The document discusses potential options for controlling combined sewer overflows (CSOs) on the Ottawa River, including storage/treatment facilities and sewer separation. Storage/treatment alternatives under consideration include concrete tanks and tunnels. Potential sites for these facilities near the river are being evaluated. Input is sought from the public on issues of concern and how to effectively present options. Evaluation of alternatives will consider regulatory requirements, technical feasibility, costs, and community impacts and benefits. A public meeting is planned to gather initial feedback.

1. Community Advisory Committee Long Term Control Plan Update October 25, 2004

2. Program Update EPA Contractor Pre-Bid Meeting September Community Visioning Meeting

3. Ottawa River Alternatives Ottawa River CSO control alternatives are under development Alternative concepts will be presented to the public for initial input on November 18, 2004 at a meeting to be held at Friendship Park Today’s presentation is a partial preview of the information to be presented to the public

4. Assistance needed The project team is evaluating alternatives from a regulatory, technical and cost perspective. We need input on What issues are of concern to the public as we evaluate the options How to present to the public in a meaningful way

5. Ottawa River Area

6. Ottawa River Overflow Frequency 13 67 14 65 21 64 2 63 25 62 12 61 Annual Frequency Outfall

7. Ottawa River Overflow Volume 6.1 67 5.3 65 39.9 64 0.2 63 52 62 2.5 61 Annual Volume (MG) Outfall

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

9. CSO Control Options There are three basic control options Storage (holds excess flow until capacity is available) Treatment (cleans flow before it is discharged – disinfects and removes pollutants) Separation (provides new sanitary or storm sewers so that combined sewers are eliminated) Flow reduction/ rerouting can enhance the above options

10. Storage / Treatment Basic Information Type of facilities: either concrete tanks or tunnels Type of treatment: screening (minimum), potentially disinfection Land area required: 3 – 10 acres Typical siting locations: waterfront property, parks, other vacant parcels near rivers Other requirements: some sewer work to bring flow to the site

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

12. Storage/ Treatment Facilities Pros and Cons Pros Most work is limited to one location and the adjacent areas are not disturbed Water is either stored (small storms) or partially treated (large storms) Cons Treatment generally requires construction of a relatively large building. Construction activities are generally 2 – 3 years in duration limiting the use of sites during that period.

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

14. Sewer Separation Basics Constructs a new sewer to separate flow Generally requires 3 – 6 months to complete work on a street; 1 – 2 years to complete work in an areas Generally doesn’t involve land acquisition

15. Sewer Separation Pros and Cons Pros Upgrades the sewer system Eliminates CSO discharges Doesn’t require property Cons May increase total load of pollutants to the waterways Disruptive to individual property owner

16. Sewer Separation Sewer separation requires construction of new sewers in areas where a single pipe system exists

17. Flow Reduction / Rerouting Pros and Cons Pros Addresses problem at the source Could be considered best environmentally Could reduce basement or surface flooding Cons Generally not adequate to solve the entire problem Most disruptive to individual property owner Administratively intensive program

18. Flow Reduction / Rerouting Photos

19. EPA Criteria The EPA’s primary concern in other CSO Plans around the country is the frequency at which CSO’s discharge EPA generally wants to see control of bacteria Other items of concern to EPA Volume of discharge Pollutants in discharge Measureable impacts on waterways

20. Ottawa River Evaluation – probable storage/ treatment

21. Ottawa River Evaluation – probable sewer separation

22. Siting Issues/ Concerns Consider Areas of open space (sites), reasonably close to outfalls Current use of existing sites & associated impacts due to construction or long term use Ownership of sites “ Fatal flaws” such as environmental or geotechnical issues. Opportunities for secondary benefit – e.g. brownfield reuse, coordination with other projects.

23. Ottawa River Potential Sites Potential sites Potential sites have been identified based on location of open space Currently evaluating the feasibility of these sites No decisions have been made about the use or non use of any site

24. Ottawa River Potential Sites

25. Ottawa River Potential Sites –Joe E. Brown Park

26. Ottawa River Potential Sites - Jeep

27. Ottawa River Potential Sites – Central Ave.

28. Ottawa River Potential Sites – Willy’s Park

29. Storage Sizing Required Storage Size and Overflow Frequency – Ottawa River; CSO 61, 62, 65, 67

30. Treatment Sizing Required Treatment Rate and Untreated Overflow Frequency – Ottawa River; CSO 61, 62, 65, 67 1.3 MG 2 MG

31. Impact on Footprint

32. Cost projections Cost projections are under development

33. Evaluations Are Continuing Additional cost development and comparison to benefits Better definition of potential sites and discussions with property owners/ operators Development of tunnel storage option More technical evaluations (will support cost assessment)

34. Public Meeting Objective for Public Meeting Provide information to the public on the potential impacts to them during construction/ post construction Describe the benefits to the river from various alternatives Discuss the public preference for various alternative types (storage/ treatment/ separation) Present information on the variation in project cost versus project benefit