The document summarizes a public meeting to gather input on developing a Long Term Control Plan for managing combined sewer overflows in Toledo. It provides an overview of the city's sewer system, previously constructed CSO control projects, and regulations. It outlines the required contents of the LTCP and alternatives being considered, including storage/treatment facilities, sewer separation, and flow reduction. Meeting participants were asked to provide input on priorities, goals, and preferred alternatives to help develop the draft plan.

1. Long Term Control Plan Public Input September 16, 2004

2. Tonight’s Meeting Program Overview – Video What is a Long Term Control Plan? CSO Locations Waterway Uses Input Breakout Sessions

3. What You Can Do Listen to the presentations and issues that are presented to you Offer your honest opinions on the issues Work with us to help find constructive solutions Help educate others on the project

4. City of Toledo Sewer System As indicated in the video, the City’s sewer system includes both separated and combined sewer systems Combined systems – carry both sewage and rainwater in the same pipe Separated systems – carry sewage and rainwater in separate pipes

5. City’s Combined Area

6. CSO Control Work has been Performed The City constructed three major tunnel systems to store excess flow The City has implemented a number of sewer separation projects to build separate sewer systems

7. CSO Area to Tunnels

8. Sewer Separation Projects

9. Long Term Control Plan – Contents Actions – projects or programs Schedules – when projects will happen Where – locations where projects will be constructed Costs – project expenditures; financing plan

10. Obligations The LTCP must evaluate a range of CSO control alternatives based on: Pollution reduction benefits Instream water quality conditions Frequency of discharge Construction and operations costs

11. Consent Decree Requirements The Consent Decree requires the development of a Long Term Control Plan for Combined Sewer Overflows (LTCP). A draft plan will be prepared by summer 2005.

12. CSO Regulations…. Call for: Control of CSOs New sewers to implement controls Reducing stormwater flow Systems to be properly maintained Minimizing CSO discharges Do not call for: Elimination of CSOs Extensive replacement of the sewer system Improvements in drainage Control of basement backup Other actions that would improve water quality, that are not related to CSOs.

13. Primary Issue #1 – Big Picture Goals Big picture goals define the hoped for achievements of the project. The primary question relates to how residents want to be able to use the waterways. Depending on the type of alternative selected, additional benefits are possible. These include: improving the performance of the sewer system, and changed land use in the combined areas.

14. Primary Issue #1 – Big Picture Goals What is the balance that the public prefers in water quality versus cost? Seeing a real change in the waterways? Meeting the regulations at the lowest possible cost?

15. Other Important Concerns You will be asked to provide input on other important concerns you have with the sewer system and water quality later in the program. Please think about what is important to you.

16. Primary Issue #1 – Big Picture Goals Input is requested on what the goals should be: Seeing a real change in (specify waterway, i.e. Maumee R, Swan Creek, Ottawa R) Having a sewer system that works well Meeting regulations for the lowest possible cost Helping to meet other City goals Others

17. Primary Issue #2 – Types of Alternatives Alternative selection is a combination of performance and suitability considerations. There are a number of types of alternatives.

18. Principal Alternatives Flow storage and/ or treatment Storage basins and tunnels with screening and other treatment capability Sewer Separation Construction of new sewers for eliminating combined systems Flow reduction/rerouting Small scale measures to reduce the amount of flow to the sewer system

19. Storage / Treatment Facility Examples 7 Mile CSO Basin - Detroit Birmingham CSO basin Leib Screening/ Disinfection Facility - Detroit George Kuhn Drain – Oakland County

20. 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

21. 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 tall building. Construction activities are generally 2 – 3 years in duration limiting the use of sites during that period.

22. Sewer Separation Photos Before After

23. Sewer Separation Photos During

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

25. 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

26. Flow Reduction / Rerouting

27. Flow Routing/ Reduction Basics Reduces the amount of stormwater runoff generated by rerouting flows to site storage areas. Implemented on either a site specific or area specific basis Relatively long time implementation and generally dependant on voluntary participation.

28. 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

29. Primary Issue #2 – Types of Alternatives Input is requested on what alternative type is most acceptable? Examples: Whatever works best to limit sewer overflows Options that are not visible above ground Options that look good in the neighborhood Options that limit construction disruptions on the neighborhood streets Whatever costs the least Whatever each neighborhood prefers Others

30. Waterway Uses Determining Current Waterway Uses 2003 survey of 600 residents Community Program Advisory Committee Interviews with waterway users/experts Boaters/fisherman Parks & Recreation staff Maumee RAP Your input

31. Survey Results On a scale of 1 (never) to 5 (very often), how often do you use Lake Erie in the following ways: To enjoy scenery 2.51 Walking/jogging 2.00 Fishing 1.92 Picnicking 1.91 Boating 1.85 Swimming/water sports 1.71

32. Survey Results On a scale of 1 (never) to 5 (very often), how often do you use our Rivers in the following ways: To enjoy scenery 2.68 Walking/jogging 2.15 Fishing 1.98 Picnicking 1.86 Boating 1.79 Swimming/water sports 1.55

33. Where are the CSOs? Maumee River 17 overflow points on the Maumee

34. Maumee River – Current Uses Boating Personal watercraft Fishing Commercial shipping Scenic

35. Where are the CSOs? What are Current Uses? Maumee River

36. Where are the CSOs? Swan Creek 9 overflow points on Swan Creek

37. Swan Creek – Current Uses Some fishing Some boating Migratory birds Scenic

38. Where are the CSOs? What are Current Uses? Swan Creek

39. Where are the CSOs? Ottawa River 6 overflow points

40. Ottawa River – Current Uses Boating Personal Watercraft Water Skiing Scenic

41. Where are the CSOs? What are Current Uses? Ottawa River

42. Ottawa River – Current Uses Ottawa River

43. Feedback – What You Can Do! Participate in a breakout group Choose a session: Ottawa River – Downstairs “Sky Left” East Side Maumee River – Downstairs “Sky Right” West Side Maumee River & Swan Creek -- Here Fill out questionnaire and sign up for future meetings

44. Areas for Input Waterway uses Are there any priority areas? What should be the goals of the program? What are the Preferred Alternatives?

45. Things to Remember The Long Term Control Plan Must: Meet the criteria required by the EPA Must be a solution the community can afford

46. Next Steps Get public input on proposed alternatives at meetings for each waterway November 2004 – January 2005 Present draft plan for public comment March 2005

47. Future Meetings Ottawa River November 18, 2004 Location – To be discussed in breakout Maumee River East To be scheduled – January 2005 Maumee River West/Swan Creek To be scheduled – January 2005