, resources and tools are readily available 

More accurate physical data



LIDAR topology



Aerial survey of imperviousness



USDA soil survey parameters



2012‐2013 regulator weir survey



ArcHydro subcatchment delineation



Intra‐subcatchment routing



RTC programming

The County initiated a comprehensive model update as it is no longer appropriate to continue with an outdated SWMM where calibrating a baseline is becoming grossly more inaccurate over time. County data (2.5 gigabytes in size) was reviewed and imported to develop the updated SWMM. The model update documentation and re‐calibration of baseline (2009) conditions is described in Appendix H. Highlights are provided in the following section.

3.2 Summary of SWMM Updates A visual summary of SWMM updates is provided in the figure on the following page which compares the previous SWMM network (Figure 3‐1a) to the updated SWMM network (Figure 3‐1b). The 2012 SWMM review process identified several necessary updates that are detailed in Appendix H and summarized in Table 3‐1.

3‐1

Section 3  SWMM Update

Figure 3‐1a: Previous SWMM5 Network

Figure 3‐1b: Updated SWMM Network

3‐2

Section 3  SWMM Update

Table 3‐1: Summary of Major Updates Previous Model Developed with EPA SWMM version 4.4h and converted to SWMM 5 in 2009 Two separate models with free outfalls

Limited model network vs. GIS trunk sewer alignments (shown with yellow highlight in Figure 2‐1a) 503 nodes and 577 conduits Limited dry weather input nodes Wet weather inlet nodes based on sewer map (not topology) 94 subcatchments. Delineation based on sewer map. Topology was not considered Calibrated with ground rain gauges

HBIS: 3 PSs MIS: 1 PS, 1 RTF and EBSS gates Not geo‐referenced Used SWMM default Hortonian infiltration parameters. Actual soil type and condition was not considered. Imperviousness obtained by visual interpretation of aerial photos Simplified wet weather operation controls CSO regulators/outfalls mostly based on 1989 BMP drawings

Updated Model Updated using EPA SWMM version 5.0.022 One combined model with refined boundary conditions (Metro Headworks) and calibrated Creek/Brook tailwater conditions based on USGS stream gauges Model network includes all pipes of GIS trunk sewer alignments 1,807 nodes and 1,909 conduits Dry weather input distributed throughout the system based on dry weather flow data and service area size Wet weather inlet nodes based on sewer map and topology 456 subcatchments. Delineation based on digital elevation model developed from LIDAR topographic survey data Added RDII in sanitary sewer service areas (areas tributary to Westside, Liverpool, and Ley Creek pump stations) Calibrated with ground rain gauges and validated with radar rainfall data (better resolution and better representation of spatial heterogeneity of the precipitation events, e.g. summer storms) HBIS: 3 PSs MIS: 4 PSs, 2 RTFs and modified EBSS gates Geo‐referenced Used Green‐Amp infiltration method. Parameters based on USDA soil survey data Imperviousness based on Syracuse aerial survey GIS land cover and supplemented with Landsat imagery Improved wet weather operation controls CSO regulators/outfalls based on updated as‐built records and 2012‐2013 weir survey data.

This model update process resulted in several significant updates to the model highlighted in Tables 3‐2 through 3‐4 and also detailed in Appendix H. Many of these model updates were also presented at an ACJ Quarterly Progress Meeting held on February 26, 2013, in the County Facilities Conference Room (see Appendix I for the meeting presentation and sign‐in sheet). Substantial source material, detailed in Section 3.1 of Appendix H, and calibration results detailed in Section 4 of Appendix H, supported the 2012 SWMM update effort. The major sections of the combined sewer network are highlighted in Table 3‐2. Although the entire sewer network is hydraulically connected, there are certain CSO subcatchments that have immediate impact on the hydraulics of other, typically adjacent, CSO subcatchments. These are generally grouped as Harbor Brook, Clinton/Lower MIS, Midland, and Hiawatha (see Figure 2‐1 at the end of the previous section).

3‐3

Section 3  SWMM Update

Table 3‐2: Comparison of Previous and Updated Model Conduit Lengths Previous Model Length (Miles) 3

Updated Model Length (Miles) 4

GIS Pipe Length (Miles) 4

HB Trunk/Collector Sewers

Onondaga Creek

MIS

Erie Boulevard Storage System

MIS Trunk/Collector Sewers

164

Total

119

231

Collection System Harbor Brook HBIS

Table 3‐3 Comparison of Previous and Updated Model Conduit Lengths Previous Model Quantity

Updated Model Quantity

Nodes Regulators Storage Units

57 5

57 16

Outfalls

Junctions Total Nodes Links Conduits Pumps

487 560

1,785 1,864

577 7

1,815 20

Orifices Weirs Total Links

6 2 592

13 62 1,910

Collection System

Comments No change Added pump station wet well and process tank volumes at regional treatment facilities (RTFs) Combined previous two models into one updated model and incorporated all major network facilities into hydraulics, eliminating modeling simplifications where facilities were previously modeled as outfalls Added significant model detail

Added significant model detail More representative of actual lead‐lag pump operation at pump stations and RTFs Added significant model detail Added significant model detail

Table 3‐4 Comparison of Previous and Updated Model Subcatchment Information Previous Model Quantity 7,937b

Updated Model Quantity a 7,227

Total Storm Drain Area (acres)

—

71,877

Number of Combined Sewer Subcatchments Average Combined Sewer Subcatchment Size (acres) Number of Storm Drain Subcatchments Median Storm Subcatchment Size (acres)

376

—

Subcatchment Information Total Combined Sewer Area (acres)

Comments Reduced mainly due to discount of EBSS storm drain area Added upstream drainage basin to Onondaga Creek and Harbor Brook Increased mainly due to decrease in average size Reduced for more detailed model Added to better represent tailwater conditions in receiving water body

Includes storm drainage basins, e.g., EBSS upstream drainage area and upstream watershed for Onondaga Creek and Harbor Brook. b Includes EBSS storm drainage area

3‐4

Section 3  SWMM Update

3.3 Baseline Annual CSO Capture 3.3.1 Comparison of Capture Results between Updated and Previous Models The model update and calibration, fully described in Appendix H and third‐party reviewed by CDM‐ Smith, provided the following revised baseline annual capture results based on the 1991 annual precipitation record: Table 3‐5: Comparison of 2009 Annual Capture Results of Updated Model versus Previous Model

Sewer Service Area/Proposed Facilities Hiawatha RTF Harbor Brook Clinton/Lower MIS ‐ EBSS ‐ Clinton ‐ Franklin FCF ‐ Maltbie FCF Midland RTF Sewer Separation Areas* Total

[1] Average Annual Combined Sewage Volume Conveyed to Metro for Treatment, Captured by RTFs, or Eliminated through Sewer Separation (MG) Updated Previous Model Model* 643 253 930 366 163 182 788 670 938 633 77 73 1729 871 128 128 5,396 3,176

[2]

CSO to Creek/Brook (MG) Updated Previous Model Model* 1 0 191 141 4 234 212 11 44 0 697

40 219 147 22 32 0 601

[3] = [1] + [2]

[4] = [1] / [3]

Total Annual Combined Sewage Volume Collected by the Metro Combined Sewer Service Area (MG) Updated Previous Model Model* 644 253 1121 507 167 222 1022 889 1150 780 88 95 1773 903 128 128 6,093 3,777

Percent Capture Updated Previous Model Model* 99.8% 100 83.0% 72 97.9% 82 77.1% 75 81.6% 81 87.1% 77 97.5% 96 100.0% 100 88.6% 84

*Based on 2010 ACJ report.

Table 3‐5 shows a system‐wide increase in the total annual combined sewage volume collected by the Metro combined sewer service area for the previous model (3,777 MG) as compared with the updated model (6,093 MG). This is principally due to the methodology used to calculate the total annual combined sewage volume collected. The methodology has been updated for several reasons: 

SWMM computation methodology and data input is now more accurate and precise



Incorporates benefits of storage



Greater alignment with methodologies used across the nation

The previous and updated methodologies are further described in the next section.

3.3.2 Computation Methodologies The USEPA CSO Control Policy Presumption Approach presumes water quality criteria would be met if CSO communities meet one of three criteria; one of these criteria is described as the elimination or the capture for treatment of no less than 85% by volume of the combined sewage collected in the CSS during precipitation events on a system‐wide annual average basis. Although the Fourth Stipulation of the ACJ outlines higher percent captures, the percent captures are still based on the volume of combined sewage collected in the CSS.

3‐5

Section 3  SWMM Update

3.3.2.1 Previous Combined Sewage Collection Methodology Figure 3‐2 illustrates how total annual combined sewage volume collection had been calculated in the previous model results. A baseline equal to 110 percent of peak dry weather flow (DWF) is represented as the red dash‐dot line in the figure. The 110 percent straight‐line baseline was used to define the start of the collection of combined sewage volume (i.e., wet weather volume) in the previous SWMM. The wet weather volume was defined as the volume between the intersecting points of the wet weather hydrograph (blue line) and the 110 percent peak dry weather flow line. The wet weather volume is calculated as “area under the curve” as shown in the area colored pink (conveyed and treated portion) and blue (overflow portion). The wet weather volume is the denominator in the calculation of percent capture. This method underestimates the combined sewage collection volume by ignoring the portion of combined sewage volume that is conveyed and treated while the flow rate is less than 110percent of peak DWF. This is a significant volume, especially if storms begin at night when the DWF is well below the 110percent of peak DWF level.

Figure 3‐2: Schematic of Annual Capture Based on 110 percent Peak DWF Methodology (nts) 3.3.2.2 Updated Combined Sewage Collection Methodology The updated model uses 101 percent of dry weather flow to determine the wet weather period as illustrated in Figure 3‐3. Instead of using a single peak dry weather flow value (a straight line shown as the red dash‐dot line), this method dynamically computes the threshold values for each time interval and determines the wet weather period by comparing the time series value of the model simulation with a dynamic baseline of 101 percent dry weather flow at each point in time.

3‐6

Section 3  SWMM Update

This methodology includes the portion of combined sewage conveyed and treated when flow is less than the 110 percent of peak dry weather flow. Schematically, the wet weather flow volume (or combined sewage collection volume) for each method is: CSS Collection Volume (110% of Peak Dry Weather Flow) = Blue (overflow) + Pink (conveyed & treated) CSS Collection Volume (101% of Dry Weather Flow) = Blue (overflow) + Pink + Green (conveyed & treated)

Figure 3‐3: Schematic of Annual Capture Based on 101% DWF Methodology (not to scale) 3.3.2.3 Comparison of Methodologies In the early years (1980s and 1990s) of combined sewer compliance planning, it might have been necessary to use 110 percent of peak dry weather flow to determine the wet weather period due to the limitations of computation technology. For example, computation error (routing and continuity) can be significant and can oscillate around the “true” value (smooth curve); therefore, a baseline higher than the oscillating computation error might have been needed to avoid erroneous results. With the improvement of computing technique and computer technology, a well‐developed model generates minimal computation error, and it is common today in professional practice to use 101 percent (or even 100 percent) of DWF as a baseline while avoiding errors generated due to computer simulation. RDII can also last for several days after a storm event. Some communities across the United States have used RDII as a rationale for considering wet weather flow to last essentially year‐ round. Onondaga County has selected 101 percent of DWF to include a measure of conservatism in CSO abatement planning and implementation.

3.4 2012 Conditions Model Update and Validation Based on the updated and calibrated baseline conditions model summarized in Section 3.1, a 2012 conditions model was developed by adding gray and green projects constructed after December 31,

3‐7

Section 3  SWMM Update

2009 to SWMM. The 2012 conditions model was then validated with 2012 flow monitoring data as well as radar rainfall.

3.4.1 Projects Included in the 2012 Conditions Model The 2009 condition model was calibrated to 2004 and 2009 flow meter data. The CSS experienced substantial changes since then with the implementation of gray and green infrastructure projects. The gray projects completed since December of 2009 include: 

Sewer separation projects in the 013, 016, 017, 022 and 045 areas



Harbor Brook Interceptor Sewer (HBIS) replacement project



EBSS gate modifications (see Appendix H)



CSO 044 conveyance project

Ninety‐seven GI projects have been included in SWMM, and they are listed in Table 4‐1. It should be noted that some of the information for constructed GIF projects was based on design data and may not represent their final as‐built condition as documentation from private property GI projects lags. These data will be checked and updated as needed once as‐built information is received.

3.4.2 Green Infrastructure Modeling Methodology 3.4.2.1 USEPA SWMM’s LID Module LID is the terminology used in SWMM to represent green infrastructure. Five different types of LID technologies are included in the SWMM LID module: 1.

Bio‐retention cell including rain gardens, green roofs, and street planters

Porous pavement

Infiltration trenches

Rain barrels/cisterns

Vegetative swales

LID technologies are represented by a combination of vertical layers. There are five available layers in the SWMM LID module: 1.

Surface

Pavement

Soil

Storage

Underdrain

3‐8

Section 3  SWMM Update

Each of these layers is defined on a per‐unit‐area basis, and not all layers need to be defined for all types of LID technologies. Table 3‐6 summarizes required and optional layers for each type of LID technology. Figure 3-4 presents an example of a bio-retention cell with four simulation layers represented. Table 3‐6: LID Technology Simulation Layer Requirements LID Type

Surface

Pavement

Soil

Storage

Underdrain

Bio‐retention cell

‐‐

Porous pavement

‐‐

Infiltration trench

‐‐

Rain barrel

‐‐

Vegetative swale

‐‐

(X) = REQUIRED; (O) = OPTIONAL; (‐‐) = NOT USED

Figure 3‐4: Flow pathway schematics for a Bio‐retention cell. The surface layer receives runoff from another catchment area and can store the excess rainfall and runoff in the surface layer depression area (e.g., rain garden/planter). A portion of excess will be infiltrated from the surface layer to the soil layer where it would retain water within its void volume (pore water), and the remaining portion will percolate into the storage layer (e.g. gravel or crushed stone layer). Additional percolation will occur once the storage area is full by entering the underdrain system or infiltrating into the natural soil layer beneath the bio‐retention cell.

3‐9

Section 3  SWMM Update

Figure 3‐5: Example of SWMM LID control input screen for green roof.

A green roof can be entered as a bio‐retention cell. Figure 3‐5 is an example input screen for modeling a green roof with 3‐inches of planting medium. No storage is proposed for this green roof; therefore, the storage parameters are defined as zero. This example simulates 3‐inches of planting medium with limited surface depression depth and a relatively flat (2 percent) surface. The soil layer provides storage within its pore volume. No storage layer is provided for this example, and infiltrated water will be collected through an underdrain system. SWMM defines a unit‐per‐area control first and then inputs the size (area) of the control (green roof) in the catchment area where the control (green roof) is located. The SWMM LID module allows for the addition of GI directly to the subcatchment without further delineation of the catchment area to the scale that is appropriate for single or aggregated GI. The pre‐ defined LID controls are added through a LID Usage Editor, as shown in Figure 3‐6. SWMM uses LID controls from its subcatchment property pop‐out manual. Pre‐defined LID controls can be added through the LID Usage Editor by specifying type, size, number, their tributary area, and initial hydrologic condition.

3‐10

Section 3  SWMM Update

Figure 3‐6: LID Usage Editor input screen in subcatchment property manual 3.4.2.2 GI Modeling Approach Not all green infrastructures are presented in the SWMM LID module (e.g. wet extended detention pond, infiltration pond, etc.). These can be simulated with traditional methods that utilize SWMM model objects (e.g. storage node with formulated outlet and overflow weir/orifices simulate a detention pond with overflow outlet). SWMM LID allows two different approaches for placing LID controls within a subcatchment: 1.

Place one or more controls in an existing subcatchment that will displace an equal amount of non‐LID area from the subcatchment

Create a new subcatchment devoted entirely to just a single LID practice

3‐11

Section 3  SWMM Update

Depending on the GI’s connectivity to the sewer, more refined delineation may be needed to better represent actual hydraulic conditions. For instance, if GI is not directly connected to the sewer network (e.g.,runoff overflows to another GI and/or is re‐routed to another catchment area), further division of the subcatchment may be needed to isolate the LID catchment(s) and route the outflow (overflow or underdrain) to the specific area(s).

3.4.2.3 Constructed GI Projects Based on the calibrated 2009 condition model, GI projects constructed between 2010 and 2012 were imported and added together with the gray projects to develop the 2012 conditions model. Table 4‐1 lists the constructed GI projects that have been added to the 2012 conditions model.

3.4.3 Model Validation 3.4.3.1 CSO Flow Metering Flow meters were installed in 2012 at 11 CSO locations as summarized in Section 2.2. These flow meters were installed to measure the overflows at specific CSO outfalls; therefore, they do not measure the total flows in the system. The data was used to validate the updated 2012 conditions model against the available 2012 flow meter data.

Figure 3‐7: Radar Rainfall Spatial Distribution over Study Area. Reflectivity data was downloaded from NOAA’s National Climate Data Center (NCDC) NEXRAD data inventory (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/nexradinv/chooseday.jsp?id=kbgm) along with a weather and climate toolkit (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/wct/) required to view and process the data.

3.4.3.2 Radar Rainfall Rather than using precipitation records at a couple discrete points in the study area by traditional means of tipping bucket rain gauges, the radar rainfall (RR) method comprehensively captures rainfall

3‐12

Section 3  SWMM Update

across the entire region by using atmospheric reflectivity as a metric for precipitation. Figure 3‐7 shows the distribution of rainfall over the study area for a sample event. Note the increased precision achieved by continuous NEXRAD data comprised of numerous 0.25‐kilometer x 1 degree grid cells instead of representing the entire region by a single or multiple gauges. This radar rainfall data corresponds with the data from the NOAA National Weather Service Forecast Office in Binghamton, NY. The wet spring period of 04/21/12 to 05/08/12 was selected for model validation. Time series were constructed at each grid cell by exporting the data to shapefiles at five minute intervals. The rainfall data series were then assigned automatically to each underlain subcatchment based on weighted average coverage. The radar rainfall time series were validated by comparing rainfall volumes from the 2012 point rain gauge located at the Midland RTF to those from the 5 nearest radar rainfall subcatchments during 7 storm events for the period 04/21/12 – 05/08/12. Table 3‐7 shows the volumetric matches between these two rainfall methods. Table 3‐7: Rainfall Volumes for Radar Rainfall (RR) Grid Cell Locations Compared to the Midland RTF Rain Gauge Event Start Date

Rainfall Duration (hours)

039‐01

SD‐40‐01

039‐05

MIS_043

039‐02

Midland RTF Rain Gauge (inches)

4/22/12

21.4

0.83

0.84

0.82

0.83

1.18

4/26/12

4.9

0.12

0.11

0.12

0.18

4/30/12

13.0

0.39

0.41

0.38

0.39

0.35

5/3/12

4.3

0.88

0.82

0.91

0.92

0.88

0.48

5/7/12

22.92

1.11

1.14

1.11

Subtotal

3.33

3.34

3.33

3.30

Weighted Total Rainfall based on RR Grid Cell Location (inches)

3.4.3.3 Validation Results The 2012 conditions model was run with radar rainfall data for a period of two (2) weeks from April 22 to May 8, 2012. Although the model slightly over‐predicts the overflow at most of the locations, the validation results, in general, show a reasonable fit as presented in the graphics in Appendix J.

3.4.4 2012 Conditions Model Results The 2012 conditions model results are provided in Table 3‐8. As shown in the table the annual combined sewage volume capture increased by 133 million gallons due to the contributions from constructed green and gray projects since 2009 as described in Section 3.3.1. As a result of this increased combined sewage volume capture, a total of 74 million gallons of CSO was eliminated since 2009, equivalent to a 1 percent increase in system‐wide capture. At the time of the Fourth Stipulation of the ACJ, 1 percent was equivalent to 40 MG based on the previous SWMM. To evaluate CSO reduction contribution from GI, the 2012 conditions model was run without GI. CSO capture contributions can then be calculated by comparing results between model runs with GI and

3‐13

Section 3  SWMM Update

without GI. To evaluate CSO reduction contribution from gray infrastructure, the 2012 conditions model results without GI were compared to the updated 2009 baseline. Results are shown in Table 3‐ 9. Table 3‐8: 2012 Capture Results Average Annual Combined Sewage Volume Captured* or Eliminated** (MG) [1]

Additional Annual Combined Sewage Volume Captured by Green/Gray Infrastructure or Eliminated** (MG) [2]

Total Annual Combined Sewage Volume Eliminated** or Captured (MG) [3] = [1] + [2]

641

Harbor Brook

931

EBSS

159

Clinton

761

Franklin FCF Maltbie FCF Midland RTF Sewer Separation Areas Total

Sewer Service Area/ Proposed Facilities Hiawatha RTF

CSO to Creek or Brook (MG) [4]

Total Annual Combined Sewage Volume Collected by the Metro Sewer Service Area (MG) [5] = [3] + [4]

Percent Capture [6] = [3] / [5]

643

644

99.8%

950

165

1115

85.2%

164

167

98.2%

833

189

1022

81.5%

912

921

213

1134

81.2%

87.5%

1728

1732

1773

97.7%

128

150

100.0%

5337

133

5470

623

6093

89.8%

* ‐ Conveyed to Metro or treated by RTF ** ‐ Eliminated by sewer separation

Table 3‐9: Comparison of Green and Gray Infrastructure Benefits between 2009 and 2012 SWMM Condition Average Annual CSO Reduction Captured for Treatment or Eliminated (MG)

Average Annual Stormwater Reduction Captured for Treatment or Eliminated (MG)

Average Annual Total Combined Sewage Volume Captured for Treatment or Eliminated (MG)

Green

Gray*

Total

133

Infrastructure

*Includes sewer separation

3.5 Projection to 2018 Conditions The following projects are planned for the future; some are scheduled to be completed in 2013: 

Clinton Storage Facility



Harbor Brook Storage Facility



East Fayette Street Sewer Separation



32 GI projects under construction

3‐14

Section 3  SWMM Update



62 GI projects in design and anticipated to start construction in 2013

Table 3-10 shows the projected numerical goals to reach 95 percent capture.

Table 3‐10 Projection to 2018 Conditions [1] Metro Service Area

Total

[2]

[3] = [1] + [2]

[4] = [1] / [3]

Total Annual Combined Sewage Volume Captured for Treatment or Eliminated (MG)

CSO to Creek/Brook [MG]

Total Annual Combined Sewage Volume Generated by the Metro Combined Sewer Service Area (MG)

Percent Capture for Treatment at Metro or Eliminated

5788

305

6093

95.0

3‐15

Section 4 CSO Project Status The County is required under Section 14H in the Fourth Stipulation of the ACJ to report annually the status of the gray and green infrastructure projects and include a detailed description, location, scope of work, projected CSO capture rate, the methodology used to arrive at that projection, and proposed major and minor milestone dates. The ACJ CSO projects discussed in this section represent the current scope of the County’s CSO compliance program. For additional, project‐specific information, please go to the Save the Rain website at www.savetherain.us.

4.1 Gray Infrastructure This section of the report provides the status of specific gray infrastructure projects listed in Sections 14B and 14L of the ACJ and projects developed afterward that address the reduction of CSO. Table 4‐1: ACJ Gray Infrastructure Capture Estimates and Milestone Schedule Milestone Type

Milestone Date

Compliance Status

Plans and specs to NYSDEC for review and approval

Minor

06/01/2010

Achieved

Commence construction

Minor

12/31/2010

Achieved

Complete construction and commence operation

Major

12/31/2011

Achieved

Plans and specs to NYSDEC for review and approval Harbor Brook Interceptor Commence construction Sewer Replacement Complete construction and commence operation

Minor

08/17/2009

Achieved

Minor

01/01/2010

Achieved

Major

12/31/2013

Achieved

Plans and specs to NYSDEC for review and approval

Minor

09/01/2010

Achieved

Complete required modifications

Major

12/31/2011

Achieved

Plans and specs to NYSDEC for review and approval

Minor

02/01/2011*

Achieved

Commence construction

Minor

10/01/2011*

Achieved

Complete construction and commence operation

Major

12/31/2013

In Progress

Plans and specs to NYSDEC for review and approval

Minor

04/29/2011*

Achieved

Commence construction

Minor

12/31/2011*

Achieved

Project

CSO 044 Conveyances

Erie Boulevard Storage System Modifications

Clinton Storage Facility

Harbor Brook Storage Facility

Milestone Description

Complete construction and commence operation Major 12/31/2013 Notes: *‐ Date reflects ACJ Milestone extension approved by the NYSDEC on November 4, 2010

In Progress

Table 4‐2: Additional Gray Infrastructure Projects and Implementation Schedules Project CSO 022/045 Sewer Separation Project

CSO 063 Conveyances

Task Description

Date

Plans and specs to NYSDEC for review and approval

06/06/2011

Commence construction

01/24/2012

Complete construction and commence operation

12/31/2012

Submit Final Design Report and 50% design

11/16/2012

Plans and specs to NYSDEC for review and approval

02/22/2013

Advertise for bid

05/01/2013

Commence construction

07/15/2013

Complete construction

10/01/2014

4‐1

Section 4  CSO Project Status

4.1.1 CSO 044 Conveyances In 2012, the County’s contractor continued toward completion of the CSO 044 Conveyances Project which provides for the transmission of wet weather flow from CSO 044 and discharges to Onondaga Creek at South Avenue and West Castle Street to the Midland RTF on the south side of Syracuse. The 500 linear feet of 96‐inch conveyance sewer and new CSO 044 regulator structure, which constituted the sewer work associated with this project, were installed in 2011, and as a result the notice of Partial Beneficial Occupancy was issued for the project on December 31, 2011. CSO 044 Conveyances Project The remaining work completed in 2012 included: 

Installation and testing of the two flushing gate systems

Compliance Status Submit plans and specs to DEC by 6/1/10 (achieved) Commence construction by 1/1/11 (achieved)

Final restoration of West Castle Street sidewalks and pavement

Complete construction by 12/31/11 (achieved)



General site cleanup and removal of the field trailer

All project work including GI was completed by December 2012.



Installation of GI components



The project is anticipated to be closed out in early 2013.

Project Status at EOY 2012

Proposed Work for 2013 Issue substantial completion and close out the project.

4‐2

Figure 4‐1: CSO 044 Project Map

Section 4  CSO Project Status

Greening the Gray Green Infrastructure work completed on the CSO 044 project in 2012 included the installation of a bio‐retention area, two rain gardens, a butterfly garden, and a path from South Avenue to the Midland Avenue Bridge over Onondaga Creek.

Figure 4‐2: CSO 044 – Construction of Porous Concrete Trail

Figure 4‐3: CSO 044 – Rain Garden Construction

Figure 4‐4: CSO 044 –Rain Garden presentation board for community meeting

4‐3

Section 4  CSO Project Status

4.1.2 HBIS Replacement Project The HBIS Replacement Project provided for a much needed upgrade to the existing Harbor Brook Interceptor Sewer between West Fayette Street and Velasko Road on the west side of Syracuse. This portion of the interceptor sewer conveys dry weather and combined flow from CSOs 009, 010, 011, 013, 014, 015, 016, 017, 018, and 078 for conveyance to HBIS Replacement Project Metro for treatment. The existing interceptor was constructed in the 1920s and had fallen into disrepair. As Compliance Status a result flow restrictions developed which decreased the Submit plans and specs to DEC by 8/17/09 capacity and increased infiltration in some areas. (achieved)

In 2012, the major milestone for completing construction and commencing operation by December 31, 2013, was met through the issuing of the certificate of beneficial occupancy and partial substantial completion. The work covered under the certificates is listed below and is effective April 24, 2012.

Commence construction by 1/1/10 (achieved) Complete construction by 12/31/13 (achieved) Project Status at EOY 2012 Sewer construction was completed. The GI components are 90 percent complete. Proposed Work for 2013



The installation of 7,503 LF of new HBIS, 18‐ to 36‐inches in diameter



The installation of 5,222 LF of new local sewers, 8‐ to 42‐inches in diameter



The rehabilitation of 860 LF of 30‐inch brick sewer, and 1,000 LF of 12‐ to 18‐inch clay sewers



Sewer separation of CSO areas 013 and 016 which abandoned the CSOs



The installation of 3 new regulator manholes at CSOs 015, 017, and 018



The rehabilitation or replacement of 2500 LF of Harbor Brook culvert



The installation of 2,000 LF of 36‐inch and 2,100 LF of 8‐inch water mains

Complete GI work & issue the final substantial completion and closeout the project.

It is anticipated that the remaining GI work will be substantially complete in 2013, and the project will be closed out.

Greening the Gray The GI components incorporated into this gray construction project include managing runoff from the intersection of Delaware Street and Grand Avenue (Figures 4‐5 and 4‐6), as well as the installation of approximately 80 enhanced infiltration tree basins (Figure 4‐7). The GI component installation of the Delaware‐Grand Rain Garden was completed in September of Figure 4‐5: Delaware‐Grand Rain Garden porous 2012. The design objective is to divert surface gravel path and concrete sidewalk installation runoff from Grand Avenue and Delaware Street which was previously collected by catch basins and transmitted to the combined sewers in the area that overflows to Harbor Brook and, instead, direct this surface runoff to a series of green

4‐4

Section 4  CSO Project Status

infrastructure features. This will maximize on‐site infiltration, evapotranspiration and detention, and improve water quality while also improving the aesthetics of the area with a park‐like setting. The system consists of a rain garden near the Grand/Delaware intersection, a bio‐retention basin at the Grand Avenue side of the site, and a second bio‐retention basin at the Amy Street side of the site. Runoff is diverted to these cells through a series of surface curb inlets along Grand Ave. and Delaware Street which are designed to intercept gutter flows before they reach the existing catch basins connected to the combined sewer. These catch basins will be left in place to serve as emergency overflows in the event of a blockage or an extreme storm event. A swale along the northwest side of the site will also collect additional runoff from the adjacent property and direct it toward the facilities. The GI features collect runoff from approximately 3.19 acres (2.02 acres on‐site and 1.17 acres of off‐ site drainage).

Figure 4‐6: Delaware‐Grand rain garden completed porous gravel path.

Figure 4‐7: Tree basin installation on Herriman Street

Figure 4‐8: HBIS Project Area

4‐5

Section 4  CSO Project Status

4.1.3 Clinton Storage Facility Construction of the Clinton Storage Facility, which will capture wet weather flow from CSOs 028, 030, 031, 032, 033, 034, 035, 036, and 037, continued in 2012 (see Figure 4‐9). This facility is being constructed to satisfy the requirements of Section 14L.iv of the ACJ. The facility is being installed in downtown Syracuse at the Trolley Lot site, which was previously designated for the Clinton Street RTF. The following milestones are attached to the project:

Clinton Storage Project

Compliance Status Submit plans and specs to DEC by 2/1/11 (achieved) Commence construction by 10/1/11 (achieved) Complete construction by 12/31/13 Project Status at EOY 2012 Project is approximately 60% complete. Proposed Work for 2013



Complete design and submit approvable plans and specifications to the NYSDEC for review and approval by February 1, 2011 (Revised by DEC on November 4, 2010) (minor)



Commence construction by October 1, 2011 (Revised) (minor)



Complete construction and commence operation by December 31, 2013 (major)

Complete construction of the wet weather facilities for operation by 12/31/13.

The project includes a CSO storage facility consisting of three parallel 18‐foot diameter tunnels with above ground structures at either end for servicing and maintenance, a green roof for storm water capture (“Greening the Gray”), odor control measures, and dewatering and effluent pumps. In addition, 36‐, 84‐, and 96‐ inch on‐site conveyance piping will be installed to connect the existing CSO pipelines (completed in 2009) to the facility along with a 16‐inch diameter dewatering force main to transmit flow to the MIS for treatment at Metro. Final restoration of the site will include the replacement of the parking lot east of the railroad tunnel and new stormwater control systems. In early 2012, the County and the contractor implemented the delegated design in which the contractor would construct the storage tunnels by open cut in lieu of utilizing a tunnel boring machine. In addition, the following project components were completed in 2012: 

Underground portions of the East and West Chamber (see Figure 4‐10)



Excavation support, jet grouting, excavation, interior and exterior walls,

4‐6

Figure 4‐9: Clinton Street CSO Storage Facility construction progress – September 2012

Section 4  CSO Project Status

cast‐in‐basin mud mat and invert slab of the storage tunnels 

The outfall to Onondaga Creek, 36‐inch diameter Tully Street conveyance sewer by microtunneling, and 84‐inch diameter West Jefferson Street conveyance piping by open cut

The work completed in 2012 was not without its difficulties; specifically, the challenges encountered during jet grouting operations for the storage tunnels and installation of the 36‐inch sewer under Onondaga Creek by microtunneling. Notwithstanding these issues, the project is still on track to be operational by December 31, 2013. In order to achieve this, the contractor will complete the installation of the east and west chambers; the storage tunnels; the 96‐inch conveyance sewer from Dickerson Street; the 16‐inch diameter MIS tap; and necessary electrical, HVAC, and plumbing systems.

Greening the Gray To further enhance the sustainability of the facility, the project includes green infrastructure components. The stormwater runoff from the entire site that measures approximately 275,000 square feet or 6.3 acres will be managed by green infrastructure. The stormwater from the area surrounding the main structure on the western half of the site will be collected by a series of catch basins and stormwater piping that will outfall into two bio‐retention basins. The bio‐retention basins will allow the stormwater to infiltrate into the ground rather than immediately run off to the creek. In addition, stormwater runoff from the eastern half of the project site, to be restored as a parking area, will be directed to a subsurface collection facility and used to flush the storage tunnels to clear them of grit and debris that may have settled or been left behind after the stored combined sewage was transmitted to Metro. In addition, a green roof will be installed on the west building.

Figure 4‐10: 84‐inch West Jefferson Street on‐site conveyance sewer and west chamber construction progress – May 2012

4‐7

Section 4  CSO Project Status

4.1.4 Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility The Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility Project is a CSO storage facility that is currently being constructed on State Fair Boulevard between Hiawatha Blvd. and West Genesee Street in the City of Syracuse. The facility will capture and store the overflows from conveyance sewers constructed from CSOs 003, 004, and 063 for up to the 1‐year, 2‐hour design storm event. After the storm event subsides, the contents of the storage tank will be pumped to the existing HBIS for conveyance to Metro for full treatment. The project will fulfill the Lower Harbor Brook Storage ACJ requirement in Section 14L.i. Additionally, the County is obligated to meet the following project milestones:

Lower Harbor Brook Storage Project

Compliance Status Submit plans and specs to DEC 6/1/11 (achieved) Commence construction by 12/31/11 (achieved) Complete construction by 12/31/13 Project Status at EOY 2012 Conveyance sewers from CSO 003 and 004 are 80% complete. The storage facility is approximately 50% complete. Proposed Work for 2012 Substantially complete the CSO 003 and 004 Conveyances. Complete and commence operation of the storage facility.



Complete design and submit approvable plans and specifications to the DEC for review and approval by April 29, 2011 (Revised by the DEC on November 4, 2010) (minor)



Commence construction by December 31, 2011 (Revised) (minor)



Complete construction and commence operation by December 31, 2013 (major)

In 2012, work continued on both construction contracts associated with this storage facility (see Figure 4‐10). The Lower Harbor Brook Conveyance contract which includes the off‐ site conveyance pipelines from CSOs 003 and 004, was approximately 80 percent complete as of December 31, 2012. Work completed includes: 

All 615 linear feet of the 48‐ to 60‐inch diameter Hiawatha conveyance sewer



200 linear feet of the 330 linear foot 48‐ inch diameter State Fair conveyance sewer



The 18‐inch diameter CSO 003 regulator sewer totaling 700 linear feet



The 21‐inch diameter CSO 004 regulator sewer totaling 130 linear feet

Diversion Chamber

CSO 004 Conveyances

Figure 4‐10: LHB Storage Facility diversion chamber and CSO 004 conveyances construction progress – September 2012

The LHB Conveyances contract work and project closeout activites are anticipated to be complete in 2013. Remaining contract items include: 

CSO 004 regulator manhole and the remaining conveyance sewer



Miscellaneous repairs to the Harbor Brook culvert at the State Fair Boulevard bridge

4‐8

Section 4  CSO Project Status



Restoration of State Fair Boulevard between the Harbor Brook culvert and West Genesee Street

The LHB Storage Project, which includes the storage tank and on‐site conveyances, was approximately 50 percent complete as of December 31, 2012. Work completed in 2012 included: 

The extension of the 48‐inch Hiawatha (CSO 003) and 60‐inch State Fair (CSO 004) conveyance sewers



A portion of the 21‐inch dewatering force main and connection to the HBIS



The junction chamber structure which combines the flow and allows for grit removal, along with two sluice gates, and two 24‐inch and an 84‐inch sewer connection to the storage tank



Excavation support, permeation jet grouting, and approximately 75 percent of the slurry wall excavation and installation (see figure 4‐11 below) for the storage tank

Figure 4‐11: Slurry wall installation at the LHB Storage Facility – November 2012

4‐9

Section 4  CSO Project Status

It is anticipated that the contractor will complete and have the LHB Storage Project operational by the mandated compliance deadline of December 31, 2013. Work required to meet this deadline includes: 

Installation of the remaining slurry wall sections and excavation of the submerged storage tank



Junction chamber, base slab and wall finishing



Installation of the dewatering pump station/wet well and connection to the 21‐inch force main



Overflow structure installation



Installation of the odor control systems, above ground utility room, and storage tank roof



Any necessary electrical, HVAC, and plumbing work

Greening the Gray The Lower Harbor Brook Storage Project will collect stormwater runoff from the rooftops of the storage tank and controls building which will be stored within the CSO storage tank and used for a second and third cleaning flush of the tank. This water will ultimately be treated at Metro eliminating the need for the flushed water to be treated on‐site. The additional storage is designed to capture stormwater runoff from the tank surface and the control building rooftop equivalent to the 100‐year storm (5.2 inches).

4.1.5 Sewer Separation of CSO Areas 022 & 045 The two construction contracts, No. 1 – General Construction and No. 2 – Plumbing, for the separation of CSO areas 022 and 045 were issued notices to proceed on January 24, 2012. CSO Area 045 is located just south of downtown Syracuse with the outfall at the intersection of West Castle Street, Hudson Street, and Onondaga Creek (Figure 4‐12). CSO Area 022 is located in downtown Syracuse and the tributary sewers are located in North Franklin, West Genesee, and Willow streets (Figure 4‐13). The construction in CSO Area 045 began on March 2, 2012, and was completed in early June. The finished work included: 

430 LF of new 8‐inch sanitary sewers on Crescent, Hudson, and Rich streets



875 LF of new 12‐inch storm sewers on Crescent and Hudson streets



70 LF of new 6‐inch sewer laterals



7 new manholes and 13 new catch basins with hoods



Rehabilitation of 705 LF of existing 12‐inch sewers by trenchless methods and 5 existing manholes

4‐10

Figure 4‐12: CSO 045 – Completed project – September 2012

Section 4  CSO Project Status



2000 LF of new sidewalks and handicap ramps, 560 LF of new curbing, and the reconstruction of 1500 LF of neighborhood streets

The sewer work in CSO Area 022 began on March 12, 2012 and concluded in November with the final restoration of streets and sidewalks. In total, the following components were constructed as part of this project: 



CSO 022/045 Sewer Separation Project Implementation Schedule Submitted plans and specs to DEC on 6/6/11

1,150 LF of 8‐inch, 115 LF of 10‐inch, and 555 LF of 12‐inch sanitary sewer

Commenced construction on 1/24/12

560 LF of 12‐inch and 160 LF of 36‐inch storm sewer

Project Status at EOY 2012

Completed sewer construction by 12/31/12

Sewer installation and surface restoration complete. Pocket Park reconstruction 75% complete.

13 new manholes and 19 new catch basins with hoods

Proposed Work for 2013 Complete Pocket Park reconstruction and project closeout.



Rehabilitation of 753 LF of existing 36‐inch sewer by trenchless methods



Internal plumbing modifications to separate the sanitary and storm flow at 15 private properties



2,500 square feet of new sidewalks and handicap ramps, 1,500 LF of new curbing, and the restoration of 12,500 square feet of neighborhood streets



Replacement of 15 and installation of 7 new street trees with enhanced infiltration basins

Greening the Gray The County has successfully applied its “Greening the Gray” mission to this project through the implementation of GI with the reconstruction of the pocket park on the corner of West Genesee and North Clinton streets (Figure 4‐ 14). The park had fallen into disrepair due to settlement issues and will be rehabilitated with green components under the CSO 022 project. As of December 31, 2012, the construction on the pocket park was 75 percent complete.

Figure 4‐13: CSO 022 – Project area – September 2012

In addition, the project replaced 15 existing street trees in CSO area 022 that have had health issues for some time. The replacements occurred along the north side of

4‐11

Section 4  CSO Project Status

West Genesee Street between Clinton and Franklin streets and on the west side of North Clinton Street between West Genesee and West Willow streets. Also, seven new street trees were installed on the north side of West Willow Street between West Genesee and Franklin streets and the south side of West Willow Street between North Franklin and North Clinton streets. All the new street trees in CSO area 022 have enlarged areas of topsoil around the root ball and structural soil under the sidewalk to give the trees the opportunity to maximize their growth potential.

Enhanced Tree Pits Pocket Park Construction Figure 4‐14: CSO 022 Green Infrastructure – Enhanced tree pits and pocket park at North Clinton and West Genesee streets 4.1.6 CSO 063 Conveyances Project In 2012, Onondaga County initiated the planning and design for the CSO 063 Conveyances Project. This project provides for the transmission of wet weather flow from CSO 063, currently located in Emerson Street, to the LHB Storage Facility being constructed on CSO 063 Conveyances Project State Fair Blvd. The scope of the project underwent numerous changes in 2012, and those changes are chronologically detailed Implementation Schedule below. Submit plans and specs to DEC on 

4‐12

On August 1, 2012, an engineering report and 50 percent design drawings were submitted to the NYSDEC. The design showed the flow from the CSO 063 outfall pipe being diverted in Erie Blvd. West and transmitted through approximately 2,600 LF of 48‐inch conveyance pipe to the recently installed CSO 003 conveyances in Hiawatha Blvd., where provisions were made under the LHB Conveyances Project for this connection. The new pipeline to be constructed in Erie Blvd. West, approximately 1,350 LF, was anticipated to be 25 to 30 feet deep and presented

2/22/13 Commence construction on 7/15/13 Complete sewer construction by 10/1/14 Project Status at EOY 2012 Design 50% complete. Proposed Work for 2013 Complete design and advertise for construction after NYSDEC review. Commence construction by 7/15/13.

Section 4  CSO Project Status

numerous construction related issues. As a result, the County expressed an interest in evaluating alternatives to decrease the depth of the new pipeline and reduce the complexity and cost of the construction. 

A revised engineering report and 50percent design drawings were subsequently issued to the NYSDEC on November 16, 2012, which detailed the results of the pipeline routing evaluation (see figure 4‐15 for the revised routing). It was determined that the pipeline could be installed approximately 12 to 15 feet shallower within Erie Blvd. West by routing the pipeline to the location of the current regulator within Emerson Street. Even though this added approximately 450 LF of new sewer, the shallower depth reduces risk and cost during construction related to installation of a large diameter pipeline in challenging geotechnical conditions.

In December 2012, the County initiated its soil boring and environmental investigation program based upon the finalized routing with the anticipation of submitting plans and specifications on February 22, 2013. After NYSDEC review, the County will advertise the project for bidding and begin construction in the summer of 2013. Table 4‐3: CSO 063 Conveyances Project Implementation Schedule * Project

Task Description

Date

CSO 063 Conveyances

Submit Final Design Report and 50% Design** Plans and Specs to NYSDEC for review and approval Advertise for Bid Commence construction Complete Construction

08/01/2012 02/22/2013 05/01/2013 07/15/2013 10/01/2014

Notes:

* ‐ Per letter to NYSDEC dated December 28, 2012 ** ‐ A revised engineering report and 50% were submitted on November 16, 2012

Figure 4‐15: CSO 063 Conveyances Project location

4‐13

Section 4  CSO Project Status

4.1.7 Proposed New Projects for 2013 CSO 061 Sewer Separation In 2013, it is anticipated the County will be in the planning and design phases for the Sewer Separation of CSO Area 061 within the Midland Avenue CSO Service Area. CSO 061 is located at the intersection of Crehange Street and Kirk Park Drive on the eastern bank of Onondaga Creek (see Figure 4‐16). The County is currently evaluating whether or not adjacent streets can be separated as well since the CSO 061 drainage basin is such a small area. A basis of design memo, along with a proposed implementation schedule, will be submitted to the NYSDEC separately for review and approval once the evaluation is complete and a scope is developed.

Figure 4‐16: CSO Area 061 location map

4.1.8 Gray Infrastructure O&M Requirements This section provides a summary of the O&M requirements for gray infrastructure projects being implemented to abate CSO discharges in Onondaga County. The specific requirements for each gray project will be identified once the designs and technology selections are complete. The County will track and schedule O&M tasks utilizing its Maximo asset management program. Below is a summary of O&M requirements by project type consistent with the EPA’s suggested proper operation and maintenance of combined sewer systems and associated facilities.  Sewer Separation – Typical O&M for sanitary and storm sewers includes routine inspections and cleaning of the sewers. The combined sewers separated within the City of Syracuse are owned by the City. As a result, through an Inter‐municipal Agreement between the City and the County, the City shall be responsible for the O&M of the separated basins.

4‐14

Section 4  CSO Project Status

 Interceptor/CSO Conveyance Piping – The County applies a tiered approach to its interceptor pipelines and CSO conveyance sewers. Newly installed large diameter pipelines have flushing chambers which will be exercised and maintained after storm events. Siphons, CSO regulators, and regulator sewers connected to existing or new smaller diameter pipelines are inspected and maintained monthly. In addition, CSO conveyance and interceptor manholes are visually inspected for grit deposition, blockages and deterioration. If excessive grit or debris is present, the deposits are removed and the section of sewer is cleaned and flushed. If the problem persists, the section of sewer is televised to determine the problem and repaired if necessary. The grit chambers located along the interceptor sewer alignments are also cleaned and maintained each year.  CSO Storage and/or Treatment Facilities – During dry weather conditions O&M requirements include: pull and service pumps; inspect, lubricate and exercise mechanical equipment; calibrate flow metering/measuring devices; adjust limits on valves/actuators; service air handling units; calibrate gas detectors; house and grounds keeping; and prepare and review staffing plans. Before, during and after wet weather events additional O&M tasks may be required. Pre‐Event tasks include staff planning; check condition/charge chemical feed system (where applicable); record baseline levels and readings; check SCADA system for proper operation; and check equipment fluid levels. During the event tasks include monitoring of flow levels; record start and end times and other data on operational logs; monitor and operate equipment; collect and analyze samples; and dewater. Post‐event O&M includes flush and clean basins and wet wells; flush and clean equipment; complete sample analysis; compile/report data; staff debriefing; lubricate equipment; and check fluid levels.  Floatable Control Facilities – O&M for in‐line facilities includes: routine visual inspection and cleaning of the facility, specifically the floatables removal equipment; and routine cleaning of associated regulators and chambers. In addition to the routine maintenance discussed above for net bag and trash rack facilities O&M includes the removal and replacement of net bags and removal, cleaning and reinsertion of trash racks following storm events.

4.2 Green Infrastructure 4.2.1 Projects Completed Through 2012 Thirty‐Five (35) GI projects were completed as part of the Save the Rain Program in 2012. These projects are part of a complete list of ninety‐seven (97) GI projects implemented in the County and incorporated into SWMM since program inception. Details’ including their location, property ownership, year construction was completed, CSO basin, dominant GI technology, and impervious drainage area managed are provided in Table 4‐3.

4.2.2 Projects Currently Under Construction Thirty‐two (32) GI projects are currently under construction and are expected to be completed in 2013. These will be added to SWMM after construction completion and once operation has commenced. Details including their location, property ownership, CSO basin, GI technology, and impervious drainage area managed are provided in Table 4‐4.

4.2.3 GI Projects Proposed for 2013 and Beyond Sixty‐two (62) GI projects are proposed for design and anticipated to start construction in 2013. Details including their location, property ownership, CSO basin, GI technology (if known), and impervious drainage area to be managed if known are provided in Table 4‐5.

4‐15

Section 4  CSO Project Status

4‐16

Section 4  CSO Project Status

4‐17

Section 4  CSO Project Status

4‐18

Section 4  CSO Project Status

4‐19

Section 4  CSO Project Status

4‐20

Section 4  CSO Project Status

4‐21

Section 4  CSO Project Status

The updated SWMM is part of a useful analysis in predicting where future GI projects will be most effective for CSO reduction. This analysis is currently in progress. There are approximately 70 additional GI project opportunities tracked in the GI database; however, these will remain on hold until results from the SWMM and GI optimization analysis are complete.

4.1.4 GI O&M Requirements This section provides a summary of the O&M requirements for GI projects being implemented to reduce CSO discharges in Onondaga County. GI technologies do not typically require any specific operating requirements; however, Table 4‐6 provides a summary of typical maintenance activities for a variety of GI types. This summary is consistent with the NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual, prepared by the Center for Watershed Protection, dated August 2010. Table 4‐6: GI Operation and Maintenance Activities GI Technology

Typical Maintenance Activities

NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual Relevant Section(s)

Porous Pavement

 Clean inlets  Vacuum annually  Maintain adjacent landscaping/planting beds

5.3.11 – Porous Pavement

Infiltration Practices

 Inspect and clean all catch basins and inlets at least twice per year  Maintain the overlying vegetation of a subsurface infiltration facility and re‐vegetate any bare spots as soon as possible  Prohibit vehicular access on subsurface infiltration areas (unless designed to allow vehicles) and avoid excessive compaction by mowers

5.3.7 – Rain Gardens 5.3.11 – Porous Pavement 6.3 – Stormwater Infiltration

Green Roofs

 Little to no maintenance needed once vegetation is established

5.3.8. – Green Roofs

Rain Gardens

   

5.3.7 – Rain Gardens

Tree Trenches, Enhanced Street Trees, and Tree Pits

 Water, mulch, treat diseased trees, and remove litter as needed  Annual inspection for erosion, sediment buildup, vegetative conditions  Periodic inspection of cleanouts, inlets, outlets, etc.

5.3.3 – Vegetated Swale 5.3.4 – Tree Planting/Tree Pit 5.3.9 – Stormwater Planters 5.3.11 – Porous Pavement 6.3 – Stormwater Infiltration 6.5 – Open Channel Systems

Rain Barrels / Cisterns

 Discharge before next storm event  Cisterns, rain barrels, and downspouts should be inspected regularly and cleaned  Seals should be inspected periodically to prevent mosquito infestation  May require flow bypass valves during the winter

5.3.9 – Stormwater Planters 5.3.10 – Rain Barrels and Cisterns

Disconnection of Rooftop Runoff

 Check materials for leaks and defects 5.3.5 – Disconnection of Rooftop  Remove accumulated debris, especially from gutters Runoff  If ponding occurs within the receiving pervious area for longer than 24 hours, area should be dethatched and aerated; if ponding persists, re‐grade or till to reverse compaction and/or add compost

Inlet Filter Inserts

 Follow the manufacturer’s guidelines 9.5 – Alternative Stormwater  Inspect each water quality device at least twice per year and after Management Practices – all major storm events if possible Proprietary Practices  For areas with high leaf volumes, inserts should be inspected once every 2 weeks during the fall, as leaf litter can affect the operation of the insert

4‐22

Water, mulch, trim, prune, weed, and remove litter as needed Inspect for erosion, sediment buildup, and vegetation health Remove organic material Periodic inspection of cleanouts, inlets, outlets, etc.

Section 4  CSO Project Status

In addition, O&M requirements are expected to be implemented by the property owners unless an agreement is developed, such as for projects implemented under an inter‐municipal or access agreement with the City of Syracuse, which may delegate some maintenance responsibilities. For GI projects on City property, Clause 20 of the City Permission Ordinance identifies the County’s maintenance obligations to include:   

Vacuuming of porous pavement and/or concrete Repair or replacement of porous pavement and/or concrete Maintenance (clean and reset) catch basin filter inlets and sumps

The County will track and schedule GI O&M tasks utilizing its Maximo asset management program.

4.3 Facility Planning 4.3.1 Floatables Plan In response to the November 9, 2009, Fourth Stipulation and Order Amending the County’s Amended Consent Judgment (ACJ), the County developed a plan to address floatables control facilities planning for 19 combined sewer overflows located in the Onondaga Creek and Harbor Brook service areas. The goal of the Floatables Control Facilities (FCF) Plan was to identify and evaluate the viable floatable control technologies for future installation with the end result being the elimination of floatables discharge to surface waters during CSO events. The FCF Plan included the following: characterization of 19 CSO outfalls; establishment of floatables treatment requirements; overview of floatables control technologies; evaluation of floatables control technologies; identification of FCF abatement approaches; evaluation of FCF abatement approaches; detailed evaluation of most viable floatables control approaches, including cost estimates; selection of recommended FCF abatement approach; and development of a recommended FCF plan. The FCF plan was completed by the stipulated milestone date of November 16, 2010 and revised based on regulatory comments in April 2011. Based upon comments received from the NYSDEC and subsequent discussions between the County and NYSDEC, the County decided to approach the FCF Plan in a more holistic and sustainable manner. The County’s goal is to gain a more thorough understanding of the specific floatables issues associated with the individual CSOs in the sewer service areas in order to develop a more focused, cost effective and sustainable floatables control program. During 2012, a limited floatables assessment was performed on the remaining untreated CSOs (005, 006, 006A, 007, 009, 010, 011, 014, 015, 017, 078, 027, 029, 052, 060/077, 061, 067 and 076) in the Onondaga Creek and Harbor Brook sewer service areas. The composition and relative quantities of the floatables captured during the limited floatables assessment where then assessed to supplement information gathered at existing County CSO facilities. The Floatables Control Facilities Plan Amendment was prepared and submitted to the NYSDEC on March 12, 2013, for review and approval. The amended FCF Plan was comprised of the following: 

Source Controls – To augment the City’s current MS4 program consisting of street sweeping, targeted trash receptacles and catch basin cleaning, the plan includes the repair/retrofit of the remaining unhooded catch basins in the CSO sewer sheds and increased catch basin cleaning.

4‐23

Section 4  CSO Project Status



Public Outreach – A targeted public education and outreach program will be developed and implemented to address floatables control in the CSO sewer sheds. The program will address both street litter and flushables.



End‐of‐Pipe Controls – The continued operation of both the Inner Harbor skimming boat and Harbor Brook FCF will provide additional floatables capture and prevent floatables from entering Onondaga Lake.

4.3.2 CSO 022, 027, 029, 052, 060, 077 and 067 Facility Plan Section 14O(ii) of the ACJ requires a detailed facilities plan to address CSOs 022, 027, 029, 052 and 060/077, as well as assess the Newell Street Facility (CSO 067) for reconstruction or replacement. Onondaga County prepared and submitted the Facilities Plan on November 16th, 2010 to the NYSDEC and ASLF. The plan provided an engineering evaluation of the stated CSOs and an assessment of alternatives for addressing capture of said CSOs. The facility plan describes the development and evaluation of conceptual level CSO control recommended specific projects and combinations of projects that can provide further control of CSOs 022, 027, 029, 052, 060/077, and 067 should additional CSO volume capture be required beyond 95% to meet water quality standards. A particular emphasis was placed on identifying the most cost‐ effective options for achieving in‐stream water quality benefits through pollutant discharge load reductions. A number of green and gray CSO control technologies were initially identified for application to all of the CSOs. These included full, partial, and sub‐basin sewer separation, in‐line and offline storage, conveyance, stormwater pumping, wetland creation, and GI related technologies. CSO Area 022 was resolved to be separated prior to the production of the facility plan and was scheduled for construction in 2011 (see section 3.1.6). The facility plan provided proposed projects to address each CSO and an implementation schedule and was conditionally accepted by DEC on August 5th, 2011. A conceptual design for implementing infiltration tree trenches and bio‐retention basins in CSO 067 is now being evaluated for capture of the 1‐year, 2‐hour storm event that would eliminate the need to restore the Newell Street swirl concentrator (Figure 4‐17). Public outreach has been initiated and design is expected to commence in 2013.

4‐24

Figure 4‐17: CSO Area 067 residential green street conceptual design

Section 4  CSO Project Status

4‐25

Section 5 Public Outreach 5.1 Save the Rain Program Building on the success of the 2011 “Project 50” campaign, the STR program experienced another impressive year in 2012 with over 50 GI projects completed. STR continued its approach to rebuilding neighborhoods, developing strong community relationships, and advancing signature projects to solidify its place as a national leader in stormwater management. In addition, STR continued a comprehensive public education and outreach program to engage the local community and provide continued support for program activities.

The United States Green Building Council (USGBC) recognized County Executive Joanne Mahoney as a winner of their 2012 Global Community Leadership award. In conjunction with efforts by the Mayor of the City of Syracuse and Syracuse University, the Save the Rain program was selected for its leadership in stormwater management, green infrastructure, and sustainability initiatives. Additional program awards and recognition is Figure 5‐1: STR General Information Brochure detailed in section 5.3 below.

5.1.1 Branding The 2012 branding campaign established several new elements to the STR program. A revised brand style was introduced that was featured in advertisements, print materials, and project communication pieces (see Figure 5‐1). Additionally, 2012 marked a dramatic change to the STR website (www.savetherain.us). The site underwent a complete redesign which added more features, improved graphic content and simplified navigation to high traffic pages (see Figure 5‐2). The new events calendar provides information on public meetings, presentations and community events. The STR news section offers updates on current events related to program activities. The community page offers links to educational resources and materials. The site also features individual project pages with detailed information on construction specifications and design plans. New interactive elements engage visitors through video and easy connectivity to STR social media pages including Facebook,, Twitter, and the STR YouTube channel. Figure 5‐2: STR redesigned website homepage The new site provides a central location for public communications and provides visitors

1‐1

Section 5  Public Outreach

a wealth of information on program activities and resources. Revisions to the STR site were in response to the progression of the program overall. As the program has progressed, the website has evolved in to a one‐stop shop for anything STR related. In late 2012, at the mutual agreement of all parties, it was decided to use the Save the Rain website as the primary vehicle to communicate ACJ monthly reports. A monthly update of website changes is sent to all ACJ parties; and now a written report is prepared only on a quarterly basis.

5.1.2 Public Outreach Activities The 2012 STR Public Education and Outreach Team continued to engage the general public to raise awareness of the benefits of green infrastructure and the County’s efforts to implement the program. The outreach campaign featured several program elements.

STR Presentations

Figure 5‐3: Onondaga Earth Corps constructs Rain Garden at Catholic Charities

STR presentations were provided to several community groups throughout the city. These presentations ranged from general GI education to more detailed focused workshops such as the green roof seminar hosted by the Environmental Finance Center. In addition to these activities, the Public Education and Outreach Team organized numerous neighborhood events. The Green Streets Festival at McKinley Park, partnering with community fairs and events, continuing home‐owner outreach with rain barrel workshops and working closely with the Onondaga Earth Corps on STR presentations to youth are just a few examples.

Demonstration Project The Public Education and Outreach team again partnered with youth from the Onondaga Earth Corps to construct a small GI demonstration project in 2012. The site of this year’s project was Catholic Charities located at 208 Slocum Avenue, Syracuse (see Figure 5‐3). These demonstration projects are intended to emphasize the ancillary benefits of GI implementation. The Slocum House project incorporated the construction of a rain garden to capture runoff from the roof of the building and adjacent areas. Figure 5‐4: Youth from the Onondaga The Onondaga Earth Corps selected the site and worked Earth Corps participate in the 2012 St. closely with staff from the Onondaga Environmental Patrick’s Day Parade Institute in developing design plans for the project. The rain garden is one of 4 similar projects constructed by the Onondaga Earth Corps over the last 3 years.

School Outreach The STR program continued its partnership with the Baltimore Woods Nature Centure by participating in educating over 850 third grade students in schools throughout the City of Syracuse. Students learned about the effects of pollution to local waterways and County efforts to introduce GI in the City. Students also participated in summer science camps that provided curriculum on lake restoration efforts and their impact on natural habitat.

5‐2

Section 5  Public Outreach

Street Tree Program In 2012 the STR street tree program began a door‐to‐door campaign to enlist city residents interested in having a tree planted in front of their property. The street tree outreach began with an announcement at the Arbor Day celebration and continued with a targeted door hanger campaign throughout the spring and fall planting seasons. The campaign is designed to support an aggressive tree planting program with a goal of 8,500 tree plantings by 2018 (see Figure 5‐5).

5.2 Project‐Specific Public Outreach

Figure 5‐5: Volunteers plant trees as part of the STR Street Tree Program

The 2012 construction season also provided opportunities for project specific outreach plans. Several projects received coordinated outreach support with increased levels of community interaction. Working closely with the City and local neighborhood organizations, STR conducted dozens of public meetings in neighborhoods to present project ideas and gain input from community members (see Figure 5‐6). In total, STR either coordinated or participated in over 30 project related public meetings. The meetings allowed residents to review detailed plans of proposed GI enhancements in their neighborhood. Residents provided feedback on design elements and received updates on the construction schedule. The meetings also provided the public an opportunity to ask questions and have any project‐related concerns addressed prior to construction. Below is a sample listing of some project related public meetings that took place in 2012. 

Leavenworth/Barker Park Renovations



West Onondaga Green Street Gateway



Wadsworth Park Renovations



West Castle Street Streetscape



Westcott Street Green Street Corridor



Vacant Lot Program Community Outreach Presentation



Lewis Park Renovations



Harbor Brook Wetland Public Meetings

Figure 5‐6: Community residents attend the Westcott Street project public meeting

As the STR program moves forward with future projects, community interaction and feedback will be a major focus of outreach activities. STR will continue to identify stakeholders and work with the community to provide direction for project implementation.

5.3 Public Relations/Media/National Recognition

2012 was another remarkable year for the STR campaign with a significant amount of local, regional and national recognition. 

February – The STR program was featured in Water Environment and Technology magazine.

5‐3

Section 5  Public Outreach



September ‐ Deputy County Executive Matthew Millea was invited to the White House to present on the STR program at a conference hosted by the EPA and Council on Environmental Quality.



October – Onondaga County/Syracuse was featured as a “spotlight city” for the 2012 Urban Water Sustainability Leadership Conference, held by the U.S. Water Alliance in Cincinnati, Ohio.



November – Onondaga County Executive Joanie Mahoney, City of Syracuse Mayor Stephanie Miner and Syracuse University Chancellor Nancy Cantor received an award from the US Green Building Council for their efforts to implement a sustainable approach to urban infrastructure.

Those are just a few examples of recognition in 2012. In total, the program generated over 30 tracked media stories as well as several case study features including a special on the EPA website Another very significant recognition came as the STR program was featured in the Politics and Policy section of Bloomberg Businessweek magazine(see Figure 5‐7). Technically a 2013 prize, the Save the Rain program will be pleased to report in further detail on the recently announced 2013 U.S. Water Prize from the US Water Alliance in next year’s report.

Figure 5‐7: STR Bloomberg Businessweek Feature Article

5.4 Signature Projects

In addition to the local and national recognition the program received, 2012 also saw the completion of several signature projects that highlighted program activities. The 2012 signature projects are described below.

Connective Corridor In 2012, Phase‐I of the Connective Corridor project, from University Avenue to E. Genesee Street (Fireman Park) was completed as a collaboration between Syracuse University, the City of Syracuse, and the STR program. The Connective Corridor is an extensive transportation redevelopment that will connect the University’s main campus with downtown Syracuse. The project is the largest public works project in the city in more than 30 years. The STR program was able to work with the city and the university to add substantial green infrastructure Figure 5‐8: Syracuse University’s Connective Corridor Gateway project on University elements. The GI portion of the Connective Corridor project includes sub‐surface infiltration, porous pavement, and landscaping with bio‐retention features. The GI enhancements fit nicely with the redeveloped landscape and greatly improve the aesthetic quality of the project.

Courts‐4‐Kids Projects For the second year in a row, the STR program successfully partnered with the Syracuse Parks Department and Jim & Juli Boeheim and Carmelo K. Anthony foundations to redevelop basketball

5‐4

Section 5  Public Outreach

courts in the City. Renovations to the basketball courts at Leavenworth/Barker and Lewis parks were constructed using porous asphalt to capture stormwater runoff. The Leavenworth/Barker project also included the construction of rain gardens and bio‐swales in the park, while Lewis Park received a new porous asphalt entryway. Looking forward to 2013, STR plans to continue this partnership with another Courts‐4‐Kids porous basketball court project at Comfort Tyler Park.

Water Street Gateway The Water Street Gateway Project is a comprehensive green street located in the 300 block of Water Street, in downtown Syracuse. The project was the first green gateway project in the program and is intended to demonstrate a variety of GI applications at key entry points into the City. The project scope includes 

Streetscape tree detail with enhanced tree plantings in the right‐of‐way



Installation of porous pavers in parking lanes



Installation of infiltration trenches and stormwater planters



Additional landscaping features throughout the footprint of the block

The use of these GI features will collect an estimated 1 million gallons of stormwater annually and serve as a model for green street renovations in the community.

5.5 Conclusion

The 2012 STR program campaign solidified the Save the Rain brand as a community staple. As we move closer to 2018, water quality in Onondaga Lake continues to improve, communities throughout the city are transformed, and the program continues to serve as a public resource on innovative, sustainable solutions.

5‐5

Section 6 Intergovernmental Cooperation 6.1 City‐County Green Infrastructure Initiatives The City and County have been meeting bi‐weekly, with very few exceptions, to discuss Save The Rain program implementation issues since January 2010, and these meetings have enabled multiple objectives. 

Working through policy and technical barriers to GI implementation



Identifying and prioritize project opportunities



Developing a consensus approach to design, including development of guidelines/policies and standards/typical details



Addressing construction challenges



Addressing maintenance issues and achieving repeatable standards with clear responsibilities

These meetings also serve to generate initiatives that have yielded, and continue to yield, GI opportunities at schools, libraries, commercial and residential streets, parking lots, park lands, green roofs, and street tree installations. A progessive development resulting from this meeting forum and partnership is the City of Syracuse’s GI Permission Ordinance. This legislation produced significant efficiencies for both the City and County in the way projects are administered and approved for construction. Instead of each of the dozens of GI projects requiring individual review and approval by the City of Syracuse Common Countil, a “list” of GI project candidates is approved for which further review and design/construction approval is delegated to the City Engineer and Commissioner of Department of Public Works (DPW). The legislation provides details on property access and long term maintenance. Without this advancement, review Figure 6‐1: City Lot #4. of each project through the Common Council The porous asphalt parking lot is one of the first would have caused a significant backlog, to utilize the high performance PG‐76 binder. The asphalt edging is made of precast porous inhibiting advancement of the green program on a concrete, another first in Syracuse. pace that would have made ACJ compliance even more challenging. A new list of GI projects is generated annually and passed through the Common Council each spring. The 2012 Permission Ordinance was passed unanimously by the Syracuse Common Council on March 12, 2012, and signed by Mayor Stephanie Miner on March 13, 2012.

6‐1

Section 6  Intergovernmental Cooperation

Another development, also related to improving program efficiency, is the way projects are now reviewed by the various city departments. In 2012 a process was developed to improve the road cut permit application process. In the past, a Contractor would apply for the Road Cut Permit after receipt of a project’s Notice of Intent to Award. Although city departments had for the most part been reviewing and commenting on GI projects as they passed through various stages of development (such as 50percent and 90percent design phases), the permit application submittal was generating a formal and thorough review by all city departments at a time when a project is trying to mobilize and break ground. Only after the technical review was completed by all city departments would the City DPW review the contractor’s work zone traffic control plans and insurances. All things being satisfactory, the permit could then be issued. This process would typically take 4‐6 weeks to complete, or longer if issues were identified that needed to be resolved. Onondaga County and the program manager have worked with the City to develop a new process by which the 100% design technical review begins at the time of the project’s advertisement. City departments are now conducting their review during the bidding period and forwarding any comments or questions to the attention of the Engineer . These would then be addressed by either addendum, discussion at the pre‐ construction meeting, or contract modification. After the project bid opening and issuance of the Notice of Intent to Award, the Contractor has seven (7) days to submit their Figure 6‐2: Otisco Street Green Corridor. This City Street in need of repair became the first work zone traffic control plans and all required residential green street to utilize curb extensions insurances to the City for review and approval. and bio‐retention swales which also provides a This process still requires 4‐6 weeks to complete; “traffic calming” effect to increase safety in the however, since the technical review begins prior neighborhood. to the contract award, the lag to obtain the road cut permit and mobilize for construction is significantly reduced. The same process is utilized for the city’s general site permit, which is required for work on any city‐ owned parcel (work that is outside the right‐of‐way). At the time of project advertisement, the Engineer begins the technical review of the project plans with Syracuse City Codes Enforcement (CCE). Once the contracor receives their Notice of Intent to Award, they submit their insurances to CCE, and the permit is issued accordingly.

6.2 Public‐Private Partnership The County has also continued support of the Green Improvement Fund (GIF) to provide incentives for implementation of GI on private lands. GI projects that divert storm water runoff from the combined sewer system are funded based on multiple metrics, including volume of runoff reduction, quantity of GI installed, and regulatory requirements. The program continues to receive submittals on a rolling basis, and 2012 was the most successful year yet for the program. The number of applications received topped the 100 project milestone and 35 total projects were completed. GIF projects completed in 2012 are listed in Tables 4‐3 and 4‐5. Project fact sheets and applications for representative GIF projects are on the Save the Rain website: www.savetherain.us. The GIF program incorporated multiple efficiencies in 2012, including a streamlined application form and more helpful 6‐2

Section 6  Intergovernmental Cooperation

program description document, use of more accurate unit cost data within the program funding calculator tool, and removal of the grant ceiling (previously a $200,000 maximum award), yet lowering slightly the reimbursement incentive per gallon of stormwater managed.

6.3 Inter‐Municipal Agreements The City and the County have had a cooperative relationship throughout the implementation of CSO abatement projects since the First Stipulation of the ACJ. From time to time, it has become necessary to enter into contracts to address legal issues that arise from the projects. These Inter‐Municipal Agreements (IMAs) deal with questions of property access or transference, utility work, mitigation, or fund transfers. IMAs are negotiated between City and County Departments with assistance from their respective legal groups. Once negotiated, the IMA must be approved by the City of Syracuse Common Council and Onondaga County Legislature and then executed by the Mayor and County Executive. Listed below are examples of IMAs that have been approved and executed. 

The July 2007 IMA – This is commonly known as “the general IMA” that agreed to specific mitigation, property access and coordination items related to the Clinton, Harbor Brook and Midland CSO Abatement projects. The IMA was amended in 2009 to address changes and additional items relevant to those projects.



Sewer Separation IMAs – Each individual sewer separation project undertaken by the County has required a project specific IMA to address the utility work. These follow a now fairly routine language familiar to both City and County officials.



County‐City Arborist IMA – This IMA funds the previously vacant City Arborist position with an employee evenly funded by the County and City. The cost of this position is shared by both the County (to steward new tree planting as part of Save the Rain) and City (to manage existing City trees).



Project Specific GI Project IMAs – For municipal projects contracted by an entity other than Onondaga County, which includes GI that has been agreed upon in principle to be funded by Onondaga County, unique legislation is drafted to address the specifics of each of these projects. The Connective Corridor Phase 1 (including funding for Forman Park) is an example. In 2012, legislation was enacted to include terms and conditions, as well as enabling the transfer of funds, for work associated with the following projects: 

SUNY Upstate Medical University (project locations include Cancer Center Expansion green roof & rain garden; Institute of Human Performance tree planting; Biotechnology Center bio‐retention systems; Townsend Towers Renovation bio‐retention systems; Kennedy Square Redevelopment Project)



SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry (porous pavement, bio‐retention, and other stormwater management features installed as part of a parking lot redevelopment on the northeast corner of the ESF campus, adjacent to Bray and Walters Hall)



City of Syracuse Road Reconstruction (up to a cumulative funding amount, not to exceed $1.1 million, for the construction of green infrastructure components of road reconstruction projects being undertaken by the City of Syracuse, including but not

6‐3

Section 6  Intergovernmental Cooperation

limited to projects at Concord Place, Sumner Avenue, South State Street, and Gifford Street) 

Syracuse City School District (design and construction of enhanced stormwater management systems completed as part of the Dr. Weeks Elementary School renovation project as part of the Joint School Construction Board project.)



City of Syracuse Bank Street Improvement Project (construction of green infrastructure components as part of a sewer rehabilitation and surface restoration project being undertaken by the City of Syracuse)



Connective Corridor Project (amendment to the previous IMA for both design and construction of enhanced stormwater management systems completed as part of the Connective Corridor project for all phases and contracts)

The project specific IMA activity was robust and a remarkable illustration of government cooperation across state, county, and city institutions.

6.4 Ordinances Currently, the County is advancing multiple pieces of legislation that would affect the amount of stormwater entering the sewers of the sanitary district, modify City of Syracuse codes to allow for the implementation of GI on properties within city boundaries, and provide access to the County to construct GI on ity‐ owned property. Local Law No. 1 of 2011 (found online at http://www.ongov.net/wep/uselaws.html) established a program to promote capacity, management, operation and maintenance (CMOM) of the public sewers and related purposes which complies with environmental laws and assures that current and future development within the Onondaga County Sanitary District is not hindered by excessive inflow and infiltration. The program provides a mechanism to address wastewater capacity, construction, operation and maintenance through the entire process from planning to post‐ construction. This legislation will affect and assist the County’s requirement to comply with the CSO capture schedule and support the long‐term sustainability of development within the district. The law will require revisions to existing IMAs with neighboring communities to reflect the requirements of the new law. Negotiations with satellite municipalities continue.

Figure 6‐4: James Pass Arboretum. This successful collaboration between the County and City Parks departments installed two large rain gardens in Pass’ Arboretum. The GI receives stormwater runoff from Avery Avenue.

The County and the City of Syracuse are also coordinating three pieces of City of Syracuse legislation which will implement additional GI within city boundaries. The legislation addresses stormwater management for development activities by modifying the existing stormwater ordinance, tree ordinance, and sidewalk ordinance. Work on these ordinances will continue in 2013. 6‐4

Section 7 Conclusions 7.1 CSO Compliance Schedule The CSO compliance schedule set forth in the ACJ contains both percent capture by volume and submittal milestones. Table 7‐1 details the CSO capture compliance milestones and percentages. The County anticipates meeting the compliance requirements set forth in the ACJ.The first compliance date related to percent capture is December 31, 2013. The annual compliance determinations shall begin in 2014 with the submittal of the 2013 Annual Report. The NYSDEC, per Section 14I of the ACJ, will determine compliance by utilizing the data from the CSO monitoring decvices detailed in Section 2, the SWMM discussed in Section 3, and other data and models to determine the County’s compliance with the capture rquirements. The Stage I milestone coincides with the anticipated construction completion date for the stipulated gray projects and the implementation of a significant number of green infrastructure projects. In 2012, the county completed the sewer work associated with the HBIS Replacement and CSO Abatement Project, separated sanitary and storm flow within CSO areas 022 and 045, and constructed 35 GI projects.

Figure 7‐1: Townsend B County Parking Lot. Former gravel parking lot was altered into stormwater management infrastructure utilizing standard asphalt and bio‐retention systems with enough storage capacity for the first inch of rainfall.

Table 7‐1 CSO Capture Compliance Schedule Compliance Stage

Percent capture CSO by volume

Compliance deadline

Stage I

89.5 %

December 31, 2013

Stage II

91.4 %

December 31, 2015

Stage III

93.0 %

December 31, 2016

Stage IV

95.0 %

December 31, 2018

7.2 ACJ Milestone Compliance Sections 14B and 14L of the ACJ require the County to design, complete construction, and commence operation of gray infrastructure projects according to a specific and agreed to milestone schedule. The County has initiated all of the stipulated projects, and their status toward compliance with the major and minor milestones is listed in Table 7‐2. The County has met 12 of the 14 milestones to date. The remaining 2 milestones are not until December 31, 2013, and according to current project schedules the County anticipates achieving the remaining ACJ gray project milestones.

7‐1

Section 7  Conclusions

Table 7‐2: ACJ Gray Infrastructure Milestone Schedule and Compliance Status Project

Milestone Description

Milestone Type

Milestone Compliance Date Status

Plans and specs to NYSDEC for review and approval

Minor

06/01/2010

Achieved

Commence construction

Minor

12/31/2010

Achieved

Complete construction and commence operation

Major

12/31/2011

Achieved

Plans and specs to NYSDEC for review and approval

Minor

08/17/2009

Achieved

Commence construction

Minor

01/01/2010

Achieved

Complete construction and commence operation

Major

12/31/2013

Achieved

Erie Boulevard Storage System Plans and specs to NYSDEC for review and approval Modifications Complete required modifications

Minor

09/01/2010

Achieved

Major

12/31/2011

Achieved

Plans and specs to NYSDEC for review and approval

Minor

02/01/2011*

Achieved

Commence construction

Minor

10/01/2011*

Achieved

Complete construction and commence operation

Major

12/31/2013 In Progress

Plans and specs to NYSDEC for review and approval

Minor

04/29/2011*

Achieved

Minor

12/31/2011*

Achieved

Major

12/31/2013 In Progress

CSO 044 Conveyances

Harbor Brook Interceptor Sewer Replacement

Clinton Storage Facility

Harbor Brook Storage Facility Commence construction Complete construction and commence operation * ‐ Date reflects ACJ Milestone extension approved by the NYSDEC on November 4, 2010

7.3 Program Assessment Onondaga County’s “Save the Rain” program progressed significantly in 2012. Building on the Project 50 campaign of 2011, to date the County has constructed 97 green infrastructure projects with another 94 projects either under construction or anticipated to begin constrcution in 2013. In addition, major sewer work was completed on the HBIS replacement, and CSO areas 022 and 045 were separated. The County also initiated its water quality monitoring and flow metering program which obtained samples from points within the receiving waters and data from representative CSOs throughout the system. The metering data, combined with the County’s updated SWMM (which allows the model to incorporate GI) allowed the County to factor into the capture models the benefits of GI implementation as it equates to CSO abatement for the first time. The gray infrastructure portion of the Save the Rain program continued its construction pace leading up to the 2013 capture goal. The 2 major CSO storage projects representing over $100 Figure 7‐2: Clinton Storage million, continued toward substantial completion by December Facility under construction in November of 2012. 31, 2013. The CSO 022/045 Sewer Separation Project was completed in 2012 and provided a significant upgrade to the sewer system in downtown Syracuse and the south side. In addition, the County embarked on new projects such as the West Fayette Street Sewer Separation and CSO 063 Conveyances which will both provide necessary capture of combined sewage from CSOs tributary to the MIS and HBIS. As a result, it 7‐2

Section 7  Conclusions

is anticipated that the County will meet the Stage I compliance milestone of 89.5 percent capture by the end of 2013.

7.4 Recommendations The County recommends two changes to the current plan going forward which address floatables capture and the successful implementation of the recommended plan for the CSO Facilities Plan for CSOs 022,027, 029, 052, 060/077and 067 conditionally approved on August 5th, 2011. Based upon the limited floatables assessment performed in 2012 for the remaining untreated CSOs in the Onondaga Creek and Harbor Brook sewer service areas, the County recommends the more holistic and sustainable approach detailed in the FCF Plan Amendment submitted to the NYSDEC on March 12, 2013, for review and approval. The amended plan recommended the County augment the City’s current MS4 program through the repair and/or retrofit of the remaining un‐hooded catch basins in the CSOs sewer sheds and increase catch basin cleaning, develop and implement a targeted public education and outreach program to address floatables control in the CSO sewer sheds inlcuding street litter and flushables, and continue the operation of both the Inner Harbor skimming boat and Harbor Brook FCF to provide additional floatables capture and prevent floatables from entering Onondaga Lake. As a result of the Fourth Stipulation ACJ, the elements of the original Clinton CSO Abatement Facility Plan required revision to comply with the new direction of the ACJ. These revision changed the scope of the proposed facility at the Clinton site and permitted the County to implement a system‐wide GI program for CSO abatement. The revised plan eliminated CSOs 027 and 029 as contributors to the Clinton Storage facility, and as a result they were included in the required CSO Facilities Plan for CSOs 022,027, 029, 052, 060/077and 067, conditionally approved by the Department on August 5, 2011. In order to successfully implement the program elements listed in the conditionally approved recommended plan, the County proposed a modification to the existing system description whereby the Clinton, EBSS, Franklin, Maltbie and Teall subcatchments would be combined into a single area to be referred to as the Clinton‐Lower MIS Service Area (see Figure 7‐3). This revised description was outlined in the Amendment to the CSO Facilities Plan for CSOs 022,027, 029, 052, 060/077, and 067, dated May 24, 2012. The elements of the recommended plan have the potential to reduce the quantities of CSO within the drainage areas typically associated with the Clinton CSO, EBSS, Franklin FCF and Maltbie FCF projects. In addition, the consolidation is better aligned with the sewershed based management approach of the Fourth Stipulation and is based on the concept that regardless of where along the MIS, or the basins tributary to the MIS, that the CSO abatement or stormwater management occurs, a benefit will be realized at both upstream and downstream CSOs due to increased capacity in the MIS for sanitary sewage flows as a result of removal of stormwater. It is the County’s position, that the establishment of the Clinton‐Lower MIS Service Area will facilitate implementation of the CSO 027 and 029 remedies and allow incorporation of additional GI projects into the current program administration and funding framework. Furthermore, the consolidation of these areas will simplify the technical approach for assessing long term impacts, evaluating the benefits of green infrastructure and subsequent monitoring and reporting requirements.

7‐3

Section 7  Conclusions

Figure 7‐3: Clinton/Lower MIS Sewer Service Area

7‐4