2014 ACJ Annual Report by Onondaga County Save the Rain

Onondaga County, New York ACJ Fourth Stipulation 2014 Annual Report Joanne M. Mahoney, County Executive

Prepared for

Onondaga County, New York

Prepared by

Submittal Due Date: April 1, 2015

CH2M HILL 430 E. Genesee Street Suite 400 Syracuse, NY 13202 Tel 315.345.1440 Fax 917.858.5810

March 31, 2015 Mr. Timothy DiGiulio, P.E. NYSDEC – Region 7, Regional Water Engineer New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 615 Erie Boulevard West Syracuse, NY 13204‐2400 Subject:

2014 Annual Report ACJ Fourth Stipulation

Dear Mr. DiGiulio: On behalf of Onondaga County, please find attached for your review and approval, three (3) copies of the 2014 Annual Report. Each report includes a compact disc with electronic versions of the report and appendices. Sincerely, CH2M HILL Matthew J. Marko, P.E. Vice President cc:

Tom Rhoads, Commissioner, OCDWEP (hard copy and compact disc) Samuel Sage, ASLF (hard copy and compact disc) Kenneth Lynch, NYSDEC ‐ Region 7 (compact disc) Mark Klotz, NYSDEC ‐ Albany (compact disc) Scott Crisafulli, NYSDEC ‐ Albany (compact disc) Dare Adelugba, NYSDEC – Albany (compact disc) Valarie Ellis, NYSDEC ‐ Region 7 (compact disc) Debra Banks, NYSDEC ‐ Region 7 (compact disc) Kathleen McGrath, NYSDEC/CNYRPB (compact disc) Dan Hayes, NYSDEC Region 7 (compact disc) Norman Speigel, NYS Office of Attorney General (compact disc) John Davis, NYS Office of Attorney General (compact disc) Mary Beth Primo, Onondaga County Executive Office (hard copy and compact disc) Travis Glazier, Onondaga County Office of the Environment (compact disc) Lori Tarolli, Onondaga County Law Department (compact disc) Luis Mendez, Onondaga County Law Department (compact disc) Liz Ricci, NYSEFC (compact disc) Jimmy Ng, NYSEFC (compact disc) Mike Lannon, OCDWEP (compact disc)

MR. TIMOTHY DIGIULIO PAGE 2 MARCH 31, 2015

Nick Capozza, OCDWEP (hard copy and compact disc) Jeanne Powers, OCDWEP (compact disc) Janaki Suryadevara, OCDWEP (compact disc) Madison Quinn, OCDWEP (compact disc) Hongbin Gao, ASLF (compact disc) Olivia Green, ASLF (compact disc) Chuck Dworkin, Nolan and Heller (compact disc) Douglas McKenna, USEPA ‐ Region II (compact disc) Seth Ausubel, USEPA ‐ Region II (compact disc) Christopher Dere, USEPA ‐ Region II (compact disc) Michael Shaw, USEPA ‐ Region II (compact disc) Lauren Fischer, USEPA – Region II (compact disc) Larry Gaugler, USEPA ‐ Region II (compact disc) Robert Kukenberger, CDM Smith (compact disc) Robert Palladine, C&S (compact disc) BJ Adigun, CH2M HILL (compact disc) Dingfang Liu, CH2M HILL (hardcopy and compact disc) Zach Monge, CH2M HILL (compact disc) Nic Warrens, CH2M HILL (compact disc) Karen Rendall, CH2M HILL (hardcopy and compact disc)

Table of Contents Abbreviations and Acronyms ....................................................................................... vi Executive Summary ............................................................................................... ES‐1 1

Introduction ................................................................................................... 1‐1 1.1 2014 Annual Report ........................................................................................ 1‐1 1.2 Amended Consent Judgment (ACJ) ................................................................. 1‐1 1.3 The Fourth Stipulation of the ACJ .................................................................. 1‐2 1.3.1 Ambient Monitoring Program ............................................................. 1‐2 1.3.2 Green Infrastructure (GI) ...................................................................... 1‐3 1.3.3 Gray Infrastructure .............................................................................. 1‐3 1.3.4 Facility and Floatable Control Plans ..................................................... 1‐3 1.3.5 Annual Report Requirements .............................................................. 1‐4 1.3.6 Compliance ........................................................................................ 1‐4 1.4 SPDES Permit Requirements .......................................................................... 1‐5 1.4.1 BMP Annual Report ............................................................................ 1‐6 1.4.2 Schedule of Compliance ‐ CSOs .......................................................... 1‐6 1.5 Annual Report Information and Certification .................................................. 1‐6 1.6 Annual Report Organization........................................................................... 1‐6

CSO Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring ................................................ 2‐1 2.1 Combined Sewer System Overview ............................................................... 2‐1 2.2 Regulatory Framework .................................................................................. 2‐6 2.2.1 Amended Consent Judgment (ACJ) Fourth Stipulation, 2009 .............. 2‐6 2.2.2 Metro SPDES Permit, 2012 (Modified June 4, 2014) ............................ 2‐6 2.3 CSO PCCM Program Summary ....................................................................... 2‐7 2.4 CSO PCCM Program (2011‐2014) .................................................................. 2‐11 2.4.1 CSO Flow Quantity Monitoring .......................................................... 2‐11 2.4.2 CSO Flow Quality and Tributary Water Quality Monitoring ................ 2‐15 2.5 2014 CSO Facility Performance Summary .................................................... 2‐22 2.5.1 Clinton Storage Facility ......................................................................2‐23 2.5.2 Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility .................................................2‐23 2.5.3 Erie Boulevard Storage System ......................................................... 2‐24 2.5.4 Midland Regional Treatment Facility ................................................ 2‐24 2.5.5 Hiawatha Regional Treatment Facility .............................................. 2‐24 2.6 2015 PCCM Program .................................................................................... 2‐25 2.6.1 CSO Flow Quantity Monitoring ......................................................... 2‐25 2.6.2 CSO Flow Quality and Tributary Water Quality Monitoring ............... 2‐25 2.7 2014 AMP Tributary Compliance Evaluation .................................................. 2‐27 2.7.1 Dissolved Oxygen: 6 NYCRR Sec. 703.3 ............................................. 2‐28 2.7.2 Ammonia: 6 NYCRR Sec. 703.5 ......................................................... 2‐28 2.7.3 Phosphorus: 6 NYCRR Sec. 703.2 ...................................................... 2‐28 2.7.4 Nitrogen: 6 NYCRR Sec. 703.2 ............................................................ 2‐31

www.savetherain.us

Table of Contents

2.7.5 2.7.6 2.7.7 2.7.8

Bacteria: 6 NYCRR Sec. 703.4 ............................................................. 2‐31 Floatable Solids: 6 NYCRR Sec. 703.2 ................................................. 2‐35 Turbidity: 6 NYCRR Sec. 703.2 ........................................................... 2‐35 Water Quality Standards & Guidelines (NYSDEC TOGS 1.1.1): ........... 2‐35

SWMM Update ............................................................................................... 3‐1 3.1 2014 Conditions Model Update ....................................................................... 3‐1 3.2 Sewer Flow Monitoring Program .................................................................... 3‐2 3.2.1 Monitoring Sites .................................................................................. 3‐3 3.2.2 Phase I Precipitation Events ................................................................. 3‐3 3.2.3 Phase I Flow Monitoring Data .............................................................. 3‐7 3.3 Model Calibration and Validation in MIS Areas .............................................. 3‐11 3.3.1 Calibration Methodology ................................................................... 3‐11 3.3.2 Dry Weather Flow (DWF) Calibration ................................................. 3‐15 3.3.3 Wet Weather Flow (WWF) Calibration ............................................... 3‐17 3.3.4 Validation .......................................................................................... 3‐25 3.4 Annual Capture Results ................................................................................ 3‐28 3.4.1 Typical Year Capture Results of December 31, 2014 System Conditions ........................................................................................ 3‐28 3.4.2 2018 Capture Projection ................................................................... 3‐29

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 (HBIS) Replacement Project ............. 4‐2 4.1.3 Clinton Storage Facility ....................................................................... 4‐4 4.1.4 Lower Harbor Brook Conveyances and Storage Facility ...................... 4‐9 4.1.5 Sewer Separation of CSO Areas 022 and 045 .................................... 4‐12 4.1.6 CSO 063 Conveyances Project .......................................................... 4‐12 4.1.7 CSO 061 Sewer Separation ............................................................... 4‐14 4.1.8 Gray Infrastructure Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Requirements ................................................................................... 4‐14 4.2 Green Infrastructure (GI) .............................................................................. 4‐16 4.2.1 Projects Completed Through 2014 .................................................... 4‐16 4.2.2 Projects Currently Under Construction .............................................. 4‐16 4.2.3 GI Projects Proposed for 2015 and Beyond ......................................... 4‐27 4.2.4 Green Infrastructure O&M Requirements........................................... 4‐31 4.2.5 Green Planning Committee .............................................................. 4‐44 4.2.6 CSO 022, 027, 029, 052, 060, 077 and 067 Facility Plan Update .......... 4‐46

Public Outreach .............................................................................................. 5‐1 5.1 Save the Rain Program .................................................................................... 5‐1 5.2 General Public Outreach Activities .................................................................. 5‐1 5.2.1 Save the Rain Educational Videos ....................................................... 5‐2 5.2.2 Rain Barrel Art Contest ....................................................................... 5‐2 5.2.3 Save the Rain Educational Signage ...................................................... 5‐3

www.savetherain.us

Table of Contents

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.2.4 Clean Water Fair .................................................................................. 5‐3 Signature Projects .......................................................................................... 5‐4 5.3.1 Comfort Tyler Park Project ................................................................. 5‐4 5.3.2 Street Tree Program ........................................................................... 5‐5 5.3.3 East Washington Street Green Corridor Project .................................. 5‐5 5.3.4 Connective Corridor Project – Phases 2 and 3 ...................................... 5‐6 5.3.5 Rosamond Gifford Zoo ....................................................................... 5‐6 Program Recognition/Awards/Events .............................................................. 5‐7 5.4.1 Audubon New York ............................................................................. 5‐7 5.4.2 WEF Video Award ................................................................................ 5‐7 5.4.3 USEPA Technical Assistance ................................................................ 5‐7 5.4.4 New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation GI Summit/Tour ...................................................................................... 5‐8 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 5‐8

Intergovernmental Cooperation...................................................................... 6‐1 6.1 City‐County Green Infrastructure Initiatives ................................................... 6‐1 6.1.1 GI Permission Ordinance .................................................................... 6‐1 6.1.2 City Road‐Cut Application Process ...................................................... 6‐2 6.1.3 City Site Plan Review Process ............................................................. 6‐3 6.1.4 Dig Safely New York Mark‐out ............................................................ 6‐3 6.2 Public‐Private Partnership ............................................................................. 6‐4 6.2.1 GIF Program Highlights ...................................................................... 6‐4 6.2.2 GIF Program Boundary Modifications ................................................. 6‐4 6.2.3 GIF Program Maintenance .................................................................. 6‐5 6.3 Inter‐Municipal Agreements .......................................................................... 6‐6 6.4 Ordinances .................................................................................................... 6‐8

Conclusions .................................................................................................... 7‐1 7.1 ACJ CSO Capture Compliance ......................................................................... 7‐1 7.2 Gray Infrastructure Project Implementation Compliance ................................. 7‐1 7.3 Program Assessment ...................................................................................... 7‐2 7.4 2015 Program Plans ........................................................................................ 7‐3

List of Appendices A B C D E F G

SPDES Permit No. NY 002 7081 for Metro 2014 Combined Sewer Overflows Annual Report 2014 CSO Flow Monitoring Data for Representative CSOs 2014 AMP Annual Data Report 2014 Sewer Flow Monitoring Data SWMM Calibration Charts GIF Maintenance Log

III

www.savetherain.us

Table of Contents

List of Tables Table ES‐1: Table ES‐2: Table ES‐3: Table ES‐4: Table ES‐5: Table ES‐6: Table 1‐1: Table 2‐1: Table 2‐2: Table 2‐3: Table 2‐4: Table 2‐5: Table 2‐6: Table 2‐7: Table 2‐8: Table 2‐9: Table 2‐10: Table 2‐11: Table 2‐12: Table 3‐1: Table 3‐2: Table 3‐3: Table 3‐4: Table 3‐5: Table 3‐6: Table 3‐7: Table 4‐1: Table 4‐2: Table 4‐3: Table 4‐4: Table 4‐5: Table 4‐6: Table 4‐7: Table 4‐8: Table 4‐9: Table 7‐1: Table 7‐2:

CSO Capture Compliance Schedule .............................................................. ES‐1 ACJ Gray Infrastructure Milestone Schedule and Compliance Status ............ ES‐2 Pre‐ACJ and Current CSOs and Drainage Basins Tributary to Metro ............. ES‐4 Representative CSO Flow Monitoring Locations .......................................... ES‐5 2014 Annual Capture Results ...................................................................... ES‐10 2018 Annual Capture Projection ................................................................. ES‐11 CSO Capture Compliance Schedule ................................................................ 1‐2 Pre‐ACJ and Current CSOs and Drainage Basins Tributary to Metro ............... 2‐1 CSO Outfall Information ................................................................................ 2‐3 CSO PCCM Program Summary ...................................................................... 2‐8 Representative CSO Flow Monitoring Locations ........................................... 2‐11 2014 Flow Meter Summary Table ................................................................. 2‐15 2-14 1 Summary of Metro Headworks Bypass Events ............................................ 2‐15 Summary of Post‐Sewer Separation Water Quality Data for CSO 022 ........... 2‐17 Summary of Post‐Sewer Separation Water Quality Data for CSO 045 .......... 2‐19 2014 CSO Facility Operational Summary ...................................................... 2‐24 Summary of 2015 PCCM Program ................................................................ 2‐27 Annual AMP Tributary Compliance Summary (January – December 2014) ... 2‐30 2014 AMP Tributary TDS Data ..................................................................... 2‐36 Flow Meter Summary for the 2014 Flow Monitoring Program ........................ 3‐5 Rainfall Event Statistics for the Midland RTF (MRTF) and Metro WWTP During Phase I Monitoring Program ................................................... 3‐6 Summary of Flow Data Analysis for Phase I .................................................... 3‐8 Storm Event Data Comparison with NRCC Extreme Event Results ................ 3‐17 CSO Volume and Frequency Predicted by the Calibrated Model ................... 3‐26 2014 Annual Capture Results1 ...................................................................... 3‐28 2018 Annual Capture Projection1 .................................................................. 3‐29 ACJ Gray Infrastructure Milestone Schedule ................................................... 4‐1 Completed Green Infrastructure (GI) Projects through December 31, 2014 ....................................................................................... 4‐19 Green Infrastructure (GI) Projects Under Construction as of December 31, 2014 ....................................................................................... 4‐26 Green Infrastructure (GI) Projects Proposed for 2015 and Beyond ................ 4‐29 O&M Activities ............................................................................................. 4‐32 Filter Insert Locations .................................................................................... 4‐33 Landscape Maintenance Responsibilities ...................................................... 4‐37 Porous Pavement Vacuuming ...................................................................... 4‐40 Tree Maintenance Responsibilities ............................................................... 4‐42 CSO Capture Compliance Schedule1 ............................................................... 7‐1 ACJ Gray Infrastructure Milestone Schedule and Compliance Status ............... 7‐1

www.savetherain.us

Table of Contents

List of Figures Figure ES‐1: Comparison of CSO Volume between Calibrated Model Results and Observed CSO during 2014 .......................................................................... ES‐9 Figure ES‐2: Comparison of CSO Frequency between Calibrated Model Results and Observed CSO during 2014 ........................................................................ ES‐10 Figure ES‐3: Completed Projects Map ............................................................................ ES‐15 Figure ES‐4: Sewershed Prioritization Map .................................................................... ES‐16 Figure 2‐1: Graphic Delineation of Pre‐ACJ CSOs ............................................................. 2‐3 2-2 Figure 2‐2: CSO Outfalls and Abatement Projects ......................................................... 2‐10 Figure 2‐3: AMP 2014 Tributary Sampling Locations ...................................................... 2‐29 Figure 2‐4: Fecal Coliform Concentrations Onondaga Creek Stations ............................. 2‐33 Figure 2‐5: Fecal Coliform Concentrations Harbor Brook Stations .................................. 2‐34 Figure 2‐6: Fecal Coliform Concentrations Ley Creek ..................................................... 2‐34 Figure 3‐1: Example of Adjustment to Sewershed Boundaries Based on Field Investigation .......................................................................................... 3‐2 Figure 3‐2: Flowmeter Locations for the 2014 Flow Monitoring Program ......................... 3‐4 Figure 3‐3: Rainfall hyetographs at Metro WWTP and Midland RTF .................................. 3‐7 Figure 3‐4: Example Flow Meter Data Analysis Sheet for FM‐5 ....................................... 3‐10 Figure 3‐5: Monthly Dry Weather Flow Pattern Based on Metro Influent Flow Data ........ 3‐15 Figure 3‐6: Dry Weather Flow Calibration Comparison for FM‐5 ...................................... 3‐16 Figure 3‐7: Dry Weather Flow Calibration Comparison for FM‐16 .................................... 3‐16 Figure 3‐8: Calibration Scatter Plots and Hydrographs at Flow Meter Site FM‐1 .............. 3‐19 Figure 3‐9: Comparison of Event Hydrographs at Flow Meter Site FM‐1 ......................... 3‐20 Figure 3‐10: Comparison of Flow Depths between Calibrated Model Results and Metering Data at Flow Meter Site FM‐1 ......................................................... 3‐21 Figure 3‐11: Calibration Scatter Plots and Hydrographs at Flow Meter Site FM‐15 ........... 3‐22 Figure 3‐12: Comparison of Event Hydrographs at Flow Meter Site FM‐15 ........................ 3‐23 Figure 3‐13: Comparison of Flow Depths between Calibrated Model Results and Metering Data at Flow Meter Site FM‐15 ...................................................... 3‐24 Figure 3‐14: 2014 Midland RTF Rainfall for Validation Period ........................................... 3‐25 Figure 3‐15: Comparison of CSO Volume between Calibrated Model Results and Observed CSO during 2014 ........................................................................... 3‐27 Figure 3‐16: Comparison of CSO Frequency between Calibrated Model Results and Observed CSO during 2014 ........................................................................... 3‐27 Figure 4‐1: HBIS Replacement Project Area ..................................................................... 4‐3 Figure 4‐2: Clinton Storage Facility – GI Projects in Service Area ...................................... 4‐8 Figure 4‐3: Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility – GI Projects in Service Area ................ 4‐11 Figure 4‐4: Completed 169 GI Projects Map ................................................................... 4‐16 Figure 4‐5: Sewershed Prioritization Map ...................................................................... 4‐45 Figure 6‐1: 2014 GIF Program Boundary Map ................................................................... 6‐5

www.savetherain.us

Abbreviations and Acronyms ACJ

Amended Consent Judgment

AMP

Ambient Monitoring Program

ARRA

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

ASLF

Atlantic States Legal Foundation

AWQS

Ambient Water Quality Standards

BMP

Best Management Practice

CCE

City Codes Enforcement

CCTV

Closed‐circuit Television

CVAFS

Cold‐Vapor Atomic Fluorescence Spectrometry

CFU

Colony Forming Units

the City

the City of Syracuse

CMOM

Capacity Management, Operations, and Maintenance

the County

Onondaga County

CRE

CSO Reduction Efficiency

CSF

Clinton Storage Facility

CSO

Combined Sewer Overflow

CSS

Combined Sewer System

CWA

Clean Water Act

Dissolved Oxygen

EBSS

Erie Boulevard Storage System

FCF

Floatables Control Facility

fps

Feet Per Second

ft2

Square Feet

Gate Chamber

Green Infrastructure

GIF

Green Improvement Fund

HBIS

Harbor Brook Interceptor Sewer

IMA

Inter‐municipal Agreement

Linear Feet

LHBSF

Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility

www.savetherain.us

Abbreviations and Acronyms

LID

Low Impact Development

LTCP

Long Term Control Plan

µg/L

Micrograms per Liter

Metro

Metropolitan Syracuse Wastewater Treatment Plant

Million Gallons

MIS

Main Interceptor Sewer

mg/L

Milligrams per Liter

mgd

Million Gallons Per Day

MIS

Main Interceptor Sewer

Milliliter

MPN

Most Probable Number

MRL

Method Reporting Limit

MS4

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems

MTS

Microbial Trackdown Study

ng/L

Nanograms Per Liter

NSG

New Screen and Grit

NTU

Nephelometric Turbidity Units

NYCRR

New York Codes, Rules and Regulations

NYS

New York State

NYSDEC

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

NYSEFC

New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation

OCDWEP

Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection

O&M

Operation and Maintenance

OEI

Onondaga Environmental Institute

PCCM

Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring

PLA

Project Labor Agreement

QPR

Quarterly Performance Report

RTF

Regional Treatment Facility

SCADA

Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition

SEQR

State Environment Quality Review

SPDES

State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

STR

Save the Rain

VII

www.savetherain.us

Abbreviations and Acronyms

SUNY

State University of New York

SWMM

Stormwater Management Model

TMDL

Total Maximum Daily Load

TOGS

Technical & Operational Guidance Series

TSS

Total Suspended Solids

USEPA

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

WERF

Water Environment Research Federation

www.savetherain.us

VIII

Executive Summary 2014 Annual Report The Fourth Stipulation of the Amended Consent Judgment (ACJ) was authorized on November 16, 2009, and agreed to by the following parties: Onondaga County (“the County”), the State of New York (negotiated on behalf of the people of New York by the Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), and the Office of the Attorney General), and Atlantic States Legal Foundation (ASLF). A modification to the March 21, 2012 Final State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit (No. NY 002 7081) issued by NYSDEC for the Metropolitan Syracuse Wastewater Treatment Plant (Metro) and related conveyances became effective on June 4, 2014. These documents form the basis of the contents of this annual report. The main components of Onondaga County’s Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Program, referred to as the Save the Rain program and administered by the Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection (OCDWEP), consist of the following:       

Post‐construction compliance monitoring System modeling using EPA’s Stormwater Management Model (SWMM) Gray infrastructure implementation Green infrastructure implementation Facility and floatable control plans Public outreach Intergovernmental cooperation

“Would I swim in Onondaga Lake today? Yes!” – New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Joseph Martens

This report is organized according to the above topics and followed by conclusions. The conclusions are summarized below under “2014 Highlights.”

2014 Highlights The CSO compliance schedule set forth in the ACJ contains deadlines for CSO percent capture by volume, as well as gray infrastructure project implementation. The County has worked diligently to maintain compliance with schedules set forth in the ACJ and has successfully met the deadlines to date, as shown in Tables ES‐1 and ES‐2. In addition, the County’s recently calibrated SWMM shows that the annual capture percentage for the 2014 system conditions exceeds 95 percent and is ahead of schedule with respect to the mandated compliance milestones. Table ES‐1: CSO Capture Compliance Schedule* ACJ Compliance Stage

ACJ Percent CSO Capture by Volume

Onondaga County Save the Rain Program Status Percent CSO Capture by Volume

ACJ Compliance Deadline

Stage I

89.5 %

92.9 %

December 31, 2013

Stage II

91.4 %

TBD

December 31, 2015

ES-1

www.savetherain.us

Executive Summary

ACJ Compliance Stage

ACJ Percent CSO Capture by Volume

Onondaga County Save the Rain Program Status Percent CSO Capture by Volume

ACJ Compliance Deadline

Stage III

93.0 %

TBD

December 31, 2016

Stage IV

95.0 %

TBD

December 31, 2018

*SWMM results based on the 1991 precipitation record. TBD = To Be Determined.

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

CSO 044 Conveyances

Harbor Brook Interceptor Sewer Replacement

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

Minor

08/17/2009

Achieved

Commence construction

Minor

01/01/2010

Achieved

Complete construction and commence operation

Major

12/31/2013

Achieved

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

Achieved

Plans and specs to NYSDEC for review and approval

Minor

04/29/2011*

Achieved

Commence construction

Minor

12/31/2011*

Achieved

Complete construction and commence operation

Major

12/31/2013

Achieved

Milestone Description

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

Clinton Storage Facility

Harbor Brook Storage Facility

* Date reflects ACJ Milestone extension approved by the NYSDEC on November 4, 2010

ES-2

www.savetherain.us

Executive Summary

Onondaga County’s Save the Rain (STR) Program continued to make significant progress in 2014. To date under the STR Program, the County has constructed: 

The CSO 044 conveyance project totaling 500 linear feet (LF) of a 96‐inch diameter pipeline connected to the Midland Regional treatment Facility (RTF). The Midland RTF includes 3.6 million gallons (MG) of storage and an additional 1.4 MG of conveyance storage with the extension of the pipeline to CSO 044.



The Harbor Brook Interceptor Sewer (HBIS) project which included upsizing of 7,500 LF of interceptor sewer, rehabilitation of 1,860 LF of existing sewers; 2,500 LF of brook culvert, and 4,100 LF of water mains and abandoned CSOs 013 and 016.

Clinton Storage Facility ‐‐ West Chamber Access Building



The Erie Boulevard Storage System gate modifications which provide approximately 3.5 MG of useable storage.



The Clinton Storage Facility with 6.5 MG of storage.



The Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility with 4.9 MG of storage.



The separation of combined sewer areas tributary to CSOs 022 and 045.



169 individual green infrastructure projects totaling over 108 MG of stormwater capture, including several signature projects such as the 3,825–linear foot Connective Corridor capturing over 15 MG of stormwater annually; the OnCenter 66,000‐square foot green roof, parking garage and surface lot capturing over 5 MG of stormwater annually, the War Memorial Stormwater Capture and Reuse project capturing 300,000 gallons Rosamond Gifford Zoo Stormwater Wetland stormwater annually; and the Zoo campus improvements capturing 5.9 MG of stormwater annually.



The installation of approximately 3,600 trees and over 1,200 rain barrels.

CSO Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring The ACJ, as amended by the Fourth Stipulation in 2009, 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 (AMP). These modifications include ES-3

www.savetherain.us

Executive Summary

additional wet weather monitoring within the CSO‐affected stream reaches to evaluate compliance with the ambient water quality standards (AWQS) for bacteria and floatables following improvements to infrastructure for wastewater and stormwater collection. Section II.B of the USEPA National CSO Policy describes the ninth element of the Nine Minimum Controls as “monitoring to effectively characterize CSO impacts and the efficacy of CSO controls.” The ninth element of a Long Term Control Plan (LTCP), listed in the CSO Control Policy, is the development of a post construction compliance monitoring (PCCM) program adequate to verify compliance with water quality‐based requirements and ascertain the effectiveness of CSO controls. The Metro SPDES permit specifically requires water quality monitoring to include sampling of each water body that receives a CSO and to list measures to be taken to address water quality violations, if detected. The ultimate goal of the County’s PCCM program is to determine whether Onondaga Creek and Harbor Brook are meeting the AWQS and their designated uses. To accomplish the objectives of the ACJ, the Fourth Stipulation of the ACJ, and the Metro SPDES permit requirements, the County’s PCCM program includes three elements: 1. CSO Flow Quantity Monitoring 2. CSO Flow Quality Monitoring 3. Tributary Water Quality Monitoring

Combined Sewer System Overview The combined sewer system (CSS) tributary to Metro includes an area of 7,337 acres, or approximately 11 square miles. CSOs are Onondaga County Executive Joanie Mahoney and NYS tributary to three receiving waters: Environmental Facilities Corporation President Matthew Driscoll welcomed communities from across the state to a New York State Green Infrastructure Summit

1. Harbor Brook 2. Onondaga Creek 3. Ley Creek

Since 1998, the County has closed or abated 46 of its 72 pre‐ACJ CSO locations (64 percent), as shown in Table ES‐3, through a series of sewer separation and other projects. Table ES‐3: Pre‐ACJ and Current CSOs and Drainage Basins Tributary to Metro Pre‐ACJ Number of Operational CSO Locations (1998)1

Current Number of Operational2 CSO Locations

Combined Sewer Area (acres)

Percentage of Total Combined Sewer Area

Harbor Brook

1,707

23.3%

Onondaga Creek

5,386

73.4%

Ley Creek

244

3.3%

Total

7,337

100.0%

Drainage Basin

1 2

The number of pre‐ACJ operational CSO locations is based on the CSO outfalls listed in Table 2‐2. ”Operational” defined as CSO discharges during the 1‐year, 2‐hour storm.

ES-4

www.savetherain.us

Executive Summary

2014 CSO Flow Quantity Monitoring Representative CSOs The purpose of the CSO discharge monitoring effort is to increase the veracity of the SWMM used for planning, design, and determination of compliance with the volume capture requirements. Flow meters are installed at 13 representative CSO locations, which are identified in Table ES‐4. Modification of the monitoring locations may occur annually after a thorough review and in consultation with NYSDEC and ASLF. However, no Point Source Sampling from Canoe modifications to these CSO outfall locations occurred in 2014. Table ES‐4: Representative CSO Flow Monitoring Locations Outfall

Receiving Water

Metering Device

003

Harbor Brook

Flow Meter

004

Harbor Brook

Flow Meter

014

Harbor Brook

Flow Meter

0181

Harbor Brook

Flow Meter

027

Onondaga Creek

Flow Meter

030

Onondaga Creek

Flow Meter

0342

Onondaga Creek

Flow Meter

0362

Onondaga Creek

Ultrasonic Level Sensor

0443

Onondaga Creek

Flow Meter / Ultrasonic Level Sensor

Onondaga Creek

Flow Meter

060/077

Onondaga Creek

Flow Meter

063

Harbor Brook

Flow Meter

080

Onondaga Creek

Flow Meter

052 4

No flow meter data are available for CSO 018 due to a construction related issue. There were data quality issues with the flow meter at this site. 3 CSO 044 was monitored with an ultrasonic level sensor in 2014; flow meter removed 12/13. 4 Flow meters exist at both CSO 060 and 077. 2

2014 CSO Flow Quality and Tributary Water Quality Monitoring The 2014 AMP annual work plan was implemented September 17, 2014, following conditional approval of the five‐year (2014‐2018) AMP work plan. No PCCM sampling events were planned during the non‐disinfection period from October 16, 2014, through March 30, 2015. With the exception of the SPDES permit required quarterly sampling for the CSO 022 and 045 sewer separation projects initiated in 2013, no PCCM sampling events were conducted in 2014.

ES-5

www.savetherain.us

Executive Summary

CSO 022 and 045: Sewer Separation Projects A goal of the PCCM for the two sewer separation projects is to verify that CSO outfalls 022 and 045 are not causing or contributing to violations of water quality standards in the receiving waters. The 2014 sampling results for CSO 022 and 045 are rather ambiguous, likely as a result of extreme spatial and temporal variability in water quality metrics during wet weather events and the myriad sources of bacteria and turbidity. Trends for fecal coliform and TSS/turbidity from upstream of CSO Outfall 022 to downstream were inconsistent for the various sampling events. The absence of increases in either fecal coliform or TSS/turbidity levels from upstream of CSO Outfall 045 to downstream suggest that intervening inputs had negligible impacts on these metrics of water quality. There were no visual observations of floatables or evidence of sewage in the samples collected at each of these two CSO outfalls. CSO 080: Erie Boulevard Storage System (EBSS) No PCCM sampling events were conducted for EBSS in 2014. Following the completion of the City of Syracuse Viaduct project in 2014, related to the interior of the aqueduct/outfall (coordinated with NYSDEC), operational changes were made for the dry weather operation of the EBSS, which was found to continually discharge and contribute a bacteria load to Onondaga Creek during dry weather as part of the Microbial Trackdown Study. EBSS Gate #1 which operates discharge to Onondaga Creek was closed on September 12, 2014. The County’s trackdown efforts of dry weather sanitary contributions to the EBSS are on‐going. 2014 Storage Facility Performance Summary The Clinton CSO Storage Facility (CSF), located in the Clinton/Lower MIS service area, and the Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility (LHBSF) accepted wet weather flow starting December 31, 2013. Both storage facilities capture and store combined sewage generated during wet weather for up to the 1‐year, 2‐hour design storm. In 2014, these storage facilities stored (for treatment at Metro) an estimated 113 MG of combined sewage that would previously have been discharged to Onondaga Creek and Harbor Brook. This reduction in CSO discharge volume is expected to result in substantial water quality improvements in these tributaries.

2014 Tributary Compliance Evaluation Several segments of Onondaga Lake’s tributary streams are included in the 2012 NYSDEC compendium of impaired waters. The regulatory goal of the ACJ is to bring segments of the Onondaga Lake tributaries affected by Onondaga County’s municipal discharges into compliance with designated best uses pursuant to 6 NYCRR (New York Code, Rules and Regulations) Parts 701 and 703. The County’s AMP tributary sampling program includes locations upstream and downstream of CSOs and urban segments of the sub‐watersheds. As outlined in the ACJ, specific NYS water quality standards and guidance values that will be used to assess the extent to which these Water Quality Sampling on a actions are successful, include the following: Tributary to Onondaga Lake   

Dissolved Oxygen: 6NYCRR Sec. 703.3 Ammonia: 6 NYCRR Sec. 703.5 Phosphorus: 6 NYCRR Sec. 703.2

Source: http://savetherain.us

ES-6

www.savetherain.us

Executive Summary

    

Nitrogen: 6 NYCRR Sec. 703.2 Bacteria: 6 NYCRR Sec. 703.4 Floatable Solids: 6 NYCRR Sec. 703.2 Turbidity: 6 NYCRR Sec. 703.2 Water Quality Standards & Guidelines (NYSDEC TOGS 1.1.1)

The Technical and Operational Guidance Series (TOGS) includes the New York State Division of Water ambient water quality standards and guidance values. The 2014 AMP tributary data indicate that the CSO tributaries were generally in compliance with AWQS for most parameters addressed. The primary exceptions in meeting AWQS for these tributaries were total dissolved solids (TDS) and fecal coliform bacteria (FC). Contravention of the TDS standard is primarily associated with the natural hydrogeology of the watershed and not with anthropogenic effects, including CSOs. Microbial Source Trackdown Study (2014) The Microbial Trackdown Study was undertaken as a joint project of Onondaga Environmental Institute (OEI) and Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection (OCDWEP), with OEI as the principal partner and OCDWEP providing analytical and sampling support. In 2014, Phase 2 of the Microbial Trackdown Study which began in 2013, continued efforts to: (A) monitor spatial trends in bacteria levels in tributaries to Onondaga Lake, (B) monitor problematic point sources identified during Phase 1, (C) monitor newly discovered point sources, and (D) track down and remediate problematic bacterial discharges. All activities were performed during dry weather conditions, defined as a maximum of 0.08 inches (2 mm) in the preceding 48 hours of a sampling event. In addition, spatial Stream Bed and Lower Stormwater Wetland at and temporal trends in bacteria levels were the Rosamond Gifford Zoo identified that helped to: (1) explain patterns of stream water quality related to land use, (2) detect relationships between measured parameters, (3) identify and prioritize point source trackdown work, (4) measure the effects of remedial activities on bacteria levels, and (5) assess changes in bacteria levels since Phase 1. Results of this project will be presented in Identification of the Primary Sources of Bacteria Loading in Selected Tributaries of Onondaga Lake: Phase 2 Microbial Trackdown Study Report, to be finalized in 2015. Tributary Fecal Coliform Bacteria Trend Analysis (1998‐2014) In order to assess the reduction in loading achieved by the CSO improvements, bacteria samples are collected at locations upstream and downstream of CSOs and urban segments of the Onondaga Creek and Harbor Brook sub‐watersheds. Based on the Fecal Coliform time series data for Onondaga Creek, Harbor Brook, and Ley Creek from 1998 through 2014, it is noted that although the upstream concentrations of fecal coliform are generally lower than the downstream concentrations, the upstream concentrations are ES-7

www.savetherain.us

Executive Summary

frequently above 200 CFU/100 mL, indicating compliance is likely affected by issues upstream of urban sources. Observations also depict a distinct seasonality in fecal coliform concentrations, which tend to be higher in the summer.

SWMM Update Onondaga County implemented a comprehensive expansion of, and updates to, the SWMM in 2012. SWMM is the USEPA software package specifically identified in Paragraph 14.I of the ACJ for determination of compliance with CSO volume reduction requirements in paragraphs 14C, 14D, 14E, 14F and 14G of the ACJ. The 2014 annual SWMM update reflects projects completed by December 31, 2014. The model was calibrated using flow monitoring data collected in 2014; this update of the model is now referred to as the “2014 conditions model.” The 2014 conditions model includes the following updates: 

22 green infrastructure (GI) projects that completed construction in 2014 (see Table 4‐2), including 15 Green Improvement Fund (GIF) projects



Subcatchment boundary changes based on field investigation and sewer system maps. These adjustments have a minor impact on model results because these areas were previously included in other subcatchments.

Example of Adjustment to Sewershed Boundaries Based on Field Investigation

Sewer System Flow Monitoring Program The County initiated a comprehensive flow monitoring program during 2014 to characterize current sewer system hydraulic conditions. The new flow monitoring data was used to perform an updated model calibration. Thirty‐three sites were selected for monitoring sewer flows in trunk sewer pipes or main sewer pipes that convey flow from CSO sewersheds. The flow monitoring program consists of two phases. Phase I was completed in September 2014 with 19 flow meters installed in MIS sewersheds. Phase II is planned for 2015 with 14 flow meters installed in both HBIS and MIS sewersheds.

Model Calibration and Validation in MIS Areas The 2014 conditions model was calibrated using the 2014 sewer system flow monitoring data. Dry weather flow and wet weather flow calibration was performed. The wet weather calibration was performed using nine rainfall events occurring during June through August 2014. Calibration plots showing the comparison between metered data and modeled data are provided in Appendix F. The charts show reasonable goodness of fit between modeled and ES-8

www.savetherain.us

Executive Summary

metered values. A one‐year (2014) simulation was used to validate the calibrated 2014 conditions model. To perform the model validation, the modeled CSO volume and frequency at individual CSO locations was compared with available CSO monitoring data1. The results of the validation are shown in Figures ES‐1 and ES‐2. The validation shows that the model performs very well and produces results within a reasonable range of deviation from the metering data. As shown in Figure ES‐1, a total of 21 MG of CSO (61 MG of total flow) were metered during 2014 with the validation flow meters, and the model simulated 21 MG of CSO (61 MG of total flow) which is well within the target +20/‐10 percent accuracy range. The total number of CSO events metered during 2014 was 83 and the model predicted 86 CSO events, as shown in Figure ES‐2.

Figure ES‐1. Comparison of CSO Volume between Calibrated Model Results and Observed CSO during 2014

1 Two of the meters used for validation measured overflow to facilities rather than overflow to receiving waters. The volume and frequency of these flows were valuable for validation purposes, but separate flow totals are reported in the text to distinguish the CSO from these other overflows.

ES-9

www.savetherain.us

Executive Summary

Figure ES‐2. Comparison of CSO Frequency between Calibrated Model Results and Observed CSO during 2014

2014 Annual Capture Results The 2014 conditions model results are provided in Table ES‐5. With a newly calibrated model better representing the actual system conditions than the 2013 conditions model, the annual combined sewage volume capture is estimated to be 480 MG. This capture volume represents a combined contribution from various green and gray projects completed since 2009. After correcting the over‐prediction issues inherent in the 2013 conditions model (described in the 2013 ACJ report), the calibrated 2014 conditions model predicts a combined sewer overflow volume of 286 MG during a typical year. The typical year model results show that the annual capture percentage for the 2014 system conditions exceeds the 95 percent final capture milestone mandated for 2018. Table ES‐5: 2014 Annual Capture Results1 Average Annual Combined Sewage Volume Conveyed to Metro for Treatment (MG)2

Additional Average Annual Combined Sewage Volume Captured by Green/Gray Infrastructure or Eliminated (MG)3

Total Annual Combined Sewage Volume Captured or Eliminated (MG)3

CSO to Creek / Brook (MG)4

Total Annual Combined Sewage Volume Generated by the Metro Combined Sewer Service Area (MG)2

Percent Capture

[1]

[2] = [5] ‐ [1] ‐ [4]

[3] = [1] + [2]

[4]

[5]

[6] = [3]/[5]

Hiawatha

641

642

644

99.7%

Harbor Brook

930

1,013

101

1,114

90.9%

EBSS

159

166

167

99.4%

Midland

1,728

1,766

1,784

99.0%

Sewer Service Area

ES-10

www.savetherain.us

Executive Summary

Average Annual Combined Sewage Volume Conveyed to Metro for Treatment (MG)2

Additional Average Annual Combined Sewage Volume Captured by Green/Gray Infrastructure or Eliminated (MG)3

Total Annual Combined Sewage Volume Captured or Eliminated (MG)3

CSO to Creek / Brook (MG)4

Total Annual Combined Sewage Volume Generated by the Metro Combined Sewer Service Area (MG)2

Percent Capture

[1]

[2] = [5] ‐ [1] ‐ [4]

[3] = [1] + [2]

[4]

[5]

[6] = [3]/[5]

Clinton / Lower MIS

1,750

330

2,080

164

2,244

92.7%

Sewer Separation Areas

128

150

100.0%

Total

5,336

480

5,817

286

6,103

95.3%

Sewer Service Area

SWMM results based on the typical year (1991) precipitation record Data source for [1] and [5]: Typical year results from the pre‐GI conditions (2009) model 3 Eliminated by sewer separation. 4 Data source for [4]: Typical year results from the calibrated 2014 conditions model 2

2018 Capture Projection The following projects are planned for future construction; some are under construction and scheduled to be completed prior to 2018:      

CSO 063 conveyance project CSO 061 sewer separation CSO 018 wetland pilot project System optimization projects Three GI projects under construction (in addition to CSO 018 wetland pilot project) Additional GI projects in design and anticipated to complete construction prior to 2018

Table ES‐6 shows the projected percent capture results after completion of the projects listed above in 2018. These projections are subject to change depending on any adjustments to projects planned for implementation by 2018. Table ES‐6: 2018 Annual Capture Projection1

Metro Service Area Total

Total Annual Combined Sewage Volume Eliminated or Captured (MG)

CSO to Creek/Brook (MG)

Total Annual Combined Sewage Volume Generated by the Metro Combined Sewer Service Area (MG)3

[1] = [3] – [2]

[2]2

[3]

[4] = [1] / [3]

5,867

236

6,103

96.1%

Percent Capture for Treatment at Metro or Eliminated

SWMM results based on the typical year (1991) precipitation record. Data source for [2]: Typical year results from the 2018 conditions model 3 Data source for [3]: Typical year results from the pre‐GI conditions (2009) model 2

ES-11

www.savetherain.us

Executive Summary

CSO Project Status Gray Infrastructure Significant gray infrastructure milestones were achieved in 2014: 

CSO 044 conveyance ‐ The CSO 044 Conveyance Sewer, originally part of the larger Midland Avenue Regional Treatment Facility (RTF) Phase 3 Conveyances Project, conveys combined sewer flow from the 62.5‐acre CSO 044 drainage basin. The pipeline extension to CSO 044 increases the total CSO storage volume of the RTF and conveyances to 5 MG (3.6 MG from the RTF storage tank, vortex separator and disinfection tank; and 1.4 MG from the 66‐inch, 96‐inch, and 144‐inch diameter conveyance pipelines connected to the facility). The sewer began to transmit flow to the Midland Avenue RTF by the milestone date of December 31, 2011. The County closed out the project and released the remaining retained funds to the contractor in December of 2014.



Harbor Brook Interceptor Sewer (HBIS) Replacement – The HBIS Replacement Project provided an upgrade to the existing HBIS between West Fayette Street and Velasko Road, upsizing approximately 7,500 linear feet of interceptor sewer. The project increased the HBIS capacity by 500,000 gallons and the flow capacity by 0.4 mgd, maximizing the flow to the HBIS downstream. The project also included a culvert rehabilitation, a significant green infrastructure component, and the full separation of CSO drainage areas 013 and 016. The HBIS Replacement was operational as of the milestone date of December 31, 2013. The County closed out the project and released all retainage to the contractor in July of 2014.



Clinton Storage Facility ‐ The 6.5 MG CSO storage facility is located in the Clinton/Lower MIS service area. Clinton Storage Facility ‐‐ East The new facility was placed into operation prior to Chamber Access Building December 31, 2013, the milestone stipulated in the ACJ, and the first CSO storage event occurred on December 27, 2013. During 2014, the contractor completed additional work on electrical and instrumentation systems, automated controls, miscellaneous building work and site work. By April 17, 2014, the system was operating in automatic mode and the contractor’s one year performance period began on that date. The contractor has continued work on some additional features added to the project by change order, and plans to complete all work prior to the completion of the contractor’s performance period in April 2015. Fifty‐nine GI projects constructed within the Clinton Storage Facility service area through 2014 provide additional CSO control. The 59 completed projects reduce runoff volume by an estimated 43 million gallons annually.

ES-12

www.savetherain.us

Executive Summary



Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility (LHBSF) ‐ The 4.9 MG CSO storage facility is located on State Fair Boulevard between Hiawatha Boulevard and West Genesee Street. On December 31, 2013, the new facility was placed into operation and capable of receiving wet weather flow, meeting the milestone stipulated in the ACJ. During 2014, the contractor completed work on the electrical and instrumentation systems, miscellaneous building work, and site work which included paving, tree planting, installation of two bioretention areas, and storm sewer replacement. The facility is now fully functional in the automatic mode and is operating under the contractor’s performance period which began on July 18, 2014. In the future, Interior of Lower Harbor Brook Storage Tank the facility will also accept flow from CSO 063 via a 48‐inch conveyance pipeline scheduled for completion in 2015. The effectiveness of the facility is enhanced by the twelve GI projects constructed in the facility service area, which provide an estimated 8.6 million gallons of runoff reduction annually. (Eleven GI projects are within the current service area of the facility, the twelfth project will be in the facility service area upon completion of the CSO 063 Conveyances project.)



Sewer Separation of CSO Areas 022 and 045 ‐ Although the contractor completed all sewer work to separate CSO areas 022 and 045 in 2012, some contract items and the separation verification activities occurred in 2013 and 2014. In 2014, the contractor installed the final tree grate supports for the enhanced tree pits, modified the stormwater planter grading within Robert Haggart Park, replanted honey locust trees in the Park, and completed the remaining miscellaneous items in the contract. The project Robert Haggart Park in Autumn is now officially closed out. This project marks the last sewer separation project under the original Army Corp of Engineers funding agreement with the County. In total, this agreement allowed for the separation of 13 CSO basins and the conversion of as many outfalls to stormwater flow only. The total area of CSO basins separated was approximately 160 acres.



CSO 063 Conveyances Project ‐ In 2014, the County completed the bidding process and began construction on 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 LHBSF, and includes relocation of the CSO 063 outfall. The project includes 150 linear feet of pipeline installed by pipe jacking to minimize the disturbance to the three sets of railroad tracks between Harbor Brook and Erie Boulevard West. The contractor ES-13

www.savetherain.us

Executive Summary

completed installation of the jacking pit, performed the dynamic pile testing on piles installed in the jacking pit, and began to install the pipeline starting near Hiawatha Boulevard. In 2015 the County expects to complete installation of the pipeline, install a new outfall to Harbor Brook, and install a new regulator and grit chamber. The NYSDEC completion date for this project is October 1, 2015 and the County expects to meet this completion date. 

CSO 061 Sewer Separation ‐ In 2014, the County initiated the planning and design phases for the Sewer Separation of CSO Area 061 within the Midland Avenue CSO Service Area. The proposed project will separate sanitary and storm flow within the CSO 061 basin.

CSO 063 Conveyances Project Map Showing the New Outfall Location

ES-14

www.savetherain.us

Executive Summary

Green Infrastructure (GI) Twenty‐two GI projects were completed as part of the Save the Rain (STR) Program in 2014, including 15 GIF projects. These projects are part of a complete list of 169 GI projects implemented in the County and incorporated into SWMM. Four GI projects are currently under construction and are expected to be completed in 2015. These will be added to the SWMM after construction is complete and operation has commenced. There are 66 identified GI opportunities. These projects are currently under review. It is estimated that the completed 169 GI projects shown in Figure ES‐3 are reducing stormwater runoff by over 108 MG per year and providing CSO reduction of approximately 51 MG per year.

Figure ES‐3: Completed Projects Map There are 255 filter inserts included across 44 GI projects. These filter inserts help remove roadway debris and potential floatable materials at the source, as opposed to at the overflow. In 2014, a manufactured treatment device (MTD) was installed as part of the Connective Corridor Project serving the storm sewer installed during the West Fayette Sewer Separation Project. The MTD is located just prior to the discharge to Onondaga Creek and, due to its size and location, eases maintenance requirements as it can be quickly vacuumed out and effectively replaces 20 individual filter inserts. The County initiated the creation of the Green Planning Committee (GPC) in 2014 to help facilitate the development of future green projects that support ACJ objectives. The stated goal of the GPC is to “identify and support the selection of potential GI projects in communities within the City of Syracuse that are targeted for CSO reduction.” The GPC works with community ES-15

www.savetherain.us

Executive Summary

stakeholders and with new SWMM data that identifies specific sewersheds where GI implementation will provide the most efficient CSO reductions (see the 2013 ACJ Report for how the efficiencies are determined). Membership in the GPC includes representatives from the Onondaga County Legislature, the City of Syracuse, the Partnership for Onondaga Creek, and the OCDWEP’s Program Manager. The committee reports to the Commissioner of OCDWEP. The GPC had eight meetings in 2014. The committee is using the existing GI project database as a starting point in the development of opportunities, and is generating new project opportunities. The sewershed prioritization map, Figure ES‐4, illustrates the priority levels used to guide the GPC. The County establishes the priority levels based on the CSO reduction efficiencies from SWMM, with the goal of implementing GI projects that will achieve the greatest water quality impact. This map reflects priority levels at the end of 2014, and will be updated in 2015 based on the recently calibrated 2014 SWMM.

Figure ES‐4: Sewershed Prioritization Map

CSO 022, 027, 029, 052, 060, 077 and 067 Facility Plan Update Section 14O(ii) of the ACJ requires a detailed facilities plan to address CSOs 022, 027, 029, 052 and060/077, as well as to assess the Newell Street Facility (CSO 067) for reconstruction or replacement. Below is a brief summary of the status of each plan. CSO 022: As identified in the plan, the tributary CSO area has been separated and the CSO closed per a project that was completed in 2013.

ES-16

www.savetherain.us

Executive Summary

CSO 027: The plan identifies three primary actions, including regulator modifications, standard green implementation, and floatables control. The standard green implementation is underway, with multiple projects completed in the 027 sewershed. Furthermore, a portion of the Fayette Street separated storm sewer was extended to pick up stormwater runoff from a large drainage area between Salina Street and Onondaga Creek. This stormwater separation project was completed in advance of the soon‐ Water Street Green Gateway Two Years after Completion to‐be completed Connective Corridor, which affects a significant portion of the impervious area within the 027 sewershed. CSO 029: The plan identifies three primary actions, including regulator modifications, aggressive green implementation, and floatables control. The aggressive green implementation is underway, as the GPC is working with stakeholders on a possible green corridor project for Walton Street (from Onondaga Creek to Clinton Street). The GPC is also connecting with private property owners, making them aware of the grant funding opportunity within the GIF program and working to identify additional green projects on private property. CSO 052: The plan identifies four primary actions including regulator modifications, standard green implementation, runoff management in the upper parts of the drainage area, and floatables control. The standard green implementation is on hold pending the evaluation of a runoff management strategy in a neighborhood currently experiencing localized flooding (“CSO Abatement Project at South Avenue and Armstrong Place”). The County and the City of Syracuse have made progress in advancing the legal and administrative aspects of the project, and the County is in the process of delegating final design responsibility to a design professional that will advance the project from the preliminary engineering report through implementation. CSO 060/077: The plan identifies two primary actions including aggressive green implementation and floatables control. The green implementation is well underway with numerous public and private projects complete, underway, and planned. The GPC has identified multiple candidate projects that are currently being prioritized and the County’s design professionals will develop concept designs for further evaluation. Newell Street Demonstration Facility: The facilities plan recommends this facility be demolished and removed. This action is on hold pending development of the GI projects in this sewershed (CSO 067). A conceptual design for residential green streets near this facility has been completed. Further action on projects within this sewershed are being considered as the SWMM is updated in early 2015.

ES-17

www.savetherain.us

Executive Summary

Public Outreach Save the Rain Program In 2014, the Onondaga County Save the Rain (STR) Program continued its exceptional work to restore Onondaga Lake and its tributaries. The program’s vast array of gray and green infrastructure solutions to manage stormwater runoff has positioned Onondaga County as a national model for sustainable stormwater management.

Save the Rain logo at Comfort Tyler Park

After meeting several milestones at the end of 2013, the basketball courts 2014 STR campaign has built upon the success of previous years, while strategically positioning the program for the future. The utilization of an updated and newly calibrated SWMM provides targeted identification of proposed project sites and priority CSO basins. The program has also further developed maintenance protocols to support existing projects. An important aspect of STR is the continued development of public education and outreach activities. As outlined in Section 14H(vi) of the Fourth Stipulation of the Amended Consent Judgment (ACJ) Order, Onondaga County is required to: “engage the public through a comprehensive public outreach plan to encourage community support and participation for the program.”

General Public Outreach Activities

STR educational signage at the Rosamond Gifford Zoo

The Save the Rain public education and outreach program works with the local community by building awareness and establishing relationships through various activities including public meetings, project workshops/training sessions, community events, youth education, tours of STR project sites, and an extensive social media campaign. The outreach program is also intended to encourage community participation, and to educate the public on Onondaga Lake and improving water quality through the mitigation of CSOs.

The Save the Rain website (www.savetherain.us) remains the central location for program activities. Visitors to the website can find general program information, up‐to‐date news, educational resources, upcoming events listing, informational links, and detailed project information. Additionally, visitors to the STR website have the ability to ask questions and request information on program activities and events. The STR program also engages the public through a variety of social media platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and LinkedIn. Other important public outreach activities accomplished in 2014 were: ES-18

www.savetherain.us

Executive Summary



Save the Rain Educational Videos: Two videos were created to promote program activities



Rain Barrel Art Contest: The contest winners were announced at the Rain Barrel Art Gala at the Rosamond Gifford Zoo.



Save the Rain Educational Signage: A pilot program using educational signage to inform the public about the different ways green infrastructure protects Onondaga Lake.



Clean Water Fair: This annual event was held on September 6, 2014 at the Onondaga County Metropolitan Kids view fish and wildlife captured from Onondaga Lake at the 2014 Clean Water Fair Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Signature GI Projects The 2014 construction season included several signature green infrastructure projects for the STR program. Signature projects are high‐profile projects that showcase the use of GI and build greater awareness in the community. In addition to acting as an educational opportunity for the general public, these signature projects also help protect the local sewer system by managing stormwater runoff and pollution to local waterways; these projects include: 

The Comfort Tyler Park project – This comprehensive renovation of the park was accomplished through the partnership of the STR Program, City of Syracuse Parks Department, and the Jim and Juli Boeheim Foundation’s Courts 4 Kids Program. The project includes capital improvements to the park infrastructure (paid for by the City Parks Department) and the utilization of green infrastructure to capture stormwater runoff. GI elements installed included a Porous Pavement Basketball Courts at bioretention area at the northeast corner of the Comfort Tyler Park park, replacement of the existing basketball court with a porous asphalt court, and an infiltration trench and bioswale system at the sount end of the park. The GI elements of the project capture approximately 600,000 gallons of stormwater annually in a high priority sewershed, CSO 060/077.



Street Tree Program – In 2014, over 1,200 trees were planted as part of the ongoing STR street tree program. Neighborhood tree planting events allow residents to assist with

ES-19

www.savetherain.us

Executive Summary

tree installation and learn about tree care and maintenance. On October 16, 2014, Save the Rain led the annual Arbor Day tree planting celebration and the 3,500th STR tree was planted by Danforth Middle School students along with Onondaga County and City of Syracuse officials. A total of 20 trees were planted at Danforth School as part of the Arbor Day event. Since 2011, approximately 3,600 trees have been planted as part of the program. 

East Washington Street Green Corridor Project – Neighborhood tree planting event This project is a comprehensive green street application located on East Washington Street, between Almond Street and Forman Avenue, adjacent to the Syracuse University Center of Excellence. The project includes an underground infiltration trench, a PaveDrain parking lane, and bioswales along both sides of the street to capture stormwater and reduce combined sewer overflows. In addition to these beneficial green infrastructure items, the entire streetscape was retrofitted with new sidewalks and pedestrian crossings. Runoff from approximately 76,900 square feet of impervious area is captured by this green infrastructure project, reducing annual stormwater runoff by approximately 923,000 gallons. The East Washington Street project is the fourth STR project to be funded in part by the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation View of East Washington Street Green through their Green Innovation Grant Program Corridor Project (GIGP).



Connective Corridor Project – Phases 2 and 3 ‐ In 2014, construction began on Phases 2 and 3 of the Connective Corridor project on East Genesee Street between Forman Avenue and South State Street and East and West Fayette Street from South Townsend Street to West Street. The Connective Corridor project is a partnership between the City of Syracuse, Syracuse University, and Onondaga County to build a comprehensive public transportation system and green street to seamlessly connect Syracuse University to Downtown Syracuse. Several applications with a variety of green infrastructure Porous Pavers Installed on Phases 2 and 3 of technologies, including subsurface infiltration the Connective Corridor trenches, permeable paver parking lanes, and

ES-20

www.savetherain.us

Executive Summary

tree plantings are being installed as part of the project. The project is on track to be completed in the summer of 2015. Once complete, the green infrastructure included in Phases 2 and 3 will capture approximately 11 million gallons of stormwater annually, keeping it out of the combined sewer system. In total, including Phases 1, 2, and 3, Forman Park and the West Fayette Street Sewer Separation project, the green infrastructure on the Connective Corridor will capture approximately 23 million gallons of stormwater annually. 

Rosamond Gifford Zoo ‐ In 2014, the contractor for the Zoo Parking Lots project completed the bioswale punch list work, marking the full completion of all five of the green infrastructure projects at the Rosamond Gifford Zoo. In total, these projects capture nearly 6 million gallons of stormwater annually. In 2014, the County was able to begin collecting data on the Stormwater Wetland and Cistern project, assessing its performance and calculating the water and energy savings compared to the year before the project was constructed. With the improvements at the duck pond, Zoo staff no longer need to drain and clean the pond of algae biweekly in the summer months, as they had to do in the past. After the cistern recirculation system was constructed at the bear exhibit, the Zoo has been able to recycle and reuse water within the exhibit, rather than continuously pumping potable water through it. Because of these improvements, in 2014, compared to 2012, the County used 13 million gallons less potable water at the Zoo, equating to an approximate savings of $50,000 for the year.

Rain Garden installation at the entrance of the Rosamond Gifford Zoo

Green roof on the Elephant Barn Aerial view of the porous pavement at the Rosamond Gifford Zoo parking lot at the Rosamond Gifford Zoo

Program Recognition/Awards In 2014, Onondaga County continued to receive recognition and awards for its outstanding and innovative STR program. In June, Onondaga County Executive Joanne Mahoney received the Donald G. Colvin Award from Audubon New York for improvements at Onondaga Lake from the STR program. The award is the top honor given annually by the 50,000 member Audubon conservation group.

ES-21

www.savetherain.us

Executive Summary

In August, The Water Environment Federation (WEF) announced that Onondaga County’s STR program would be the 2014 recipient of the StormTV project award for best non‐ profit/government video. Onondaga Audubon New York County was recognized with this award at the Stormwater Congress at WEF’s Annual Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC).

“County Executive Mahoney has brought innovative solutions to real‐time sustainability challenges facing Central New York.” – Erin Crotty, Executive Director

In October, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) announced that Onondaga County would be one of five communities that would receive technical assistance and integrated planning for stormwater and wastewater projects. At the end of the technical assistance period in October 2015, the result will be a report for the USEPA on how to engage multiple municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) and other stakeholders in integrated planning and development of evaluation criteria for proposed wastewater and stormwater projects, using Onondaga County as a model for other communities. On October 14, 2014, Onondaga County Executive Mahoney and NYS Environmental Facilities Corporation President Matthew Driscoll welcomed communities to a New York State Green Infrastructure Summit at the Syracuse Center of Excellence. At this one‐day event representatives from Onondaga County, New York City, Buffalo, and other municipalities from across the state shared the lessons they have learned implementing their green infrastructure programs over the past few years. Attendees also visited a selection of Save the Rain green infrastructure projects within walking distance of the Center of Excellence on a tour led by CH2M HILL.

Tour of GI Projects during the Fall 2014 GI Summit at the Syracuse Center of Excellence

Intergovernmental Cooperation City‐County Green Infrastructure Initiatives The City and County have been meeting regularly since January 2010 and accomplishing the following: 

Working through policy and technical barriers to GI implementation.



Identifying and prioritizing project opportunities.



Developing a consensus approach to design, including development of guidelines/policies and standards/typical details (and improving those details as experience is gained).



Addressing construction challenges.

ES-22

www.savetherain.us

Executive Summary



Addressing maintenance issues and achieving repeatable standards with clear responsibilities.



Improving the following processes: o o o o

GI Permission Ordinance (annual submittal) City Road‐Cut Application Process City Site Plan Review Process Dig Safely New York Mark‐out

Public‐Private Partnership The Green Improvement Fund (GIF) is a grant program to incentivize the development of green infrastructure stormwater mitigation techniques on private property as outlined in Section 14H (v) of the ACJ. The GIF program was established in 2010 and has played a significant role in supporting Onondaga County’s efforts to capture and manage stormwater through the use of green infrastructure. The program also provides an opportunity to demonstrate innovative solutions in private redevelopment projects. Through December 31, 2014, the GIF program has produced the following results:    

132 applications submitted for grant funding 74 grant‐awarded projects completed 26 grant‐awarded projects currently in progress 6 applications currently being reviewed and finalized

For those projects completed, 27 million gallons of stormwater are captured and removed from the combined sewer system annually.

GIF Project ‐ Green Roof at Putnam Properties

GIF Project ‐ Porous Pavement Parking Lot at United Uniform

GIF Project ‐ Bioswale at the Van Keuren Square Building

As previously noted, Figure ES‐4, the Sewershed Prioritization Map, defines priority levels for the CSO sewersheds to promote the implementation of GI projects in areas where the greatest water quality benefits will be achieved. The prioritization map is the basis for eligibility boundaries and rankings for the financial model used in the GIF program. For 2014, the proposed funding per gallon of runoff remained at $0.30/gallon for high priority areas, $0.20/gallon for medium priority areas, and $0.10/gallon for low priority areas, and some CSO ES-23

www.savetherain.us

Executive Summary

basins were eliminated from the program entirely. In 2014, an additional classification was developed to identify Potential Future Funding Areas, for which a determination on priority is pending an updated analysis using the recently calibrated SWMM. The priority levels on the Sewershed Prioritization Map are based on the volume and frequency of CSO as well as efficiency (relationship between runoff reduction and CSO reduction).

Inter‐Municipal Agreements The County has maintained cooperative inter‐municipal relationships with state and local agencies dating back to the First Stipulation of the ACJ. From time to time it is necessary to enter into a contract to address legal issues that arise from CSO abatement 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. A new IMA with the City to address a list of projects on City Park property was executed on July 9, 2014. This included work at the following locations: Barker Park, Lewis Park, Wadsworth Park, Comfort Tyler Park, and Magnarelli Community Center. Also in 2014, two IMAs that were executed in 2012 and utilized in 2013 were amended or further developed: 

SUNY Upstate Medical University: The relationship continued to develop with more projects implemented in 2014 and planned for the future.



City of Syracuse Road Reconstruction: Originally this IMA had 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. The IMA was amended on July 9, 2014, to increase funding to $1,338,833.38. This amendment covered costs for projects completed or slated for completion through the end of 2014.

Green Infrastructure Improvements at Comfort Tyler Park: Bioretention Area (left) and Porous Asphalt Basketball Court (right)

Ordinances ES-24

www.savetherain.us

Executive Summary

Ordinances In addition to the City of Syracuse’s Green Infrastructure Permission Ordinance previously mentioned, the County is currently in negotiation with the City of Syracuse to revise the existing Stormwater Ordinance, as well as the existing Tree Ordinance. This could affect the amount of stormwater allowed to leave property redevelopment within the City boundary, as well as better manage the City’s forest canopy. A revised proposal was provided to the City Administration in the summer of 2014 and negotiations are ongoing to find a mutually acceptable package of revisions.

Conclusions Onondaga County’s Save the Rain (STR) Program continued to progress in 2014. The CSO compliance schedule set forth in the ACJ contains deadlines for both CSO percent capture by volume, as well as gray infrastructure project implementation. The County has worked diligently to maintain compliance with schedules set forth in the ACJ and has successfully met the deadlines to date. The County intends on progressing the following projects and activities in 2015:     

CSO 063 conveyance project CSO 061 separation Additional green infrastructure projects, focusing on high priority CSO basins that efficiently provide improved water quality Continued CSO monitoring Ongoing updates to SWMM

A primary focus of 2015 is expected to be on system flow optimization and maximization of conveyance, storage, and treatment facilities. The PCCM program will continue to assess the effectiveness of the gray and green infrastructure projects designed to mitigate the impact of CSOs. The 2015 AMP includes a program targeted for sampling overflows from the discharge outfalls of the new Clinton and Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facilities. Approaches for assessing receiving water impacts and the attainment of AWQS will be reviewed to select an analysis for evaluating the impact of the remaining CSOs on receiving waters. For more information on the Save the Rain program, visit: http://savetherain.us.

ES-25

www.savetherain.us

SECTION 1

Introduction 1.1 2014 Annual Report The Fourth Stipulation of the Amended Consent Judgment (ACJ) was authorized on November 16, 2009, and agreed to by the following parties: Onondaga County (“the County”), the State of New York (negotiated on behalf of the people of New York by the Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and Attorney General of the State of New York), and Atlantic States Legal Foundation (ASLF). A modification to the March 21, 2012 State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit (No. NY 002 7081) issued by NYSDEC for the Metropolitan Syracuse Wastewater Treatment Plant (Metro) and related conveyances became effective on June 4, 2014. These documents form the basis of the contents of this annual report. A brief overview of these documents follows.

1.2 Amended Consent Judgment (ACJ) The 1998 ACJ resolved claims asserted by the plaintiffs under the federal Clean Water Act and the New York State Environmental Conservation Law, requiring a series of improvements to the County’s wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure, and an extensive monitoring program to document the improvements achieved by these measures. The regulatory goal of the ACJ is to bring segments of Onondaga Lake and its tributaries affected by Onondaga County’s municipal discharges into compliance with designated best uses pursuant to 6 NYCRR (New York Code, Rules and Regulations) Parts 701 and 703. As outlined in the ACJ, specific NYS water quality standards and guidance are used to assess the extent to which these actions are successful. These include the following:        

Dissolved Oxygen: 6NYCRR Sec. 703.3 Ammonia: 6 NYCRR Sec. 703.5 Turbidity: 6 NYCRR Sec. 703.2 Floatable Solids in CSO Discharges: 6 NYCRR Sec. 703.2 Phosphorus: 6 NYCRR Sec. 703.2 Water Quality Standards & Guidelines (NYSDEC TOGS 1.1.1) Nitrogen: 6 NYCRR Sec. 703.2 Bacteria: 6 NYCRR Sec. 703.4

The Ambient Monitoring Program (AMP) Onondaga Lake is experiencing a remarkable collects data at the temporal and spatial scale recovery. Source: http://savetherain.us required to assess compliance with ambient water quality standards (AWQS) in Onondaga Lake as well as its tributaries and to quantify external loadings to the lake.

1-1

www.savetherain.us

Section 1  Introduction

1.3 The Fourth Stipulation of the ACJ The Fourth Stipulation of the ACJ was signed Table 1‐1: CSO Capture Compliance Schedule by US District Court Senior Judge Scullin on Percent November 16, 2009. The revision stipulates Compliance Capture CSO Compliance action on multiple subjects, including Metro’s Stage by Volume Deadline Stage III Phosphorus Limit, combined sewer Stage I 89.5 % December 31, 2013 overflows (CSO) upgrades, specific gray infrastructure projects, enhanced reporting Stage II 91.4 % December 31, 2015 requirements including an upgrade to the Stage III 93.0 % December 31, 2016 stormwater management model (SWMM), Stage IV 95.0 % December 31, 2018 and additional planning reports; it also establishes a revised schedule for implementation and associated penalties. The Fourth Stipulation specifically identifies green infrastructure (GI) as an acceptable technology to significantly reduce or eliminate the discharge of untreated combined sewage into Onondaga Lake and its tributaries. The County shall implement specific engineering upgrades that are intended to 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 CSO compliance (Table 1‐1) that uses an incremental approach. Beginning no later than December 31, 2018, the County shall capture for treatment or elimination, using the meaning of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) National CSO Policy, no less than 95 percent by volume, on a system‐wide annual average basis of the combined sewage generated during precipitation events (Presumption Approach Criteria ii). To meet the program milestone dates shown in Table 1‐1, the County is implementing a combination of green and gray infrastructure that focuses on the removal of stormwater from the combined sewer system (CSS) through GI, CSO storage with conveyance to Metro, and elimination of CSO discharge points. The County is utilizing USEPA’s Stormwater Management Model (SWMM) developed for the County’s combined sewer area and based on a representative precipitation record from the year 1991 to report compliance results. General information on green and gray infrastructure and supplementary documents follow; however, this report also provides more detailed information on these and several other related topics as outlined in Section 1.5.

1.3.1 Ambient Monitoring Program The ACJ, as amended by the Fourth Stipulation and Order, required the County to submit a plan and schedule for implementation of proposed modifications to the tributary component of the County’s previously established AMP. The AMP Modifications Workplan (revised final in Water Quality Sampling on a December 2011) outlines proposed modifications designed to Tributary to Onondaga Lake enhance monitoring of water quality in those tributaries impacted by Source: http://savetherain.us CSOs to determine the effectiveness of the gray and green infrastructure projects.

1-2

www.savetherain.us

Section 1  Introduction

1.3.2 Green Infrastructure (GI) Under the Fourth Stipulation of the ACJ, the County is allowed to construct, maintain, and implement GI projects necessary to satisfy the CSO capture milestones set forth in Table 1‐1. The County is therefore implementing a wide variety of GI technology such as:          

Porous pavement and/or paver systems Rain gardens Infiltration trenches and/or beds Bioretention and/or tree trenches Bioswales Tree plantings Vegetated roofs Rain barrels Wetland CSO treatment Cisterns/Water Reuse Systems

Section 4 of this report provides further detail on specific GI projects.

1.3.3 Gray Infrastructure

Leavenworth Park Bioswale, two years after completion, reduces CSO and provides aesthetic value to city streets.

The Fourth Stipulation of the ACJ identifies specific gray infrastructure projects, for which construction and commencement of operation are critical to meeting the compliance schedule set forth in Table 1‐1. The projects, as stated in the ACJ, are the following:     

CSO 044 Conveyances Harbor Brook Interceptor Sewer Replacement Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility Clinton Storage Facility EBSS Gate Chamber Modifications

Clinton CSO Storage Facility West Chamber Access Building

Section 4 of this report provides further detail on the status of these projects.

1.3.4 Facility and Floatable Control Plans Under the Fourth Stipulation of the ACJ, the County is also required to prepare two plans which will address abatement of specific CSOs in the Clinton/Lower Main Interceptor Sewer (MIS) and Midland service areas and assess all of the remaining County CSOs with respect to floatables control. The County submitted a detailed facilities plan to NYSDEC by the compliance date of November 16, 2010, which was conditionally approved on August 5, 2011. The facilities plan addressed CSOs 022, 027, 029, 052, 060/077, and 067, and included an assessment of the existing Newell Street facility. The County submitted a Floatables Control Facility (FCF) plan to NYSDEC by the compliance date; however, based on the regulatory comments provided, the County has reassessed their approach to floatables control and prepared a new FCF plan that deals with floatables in a more 1-3

www.savetherain.us

Section 1  Introduction

holistic and sustainable manner. The revised FCF plan (“the FCF Plan Amendment”) was submitted to the NYSDEC on March 12, 2013. The plan recommended that the County augment the City’s current Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) program through the repair and/or retrofit of the remaining un‐hooded catch basins in the CSO sewersheds and increase catch basin cleaning. In addition, the County will develop and implement a targeted public education and outreach program to address floatables control in the CSO sewersheds including 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 of December 31, 2014, the County had not received regulatory approval for the FCF Plan Amendment, however the County has been actively working with the ACJ parties to gain conditional approval of the plan. As of January 26, 2015, the County received a letter of conditional approval from the NYSDEC to move forward with the FCF Plan Amendment. The County must submit follow‐up information to the NYSDEC within 60 days of receipt of the conditional approval letter.

1.3.5 Annual Report Requirements The ACJ also contains specific requirements regarding reporting. The County must submit an annual report by April 1 detailing the work completed or progressed in the prior calendar year as well as the proposed work for the current calendar year. At a minimum, the report shall and does include the following items:         

Detailed descriptions of each gray and green project Operation and maintenance requirements Property ownership, control, access, and terms of use CSO monitoring data Intergovernmental cooperation and public‐private partnership activities Public education and outreach activities Post‐construction monitoring SWMM update Milestone compliance

1.3.6 Compliance

Upper Stormwater Wetland at the Rosamond Gifford Zoo. The five green infrastructure projects at the zoo capture nearly 6 million gallons of stormwater annually.

In accordance with the ACJ, the County installed and currently maintains flow metering or monitoring devices at representative CSOs. The County maintains a stormwater management model (SWMM) and has been in the process of updating this model on an annual basis using flow monitoring data to verify, reconcile, and recalibrate (as necessary and appropriate) the model. The NYSDEC will use the data from the CSO monitoring devices, the SWMM, and other sources as appropriate to determine the County’s compliance with the CSO discharge volume reduction obligations. The NYSDEC’s annual compliance determination started in 2014 with the submittal of the 2013 Annual Report. This report was submitted by April 1, 2014, as required by the ACJ Fourth Stipulation, and as of March 18, 2015 the NYSDEC is finalizing review comments. 1-4

www.savetherain.us

Section 1  Introduction

1.4 SPDES Permit Requirements The June 4, 2014 SPDES permit modification includes some significant changes. The permit has been modified numerous times since it was originally issued in 1973. One important change in the 2014 permit modification is the new phosphorus limit for the Metro effluent. For several years, NYSDEC has been formulating and revising the Onondaga Lake total maximum daily load (TMDL) for phosphorus. The purpose of the TMDL is to address excess phosphorus loading to Onondaga Lake with the goal of improving water quality such that the lake meets its designated best use as identified in 6NYCRR Section 895. The TMDL identifies the amount of phosphorus that Onondaga Lake can effectively assimilate, and apportions this total phosphorus load amongst all identified sources, including the Metro effluent. The modified permit determined Metro’s Permit effluent total phosphorus concentration limit not to exceed 0.10mg/L as a 12‐month rolling average. The TMDL for ammonia remains unchanged from previous permit limits. Another significant change to the SPDES permit is the addition of requirements related to a treatment wetland at CSO 018. The Harbor Brook CSO 018 Treatment Wetlands during Plant Establishment Phase wetland is preceded by a grit and floatables removal system and discharges to Harbor Brook. The NYSDEC provided conditions for monitoring and reporting the influent, effluent, and groundwater parameters related to the treatment wetland system, which is intended to provide treatment for CSOs prior to discharge to Harbor Brook. After two years of pilot study for the treatment wetland, the NYSDEC may modify the SPDES permit to include additional limits for the parameters that the County is required to monitor at this outfall. The SPDES Permit for Metro is attached to this report as Appendix A. Onondaga County has included the required annual reporting items in this report, with the intention of consolidating information rather than duplicating it, as allowed by the SPDES Permit section X.C.1. The Metro SPDES Permit outlines a compliance action for all CSOs, which requires the County to submit to the NYSDEC an annual report addressing compliance with the USEPA CSO strategy requirements, the SPDES permit, the ACJ, and the AWQS. The permit requires the County to issue an annual report for CSO Best Management Practices (BMP) (Section VI.15) and CSO compliance (Sec X.C.1). Section II.B of the USEPA National Combined Sewer Overflow policy describes the ninth element of the Nine Minimum Controls (NMCs) as “monitoring to effectively characterize CSO impacts and the efficacy of CSO controls.” Evaluation of CSO control

1-5

www.savetherain.us

Section 1  Introduction

measures, CSO volume, loadings of conventional and toxic pollutants, and receiving water quality environmental indicators are to be used to measure compliance. The Metro SPDES permit specifically requires water quality monitoring: 

To include sampling of each water body that receives a CSO; sampling shall be consistent with the revised AMP



To list measures to be taken to address water quality violations if detected; this shall include follow‐up sampling and source trackdown as appropriate and discuss measures taken to comply with the pretreatment requirements

1.4.1 BMP Annual Report The SPDES permit requires the County to implement BMPs for CSOs, which will, in general, include operation and maintenance (O&M) procedures, maximize the existing treatment facility and collection system to the extent practicable, maximize pollutant capture, and minimize water quality impacts from CSOs. This ACJ Annual Report includes the BMP Annual Report in Appendix B (as part of the CSO Annual Report), summarizing the implementation of the BMPs as per Section VI.15 of the permit.

1.4.2 Schedule of Compliance ‐ CSOs

The Fayette Street Sewer Separation Manufactured Treatment Device (MTD) Installation. The MTD removes grit and floatables prior to the storm sewer’s discharge to Onondaga Creek.

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 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) CSO strategy requirements, the SPDES permit, the ACJ, and water quality standards.” The County has included this information in this report.

1.5 Annual Report Information and Certification Section 1.6 outlines the information found in this report. In addition, this entire report and all of its contents is certified by a New York State (NYS) licensed professional engineer per the requirements of the ACJ Section 14H and SPDES permit section X.C.1.3.g.

1.6 Annual Report Organization The 2014 ACJ Annual Report is organized in the following manner: 

Section 1 – Introduction summarizes the legal documents outlining the details to be provided in the ACJ Annual Report, namely the Fourth Stipulation of the ACJ and the SPDES Permit.



Section 2 – CSO Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring summarizes updates to the following: o Combined sewer system (SPDES Section X.C.1.1) o Ambient monitoring program (SPDES Section X.C.1.2 and 3.a‐c)

1-6

www.savetherain.us

Section 1  Introduction

o BMP annual reporting (SPDES Section VI.15) 

Section 3 – SWMM Update presents an annual update on status and results of the stormwater management model.



Section 4 – CSO Projects Status provides the following: o Description of the significant gray and green projects included in the County’s CSO control program (SPDES Section X.C.1.3.d and f) o O&M requirements for the gray and green projects o Ownership, control, access, and terms of use of the subject properties for the gray and green projects



Section 5 – Public Outreach summarizes the following:



o Save the Rain Program Community Tree Planting provides o General public outreach activities both community outreach and environmental benefits. o Signature projects o Program recognition, awards, and events Section 6 – Intergovernmental Cooperation presents updates on the following topics: o o o o



City‐County green infrastructure initiatives Public‐private partnership (Green Improvement Fund) Inter‐municipal agreements Ordinances

Section 7 – Conclusions summarizes program progress to date and strategies moving forward.

Save the Rain led the annual Arbor Day tree planting celebration on October 16, 2014. The 3,500th STR tree was planted by Danforth Middle School students along with Onondaga County and City of Syracuse officials. A total of 20 trees were planted at Danforth School as part of the Arbor Day event.

1-7

www.savetherain.us

SECTION 2

CSO Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring This section provides an overview of the combined sewer system (CSS), CSO Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring (PCCM) program completed in 2014, and monitoring planned for 2015 to accomplish the objectives of the ACJ, the Fourth Stipulation of the ACJ, and to comply with the requirements of the Metro SPDES Permit. A more comprehensive reporting of 2014 data from all AMP sampling locations will be provided in the final approvable 2014 Annual AMP report due to NYSDEC by December 1, 2015.

2.1 Combined Sewer System Overview The CSS tributary to Metro includes an area of 7,337 acres, or approximately 11 square miles. The two major drainage basins tributary to Metro are Harbor Brook basin, via the Harbor Brook Interceptor Sewer (HBIS), and the Onondaga Creek basin, via the Main Interceptor Sewer (MIS). In addition, the upper Butternut/Grant trunk sewer and the Hiawatha trunk sewer discharge their excess stormwater to Ley Creek with dry weather flow conveyed to Metro via the MIS. The County uses the CSS to the maximum extent to capture and treat combined sewage. During periods of heavy rainfall and snowmelt, the CSS can become overwhelmed. Table 2‐1 below details the pre‐abatement and current number of active CSO locations, as well as the acreage of drainage areas tributary to Metro. Table 2‐1: Pre‐ACJ and Current CSOs and Drainage Basins Tributary to Metro Pre‐ACJ Number of Operational CSO Locations (1998)1

Current Number of Operational2 CSO Locations

Combined Sewer Area (acres)

Percentage of Total Combined Sewer Area

Harbor Brook

1,707

23.3%

Onondaga Creek

5,386

73.4%

Ley Creek

244

3.3

Total

7,337

100.0%

Drainage Basin

1 2

The number of pre‐ACJ operational CSO locations is based on the CSO outfalls listed in Table 2‐2. ”Operational” is defined as CSO discharges during the 1‐year, 2‐hour storm.

Table 2‐2 includes an updated list of the status of the CSOs. Since 1998, the County has closed or abated, 46 of its 72 pre‐ACJ CSO locations (64 percent), through a series of sewer separation and other projects. In accordance with the ACJ Fourth Stipulation and the County’s SPDES permit (Section X.C.1), the table is sorted by receiving water and includes the following:      

CSO outfall number, location, and basin characteristics CSO status (abated, operational, or closed) CSO characteristics based on a 1‐year, 2‐hour design storm Proposed or implemented CSO abatement strategy Scheduled CSO abatement completion date Flow monitoring devices where applicable

Figure 2‐1 shows the CSO outfalls listed in Table 2‐2, and graphically delineates the CSO basins.

2-1

www.savetherain.us

Section 2  CSO Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring

Figure 2‐1: Graphic Delineation of Pre‐ACJ CSOs

2-2

www.savetherain.us

Section 2 • CSO Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring

Table 2‐2: CSO Outfall Information

Slope (%)

Longitude

Imperviousness (%)

Latitude

Rainfall Trigger Intensity (in/hr)

CSO Location

CSO Overflow

CSO Status

Volume (MG)

CSO Outfall

Area (acres)

Basin Characteristics

Land Use

Status or Scheduled CSO Abatement Strategy (completed Completion Date (completed items in bold) items in bold)

Flow Monitoring

Harbor Brook Drainage Basin 003

004

Abated

Hiawatha Blvd. (West side of HB)

43° 03' 20" N

State Fair Blvd.

43° 03' 13" N 43° 03' 15" N

004A

Abated

Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility Main Outfall

005

Operational

W. Genesee and Sackett Street

43° 03' 11" N

006

Operational

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

006A

Operational

007

76° 11' 07" W

76° 10' 54" W

95.4

372.6

0.0

>0.9

0.4

0.9

mostly residential; some commercial

Harbor Brook Storage Facility

In service 12/31/2013

and community facilities

Green Infrastructure

12/31/2013

mostly residential; some commercial

Harbor Brook Storage Facility

In service 12/31/2013

Green Infrastructure

12/31/2013

‐

Harbor Brook Storage Facility

In service 12/31/2013

76° 10' 38" W

11.2

0.1

0.2

0.4

mostly commercial; some residential

Floatables Plan

Plan Re‐submittal 3/12/13

Green Infrastructure

12/31/2018

43° 03' 07" N

76° 10' 35" W

15.1

0.1

0.5

mostly commercial and residential;

Floatables Plan

Plan Re‐submittal 3/12/13

some community facilities and open space

Green Infrastructure

12/31/2018

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

43° 03' 07" N

76° 10' 35" W

13.8

0.3

0.2

0.4

mostly commercial and residential;

Floatables Plan

Plan Re‐submittal 3/12/13

some community facilities and open space

Green Infrastructure

12/31/2018

Operational

Richmond Avenue and Liberty Street

43° 03' 00" N

76° 10' 26" W

31.3

0.7

0.2

0.5

mostly commercial and residential;

Floatables Plan

Plan Re‐submittal 3/12/13

some community facilities and vacant land

Green Infrastructure

12/31/2018

008

Closed

Lakeview Avenue and Liberty Street

43° 02' 57" N

76° 10' 59" W

5.1

0.0

‐

0.9

mostly residential; some commercial

Green Infrastructure

12/31/2013

009

Operational

W. Fayette Street (West side of HB)

43° 02' 47" N

76° 10' 33" W

28.6

0.3

0.2

1.4

mostly residential and open space; some

Floatables Plan

Plan Re‐submittal 3/12/13

commercial

Green Infrastructure

12/31/2018

010

Operational

W. Fayette Street (East side of HB)

43° 02' 45" N

76° 10' 21" W

16.9

0.2

0.6

mostly commercial and public; some

Floatables Plan

Plan Re‐submittal 3/12/13

residential

Green Infrastructure

12/31/2018

mostly commercial, community facilities, and

Floatables Plan

Plan Re‐submittal 3/12/13

residential; some industrial and vacant land

Green Infrastructure

12/31/2018

Operational

Gifford Street at Fowler HS (East side of HB)

43° 02' 34" N

Sensor, Sampler (5) Temp. Flow Meter, Sampler (6)

76° 10' 58" W ‐

011

Temp. Flow Meter/Ultrasonic Level

76° 10' 23" W

55.7

0.1

0.2

0.5

(1)

Water Level Sensor (3) Water Level Sensor (3) Water Level Sensor (3) Water Level Sensor (3)

Water Level Sensor (3) Water Level Sensor (3)

Water Level Sensor

(3)

012

Closed

Gifford Street at Fowler HS (West side of HB)

‐

Closure

013

Closed

Seymour Street

‐

Separation

Completed 12/31/2011

N/A

014

Operational

Delaware Street

43° 02' 24" N

76° 10' 29" W

206.9

0.7

0.3

0.7

mostly residential; some vacant land

Flow Meter, Sampler

015 016

Operational Closed

Herriman Street and Grand Avenue

43° 02' 20" N

Lydell Street

‐

76° 10' 38" W ‐

49.9

0.3

‐

0.2

‐

44 ‐

0.8

mostly residential; some vacant land

Completed

Floatables Plan

Plan Re‐submittal 3/12/13

Green Infrastructure

12/31/2018

Floatables Plan

Plan Re‐submittal 3/12/13

Green Infrastructure

12/31/2018

‐

Separation

Completed 12/31/2011

Floatables Plan

Plan Re‐submittal 3/12/13 12/31/2018

Flow Meter, Sampler Water Level Sensor

017

Operational

Hoeffler Street

43° 02' 12" N

76° 10' 47" W

72.1

0.3

0.2

1.1

018

Operational

Constructed Wetland Outfall

43° 02' 10" N

76° 10' 57" W

152.8

‐

1.3

mostly residential; some recreation

Green Infrastructure ‐ Wetland Treatment with Floatables Control

063

Operational

Emerson Ave.

43° 03' 35" N

76° 11' 33" W

366.6

3.2

0.9

1.2

mostly residential; some commercial

Harbor Brook Storage Facility

10/1/2015

Green Infrastructure

12/31/2018

Floatables Plan

Plan Re‐submittal 3/12/13

Green Infrastructure

12/31/2018

Franklin Street FCF

Completed 2000

Operational

Bellevue and Velasko

43° 02' 08" N

76° 11' 19" W

212.5

0.4

0.2

Ultrasonic Level Sensor (4)

‐

mostly residential and vacant; some commercial and public facilities

078

N/A

1.3

mostly residential; some recreation

N/A Water Level Sensor

(3)

Water Level Sensor (3)

Onondaga Creek Drainage Basin Existing Flow Meter

(6)

Existing Flow Meter

(6)

020

Operational

Butternut Street and I‐690

43° 03' 17" N

76° 09' 26" W

643.8

2.8

0.2

1.4

mostly residential; some commercial

Green Infrastructure

12/31/2018

021

Operational

Burnet Avenue and I‐690

43° 03' 16" N

76° 09' 25" W

97.2

3.2

0.1

0.6

mostly commercial; some residential

Franklin Street FCF

Completed 2000

Green Infrastructure

12/31/2018

022

Closed

West Genesee Street (East side of OC)

‐

Separation, Green Infrastructure

In service 4/30/2013

Post‐Construction Monitoring

024

Closed

Water Street

‐

Separation

Completed 2001

N/A

025

Closed

‐

Separation

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

Actual completion date unknown at this time Upstream subcatchment areas tributary to EBSS Event Indicator: record date and duration of overflow Water levels to be used to approximate flow rate

(5) Permanent flow monitoring to be installed during construction (6) Existing facility with flow metering (7) SWMM results based on the 1‐year, 2‐hour design storm

Abbreviations: Temp. = Temporary N/A = Not Applicable TBD = To be determined

N/A Completed (1) Definitions: Abated = CSO is zero or minimal for the 1‐year, 2‐hour storm Operational = CSO still discharges Closed = CSO no longer discharges 2-3

Section 2 • CSO Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring

Table 2‐2: CSO Outfall Information

Slope (%)

Longitude

Imperviousness (%)

Latitude

Rainfall Trigger Intensity (in/hr)

CSO Location

CSO Overflow

CSO Status

Volume (MG)

CSO Outfall

Area (acres)

Basin Characteristics

Land Use

Status or Scheduled CSO Abatement Strategy (completed Completion Date (completed items in bold) items in bold)

Flow Monitoring

Onondaga Creek Drainage Basin (continued) 026

Closed

027

Operational

028

Abated

029

030

031

032

Operational

Abated

033

Abated

033A

Abated

034

Abated

(1)

‐

Separation

West Fayette Street (East side of OC)

43° 02' 55" N

76° 09' 28" W

162.8

1.4

0.1

0.6

mostly commercial

Fac Plan ‐ Regulator Modifications, Screens, GI Implementation Green Infrastructure

12/31/2018

Walton Street (West side of OC)

43° 02' 53" N

76° 09' 27" W

23.7

0.1

0.5

0.7

mostly commercial and residential; some

Clinton Storage Facility

In service 12/31/2013

vacant

Green Infrastructure

12/31/2018

mostly commercial

Fac Plan ‐ Regulator Modifications, Screens, GI Implementation

8/5/2018

Green Infrastructure

12/31/2018

mostly commercial, open space, residential,

Clinton Storage Facility

In service 12/31/2013

and community facilities

Green Infrastructure

12/31/2013

mostly commercial and residential; some

Clinton Storage Facility

In service 12/31/2013

vacant land and open space

Green Infrastructure

12/31/2018

0.6

mostly commercial; some residential and

Clinton Storage Facility

In service 12/31/2013

community facilities

Green Infrastructure

12/31/2013

Clinton Storage Facility

In service 12/31/2013

Walton Street (East side of OC)

43° 02' 53" N

West Jefferson Street (East side of OC)

43° 02' 50" N

West Jefferson Street (West side of OC)

43° 02' 49" N

Tully Street

43° 02' 45" N

76° 09' 27" W

76° 09' 28" W

Dickerson Street

43° 02' 40" N

76° 09' 19" W

Clinton Storage Facility Main Outfall

43° 02' 47" N

76° 09' 25" W

Clinton and West Onondaga Street

43° 02' 37" N

76° 09' 17" W

9.9

302.3

23.9

23.2

0.5

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.1

>0.9

0.5

>0.9

0.8

4.0

0.7

Completed

Flow Meter ‐ TBD during

8/5/2018

engineering design

0.0

>0.9

0.3

‐

Clinton Storage Facility

In service 12/31/2013

172.9

0.0

0.4

1.6

mostly commercial and community facilities

Clinton Storage Facility

In service 12/31/2013

Green Infrastructure

12/31/2013

Clinton Storage Facility

In service 12/31/2013

035

Abated

Gifford Street (West side of OC)

43° 02' 37" N

76° 09' 17" W

22.8

0.0

>0.9

0.9

mostly vacant land, commercial, and community facilities

Green Infrastructure

12/31/2013

036

Abated

West Onondaga Street

43° 02' 33" N

76° 09' 18" W

162.4

0.0

>0.9

2.7

mostly residential, some commercial and

Clinton Storage Facility

In service 12/31/2013

vacant land

Green Infrastructure

12/31/2018

Clinton Storage Facility

In service 12/31/2013

East Adams Street

43° 02' 32" N

76° 09' 18" W

39.0

0.1

038

Closed

Taylor Street

‐

039

Operational

Tallman Street (East side of OC)

43° 02' 12" N

76° 09' 19" W

479.7

0.0

0.9

>0.9

Water Level Sensor

engineering design

15.4

Abated

(4)

(3)

Flow Meter ‐ TBD during

mostly commercial; some residential and community facilities

037

N/A

1.6

mostly commercial and community facilities

Green Infrastructure

12/31/2013

‐

Separation

Completed 2005

0.6

mostly community facilities; some

Midland Avenue RTF

Completed 2008

commercial

Green Infrastructure

12/31/2018

(4)

Temp. Ultrasonic Level Sensor (4) (5) Not accessible

Ultrasonic Level Sensor (4)

Water Level Sensor

(3)

Temp. Ultrasonic Level Sensor (4) (5) Water Level Sensor

(3)

Water Level Sensor

(3)

Water Level Sensor (3)

N/A Ultrasonic Level Sensor

040

Closed

Tallman Street (West side of OC)

‐

Separation

Completed 2005

M01

Abated

Midland RTF Main Outfall (previously CSO 041)

43° 02' 00" N

76° 09' 30" W

‐

Midland Avenue RTF

Completed 2008

Existing Flow Meter

042

Abated

Midland Avenue (West side of OC)

43° 01' 59" N

76° 09' 29" W

289.8

‐

1.3

mostly residential; some open space and

Midland Avenue RTF

Completed 2008

Ultrasonic Level Sensor

M02

Abated

Midland RTF Emergency Outfall (previously CSO 043)

43° 02' 01" N

76° 09' 30" W

‐

Midland Avenue RTF

Completed 2008

Existing Flow Meter

044

Abated

West Castle Street and South Avenue

43° 01' 50" N

76° 09' 34" W

122.6

‐

2.0

mostly residential; some vacant land

Midland Avenue RTF

Completed 12/31/2011

Water Level Sensor

Green Infrastructure

12/31/2013

045

Closed

Hudson and West Castle Street

‐

Separation

4/30/2013

046A/B

Closed

Onondaga Avenue

‐

Separation

Completed 2005

N/A

047

Closed

South Avenue near Centennial Drive

‐

Separation

Completed 2006

N/A

048

Closed

South Avenue near Kirk Avenue

‐

Separation

Completed 2006

N/A

049

Closed

Kirk Avenue

‐

Separation

050

Closed

Rockland and Hunt Avenue

‐

Separation

051

Closed

West Colvin Street and Hunt Avenue

‐

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

Actual completion date unknown at this time Upstream subcatchment areas tributary to EBSS Event Indicator: record date and duration of overflow Water levels to be used to approximate flow rate

(5) Permanent flow monitoring to be installed during construction (6) Existing facility with flow metering (7) SWMM results based on the 1‐year, 2‐hour design storm

Separation Abbreviations: Temp. = Temporary N/A = Not Applicable TBD = To be determined

Completed

(1)

(4)

N/A (6) (4)

(6)

(3)

Post‐Construction Monitoring

N/A

Completed 2008

N/A

Completed 2009

N/A

Definitions: Abated = CSO is zero or minimal for the 1‐year, 2‐hour storm Operational = CSO still discharges Closed = CSO no longer discharges 2-4

Section 2 • CSO Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring

Table 2‐2: CSO Outfall Information

Slope (%)

Longitude

Imperviousness (%)

Latitude

Rainfall Trigger Intensity (in/hr)

CSO Location

CSO Overflow

CSO Status

Volume (MG)

CSO Outfall

Area (acres)

Basin Characteristics

Land Use

Status or Scheduled CSO Abatement Strategy (completed Completion Date (completed items in bold) items in bold)

Flow Monitoring

Onondaga Creek Drainage Basin (continued) Fac Plan ‐ Regulator Mods, Screens, Flow Mgmt, GI

052

Operational

Elmhurst and Hunt Avenue

43° 01' 15" N

76° 09' 21" W

295.3

0.3

0.1

4.8

mostly residential

Green Infrastructure

12/31/2018

053

Closed

Marguerite and Hunt Avenue

‐

Separation

Completed 2003

N/A

054

Closed

West Brighton and Hunt Avenue

‐

Separation

Completed 2003

N/A

055

Closed

‐

Separation

Completed

(1)

056

Closed

‐

Separation

Completed

(1)

057

Closed

‐

Separation

West Genesee Street (West side of OC)

8/5/2018

Temp. Flow Meter, Sampler

Completed 1999

(2)

N/A N/A N/A

058

Closed

Tracy Street

‐

Separation

Completed 1999

N/A

059

Closed

Park Avenue

‐

Separation

Completed 1999

N/A

060/077

Operational

West Colvin Street (East side of OC)

43° 01' 25" N

76° 09' 17" W

491.3

1.1

0.2

2.6

mostly residential; some vacant land

Facilities Plan

8/5/2018

Green Infrastructure

12/31/2018 TBD

Temp. Flow Meter, Sampler

(2)

(3)

Water Level Sensor , Post‐ Construction Monitoring (TBD)

061

Operational

Crehange St.

43° 01' 19" N

76° 09' 18" W

1.8

0.0

0.3

‐

Separation

062

Closed

W. Brighton East

‐

Eliminate Maltbie Street FCF

Completed 1999

065

Operational

Maltbie St.

43° 03' 20" N

76° 09' 37" W

9.4

0.2

0.1

1.4

mostly community facilities; some vacant land and commercial

066

Operational

Maltbie St.

43° 03' 20" N

76° 09' 41" W

110.4

0.7

0.2

0.7

mostly commercial; some residential

Completed

(1)

Maltbie Street FCF

Completed 1999

Green Infrastructure

12/31/2018 8/5/2018

067

Operational

W. Newell St.

43° 00' 58" N

76° 09' 28" W

41.9

0.2

0.3

0.5

mostly residential; some open space

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

071

Abated

Spencer St. Bypass

43° 03' 26" N

76° 09' 41" W

‐

Captured up to 2‐year storm

Completed

075

Operational

Hiawatha Blvd.

43° 03' 54" N

76° 10' 25" W

111.5

0.2

1.2

mostly commercial and residential; some

Capacity Upgrade

Completed

vacant land and community facilities

Green Infrastructure

12/31/2018

076

Abated

080

Abated

(1)

43° 01' 09" N

76° 09' 18" W

76.9

0.0

>0.9

1.0

mostly commercial; some residential

Floatables Plan

Plan Re‐submittal 3/12/13

Erie Blvd. (East side of OC)

43° 03' 08" N

76° 10' 36" W

656.1

0.1

0.9

1.8

mostly residential; some commercial

Erie Blvd. Storage System (EBSS)

Completed 2002

A ‐ James Street Relief Sewer

367.5

EBSS Gate Modifications

Completed 2011

B ‐ Fayette Street and Irving Avenue

137.0

Green Infrastructure

12/31/2018

C‐ South Crouse Avenue and Washington Street

44.5

D ‐ Burnet Avenue and Elm Street

49.2 38.4

F ‐ South Beech and Canal Street

70.7

G ‐ Burnet and Sherwood Avenue

62.7

H ‐ Burnet and Teall Avenue

216.7

I ‐ East Genesee and Westcott Street

13.2

N/A Existing Flow Meter

(6)

Existing Flow Meter

(6)

(1)

Brighton and Midland

E ‐ East Washington Street and Pine Street

N/A

Existing Flow Meter (6) Water Level Sensor

(3)

Flow Meter. Event indicators at sub‐basin CSOs A‐I

Ley Creek Drainage Basin 073 074

Operational Abated

Teall Ave.

43° 04' 42" N

Hiawatha Blvd.

43° 04' 36" N Notes: (1) (2) (3) (4)

76° 07' 25" W 76° 10' 19" W

238.4 6.0

1.0 0.0

Actual completion date unknown at this time Upstream subcatchment areas tributary to EBSS Event Indicator: record date and duration of overflow Water levels to be used to approximate flow rate

0.5 ‐

47 62

1.4 1.9

mostly residential mostly residential; some commercial

(5) Permanent flow monitoring to be installed during construction (6) Existing facility with flow metering (7) SWMM results based on the 1‐year, 2‐hour design storm

Teall Brook FCF

Complete 2001

Green Infrastructure

12/31/2018

Hiawatha Blvd. RTF Abbreviations: Temp. = Temporary N/A = Not Applicable TBD = To be determined

Existing Flow Meter

(6)

(6) Completed 2001 Existing Flow Meter Definitions: Abated = CSO is zero or minimal for the 1‐year, 2‐hour storm Operational = CSO still discharges Closed = CSO no longer discharges

2-5

Section 2  CSO Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring

2.2

Regulatory Framework

2.2.1 Amended Consent Judgment (ACJ) Fourth Stipulation, 2009 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 (AMP), to document the improvements achieved by these measures. The primary objectives of the Annual Tributary monitoring program are to collect data at the temporal and spatial scale required to assess compliance with ambient water quality standards (AWQS) in Onondaga Creek, Harbor Brook, and Ley Creek, and to quantify external loadings to the lake. The ACJ, as amended by the Fourth Stipulation in 2009, required the County to submit a plan, with a Onondaga Creek by the Kirkpatrick Street Bridge schedule for implementation, for proposed modifications to the tributary component of the County’s established AMP. These modifications include additional wet weather monitoring within the CSO‐affected stream reaches to evaluate compliance with the AWQS for bacteria and floatables following improvements to the infrastructure for wastewater and stormwater collection. In order to comply with federal and state requirements for mitigating CSOs, the County is obligated to demonstrate the efficacy of the gray and green program using two metrics:  

2.2.2

the percentage of the volume of overflow captured; and receiving water compliance with ambient water quality standards for CSO‐related parameters

Metro SPDES Permit, 2012 (Modified June 4, 2014)

The current SPDES permit for Metro became effective on March 21, 2012, and has an expiration date of March 20, 2017. The Permit outlines a compliance action for CSOs, which requires the permittee to submit to the NYSDEC an annual report addressing compliance with the USEPA CSO strategy requirements, the SPDES permit, the ACJ, and the AWQS. The permit requires the County to issue an annual report for CSO Best Management Practices (BMP) (Section VI.15) and CSO compliance (Sec X.C.1). Section II.B of the USEPA National Combined Sewer Overflow policy describes the ninth element of the Nine Minimum Controls (NMCs) as “monitoring to effectively characterize CSO impacts and the efficacy of CSO controls.” The ninth element of a Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) listed in the CSO Control Policy, is the development of a post construction compliance monitoring (PCCM) program adequate to verify compliance with water quality‐based requirements and ascertain the effectiveness of CSO controls. The Metro SPDES permit specifically requires water quality monitoring: 

To include sampling of each water body that receives a CSO. Sampling shall be consistent with the revised AMP; and

2-6

www.savetherain.us

Section 2  CSO Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring



To list measures to be taken to address water quality violations, if detected. This shall include follow‐up sampling, source trackdown as appropriate, and measures taken to comply with the pretreatment requirements.

On June 4, 2014, the NYSDEC issued a modification to the permit. The ACJ tasked the NYSDEC with formulating and revising the total maximum daily load (TMDL) for phosphorus that Onondaga Lake can assimilate consistent with applicable water quality standards, for the purpose, in part, of evaluating the potential impact of the phosphorus in Metro’s effluent on the Lake’s water quality. The modified permit determined Metro’s permit effluent total phosphorus concentration limits not exceed 0.10mg/L as a 12‐month rolling average. The modified permit also includes monitoring requirements for the operation of the CSO 018 Pilot Constructed Wetland, which is intended to capture CSOs for treatment and discharge to Harbor Brook. The wetland will initially be operated as a pilot treatment system.

2.3 CSO PCCM Program Summary The EPA CSO PCCM Guidance document (final version dated May 2012) states that as communities implement their long term control plans (LTCPs), they should conduct post construction compliance monitoring to determine whether the controls specified by the LTCP are meeting their objectives and to assess whether the ambient water quality standards (AWQSs) are being met. Permittees with CSOs are required to develop an adequate LTCP designed to meet Clean Water Act (CWA) requirements. The plan should consider alternatives and adopt either the presumption or demonstration approach in its LTCP. The Presumption Approach (Option 2 of percent capture) has been selected and largely involves the collection of water quantity data. The EPA CSO PCCM Guidance document states that the plan should address the following questions: 

   

Do the numbers of overflows per year or volume of overflow captured during a typical precipitation year meet the goals of the basic approach to verify the effectiveness of CSO control? What pollutants and pollutant concentrations are detected at end‐of‐pipe locations or in‐stream? Does receiving water quality measured immediately downstream of the CSO (or mixing zone, if applicable) during wet weather meet applicable AWQS or criteria? Does receiving water quality measured upstream of the CSO during wet or dry weather meet AWQS or criteria for pollutants for which the receiving water is listed as impaired? Are concentrations of pollutants detected in the receiving water downstream of the CSO greater than those detected upstream?

To accomplish the objectives of the Fourth Stipulation of the ACJ, and the Metro SPDES permit requirements, the County’s CSO Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring (PCCM) program includes three elements:  

CSO Flow Quantity Monitoring CSO Flow Quality Monitoring

2-7

www.savetherain.us

Section 2  CSO Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring



Tributary Water Quality Monitoring

In addition to achieving the CSO discharge volume limitation set forth in the ACJ Fourth Stipulation of 95.o percent, the County is also obligated to demonstrate that the remaining CSOs are not causing or contributing to a violation of the applicable water quality standards in the receiving waters for one full year. A limited PCCM program has been conducted since 2011 to assess the effectiveness of the gray and green infrastructure projects designed to mitigate the impacts of CSOs. The primary objective of the PCCM, in the context of the recently constructed gray project milestones, is to demonstrate that the captured (up to the 1‐year, 2‐ hour storm) and separated CSOs are not causing or contributing to violations of water quality standards in the receiving water. The ultimate goal of the PCCM program is to determine whether Onondaga Creek and Harbor Brook are meeting the NYS AWQS’s and their designated uses. The PCCM includes a monitoring plan through 2018, for demonstrating compliance with AWQS associated with specific individual CSO controls and includes monitoring of sixteen CSO/Facility outfalls listed in Table 2‐3 (refer to Figure 2‐2 for locations of CSO outfalls and abatement projects): 

  

Ten NYSDEC‐recommended individual “Representative CSOs” to serve as the basis for sampling (refer to “Proposed Modifications to the AMP”, Final Revised Work Plan, dated December 2011), Two CSO Storage Facilities, Three Sewer Separation Projects; and One CSO Conveyances Project

Table 2‐3: CSO PCCM Program Summary CSO Outfall

Receiving Water

CSO Abatement Captured by the LHBSF for up to the 1‐year, 2‐hour design storm Captured by the LHBSF for up to the 1‐year, 2‐hour design storm Floatables Control Plan & GI GI (Wetlands Treatment with Floatables Control) Facility Plan – Regulator Modifications, Screens, GI Implementation Captured by the CSF for up to the 1‐year, 2‐hour design storm

Status or Scheduled Completion Date In service 12/31/2013 In service 12/31/2013 12/31/2018

CSO 003

Representative CSO

Harbor Brook

CSO 004

Representative CSO

Harbor Brook

CSO 014

Representative CSO

Harbor Brook

CSO 018

Representative CSO

Harbor Brook

CSO 027

Representative CSO

Onondaga Creek

CSO 030

Representative CSO

Onondaga Creek

CSO 034

Representative CSO

Onondaga Creek

Captured by the CSF for up to the 1‐year, 2‐hour design storm

In service 12/31/2013

CSO 080

Representative CSO

Onondaga Creek

Erie Boulevard Storage System Gate Chamber Modifications

Completed 2011

CSO 052

Representative CSO

Onondaga Creek

Facility Plan

8/05/2018

www.savetherain.us

12/31/2018 8/5/2018 In service 12/31/2013

2-8

Section 2  CSO Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring

Table 2‐3: CSO PCCM Program Summary CSO Outfall

Receiving Water

CSO 060/077

Representative CSO

Onondaga Creek

CSO 033A1 CSO Storage Facility

Onondaga Creek

CSO 004A1 CSO Storage Facility

Harbor Brook

Status or Scheduled Completion Date

CSO Abatement

Facility Plan

12/31/2018

To capture and store overflows from CSOs 028, 030, 031, 032, 033, 034, 035, 036, and 037. To capture and store overflows from conveyance sewers constructed from CSOs 003 and 004 for up to the 1‐year, 2‐hour design storm event. The regulator sewer within the regulator manholes were sealed in 2012 in order to eliminate sanitary connection to the outfall for CSO 022. The regulator sewer within the regulator manholes were sealed in 2012 in order to eliminate sanitary connection to the outfall for CSO 045.

In service 12/31/2013

CSO 022

Sewer Separation Project

Onondaga Creek

CSO 0452

Sewer Separation Project

Onondaga Creek

CSO 0612

Sewer Separation Project

Onondaga Creek

Sewer Separation Project

TBD

CSO 0633

CSO Conveyance Project

Onondaga Creek

CSO 063 Conveyances Project

10/01/2015

In service 4/30/2013

4/30/2013

Consistent with April 18, 2011, and June 6, 2011, correspondence from NYSDEC to WEP, regarding post‐construction monitoring of the Clinton and Harbor Brook storage facilities, respectively, sampling discharge outfalls and the receiving streams immediately downstream from the outfalls, is required as part of the AMP following completion of these projects. Although not yet included in the Metro SPDES permit, these discharge outfalls are designated as 033A (Clinton Storage Facility) and 004A (Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility). 2

Consistent with the requirements of the Metro SPDES Permit Number NY 002 7081, issued on March 2012, CSOs 022, 045, and 061, are to be monitored for a three year period. 3

Consistent with the requirements of the Metro SPDES Permit Number NY 002 7081, and NYSDEC letter dated May 30, 2014, conditionally approving the revised construction drawings, the duration of the PCCM is for three years.

2-9

www.savetherain.us

Section 2  CSO Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring

CSO Outfalls and Abatement Projects

Figure 2‐2: CSO Outfalls and Abatement Projects Note: CSO 041 and 043 are closed

www.savetherain.us

2-10

Section 2  CSO Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring

2.4 CSO PCCM Program (2011‐2014) The NYSDEC‐approved AMP Modifications Work Plan, Final dated December 2011, outlines a program of enhanced water quality monitoring in those tributaries impacted by CSOs to assess the effectiveness of the gray and green infrastructure projects designed to mitigate the impacts of CSOs. The following section summarizes the PCCM program conducted from 2011 through 2014 for CSOs and tributaries impacted by CSOs.

2.4.1 CSO Flow Quantity Monitoring The purpose of the CSO discharge monitoring effort is to increase the veracity of the Stormwater Management Model (SWMM) used for planning, design, and determination of compliance with the volume capture requirements. The County is updating the SWMM on a yearly basis using the monitoring data to verify, reconcile, and re‐calibrate (as necessary) SWMM values and output. In accordance with the ACJ Fourth Stipulation, Paragraph 14I, Determination of Compliance, and the Ambient Monitoring Program (AMP) work plan, the County installed flow meters at 13 representative CSOs (Table 2‐4) and continued to receive data in 2014 from the installed flow metering devices. Per the ACJ, the County is required to maintain these meters through December 31, 2018. In 2011, as part of the AMP modifications work plan, the County proposed to monitor select representative CSOs for quantity of their discharges in the extensive basin‐wide network. Installation of flow monitoring devices and indicators of overflows from the combined sewers was completed by December 2013, per requirements stipulated in the ACJ Fourth Stipulation and the AMP. Modification of the monitoring locations may occur annually after a thorough review and in consultation with NYSDEC and ASLF. However, no modifications to these CSO outfall locations occurred in 2014. Table 2‐4: Representative CSO Flow Monitoring Locations Outfall

Receiving Water

Metering Device

003

Harbor Brook

Flow Meter

004

Harbor Brook

Flow Meter

014

Harbor Brook

Flow Meter

0181

Harbor Brook

Flow Meter

027

Onondaga Creek

Flow Meter

030

Onondaga Creek

Flow Meter

0342

Onondaga Creek

Flow Meter

0362

Onondaga Creek

Ultrasonic Level Sensor

0443

Onondaga Creek

Flow Meter / Ultrasonic Level Sensor

052

Onondaga Creek

Flow Meter

060/0774

Onondaga Creek

Flow Meter

2-11

www.savetherain.us

Section 2  CSO Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring

Table 2‐4: Representative CSO Flow Monitoring Locations Outfall

Receiving Water

Metering Device

063

Harbor Brook

Flow Meter

080

Onondaga Creek

Flow Meter

No flow meter data are available for CSO 018 due to construction related issue. There were data quality issues with the flow meter at this site. 3 CSO 044 was monitored with an ultrasonic level sensor in 2014; flow meter removed 12/13. 4 Flow meters exist at both CSO 060 and 077. 2

Onondaga County maintained flow meters at each of the 13 representative CSO outfalls in 2014, including CSO 018 where the meter was replaced. Monitoring data is transmitted wirelessly and includes depth in inches, velocity in feet per second (fps), and flow rate in millions of gallons per day (mgd) at each site, recorded at 60‐minute intervals during dry weather and 5‐minute intervals during CSO discharge events. Table 2‐5 provides a summary of the data received from each meter in 2014. Appendix C contains the monthly flow monitoring reports, which summarize the CSO overflow events along with rainfall data, dry weather flow, and inspection sheets. The following text describes some of the issues with the data in Table 2‐5. The data received from the flow meter at CSO 018 in 2014 was reviewed by the County in preparation of this report and appears to have severe quality issues due to a construction related issue. In addition, meters at CSO 027 and CSO 080 had months where data was either corrupted due to a power outage or the meter malfunctioned due to ice build‐up during January and February. The data from CSO 036 was determined to not represent overflow to Onondaga Creek due to the location of the meter, the configuration of the overflow structure, and backwater conditions. When the Clinton Storage Facility was brought online by December 31, 2013 flow was introduced to the facility from the various constructed conveyance pipelines upstream of the facility. Many of these pipelines were constructed years prior to the CSF, and as a result included mechanisms, such as weir plates, for the pipelines to limit flow to their intended destination and allow the flow to overflow to Onondaga Creek. One of the CSOs that had a weir plate installed was CSO 034, one of the 13 representative CSOs. The flow meter for CSO 034 measured flow in the conveyance pipe just downstream of the existing CSO 034 regulator. After the weir plate was removed, the meter should have been moved to the new 034 outfall into Onondaga Creek some 50 feet downstream. However this did not occur, and as a result the flow measured in 2014 is the total flow from the CSO 034 regulator structure that does not enter the MIS. This flow is transmitted to the CSF conveyance pipeline at which point it can be conveyed to the CSF or discharged to the creek through the new 034 outfall if the storage facility and conveyance pipelines are at full capacity. The 13 representative CSOs include CSO 060/077. It is noted flow meters exist at both CSO 060 and 077, however only 060 discharges to Onondaga Creek. CSO 077 is an internal overflow point that regulates flow from the 077 basin to the Midland Avenue Trunk Sewer. The overflow volume then continues towards Onondaga Creek combining with the flow from CSO basin 060. This combined 060 and 077 flow is then regulated once more into the MIS before discharge to

www.savetherain.us

2-12

Section 2 • CSO Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring Table 2‐5: 2014 Flow Meter Summary Table 2014 Representative CSO Flow Metering Data Metro Rainfall (in) 1 Outfall 003 004 014 018 5 027 030 034 6 036 7 044 052 060 063 077 8 080 Total Outfall 003 004 014 018 5 027 030 034 6 036 7 044 052 060 063 077 8 080 Total Outfall 003 004 014 018 5 027 030 034 6 036 7 044 052 060 063 077 8 080 Total

January 1.85

February 2.79

March 3.31

April 4.35

May 3.7

1,748 0 0 DQ3 MF 2 0 90,729 DQ3 0 20,481 2,795 0 30,226 0 145,979

0 6,535 0 DQ MF 2 0 1,607,362 DQ 0 0 656,762 0 909,561 302,675 3,482,895

28,156 11,389 117,667 DQ 1,643,696 1,087,456 5,847,749 DQ 0 722,160 2,433,122 347,522 3,304,668 7,047,170 22,590,755

0 10,911 32,547 DQ 456,002 0 700,001 DQ 0 49,738 139,849 1,114,452 729,336 517,744 3,750,580

0 0 1,092 DQ 487,444 0 5,952,065 DQ 0 813,997 1,861,419 1,269,684 2,590,290 5,023,067 17,999,058

1 0 0 DQ 3 MF 2 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 6

0 2 0 DQ 3 MF 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 8

1 3 2 DQ 3 7 2 2 MF 2 0 2 2 3 2 2 28

0 5 1 DQ 3 7 0 6 6 0 5 4 4 5 1 44

0 0 5 DQ 3 8 0 8 5 0 7 6 8 7 2 56

0.40 0.00 0.00 DQ MF 0.00 0.90 0 0.00 7.88 0.22 0.00 0.65 0.00 10.05

0.00 30.00 0.00 DQ MF 0.00 17.37 1.83 0.00 0.00 13.50 0.00 15.00 ‐ 77.70

2.50 33.25 1.23 DQ 75.00 7.75 19.50 MF 0.00 13.25 11.55 19.83 9.50 ‐ 193.36

0.00 26.24 1.25 DQ 49.00 0.00 17.45 8.58 0.00 10.33 1.52 30.17 5.43 ‐ 149.97

0.00 0.00 0.30 DQ 45.25 0.00 27.18 14.25 0.00 24.62 15.70 19.38 18.16 ‐ 164.84

June 3.11

July August 5.1 5.14 Overflow (Gallons) 0 0 526,839 0 0 298,437 19,320 10,568 37,794 DQ DQ DQ 189,944 605,673 585,835 0 0 0 3,476,252 2,587,862 196,316 DQ DQ DQ 0 0 0 328,242 795,751 498,765 1,897,986 3,640,401 3,742,167 523,569 870,052 903,423 2,074,948 4,791,956 3,962,743 81,431 1,811,410 573,303 8,591,692 15,113,673 11,325,622 Frequency (Number of Overflow Events) 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 11 4 3 3 DQ DQ DQ 3 3 10 6 0 0 0 5 12 6 3 6 4 0 0 0 6 11 6 4 10 4 6 13 8 5 11 5 2 2 2 38 86 47 0.00 0.00 3.50 DQ 15.25 0.00 15.99 3.25 0.00 15.93 14.98 23.61 16.10 ‐ 108.61

Duration (Hours) 0.00 0.00 17.27 DQ 65.25 0.00 33.83 7.92 0.00 25.61 8.18 31.88 9.00 ‐ 198.94

5.50 8.00 17.62 DQ 55.75 0.00 48.12 4.92 0.00 16.29 15.23 31.63 6.63 ‐ 209.69

September 1.99

October 3.93

November 1.95

December 2.61

TOTAL 39.83

0 0 20,593 DQ 223,585 0 104,913 DQ 0 125,134 1,168,607 32,774 883,137 0 2,558,743

0 0 15,953 DQ 4,180,728 0 3,506 DQ 0 151,625 903,757 11,853 220,759 551,331 6,039,512

0 0 0 DQ 51,376 0 21,688 DQ 0 14,182 0 3,498 0 0 90,744

0 0 2,831 DQ 1,968,136 0 8 DQ 0 10,843 0 68 0 0 1,981,886

556,743 327,272 258,365 DQ 10,392,419 1,087,456 20,588,451 DQ 0 3,530,918 16,446,865 5,076,895 19,497,624 15,908,131 93,671,139

0 0 2 DQ 3 5 0 4 2 0 4 3 2 3 0 25

0 0 2 DQ 3 4 0 3 3 0 6 2 7 2 4 33

0 0 0 DQ 3 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 8

0 0 2 DQ 3 4 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 10

3 11 33 0 56 2 52 30 0 53 37 54 42 16 389

0.00 0.00 1.28 DQ 17.75 0.00 1.82 1.83 0.00 16.43 4.15 3.72 2.62 0.00 49.60

0.00 0.00 1.53 DQ 17.75 0.00 0.13 3.25 0.00 8.30 2.45 17.61 5.68 PO 4 56.70

0.00 0.00 0.00 DQ 6.00 0.00 2.50 0 0.00 0.80 0.00 1.18 0.00 0.00 10.48

0.00 0.00 2.05 DQ 25.75 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.00 2.25 0.00 0.00 30.69

8.40 97.49 46.03 0.00 372.75 7.75 184.81 45.83 0.00 140.06 87.47 181.26 88.77 0.00 1260.63

Notes:

1. Rainfall data from the rainfall gauge located at the Metropolitan WWTP 2. MF = Meter malfunction 3. DQ = There were data quality issues with this monitoring location 4. PO = Power Outage.

5. No flow meter data at CSO 018 due to construction related issue. 6. Flow recorded at CSO 034 is tributary to a Clinton CSO Storage Facility conveyance pipeline. 7. Meter data at CSO 036 are not representative of discharge to the creek due to meter location, overflow structure configuration, and back water conditions. 8. CSO 077 is an internal CSO and does not directly discharge to the environment 2-14

Section 2  CSO Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring

Onondaga Creek. Flow volumes, frequencies and durations for both 060 and 077 are summarized in Table 2‐5. In addition to the representative CSO flow monitoring program discussed above, the County initiated a flow monitoring program within the combined sewer system in 2014 to collect additional data for calibrating the SWMM. The monitoring program includes thirty‐three sites and is being conducted in two phases. The first phase was completed during June to September 2014, and the second phase is currently in progress. Section 3 provides additional details and the results of the combined sewer system modeling. 2.4.1.1 Metro Headworks Bypass Summary During extreme wet weather events, to prevent damage to the treatment facility, a portion of the Metro influent flow bypasses the headworks and is discharged to Onondaga Lake. A summary of the headworks bypass data due to wet weather from 2005 through 2014 is shown in Table 2‐6. Table 2‐6: Summary of Metro Headworks Bypass Events1 Year

Number of Events1

Number During Disinfection Season 0 2 1 1 2 4 2 0 10 12

Number Due to Reduced Capacity

Event Duration (Hours) Ave

Min

Max

Event Volume (MG) Ave

Min

Max

2005 2 1 5.13 1.87 8.4 21.48 2.22 40.74 2006 2 2 4.18 1.75 6.62 57.52 12.54 102.49 2007 6 5 7.54 0.07 23.98 4.06 0.19 17.73 2008 2 2 1.48 1.02 1.93 2.62 0.12 5.13 2009 5 0 4.81 1.05 11.38 10.64 0.16 36.04 2010 4 4 5.58 3.12 7.98 10.73 6.01 20.19 2011 2 1 12.11 1.52 22.7 2.69 0.14 5.24 2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20132 11 11 2.56 0.03 8.52 6.49 <0.001 29.63 20142 15 15 2.66 0.07 21.0 2.20 <0.001 25.65 Notes: 1 The March 21, 2012 permit renewal revised the definition of a bypass event from “A bypass event starts at the moment wastewater overflows the bypass tank and continues until 24 hours from that time” to “the moment wastewater overflows the bypass tank and continues until the overflow from the bypass tank stops”. 2 2013 and 2014 dates coincide with reduced capacity due to Grit Improvement Project.

Based on the long‐term simulation results of the calibrated SWMM for the typical year rainfall (1991), there are no events that cause a wet weather bypass at the Metro headworks. Since the headworks bypasses are occurring during storm events with return frequency longer than that of the largest event in the typical year (1991), these events are beyond the context of the ACJ and its 95 percent capture compliance requirements. When these infrequent headworks bypass events do occur, they would be considered equal to any other combined sewer overflow event in the system.

2.4.2 CSO Flow Quality and Tributary Water Quality Monitoring In February of 2014, the County submitted to NYSDEC the proposed five‐year (2014‐2018) AMP Work Plan for Onondaga Lake and its tributaries. The work plan included the proposed PCCM program targeted sampling for 2014 at the following CSO outfalls in the context of the major CSO gray project major milestones completed in 2013 (CSF and LHBSF):

2-15

www.savetherain.us

Section 2  Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring Program

1. CSO 030: Captured by the Clinton Storage Facility for up to the 1‐year, 2‐hour design storm 2. CSO 034: Captured by the Clinton Storage Facility for up to the 1‐year, 2‐hour design storm 3. CSO 033A: Clinton Storage Facility discharge outfall 4. CSO 004A: Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility discharge outfall 5. CSO 022: Sewer Separation Project 6. CSO 045: Sewer Separation Project The 2014 AMP annual work plan was implemented September 17, 2014, following conditional NYSDEC approval of the five‐year AMP work plan on September 16, 2014. No PCCM sampling events were planned during the non‐disinfection period from October 16, 2014, through March 30, 2015. With the exception of the SPDES permit required PCCM quarterly sampling for the CSO 022 and 045 sewer separation projects, no PCCM sampling events were conducted in 2014. 2.4.2.1 Sewer Separation Projects Consistent with the requirements of SPDES Permit Number NY 002 7081, the PCCM for two of the sewer separation projects, initiated in 2013 continued in 2014. A goal of the PCCM is to verify that CSO outfalls 022 and 045 are not causing or contributing to violations of water quality standards in the receiving waters. This monitoring program was specifically designed to verify the separation of sanitary and storm flow performed under two 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, as required by the ACJ. These outfalls included CSO 022, located in the vicinity of Wallace and West Genesee streets, and CSO 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 sewers within the regulator manholes were sealed in 2012 in order to eliminate sanitary connections to the outfalls for CSO 022 and 045, and these outfalls became the storm sewer outfalls to Onondaga Creek. A physical inspection was completed in 2013 for the CSO 022 and 045 sewer separation projects. EPA’s “CSO Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring Guidance,” dated May 2012, references that “post‐construction compliance monitoring for a permittee that has completely separated its sewer system should focus on the confirmation of the separation through collection system analysis rather than on receiving water monitoring.” In cases of complete sewer separation, CSO control efforts should be evaluated based solely on the success of the separation in eliminating CSOs altogether. The goal of post construction monitoring is to ensure that there are no remaining sanitary connections to the storm system or storm connections to the sanitary system (investigations similar to MS4 requirements to conduct an illicit discharge detection and elimination program).” The PCCM program was designed to include monitoring of water quality parameters related to potential concerns from CSOs. The parameters include fecal coliform, total suspended solids, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and a visual observation of floatables at Onondaga Creek sites downstream of each of these two outfalls (Onondaga Creek at West Genesee Street and Onondaga Creek at South Avenue). The post‐construction monitoring plan for the Sewer Separation projects will:

2-16

www.savetherain.us

Section 2  Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring Program

 

Provide information to educate the public on the need for implementation of wet weather solutions, and the progress made in achieving program objectives; and Assess the effectiveness of the City of Syracuse MS4 program.

In‐stream sampling results indicating non‐compliance with the AWQS could lead to a trackdown program to determine sources. As required by the Metro SPDES permit, these outfalls will be monitored for a period of no less than three years, with a minimum of four samples per site per year during storm events to confirm the effectiveness of the sewer separation. Dry weather observations (no less than four per year) were recorded and documented as well. During the 2014 weekly inspection program, observations of the regulators and these CSO outfalls indicated no dry weather discharges. In 2014, the NYSDEC requested that sites upstream of each of the CSO outfalls be added, and subsequently the following upstream bridge sampling sites were added as follows:  

Onondaga Creek at Rich Street bridge (upstream of former CSO 045 outfall); and Onondaga Creek at Water Street bridge (upstream of former CSO 022 outfall)

Tables 2‐7 and 2‐8 summarize the results of the 2013 and 2014 quarterly sampling events conducted at CSO Outfalls 022 and 045 and the receiving water sampling sites. The 2014 sampling results for CSO 022 and 045 are rather ambiguous, likely as a result of extreme spatial and temporal variability in water quality metrics during wet weather events and the myriad sources of bacteria and turbidity. Fecal coliform and TSS/turbidity levels were higher at CSO Outfall 022 than downstream during the February, July, and November sampling events. This pattern was reversed during the April event. Fecal coliform and TSS/turbidity levels were also higher at CSO Outfall 022 compared to the upstream site during the July and November events. The particularly high fecal coliform concentration measured at CSO Outfall 022 during the July event (98200 CFU/100mL), was accompanied by low dissolved oxygen (3.43 mg/L). However, both fecal coliform and TSS/turbidity remained largely unchanged from the upstream to downstream sites during the July and November events. This suggests that intervening inputs had negligible impacts on these metrics of water quality. Table 2‐7: Summary of Post‐Sewer Separation Water Quality Data for CSO 022 Event #

Date

04/12/13

06/13/13

www.savetherain.us

Total Rainfall1, Inches

0.87

1.04

Location (In‐Stream)

Fecal Coliform, CFU/100mL

Floatables (Absent/Present w/Description)

TSS, mg/L

Turbidity, NTU

DO, mg/L

‐

990

NC2

Downstream of CSO Outfall 022

Onondaga Creek @ West Genesee St.

5000

Upstream of CSO Outfall 022

‐

CSO Outfall 022

18000

Absent

51.2

9.39

Downstream of CSO Outfall 022

Onondaga Creek @ West Genesee St.

57000

66.8

9.02

Location (CSO Outfall) Upstream of CSO Outfall 022 CSO Outfall 022

2-17

Section 2  Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring Program

Table 2‐7: Summary of Post‐Sewer Separation Water Quality Data for CSO 022 Event #

Date

09/10/13

10/07/13

02/21/14

04/15/14

07/23/14

11/06/14

Total Rainfall1, Inches

0.38

0.91

0.78

0.60

0.42

0.41

Location (CSO Outfall)

Location (In‐Stream)

Fecal Coliform, CFU/100mL

Floatables (Absent/Present w/Description)

TSS, mg/L

Turbidity, NTU

DO, mg/L

Upstream of CSO Outfall 022

‐

CSO Outfall 022

3900

Absent

8.81

9.06

Downstream of CSO Outfall 022

Onondaga Creek @ West Genesee St.

Absent

71.6

7.78

‐

5200

Absent

7.11

9.23

Downstream of CSO Outfall 022

Onondaga Creek @ West Genesee St.

36000

Absent

72.2

9.59

Upstream of CSO Outfall 022

‐

CSO Outfall 022

1530

Absent

440

240

14.47

Downstream of CSO Outfall 022

Onondaga Creek @ West Genesee St.

350

Present (Food/Beverage Packaging)

14.36

Upstream of CSO Outfall 022

‐

CSO Outfall 022

1230

Absent

58.8

12.64

Downstream of CSO Outfall 022

Onondaga Creek @ West Genesee St.

10500

Present (Street Litter)

99.6

10.27

Upstream of CSO Outfall 022

Onondaga Creek @ Water Street

430

Absent

10.4

9.48

CSO Outfall 022

98200

Absent

30.2

3.43

Downstream of CSO Outfall 022

Onondaga Creek @ West Genesee St.

400

Absent

7.75

8.33

Upstream of CSO Outfall 022

Onondaga Creek @ Water Street

260

Absent

6.95

12.63

CSO Outfall 022

1080

Absent

10.53

Downstream of CSO Outfall 022

Onondaga Creek @ West Genesee St.

340

Absent

9.55

10.53

Upstream of CSO Outfall 022 CSO Outfall 022

Rainfall as recorded at the Metro Weather station. NC: Not collected. 3 V: Reported result was “flagged” due to variance from quality control or assurance criteria and was rejected. 2

2-18

www.savetherain.us

Section 2  Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring Program

Table 2‐8: Summary of Post‐Sewer Separation Water Quality Data for CSO 045 Event #

Date

04/12/13

06/13/13

09/10/13

10/07/13

02/21/14

Total Location (CSO Rainfall1, Outfall) Inches

0.87

1.04

0.38

0.91

0.78

Upstream of CSO Outfall 045 CSO Outfall 045 Downstream of CSO Outfall 045 Upstream of CSO Outfall 045 CSO Outfall 045 Downstream of CSO Outfall 045 Upstream of CSO Outfall 045 CSO Outfall 045 Downstream of CSO Outfall 045 Upstream of CSO Outfall 045 CSO Outfall 045 Downstream of CSO Outfall 045 Upstream of CSO Outfall 045 CSO Outfall 045 Downstream of CSO Outfall 045

04/15/14

www.savetherain.us

0.60

Upstream of CSO Outfall 045 CSO Outfall 045 Downstream of CSO Outfall 045

Location (In‐Stream)

Fecal Coliform, CFU/100mL

Floatables (Absent/Present w/Description)

TSS, mg/L

Turbidity, NTU

DO, mg/L

‐

570

NC2

Onondaga Creek @ South Avenue

16400

‐

5000

Absent

20.2

9.63

Onondaga Creek @ South Avenue

>6000

Absent

71.8

10.28

‐

1910

Absent

17.6

9.12

Onondaga Creek @ South Avenue

7545

Absent

67.6

9.57

‐

2800

Absent

9.09

8.73

Onondaga Creek @ South Avenue

10000

Absent

68.4

8.9

‐

3600

Absent

<10

14.41

Onondaga Creek @ South Avenue

636

Present (Food/Beverage Packaging)

14.15

‐

801

Absent

42.8

11.51

Onondaga Creek @ South Avenue

7570

Present (Street Litter)

126

158

10.32

2-19

Section 2  Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring Program

Table 2‐8: Summary of Post‐Sewer Separation Water Quality Data for CSO 045 Event #

1 2

Date

07/23/14

11/06/14

Total Location (CSO Rainfall1, Outfall) Inches

0.42

0.41

Upstream of CSO Outfall 045 CSO Outfall 045 Downstream of CSO Outfall 045 Upstream of CSO Outfall 045 CSO Outfall 045 Downstream of CSO Outfall 045

Location (In‐Stream)

Fecal Coliform, CFU/100mL

Floatables (Absent/Present w/Description)

TSS, mg/L

Turbidity, NTU

DO, mg/L

Onondaga Creek @ Rich Street

21000

Absent

39.7

9.17

210000

Absent

29.1

7.48

Onondaga Creek @ South Avenue

7290

Absent

23.1

9.35

Onondaga Creek @ Rich Street

240

Absent

7.61

12.12

2100

Absent

21.5

8.77

Onondaga Creek @ South Avenue

210

Absent

7.31

11.91

Rainfall as recorded at the Metro Weather station. NC: Not collected.

Fecal coliform levels were higher at CSO Outfall 045 than downstream during the February, July and November events, but were lower during April. TSS/turbidity was not elevated at CSO Outfall 045 compared to the upstream or downstream sampling sites. Similar to the observations from CSO 022, the fecal coliform concentration at CSO Outfall 045 was particularly high during the July event (210000 CFU/100mL) and the dissolved oxygen concentration was slightly depressed (7.48 mg/L). Again, the absence of increases in either fecal coliform or TSS/turbidity levels from upstream of CSO Outfall 045 to downstream suggests that intervening inputs had negligible impacts on these metrics of water quality. Street litter was noted at both CSO outfall locations during the February and April events, but not during the July and November events. There were no visual observations of floatables or evidence of sewage in the samples collected at either of these two CSO outfalls during these sampling events. Bacteria data are highly variable in the CSO outfalls and in‐stream during wet weather events. It can be expected that bacteria levels in storm drains will be affected by runoff from precipitation, as street runoff can mobilize many contaminants. The data from a Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF) reference2 indicate highly variable bacteria levels, with some counts being quite elevated.

2 Reference: Olivieri, A.W., Boehm, A., Sommers, C.A., Soller, J.A., Eisenberg, J.N., and Danielson, R. 2007. Development of a Protocol for Risk Assessment of Microorganisms in Separate Stormwater Systems. Copyright 2007 by the Water Environment Research Foundation. All rights reserved. Permission to copy must be obtained from the Water Environment Research Foundation. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number:2006928032. Printed in the United States of America. IWAP ISBN: 1‐84339‐767‐6. Obtained on‐line as file “03SW2.pdf” from web site www.werf.org.

2-20

www.savetherain.us

Section 2  Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring Program

The monitoring period ends in 2015, and upon inspection and confirmation by NYSDEC that these outfalls have been permanently sealed or eliminated, CSO outfalls 022 and 045 may then be removed from the County’s SPDES permit (NY 0027081). 2.4.2.2 CSO 080 (EBSS Facility) As required by the ACJ 4th Stipulation, Gate Chamber (GC) modifications for the EBSS facility were completed in October 2011. Two PCCM sampling events were conducted in 2012 during wet weather storm events of sufficient magnitude and intensity to trigger overflow from the CSO080 (EBSS Facility) outfall. If the maximum storage capacity of the EBSS and the MIS conveyance capacity are reached (based on current set‐points), the incoming CSO flows to the EBSS are discharged to Onondaga Creek. A limited compliance evaluation was conducted of in‐ stream data collected from the sampling sites downstream of the EBSS outfall (Onondaga Creek at Plum Street) during each of these two sampling events (refer to the ACJ 2012 Annual Report). Event 1 sampling conducted on May 8, 2012, included the parameters Fecal Coliform and Nutrients (total Phosphorus and total Nitrogen). In addition to Fecal Coliform and Nutrients, Event 2 conducted on May 29, 2012, 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 samples. Based on the compliance evaluation of the in‐stream data, Fecal Coliform data from Events 1 and 2 indicated non‐compliance with the AWQS. Based on a re‐evaluation of the 2012 sampling program and NYSDEC’s comments, sampling program modifications will be implemented for future events to include: 



 

Change in the in‐stream sampling site, with a fewer number of intervening points, to allow for a better impact assessment of the EBSS overflow to the water quality of Onondaga Creek. Addition of “pre‐storm” bacteria samples at the downstream in‐stream sampling site, prior to sampling events, in order to evaluate “baseline concentrations” and an in‐stream site immediately upstream to evaluate “background concentrations.” An attempt to manually collect EBSS outfall samples during discharge to Onondaga Creek. An evaluation of the duration and frequency of monitoring for CSO overflow events based on information from the receiving water hydrograph, time of travel analyses and knowledge of when CSO overflows begin and end.

This revised approach proposed for duration and frequency of monitoring for the CSO overflow event is consistent with the approach outlined in EPA’s “CSO Post Construction Compliance Monitoring Guidance”, dated May 2012. The updated version of the Microbial Trackdown Phase 2 work plan, dated April 5, 2012, outlined a comprehensive study implemented in 2012 and 2013 to monitor concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria in Harbor Brook and Onondaga Creek, as a follow‐up to the findings of the Phase I study conducted in 2008 and 2009. The entire study was undertaken as a joint project of Onondaga Environmental Institute (OEI) and Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection (OCDWEP), with OEI as the principal partner and OCDWEP providing analytical and sampling support. Phase 1 work of the Microbial Trackdown Study identified and sampled a total of 55 point sources of potential bacterial (fecal coliform) loadings to Onondaga

www.savetherain.us

2-21

Section 2  Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring Program

Creek. A total of 14 priority point sources were listed for sampling in Onondaga Creek in 2012. The number of priority point sources was reduced to 10 in 2013. Point source OC‐PS23 (EBSS) was continually discharging and contributing a bacterial load to the creek. In November 2012, OCDWEP staff investigated the conditions in the EBSS 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 flow from the EBSS outfall to Onondaga Creek. In an effort to remove blockages that might be causing stagnant water to incubate bacteria, the OCDWEP Flow Control Division staff undertook several measures relating to the EBSS outfall in January 2013. These included the repair of the dewatering pump, repair of the leaking sluice gate seal, and the removal of concrete debris and ~30 cubic yards of grit. To evaluate the impacts of this cleaning/repair, a series of bacteria samples collected by OCDWEP staff on April 8 and from April 15 through April 19, 2013 (a total of six samples). Fecal Coliform concentrations of these samples ranged from 5500 to 290000 CFU/100mL. In addition to these samples, eight samples were collected as part of the Phase 2 MTS study during dry weather from July 2013 to September 2013. Fecal Coliform concentrations of these samples ranged from 10000 to 200000 CFU/100mL. Operational changes were implemented in 2014 for the dry weather operation of EBSS, at NYSDEC’s request. Gate #1 was closed on September 12, 2014, after the completion of the City of Syracuse rehabilitation work related to the interior of the aqueduct/outfall (coordinated with NYSDEC). During the following six weeks, programming adjustments were made to keep Gate #1 closed, except during wet weather events when water levels in EBSS Gate Chamber #1 required relief through Gate #1. The final adjustment of the system program to keep Gate #1 closed was completed on October 30, 2014. The County’s on‐going trackdown efforts of dry weather sanitary contributions to the EBSS will continue in 2015. Closed circuit television (CCTV) equipment will continue to be utilized and confined space entry to inspect the EBSS and tributary sewers. To date, OCDWEP has identified three sources of dry weather sanitary contributions. Two were blockages in the City of Syracuse system resulting in sanitary sewer relief to EBSS. These blockages were cleared. The third was an illicit sanitary sewer connection to the storm system owned by the City of Syracuse. This has been referred to the City of Syracuse to be addressed.

2.5 2014 CSO Facility Performance Summary In accordance with the ACJ major milestone date of December 31, 2013, construction of two storage facilities was completed in 2013. The Clinton CSO Storage Facility (CSF), located in the Clinton/Lower MIS service area and capable of storing over 6.5 MG of combined sewage, received wet weather flow for the entire 2014 calendar year. In addition, the Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility (LHBSF), constructed on State Fair Boulevard between Hiawatha Boulevard and West Genesee Street in the City of Syracuse, accepted wet weather flow conveyed from CSO 003 and CSO 004, starting December 31, 2013. This facility is also scheduled to accept flow from CSO 063, scheduled for completion in 2015. The measured capacity of the facility is 4.9 MG. Both storage facilities capture and store combined sewage generated during wet weather for up to the 1‐year, 2‐hour design storm. In 2014, these storage facilities stored (for treatment at Metro) an estimated 113,050,619 gallons of combined sewage that would previously have been discharged to Onondaga Creek and Harbor Brook. This reduction in CSO discharge volume is expected to result in substantial water quality improvements in these

2-22

www.savetherain.us

Section 2  Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring Program

tributaries. Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) integration of both these storage facilities was completed in 2014, as described in Section 4. The Metro SPDES Permit specifies monitoring requirements for the following CSO treatment facilities to monitor effluent overflow and to report the sample results on the facility Quarterly Performance Reports (QPRs): 1. Retention Facilities a) Erie Boulevard Storage System b) Hiawatha Regional CSO Treatment Facility c) Midland Regional CSO Treatment Facility 2. Floatables Control Facilities a) Teall Floatables Control Facility b) Butternut Floatables Control Facility c) Burnet Floatables Control Facility d) Maltbie Floatables Control Facility e) Harbor Brook Floatables Control Facility Table 2‐9 summarizes the estimated retained volume and volume discharged for each of the four quarters in 2014, as reported to the NYSDEC in the QPR’s for each of the CSO storage and treatment facilities.

2.5.1 Clinton Storage Facility During storm events, combined sewer overflow is conveyed to the Clinton Storage Facility by the 96‐inch diameter West Onondaga Street CSO Transmission pipeline, the 84‐inch diameter West Jefferson Street CSO Transmission pipeline, and the 36‐inch diameter West Street CSO Transmission pipeline. The flow enters the east and west influent channels. The flow is screened in the west influent chamber by the trash racks and then passes through into storage tunnels sequentially so that during a low flow event, only a portion of the storage volume needs to be cleaned. Following the event, the storage tunnels are dewatered by operating the dewatering pumps to the Main Interceptor Sewer (MIS) for treatment at Metro. Although not yet included in the Metro SPDES permit, this storage facility discharge outfall is designated as CSO 033A in this section, pending approval by NYSDEC.

2.5.2 Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility During storm events, combined sewer overflow is conveyed to the Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility by a 60‐inch diameter pipeline from CSO 003 and a 54‐inch diameter pipeline from CSO 004. Flow from these pipelines is combined in the facility junction chamber and enters the storage tank through an 84‐inch diameter pipeline. Once the storage volume of 4.9 MG is reached, additional flow is discharged to Harbor Brook. Following the event, the storage facility is dewatered by operating the dewatering pumps to the Harbor Brook Intercepting Sewer (HBIS) for treatment at Metro. Although not yet included in the Metro SPDES permit, this storage facility discharge outfall is designated as CSO 004A in this section, pending approval by NYSDEC.

www.savetherain.us

2-23

Section 2  Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring Program

2.5.3 Erie Boulevard Storage System The Erie Boulevard Storage System (EBSS) was designed to temporarily store wet‐weather flows resulting from storm events within the 90th percentile, preventing discharge into Onondaga Creek. The EBSS consists of three storage units, equipped with a series of automated sluice gates designed to store flow from nine CSO diversion manholes. The stored flow drains to Metro via the MIS after wet‐weather flows have subsided and there is sufficient capacity at Metro. In the event that the maximum capacity of the EBSS and MIS are reached, the facility discharges to Onondaga Creek.

2.5.4 Midland Regional Treatment Facility In 2014, the Midland Regional Treatment Facility discharged an estimated total volume of 75.5 MG to Onondaga Creek. Facility unit processes include storage tank, influent pumps, vortex separators, and disinfection tank. An estimated volume of 79 MG was stored and pumped, via the Main Interceptor Sewer (MIS), to Metro for treatment. The storms on May 16, June 25, and July 28, 2014, surpassed the design capacity of the facility.

2.5.5 Hiawatha Regional Treatment Facility In 2014, although flow was diverted to the facility a total of 14 days, these flows were routed to the Ley Creek Force Main to Metro for treatment, and subsequently no events resulted in discharge to Ley Creek. Facility unit processes include swirl concentrator, storage tank and disinfection tank. Table 2‐9: 2014 CSO Facility Operational Summary CSO Facility Clinton Storage Facility

TOTAL (CSF):

Quarter

Frequency of Overflows

First1 Second Third Fourth

1 3 2 0 6

Estimated Retained Volume, gallons 13,464,000 21,592,000 40,679,336 8,984,483 84,719,819

Estimated Volume Discharged, gallons 95,190,000 16,110,000 11,520,000 0 122,820,000

The storm event of March 29 and March 30 resulted in precipitation totals of 1.7 inches in less than 14 hours. Prior to the storm, Onondaga Creek elevations were already in the 90th percentile range according to the Provisional Flow data posted on the USGS web site. During the event, the Clinton Storage Facility experienced significant backflow of Onondaga Creek water through the upstream CSO structures which resulted in large volumes of creek water passing through the facility and discharging through the effluent pumps. Operations plans under extreme backwater conditions in the future will be further developed from the perspective of gate operation to eliminate influx of Onondaga Creek water to the facility. First3 Lower Harbor Brook 1 6,439,000 400,000 2 Second 0 8,672,120 0 Storage Facility Third 1 11,568,780 516,000 Fourth 0 1,650,900 0 TOTAL (LHSF): 2 28,330,800 916,000 2 Estimated retained volume was determined by transducer levels and tank volume calculations. 3 Estimated discharge volume to Harbor Brook. First5 3 ‐ 7,349,845

2-24

www.savetherain.us

Section 2  Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring Program

Table 2‐9: 2014 CSO Facility Operational Summary CSO Facility Erie Boulevard Storage Facility4

Quarter

Frequency of Overflows

Estimated Retained Volume, gallons

Estimated Volume Discharged, gallons

Second

‐

5,622,242

Third Fourth6

4 4

‐ ‐

2,384,713 551,331 15,908,131

TOTAL (EBSS): 4

Includes the total CSO and SW contributions to the EBSS. Peak water surface elevations within Gate Chambers 1, 3, and 4, along with the physical geometry of the main EBSS channel, are utilized to calculate the total volume stored within the system. The stormwater contribution to the system is calculated by subtracting the CSO diversion manhole volume from the total volume stored. 5 Discharge volumes could not be calculated on March 30, 2014, due to high Onondaga Creek levels that indicate backflow into the EBSS. 6 On 10/21, 10/24, 10/30 Gate 1 inadvertently opened. In each case, the EBSS had been fully drained except for the remaining “wedge” of water estimated at 150,000 gallons. TOTAL (Storage Facilities):

Midland Regional Treatment Facility7

First Second

4 8

Third Fourth

4 1

113,050,619

139,644,131

11,260,000 26,068,000

29,452,000 27,084,000

35,047,200 16,428,000 6,735,400 2,590,000 TOTAL (Midland RTF): 79,110,600 75,554,000 7 Estimated retained volume is determined by dewatering pump run time and pump curve and checked with transducer levels in storage and disinfection tanks. Estimated discharge volume to Onondaga Creek is determined by influent pump run time and pump curve.

2.6 2015 PCCM Program The following section summarizes the 2015 plans for the CSO flow quantity and quality monitoring.

2.6.1 CSO Flow Quantity Monitoring In 2015, the County will continue to maintain the meters installed at the 13 representative CSOs listed in Table 2‐4 (above). In addition, the County will take measures to ensure, to the extent possible, that the data received from the meters is accurate and representative of the flow from those CSOs. Along with the routine verification and maintenance of the meters, the County will relocate the meter currently installed in the CSO 034 conveyance pipe to the outfall point at Onondaga Creek created during the Clinton CSO Conveyances Project, and the meter located at CSO 018 will be reprogrammed to provide accurate data.

2.6.2 CSO Flow Quality and Tributary Water Quality Monitoring The NYSDEC approved AMP Five‐Year Work Plan dated October 2014, includes a PCCM program over a five‐year (2014 to 2018) period. The sampling schedule proposed from 2014 through 2018 was designed to coincide with the completion of major gray or green Infrastructure projects in a particular CSO basin. As conditions allow, four overflow events are targeted per CSO outfall, over a two‐year period. As no PCCM sampling events were conducted in 2014 for the Lower Harbor Brook and Clinton Storage Facilities, the majority of the PCCM

www.savetherain.us

2-25

Section 2  Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring Program

sampling for 2015 is targeted for these facilities. The sampling protocol, parameters, and targeted frequency of these storage will be consistent with the sampling program as detailed in the AMP Five‐Year Work Plan. No PCCM sampling events were conducted in 2014 for the Representative CSOs to determine the impact of the overflow relief upon water in Harbor Brook and Onondaga Creek and to assess compliance with AWQS. Overflows from CSO outfalls 003, 004, 030, and 034 have been abated (captured for up to the 1‐year, 2‐hour design storm) and therefore provide limited sampling opportunities. In 2014, the County’s flow metering contractor downloaded flow data via a cellphone to the website twice per day. Flow meter readings were recorded on an hourly basis during dry weather and at one‐minute intervals during wet weather events. Although a number of the CSOs are equipped with flow monitoring equipment, there are several limitations related to sampling individual CSO outfalls which have been captured and in verifying overflows. Some of the CSOs have flow which is conveyed over a weir and is discharged through a pipe directly into the receiving waters. Some are not equipped with a flap gate, and allow water from the receiving water to enter the pipe during high flow conditions. This may result in backflow being interpreted as a combined sewage discharge. In order to collect representative water quality samples from the CSO outfalls, it is necessary to verify overflow to the receiving water during sample collection. Sampling program requirements for these individual CSO outfalls will be re‐ evaluated with the NYSDEC and ASLF in 2015. Data from the initial PCCM sampling event will be reviewed with NYSDEC and ASLF staff prior to conducting additional events, to allow for potential sampling program adjustments, with NYSDEC’s approval. The year 2015 will conclude the three years for PCCM related sampling for the CSO 022 and 045 Sewer Separation projects. Table 2‐10 presents the targeted sampling program for the PCCM and the in‐stream sampling sites planned for 2015.

2-26

www.savetherain.us

Section 2  Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring Program

Table 2‐10: Summary of 2015 PCCM Program CSO Outfall

CSO Service Area

LHBSF

Harbor Brook

(CSO 004A) CSF

Harbor Brook (C)

Clinton

Onondaga Creek

(CSO 033A)

CSO 022

Receiving Water/ Stream Class Storage Facilities

Upstream ‐ Harbor Brook at State Fair Boulevard bridge (downstream side of bridge) Downstream ‐ Harbor Brook at Hiawatha Boulevard bridge (upstream side of bridge)

Upstream ‐ Onondaga Creek at Dickerson Street bridge (downstream side of bridge) (C) Downstream ‐ Onondaga Creek at Walton Street bridge (Upstream side of bridge) Sewer Separation Projects

In‐Stream Sampling Location

Onondaga Creek (C)

Upstream ‐ Onondaga Creek @ Rich St. Bridge Downstream ‐ Onondaga Creek @ South Avenue Upstream ‐ Onondaga Creek @ Water St. Bridge Downstream ‐ Onondaga Creek @ W. Genesee St. Bridge (downstream side of bridge)

2.7 2014 AMP Tributary Compliance Evaluation Several segments of Onondaga Lake’s tributary streams are included on the 2012 NYSDEC compendium of impaired waters (http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/31290.html). NYSDEC places waterbodies on this list when there is evidence that water quality conditions do not meet applicable water quality standards and/or the water bodies do not support their designated use. The AMP tracks compliance with the AWQS for bacteria in the CSO tributaries (Onondaga Creek, Harbor Brook, and Ley Creek) based on sampling conducted during both wet and dry weather. The abundance of fecal coliform bacteria in the lake tributaries during wet weather is affected by stormwater runoff, the functioning of the combined sewer system, and upstream sources. Several CSO remedial measures and improved stormwater management measures have either been completed or are underway. Measures of bacterial abundance during non‐storm periods provide a means of identifying potential connections of sanitary waste to the stormwater collection system and portions of the sewerage infrastructure in need of repair. As part of the annual Tributary AMP, the CSO tributaries continued to be sampled on a biweekly basis from January through December 2014. Harbor Brook at Velasko Road In addition, sampling is conducted during runoff events and fecal coliform samples are also collected five times per month to support compliance evaluations. The AMP includes an extensive tributary monitoring program that supports estimates of external material loading to Onondaga Lake and assessments of water quality and habitat conditions in the streams.

www.savetherain.us

2-27

Section 2  Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring Program

The County’s in‐stream sampling program includes sites upstream and downstream of CSOs and urban segments of the sub‐watersheds at the following stations (refer to Figure 2‐3):   

Harbor Brook (at Hiawatha Boulevard and Velasko Road) Ley Creek (at Park Street) Onondaga Creek (at Kirkpatrick Street and Dorwin Avenue)

The regulatory goal of the ACJ is to bring segments of the Onondaga Lake tributaries affected by Onondaga County’s municipal discharges into compliance with designated best uses pursuant to 6 NYCRR (New York Code, Rules and Regulations) Parts 701 and 703. As outlined in the ACJ, specific NYS water quality standards and guidance values that will be used to assess the extent to which these actions are successful include the following:        

Dissolved Oxygen: 6NYCRR Sec. 703.3 Ammonia: 6 NYCRR Sec. 703.5 Phosphorus: 6 NYCRR Sec. 703.2 Nitrogen: 6 NYCRR Sec. 703.2 Bacteria: 6 NYCRR Sec. 703.4 Floatable Solids: 6 NYCRR Sec. 703.2 Turbidity: 6 NYCRR Sec. 703.2 Water Quality Standards & Guidelines (NYSDEC TOGS 1.1.1)

Table 2‐11 provides a summary of the percent of AMP observations in compliance with AWQS from January through December 2014 for sampling sites in tributaries affected by CSOs (Onondaga Creek, Harbor Brook, and Ley Creek). The following subsections discuss the results for each water quality parameter. Appendix D contains the 2014 AMP Annual Data Report.

2.7.1 Dissolved Oxygen: 6 NYCRR Sec. 703.3 The 2014 AMP data indicate compliance with the AWQS (instantaneous minimum of 4.0mg/l) based on in‐situ measurements of Dissolved Oxygen at all CSO tributary sampling sites in Onondaga Creek, Harbor Brook and Ley Creek (Refer to Table 2‐11).

2.7.2 Ammonia: 6 NYCRR Sec. 703.5 The 2014 AMP data indicate compliance with the AWQS for Ammonia, which varies with pH and Temperature, at all CSO tributary sampling sites in Onondaga Creek, Harbor Brook and Ley Creek (Refer to Table 2‐11).

2.7.3 Phosphorus: 6 NYCRR Sec. 703.2 Parameter

Classes

Standard (Narrative)

Phosphorus and AA, A, B, C, D, SA, SB, None in amounts that will result in growths of algae, weeds and nitrogen SC, I, SD, A‐Special slimes that will impair the waters for their best usages.

Compliance could not be assessed for Phosphorus, as the Nutrient compliance criteria for flowing waters is currently pending.

2-28

www.savetherain.us

Section 2  CSO Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring

Figure 2‐3: AMP 2014 Tributary Sampling Locations

2-29

www.savetherain.us

Section 2 • CSO Post‐Construction Complian Monitoring

Table 2‐11: Annual 2014 AMP Tributary Compliance Summary (January ‐ December 2014) (Note: occurrences of less than 100% compliance are highlighted in red text; dissolved oxygen, ammonia, nitrite, and fecal coliform are specified in the ACJ). F. Coliform 2

Ammonia‐

Dissolved Oxygen,

Nitrite‐

Cyanide‐

(cfu/100ml)

Nitrogen, mg/L

(S.U.)

mg/L

Nitrogen, ug/L

AWQS:

Monthly Geometric

Varies with pH

Shall not be less

The minimum daily average

mean (N=>5)

and Temperature

than 6.5 nor more

shall not be less than

than 8.5

<=200 cfu/100ml

Cadmium‐

Copper‐

Lead‐

Dissolved, ug/L 5

Dissolved, ug/L

Dissolved, ug/L 6

AWQS:

0.0007ug/L

The aquatic standard is

on free Cyanide

Hardness dependent.

5.0mg/L, and at no time

(the sum of HCN

(0.85) exp(0.7852 [ln

(0.96) exp(0.8545 [ln

{1.46203‐[ln(hardness)

shall the DO concentration

and CN expressed

(ppm hardness)] ‐ 2.715)

(ppm hardness)]‐1.702)

(0.145712)]}ex[(1.273

be less than 4.0mg/L

as CN)

Total

Mercury‐

Free, ug/L

Dissolved Solids, mg/L

Dissolved, ug/L

AWQS:

100ug/L

5.2ug/L; based

500mg/L

Annual Summary % Compliance

N of Samples

Annual Summary % Compliance

N of DO results

Annual Summary % 4.0 Compliance

N of NO2‐N

Annual Summary % Compliance

N Results

Annual Summary % Compliance

N of Results

Annual Summary % Compliance

N of Hg‐Diss

Annual Summary % Compliance

N Results

Annual Summary % Compliance

N Results

Annual Summary % Compliance

N Results

Annual Summary % Compliance

44%

100%

30%

100%

Onondaga Creek @ W. Onondaga St (mid transect) 8

Onondaga Creek @ Dickerson St (mid transect) 8

100%

Onondaga Creek @ Walton St (mid transect) 8

100%

Onondaga Creek @ Kirkpatrick 7

22%

100%

98%

100%

Harbor Brook @ Bellevue Avenue 7

86%

100%

Harbor Brook @ Onondaga Road 7

67%

96%

100%

78%

100%

75%

Harbor Brook @ Hiawatha Upstream‐Mid Transect 8

100%

Harbor Brook @ MH (Upstream of CSO 003 & 004) 8

100%

Harbor Brook @ Hiawatha Boulevard 7

30%

100%

98%

100%

75%

Ley Creek @ Park Street 7

100%

75%

Si te

N of Samples

[ln(hardness)]‐4.297)

Annual Summary % Monthly Compliance

N of Samples

/P ar

am et

er /N YS A W

Metals 1

Onondaga Creek @ Dorwin Avenue 7

Harbor Brook @ Velasko Road

FOOTNOTES: 1

AWQS for metals applies to the Total Dissolved Form.

Fecal Coliform compliance is assessed monthly, based based on the geometric mean of at least 5 samples.

Ley Creek (at Park Street) CN‐Free compliance assessment based on results of 3 samples (2 results <0.003 mg/L of CN‐WAD; and 1 result <0.003 mg/L of CN‐Free).

Dissolved Mercury standard applies to Health Fish Consumption standard (H(FC)).

Compliance could not be determined as the limit for the 4 Cadmium‐Dissolved sample results below the Method Reporting Limit (MRL).

Onondaga Creek at Kirkpatrick Street Lead‐Dissolved compliance assessment based on the results of 1 sample result; limit for 3 samples results below the method reporting limit and could not be assessed.

Samples collected at 2014 AMP sampling location.

Additional samples collected through October 2014 related to the in‐stream sampling program for the Representative CSO outfalls 003, 004, 030, 034; and Storage Facility (CSO 004A and 033A) outfalls planned for 2014 PCCM.

NC ‐ Not Collected; ND ‐ Not Determined

2-30

Section 2  CSO Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring

2.7.4 Nitrogen: 6 NYCRR Sec. 703.2 Parameter Phosphorus and nitrogen

Classes

Standard (Narrative)

AA, A, B, C, D, SA, SB, SC, None in amounts that will result in growths of algae, weeds I, SD, A‐Special and slimes that will impair the waters for their best usages.

Compliance could not be assessed for Nitrogen, as the Nutrient compliance criteria for flowing waters is currently pending.

2.7.5 Bacteria: 6 NYCRR Sec. 703.4 Classes

Standard

A, B, C, D, The monthly geometric mean, from a minimum of five examinations, shall not exceed 200 SB, SC colony forming units per 100 milliliters

The 2014 AMP data documented exceedances of the AWQS for fecal coliform in most of the tributaries, including the CSO affected streams, during both wet and dry weather. 2.7.5.1 Microbial Source Trackdown Study (2014) Phase 2 of the Microbial Trackdown Study was conducted from June 2012 through July 2014, and included regular and trackdown sampling events in an effort to: (A) monitor spatial trends in bacteria levels in tributaries to Onondaga Lake, (B) monitor problematic point sources identified during Phase 1, (C) monitor newly discovered point sources, and (D) track down and remediate problematic bacterial discharges. All activities were performed during dry weather conditions, defined as a maximum of 0.08” (2 mm) of precipitation during the preceding 48 hours preceding a sampling event. In addition, spatial and temporal trends in bacteria levels were identified that helped to: (1) explain patterns of stream water quality related to land use, (2) detect relationships between measured parameters, (3) identify and prioritize point source (PS) trackdown work, (4) measure the effects of remedial activities on bacteria levels, and (5) assess changes in bacteria levels since Phase 1. OCPS 11: West Brighton Ave (CSO 076) Results from this study helped to elucidate spatial and temporal trends in bacteria and water quality, identify areas of concern, and make physical improvements to the system, most notably: 

In‐stream bacteria levels were significantly different between rural and urban locations, with urban locations consistently having higher bacteria levels.

2-31

www.savetherain.us

Section 2  Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring Program



Routine and temporal sampling events identified several drivers that explained patterns in bacteria levels. Five new point sources were identified in Onondaga Creek since Phase 1, illustrating the dynamic nature of an aging infrastructure. Two urban tributaries to Onondaga Creek, City Line Brook and Hopper Brook (N), had high levels of bacteria at several locations during the 2013 trackdown event. By Point Source Sampling from Canoe comparison, City Line Brook had lower bacteria levels than Hopper Brook (N); however, due to persistently higher flows, this tributary has a higher bacterial load to Onondaga Creek. Site‐specific bacteria levels in Onondaga Creek varied between Phase 1 and Phase 2, with two upstream locations showing significant increases in bacteria levels and three downstream locations showing significant decreases in bacteria levels between study phases. In 2012, OEI conducted an extensive ecological study of the Upper Onondaga Creek Watershed (OEI, 2013). Water quality impacts at several sites were found to be associated with agricultural and residential practices. Decreases in bacteria at several locations downstream were attributed to physical improvements to the system made during and shortly after the completion of Phase 1. Through the collective efforts of Phase 1 and Phase 2, a total of 12 physical improvements to the system have been made in Harbor Brook, Onondaga Creek, and Ley Creek, and follow‐up work is currently being conducted on several other point sources. With the exception of one point source in Harbor Brook, subsequent sampling events showed that the corrective work was successful.

Strategies are being developed to perform targeted sampling and analysis of each point source in an effort to isolate the source (i.e., animal vs. human) and location (cross‐connection, illicit discharge, etc.) of the discharge. Results from this study effectively documented the effects of dry‐weather inputs on bacteria levels and water quality in Harbor Brook, Onondaga Creek, and Ley Creek. The results are presented in Identification of the Primary Sources of Bacteria Loading in Selected Tributaries of Onondaga Lake: Phase 2 Microbial Trackdown Study, Final Draft Report, August 2014 (to be finalized in 2015). 2.7.5.2 Tributary Fecal Coliform Bacteria Trend Analysis (1998‐2014) As part of the annual AMP Tributary Monitoring Program, samples are collected at sampling sites in the tributaries impacted by CSOs. In order to assess the reduction in loading achieved by the CSO improvements, bacteria samples are collected at sites upstream and downstream of CSO and urban segments of sub‐watersheds. Onondaga Creek is routinely sampled at Dorwin Avenue, upstream of the urban corridor, and at Kirkpatrick Street, downstream of the urban area and CSOs. Harbor Brook is routinely sampled at Velasko Road (upstream) and Hiawatha Boulevard (downstream). Ley Creek is routinely sampled at the Park Street site only.

2-32

www.savetherain.us

Section 2  Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring Program

Figures 2‐4, 2‐5, and 2‐6 present Fecal Coliform time series data for Onondaga Creek, Harbor Brook, and Ley Creek from 1998 through 2014. 



The frequency of bacterial sampling increased to five samples per month (starting in April 2010) at each tributary sampling site to support assessments of compliance with the AWQS for fecal coliform bacteria. These figures include a reference line at 200 CFU/100 mL, which is the NYS AWQ standard for fecal coliform bacteria. Because this standard strictly applies to a monthly geometric mean based on a minimum of five samples, it is only included for numerical perspective. Although the upstream concentrations of fecal coliform are generally lower than the downstream concentrations, the upstream concentrations are frequently above 200 CFU/100 mL, indicating compliance likely is affected by issues upstream of urban sources. Observations depict a distinct seasonality in fecal coliform concentrations, which tend to be higher in the summer months.

Figure 2‐4: Fecal Coliform Concentrations Onondaga Creek Stations

WW.SAVETHERAIN.US

2-33

Section 2  Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring Program

Figure 2‐5: Fecal Coliform Concentrations Harbor Brook Stations

Figure 2‐6: Fecal Coliform Concentrations Ley Creek

2-34

www.savetherain.us

Section 2  Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring Program

2.7.6 Floatable Solids: 6 NYCRR Sec. 703.2 Parameter

Classes

Standard (Narrative)

Oil and floating AA, A, B, C, D, SA, SB, SC, No residue attributable to sewage, industrial wastes or other substances I, SD, A‐Special wastes, nor visible oil film nor globules of grease.

As part of the 2014 AMP Tributary sampling work plan, visual observations of floatables were documented using a floatables description form. The observations are intended to characterize type(s) of floatables observed (predominant and secondary), with a record of any obvious indication of origin at AMP sampling sites in the CSO affected tributaries (Onondaga Creek, Harbor Brook and Ley Creek) and to comply with the ACJ requirement to assess floatables and evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed floatables controls. Based on the observations made during the 2014 sampling events (September 23, through December 16, 2014), no floatables were observed, with the exception of one sanitary item during the October 21, 2014, sampling event in Harbor Brook at the Hiawatha Boulevard sampling site.

2.7.7 Turbidity: 6 NYCRR Sec. 703.2 Parameter Turbidity

Classes

Standard (Narrative)

AA, A, B, C, D, SA, SB, SC, I, SD, A‐ Special

No increase that will cause a substantial visible contrast to natural conditions.

Streambank erosion is listed as the source of impairment for Onondaga Creek in Part 3a of the “Waterbodies for which TMDL Development May be Deferred (Requiring Verification of Impairment)”, in the Final NYS 2014 Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters Requiring a TMDL/Other Strategy, dated September 2014, which was “partially approved and partially disapproved” by the USEPA on January 13, 2015.

2.7.8 Water Quality Standards & Guidelines (NYSDEC TOGS 1.1.1): The Technical and Operational Guidance Series (TOGS) includes the New York State Division of Water ambient water quality standards and guidance values. The authority for the values is derived from Article 17 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Parts 700‐706, Water Quality Regulations. In addition to the ACJ parameters listed above, Table 2‐11 (above) includes a summary of the percent of AMP observations in compliance with AWQS from January through December 2014 for the CSO affected tributary sampling stations (Onondaga Creek, Harbor Brook, and Ley Creek). The Onondaga Lake AMP 2014 Annual Report will detail the compliance evaluation of all AMP tributary sampling sites (including Ninemile Creek, Bloody Brook, Sawmill Creek, and Tributary 5a). The 2014 tributary data indicate that the CSO tributaries were generally in compliance with the ambient water quality standards (AWQS) for most parameters addressed. The primary exceptions in meeting AWQS in these tributaries were total dissolved solids (TDS) and fecal coliform bacteria (FC). 2.7.8.1 Nitrite‐Nitrogen: Results for Nitrite‐Nitrogen indicated compliance for all samples collected from the AMP tributary sampling sites.

WW.SAVETHERAIN.US

2-35

Section 2  Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring Program

2.7.8.2 Total Dissolved Solids: Parameter Dissolved Solids

Classes

Standard (Narrative)

AA, A, B, C, AA‐ Special, GA

Shall be kept as low as practicable to maintain the best usage of waters but in no case shall it exceed 500 mg/L.

The concentration of TDS, primarily reflects the concentrations of the major cations and anions (calcium, sodium, magnesium, bicarbonate, potassium, chloride and sulfate). The AWQS for TDS (500 mg/L) was contravened at all of the tributary monitoring sites, and often by a wide margin. Contravention of this standard is primarily associated with the natural hydrogeology of the watershed and not with anthropogenic effects, including CSOs. Table 2‐12 summarizes the average 2014 TDS results at each of the AMP Tributary sampling sites. Table 2‐12: 2014 AMP Tributary TDS Data Tributary

Sampling Site

Average TDS, mg/L

Onondaga Creek

Dorwin Avenue

546

Kirkpatrick Street

1246

Harbor Brook

Velasko Road

1341

Hiawatha Boulevard

1398

Ley Creek

Park Street

982

Ninemile Creek

Lakeland (Route 48 at State Fair Blvd.)

1108

Tributary 5a

State Fair Blvd.

1440

Bloody Brook

Onondaga Lake Park

1306

Sawmill Creek

Onondaga Lake Recreational Trail

1233

This parameter is also not a target for management as part of the ACJ. As part of final review comments relating to the 2013 AMP sampling work plan (letter dated December 17, 2013), NYSDEC requires tributary monitoring for TDS to continue at all AMP sites until it has been demonstrated that the County’s discharges are not causing or contributing to violations of the TDS water quality standard. 2.7.8.3 Metals: Following a review of the percentage of AMP observations in compliance with AWQS during a 10‐year interval (2002‐2011) in 2013, a limited quarterly sampling program for metals was implemented in 2013, and continued in 2014, and included Cd‐dissolved, Cu‐dissolved, Pb‐ dissolved (for Onondaga Creek at Kirkpatrick Street and Dorwin Avenue sampling sites only), and Hg‐dissolved at all AMP tributary sampling sites. 2.7.8.3.1 Cadmium‐Dissolved Compliance with the aquatic standard for Cadmium‐Dissolved, which is Hardness dependent, could not be assessed as the compliance limits of the four AMP samples collected from Onondaga Creek at the Kirkpatrick Street and Dorwin Avenue were below the Method Reporting Limit (MRL).

2-36

www.savetherain.us

Section 2  Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring Program

2.7.8.3.2 Copper‐Dissolved Results of four samples collected from Onondaga Creek at the Kirkpatrick Street and Dorwin Avenue sampling sites indicated 100 percent compliance with the aquatic standard for Copper‐ Dissolved, which is Hardness dependent. 2.7.8.3.3 Lead‐Dissolved Compliance with the aquatic standard for Lead‐Dissolved, which is Hardness dependent, could not be assessed for three of the four AMP samples collected from Onondaga Creek at the Kirkpatrick Street, as compliance limits were below the MRL. Compliance could also not be assessed for the four AMP samples collected from Onondaga Creek at the Dorwin Avenue sampling site, as compliance limits were below the MRL. 2.7.8.3.4 Mercury‐Dissolved The dissolved mercury AWQS of 0.7 ng/L was exceeded at the Harbor Brook at Velasko Road, Harbor Brook at Hiawatha Boulevard, and Ley Creek at Park Street sampling sites, based on data collected during the 2014 quarterly sampling events. The samples were analyzed by the OCDWEP Environmental Laboratory for mercury in the dissolved form using EPA Method 1631 CVAFS (Revision E). This parameter is not considered exclusively as a pretreatment parameter as there are other sources, including atmospheric deposition, known to contribute mercury to aquatic systems leading to exceedances of AWQS. 2.7.8.3.4.1 Compliance with Pretreatment Requirements As part of the Compliance Action for Combined Sewer Overflows as specified in the Metro SPDES Permit, the permittee should list measures to be taken to address water quality violations if detected to include sampling and source track down as appropriate and discuss measures taken to comply with the Pretreatment requirements. There are no known industrial users that discharge Mercury upstream of CSOs. Given the assertions in TOGS 1.3.10 and that the County’s 2014 Mercury Minimization Program (MMP) annual report shows significant reductions in Mercury at Metro as a result of the MMP, additional sampling and source track down are not appropriate. The most appropriate action for the Pretreatment Program is to continue to implement the MMP and inspect dental offices since they are the only known point sources of Mercury. 2.7.8.4 Cyanide‐Free A review of the Total Recoverable Cyanide data reported at the AMP sampling sites in 2013 indicated 100 percent compliance with the AWQS since 2003 for sampling sites other than Ley Creek. Because total recoverable form was measured as part of the AMP, compliance with standards could not be assessed directly. Compliance could not be assessed when the sample concentration in the total form was greater than the standard. As the chronic AWQS standard of 5.2ug/L is based on Free Cyanide, analysis of Total Recoverable Cyanide (T‐CN) was discontinued in 2013 and replaced with Weak Acid Dissociable cyanide (WAD‐CN) in‐lieu of Free‐ CN. Although not part of NYSDEC’s approval of the 2013 AMP work plan, this change in analysis was implemented in an effort to improve the compliance evaluation of the samples as the OCDWEP Environmental Laboratory and contract labs were not certified for free cyanide analysis at the time.

WW.SAVETHERAIN.US

2-37

Section 2  Post‐Construction Compliance Monitoring Program

In 2014, two of the three Ley Creek at Park Street samples, collected March 25 and June 3, were analyzed by the OCDWEP Lab for WAD‐CN using the method from Standard Methods 4500 CN I for sample preparation followed by analysis using the Lachat automated method 10‐204‐00‐1‐ X. Both sample results of <0.003 mg/L were assumed to be in compliance, as the WAD‐CN > or = Free‐CN. The third sample collected on November 4, 2014, was analyzed by the sole lab certified in NYS for free cyanide analysis, Alloway Analytical Services, a laboratory in Marion, Ohio. This laboratory uses EPA Method OIA‐1677‐09, as approved in 40 CFR Part 136, with a Minimum Reporting Limit (MRL) of 0.003 mg/L for the analysis of Free Cyanide. The Free‐CN result of <0.003mg/L indicates compliance with the AWQS of 5.2 ug/L. Quarterly samples collected in 2015 will continue to be analyzed for free cyanide to support compliance evaluation with the AQWS for the Ley Creek at Park Street sampling site.

2-38

www.savetherain.us

SECTION 3

SWMM Update Onondaga County implemented a comprehensive expansion of, and updates to, the stormwater management model (SWMM) in 2012. An annual update to the model was completed in 2013, and again in 2014. SWMM is the US EPA software package specifically identified in Paragraph 14.I of the ACJ for determination of compliance with CSO volume reduction requirements in paragraphs 14C, 14D, 14E, 14F and 14G of the ACJ. The 2014 annual SWMM update was prepared using EPA SWMM software version 5.0.022. The 2014 conditions model was updated with projects completed by December 31, 2014 and was calibrated using flow monitoring data collected in 2014; this update of the model is now referred to as the “2014 conditions model.” The intent of the model updates, consistent with the ACJ requirements and industry best practices, is to improve the model and reduce uncertainty, increasing accuracy and precision of predictions through the periodic review of monitoring data with calibration and validation exercises. This section presents the changes made to the model based on projects constructed during 2014, including some minor subcatchment boundary revisions. Following the description of model updates is a presentation of the 2014 flow monitoring program which was used to calibrate the 2014 conditions model. Together with CSO monitoring data, the flow monitoring program provides a comprehensive collection of flow data that characterize current collection system conditions, reflecting the completion of large gray infrastructure projects during 2013. The model calibration and validation methodology, calibration results, and validation results are described in this section. This section concludes with a presentation of annual capture results based on the 2014 conditions model.

3.1 2014 Conditions Model Update The 2014 conditions model was developed by updating the 2013 conditions model. The updates were based on field data, most recent as‐built plans, and are summarized as follows: 

Twenty‐two GI projects that completed construction in 2014 (See Table 4‐2), including 15 Green Improvement Fund (GIF) projects



Subcatchment boundary changes based on field investigation and mile square maps. These adjustments have a minor impact on model results because these areas were previously included in other subcatchments. Boundary changes include: o Updated boundary of 020 sewershed at Magnarelli Community Center Roof (F‐ 07) o Updated boundary between 014 and 036 sewersheds at Grace & Messina Park o Updated boundary between 014 and 015 sewersheds at H‐30 Vacant Lot: 1344‐50 W Onondaga St o Updated boundary between 004 and 009 sewersheds at zoo parking lot and entrance

3-1

www.savetherain.us

Section 3  SWMM Update

o Updated boundary of 077 sewershed at Manley Fieldhouse near Comstock/Colvin intersection o Updated boundary of 006A sewershed at Frazer School o Updated boundaries of 077 and 080B sewersheds at College Place (Syracuse University). Figure 3‐1 shows the boundaries before they were updated. The area outlined in red is tributary to CSO 060/077, not 080 as shown on the map. Some of the area outlined in dashed blue goes to 060/077 and some goes to 080.

080 Sewershed

060/077 Sewershed

Figure 3‐1: Example of Adjustment to Sewershed Boundaries Based on Field Investigation

3.2 Sewer Flow Monitoring Program Based on the findings of the hydraulic model validation as presented in the 2013 ACJ report, the 2013 conditions SWMM model over‐estimated combined sewer overflow (CSO). The over‐ estimation of CSO is attributed to an outdated model calibration based on 2004 and 2009 monitoring data. Significant gray infrastructure projects were completed after this flow monitoring data was collected, including the Clinton Storage Facility and the Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility, both of which became operational at the end of 2013. The County therefore initiated a comprehensive flow monitoring program during 2014 to characterize current sewer system hydraulic conditions. The new flow monitoring data was used to perform an updated model calibration. This section describes the flow monitoring sites, presents a summary of the precipitation events for the first phase of monitoring, and summarizes the flow monitoring data collected to‐date. Section 3.3 describes the model calibration and validation. 3-2

www.savetherain.us

Section 3  SWMM Update

3.2.1 Monitoring Sites Thirty‐three sites were selected for monitoring sewer flows in trunk sewer pipes or main sewer pipes that convey flow from CSO sewersheds. As shown in Figure 3‐2 and summarized in Table 3‐1, the flow monitoring program includes 21 locations in MIS sewersheds and 12 locations in HBIS sewersheds. Flow monitoring is being completed in two phases: 

Phase I was completed in September 2014 with 19 flow meters installed in MIS sewersheds and flow data collected from June to September 2014.



Phase II is planned for 2015 with 14 flow meters installed in both HBIS and MIS sewersheds. The monitoring duration will be determined by the number of wet weather events to ensure adequate wet weather flow data for model calibration.

3.2.2 Phase I Precipitation Events Rainfall data was collected at two locations: Metro WWTP and Midland RTF. Figure 3‐3 shows rainfall hyetographs during the flow monitoring period, and rainfall event statistics are listed in Table 3‐2. The Midland RTF rain gauge is centrally located, so the following rainfall summary statistics were compiled based on this location: 

The total rainfall observed at the Midland RTF from June through September was approximately 16.4 inches.



A total of 30 rain events occurred with total precipitation greater than 0.1” in depth.



Thirteen of these 30 events had total rainfall exceeding 0.4 inches.

The 30 events described above are summarized in Table 3‐2 for both the Metro WWTP and Midland RTF rain gauges, with blue highlighting the 13 largest events at the Midland RTF.

3-3

www.savetherain.us

Section 3  SWMM Update

Phase 1 Phase 2

Figure 3‐2: Flowmeter Locations for the 2014 Flow Monitoring Program

3-4

www.savetherain.us

Section 3  SWMM Update

Table 3‐1: Flow Meter Summary for the 2014 Flow Monitoring Program FM Phase Number1

System

Location

MIS

W Onondaga between Clinton and Salina Streets (North Side of Street)

MIS

W Onondaga between Clinton and Salina Streets (South Side of Street)

MIS

Harrison St at Irving Ave (East side of Intersection)

MIS

500 S Clinton Street (East side of intersection in E Jefferson Street Sewer)

MIS

Seymour Street at W Onondaga Street

MIS

Granger Street and Dickerson Street

MIS

317 W Onondaga Street

MIS

1364 S Salina Street

MIS

W Colvin Street at Midland Ave (East side of Intersection)

MIS

Brighton Ave at Midland Ave (East side of Intersection)

MIS

W Matson Ave at Midland Ave

MIS

Midland Ave at W Lafayette Ave

MIS

Tallman Street at Oneida Street (East side of Intersection)

MIS

120 Bellevue Ave

MIS

Elmhurst Ave at Hunt Ave (West side of Intersection)

MIS

Wallace St and Herald Pl

MIS

Burnet Ave and N State Street

MIS

James Street and N State Street

MIS

Kirk Park Drive between W Colvin Street and Kirk Ave

MIS

South and Castle (Middle of intersection)

HBIS

Bellevue and Bungalow (East side of intersection)

MIS

Elmhurst and Hunt

HBIS

Hoefler and Hartson (Middle of intersection)

HBIS

Delaware Street between Grand and Amy

HBIS

Erie Blvd and W Fayette St (SE of intersection)

HBIS

Hiawatha Blvd near State Fair Blvd (just NE of Harbor Brook crossing)

HBIS

W Genesee St and Erie Blvd W (Just East of bridge)

HBIS

Geddes and Gifford (West of intersection)

3-5

www.savetherain.us

Section 3  SWMM Update

Table 3‐1: Flow Meter Summary for the 2014 Flow Monitoring Program FM Phase Number1

System

Location

HBIS

Holden St and Rowland St (North side of intersection)

HBIS

Herriman and Grand (Middle of intersection)

HBIS

Lydell and Hartson (Middle of intersection, new MH‐L3)

HBIS

W Fayette St and Magnolia St (Just East of intersection)

HBIS

Richmond Ave between Liberty St and Wall St (Middle of block)

FM 3 was eliminated due to site constraints.

Table 3‐2: Rainfall Event Statistics for the Midland RTF (MRTF) and Metro WWTP During Phase I Monitoring Program Event

Total Depth (in)

Peak Intensity (in/hr)

No.

Start Time

Duration (h)

MRTF

Metro

MRTF

Metro

6/8/2014 22:30

1.75

0.24

0.32

6/13/2014 1:15

6.75

0.24

0.22

0.28

0.24

6/16/2014 19:30

0.25

0.12

0.02

0.48

0.08

6/17/2014 21:45

1.75

0.42

0.41

1.00

1.28

6/24/2014 20:00

26.75

1.99

1.94

1.28

1.00

7/1/2014 17:00

0.75

0.38

0.00

1.12

0.00

7/3/2014 15:00

5.00

0.38

0.27

0.56

0.72

7/8/2014 18:00

0.50

0.39

0.34

1.40

1.36

7/9/2014 14:45

3.00

0.18

0.01

0.48

0.04

7/14/2014 16:30

3.50

0.49

0.08

1.64

0.12

7/15/2014 19:15

1.00

0.19

0.00

0.28

0.00

7/23/2014 14:15

2.75

0.49

0.30

1.76

0.88

7/27/2014 6:00

2.25

0.49

0.47

0.96

1.08

7/28/2014 2:00

22.00

1.95

1.49

1.24

1.04

7/30/2014 18:00

3.00

0.45

0.27

0.96

0.28

7/31/2014 8:00

6.50

0.31

0.15

0.72

0.44

8/3/2014 16:45

4.75

0.52

0.59

0.24

0.28

8/12/2014 6:30

21.75

1.37

1.28

1.08

0.68

8/16/2014 19:00

10.50

0.40

0.44

0.24

0.44

8/20/2014 15:45

8.75

0.19

0.12

8/21/2014 10:00

1.00

0.46

0.52

0.80

1.72

8/21/2014 20:00

6.00

0.38

0.01

1.04

0.04

8/22/2014 13:00

1.25

0.52

0.24

0.92

0.88

3-6

www.savetherain.us

Section 3  SWMM Update

Table 3‐2: Rainfall Event Statistics for the Midland RTF (MRTF) and Metro WWTP During Phase I Monitoring Program Event

Total Depth (in)

Peak Intensity (in/hr)

No.

Start Time

Duration (h)

MRTF

Metro

MRTF

Metro

8/31/2014 6:30

4.50

0.19

0.20

0.08

0.12

9/2/2014 18:15

3.25

0.76

0.63

0.96

0.56

9/11/2014 9:30

1.75

0.12

0.05

0.32

0.08

9/13/2014 9:15

5.00

0.28

0.31

0.12

0.16

9/15/2014 21:30

7.75

0.26

0.25

0.20

0.16

9/21/2014 14:30

4.50

0.33

0.15

0.44

0.40

9/30/2014 20:15

1.25

0.46

0.36

0.56

0.80

Figure 3‐3: Rainfall hyetographs at Metro WWTP and Midland RTF

3.2.3 Phase I Flow Monitoring Data Flow data for the 19 monitoring locations in the MIS sewersheds during Phase I are provided in Appendix E and a summary is provided in Table 3‐3. Figures 3‐4 is an example of the flow meter data sheets included in Appendix E. Each data sheet includes: 

Hydrographs showing flow, depth, and velocity during the monitoring period



Scatter chart plotting depth versus velocity as an indication of data quality. Typically, data points concentrated along a well regressed curve (such as in Figure 3‐4) indicate good data quality. .



Summary table of flow data



Site description

3-7

www.savetherain.us

Section 3  SWMM Update

The findings of the flow metering data analysis are summarized in Table 3‐3. Five of the monitoring sites (highlighted yellow in Table 3‐3) generated lower quality data. It was decided that this data would not be used for calibration and four of the five sites are recommended to be monitored as Phase II sites. Additionally, five locations (highlighted blue) only generated good monitoring data for a limited period of time. Three of the meters with lower quality or limited data (FM‐10, 11, and 13) are included in the group of four meter locations (FM‐10, 11, 12 and 13) that were intended to calibrate flows in the Midland RTF tributary area. Without good quality data at all of the four Midland RTF flow meter locations, more than 80 percent of the Midland RTF flow would be left uncalibrated. Therefore, flow meters were proposed to be reinstalled at the FM‐10, 11, and 13 locations during the Phase II monitoring period. The meter installed at location FM‐19 generated lower quality data than needed for calibration. However, flow data obtained at the Burnet FCF can be used as a nearby substitute for calibration at this location. For the remaining flow meter locations with data quality characterized as “low with period of good data,” it was determined that calibration can be completed using the rainfall events during the limited period of good data. Table 3‐3: Summary of Flow Data Analysis for Phase I FM Number

Installed Location

Data Quality

Actions

W Onondaga between Clinton and Salina Streets (North Side of Street)

Low with period of good data

Calibrate with limited events

W Onondaga between Clinton and Salina Streets (South Side of Street)

Low with period of good data

Calibrate with limited events

Harrison St at Irving Ave (East side of Intersection)

Low

Reinstall meter in Phase 2 period

501 S Clinton Street (East side of intersection in E Jefferson Street Sewer)

Good

Calibrate with all selected events

Seymour Street at W Onondaga Street

Good

Calibrate with all selected events

Granger Street and Dickerson Street

Good

Calibrate with all selected events

317 W Onondaga Street

Good

Calibrate with all selected events

1364 S Salina Street

Good

Calibrate with all selected events

Mark Ave and Colvin St

Low

Reinstall meter in Phase 2 period

Brighton Ave at Midland Ave (East side of Intersection).

Low

Reinstall meter in Phase 2 period

3-8

www.savetherain.us

Section 3  SWMM Update

Table 3‐3: Summary of Flow Data Analysis for Phase I FM Number

Installed Location

Data Quality

Actions

W Matson Ave at Midland Ave

Good

Reinstall meter in Phase 2 period

Near 255 W Lafayette

Low

Reinstall meter in Phase 2 period

Tallman Street at Oneida Street (East side of Intersection)

Low with period of good data

Calibrate with limited events

221 Bellevue Ave.

Good

Calibrate with all selected events

Elmhurst and Randall

Good

Calibrate with all selected events

Wallace Street and Herald Place

Low with period of good data

Calibrate with limited events

Burnet Ave and N State Street

Low with period of good data

Calibrate with limited events

Near James Street and Townsend Low Street

Calibrate with Burnet Street FCF flow data

Kirk Park Drive between W Colvin Street and Kirk Ave

Calibrate with all selected events

Good

3-9

www.savetherain.us

Section 3  SWMM Update

Figure 3‐4: Example Flow Meter Data Analysis Sheet for FM‐5

3-10

www.savetherain.us

Section 3  SWMM Update

3.3 Model Calibration and Validation in MIS Areas This section describes the calibration/validation methodology, calibration storms, and results for the 2014 conditions model calibration. It also serves as a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) to provide transparency and a “blue print” for reproducibility, future applications and/or third party usage. Calibration was performed using data collected during the sewer flow monitoring program described in Section 3.2. Validation was performed using the 2014 CSO measured volume and frequency data collected at the representative outfalls described in Section 2.

3.3.1 Calibration Methodology There are multiple commonly accepted modeling guidelines for model calibration and validation3,4,5. Two of the most common include Guidance on the Development, Evaluation and Application of Environmental Models released by the USEPA (USEPA, 2009) and the Code of Practice for the Hydraulic Modelling of Sewer Systems released by Wastewater Planning User Group (WaPUG, 2002). These two methods are built on a similar foundation and have been followed by many professionals to develop and assess CSO abatement plans. The USEPA document addresses general guidelines, procedures, and where best engineering judgment should be utilized, while the WaPUG document presents the more definitive and concrete procedural allowances. The approach used to calibrate Onondaga County’s model is based on guidelines described in both documents. Following the model update (Section 3.1), calibration was performed based on the most recent flow monitoring data (Section 3.2). The calibration included the following major steps:   

Model/Data Preparation Dry Weather Flow (DWF) Calibration Wet Weather Flow (WWF) Calibration

3.3.1.1 Calibration Guidelines It is true with all models that errors and uncertainties are inevitable as it is impossible to replicate the complexity in the environmental system (EPA, 2009). To better understand the limitations and capabilities of the 2014 conditions model, the main errors and uncertainties from various sources include the following: 

Errors or bias (temporal, spatial, instrumental, and environmental [wind, site restriction, etc.]) in precipitation data



Model structure limitations (the level of detail represented in the model, mathematical approximations of complicated natural phenomena, etc.)

3 EPA. 2007. Computer Tools for Sanitary Sewer System Capacity Analysis and Planning. EPA/600/R‐07/111. October 2007 4 WaPUG. 2002. Wastewater Planning Users Group Code of Practice for the Hydraulic Modelling of Sewer Systems. Version 3.001. November 2002 (amended December 2002) 5 WEF. 2011. Prevention and Control of Sewer System Overflows, WEF Manual of Practice No. FD‐17, Third Edition. Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, Virginia.

3-11

www.savetherain.us

Section 3  SWMM Update



Parameter errors (sensitive parameters [e.g., infiltration] are estimated from large scale soil survey maps)



Errors or biases in flow metering used for calibration



Errors in imperviousness



Uncertainties associated with manual operation of facilities as well as unknown pipe conditions



Differences in scale between large calibrated metersheds and small subcatchments to which calibrated parameter values are often transferred

The main purpose of model calibration is to minimize these errors and uncertainties within a reasonable range by adjusting parameters associated with high uncertainties in each subcatchment area. These reasonable ranges come from engineering insight to obtain feasible, explainable adjustments. Blindly adjusting parameters for the sake of “force fitting” modeled to observed data brings about an entirely new set of implications and is avoided at all costs (WaPUG, 2002). For the 2014 conditions model, parameters were adjusted in each of the 404 subcatchment areas. The calibration and validation guidelines below are from the WaPUG Code of Practice for Hydraulic Modeling of Sewer Systems (WaPUG, 2002). These guidelines were used during the comparison of model simulation to monitoring data performed as part of the 2014 conditions model calibration. 



Dry weather guidelines: –

Shape: The shape of the predicted hydrographs should closely follow the observed flow.

–

Timing: The timing of the peaks and troughs should be within 1 hour.

–

Peak flow rate: Within +/‐ 10 percent of observed, or within +/‐ 0.1 MGD for sewershed locations with very small flows.

–

Flow volume: Within +/‐ 10 percent of observed, or within +/‐ 0.1 MG for sewershed locations with very small flows.

–

Maximum, average, and minimum depth: +/‐ 0.33 feet at non‐surcharged locations.

Wet weather guidelines: –

Shape: The shape of the predicted hydrographs should closely follow the observed flow.

–

Timing: The timing of the peaks and troughs should be within 1 hour.

–

Flooding: Predicted flooding locations with large spilled volumes should correlate to field observations or other historical records, if available.

–

Peak flow rate: Within ‐15 to +25 percent of observed, or within +/‐ 0.1 MGD for sewershed locations with very small flows.

3-12

www.savetherain.us

Section 3  SWMM Update

–

Flow volume: Within ‐10 to +20 percent of observed, or within +/‐ 0.1 MG for sewershed locations with very small flows.

–

Maximum, average, and minimum depth: ‐0.33 to +1.67 feet at surcharged locations and within +/‐ 0.33 for non‐surcharged locations.

3.3.1.2 Sensitivity Radio Tuned Calibration Tool PCSWMM’s sensitivity radio tuned calibration (SRTC) tool was used to adjust the hydrologic and hydraulic parameters and calibrate the model. This tool allows the user to predefine numerical uncertainty in any modeled parameter. Once the acceptable parameter ranges have been established, the model can be fit to the observed hydrographs through manual, visual and statistical matching. PCSWMM is built with several matching metrics including integrated squared error (ISE), root mean squared error (RMSE) and most notably, Nash‐Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE). RMSE is an aggregated representation of the standard deviations of the differences between modeled and observed values and is backed by the USEPA as a metric for incremental calibration (USEPA, 2009). The equation is shown below. ∑

(1)

Where x1,t is the observed flow at time t and x2,t is the measured flow at time t. The other valuable metric, NSE, was created specifically to measure hydrologic model accuracy. This index is widely used in addressing the goodness of fit for hydrologic models (McCuen et al., 2006). NSE is shown below in Equation 2.

∑ ∑

(2)

Where E represents the efficiency coefficient, is the mean observed discharge, is the observed discharge at time t and is the modeled discharge at time t. The efficiency coefficient can range from ‐∞ to 1, with 1 being a perfect match. The issues in dealing with any model accuracy metric is the range, or timeframe, in which to test. For instance, if the DWF is calibrated properly then the accuracy of these highly accurate data points can outweigh the accuracy of the important peak flows of the wet weather hydrograph and imply a false level of accuracy for the peak flows. This is why a strong focus is still given to the peak and total flow values as laid out in WaPUG guidelines stated previously. While these metrics provide the objective results, a need for engineering subjective insight is still required (EPA, 2009). For example, the software only considers one meter at a time, when in reality multiple metersheds may be dependent on one another. For this reason, during the calibration of the 2014 conditions model the calibration of some metersheds were intentionally skewed for the benefit of the entire system calibration or for a critical hydraulic structure, such as a CSO outfall. The modeler should always strive for a perfect calibration, but the primary goals of the model must be kept in focus and hold precedence (USEPA, 2009). Along with curve fitting, the SRTC tool allows for sensitivity analysis of parameters. This gives the user the ability to single out parameters that control the hydrograph the most through manual radio tuning. The most sensitive parameters can then be investigated further as

3-13

www.savetherain.us

Section 3  SWMM Update

explained in the following sections. The least sensitive parameters are left unchanged from their initial values as there is no justifiable reason for making a change that would result in an almost negligible effect on calibration. 3.3.1.3 Hydrologic Parameter Adjustment After analysis of the available data for the 2014 conditions model, select hydrologic parameters with the largest amount of uncertainty were singled out. Hydrologic parameters affect the simulation of wet weather runoff in the model, and may be adjusted by subcatchment. The hydrologic parameters considered for adjustment are listed below. 

Width – The subcatchment width and flow length are directly proportional. The exact flow length is extremely difficult to generate and often varies throughout the subcatchment. An initial estimate was generated through GIS to discover an average perpendicular flow width. The calibration procedure will eventually lead to a representative width that is neither greater than the maximum subcatchment width nor less than the minimum width.



Slope – Similar to width, the slope varies throughout the catchment and a representative value must be obtained for proper results. The initial estimate was generated through the DEM in GIS. The final slope must not exceed the highest observed slope or be lower than the lowest observed slope within the subcatchment.



Percentage Surface Runoff Routed from Impervious Area to Pervious Area – The uncertainty in this parameter is due to the level of detail required to obtain the exact value. This parameter accounts for flow from unconnected downspouts, and flow from driveways and sidewalks to the pervious area.



Soil Hydraulic Conductivity – This value can vary within the same category of soil classifications and the majority of subcatchments have a combination of soil classifications through the area. The initial estimate was set from the soil survey data. From the soil type parameters generated by the USDA, limits on values can be obtained.

3.3.1.4 Hydraulic Parameter Adjustment In addition to the hydrologic parameters listed above, hydraulic parameters were adjusted during the calibration of the 2014 conditions model. Hydraulic parameters were adjusted during the DWF, WWF, and CSO calibrations. As stated earlier, these flows are all interrelated and all must be considered while adjusting the parameters. The two hydraulic parameters with large uncertainty that were selected for adjustment during calibration are described below. 

Sediment/Debris – Combined sewers generally build up sediment during dry weather periods especially in sewer conduits with flat slopes. This debris can reduce the cross‐ sectional area of pipes and also increase the roughness. This parameter was only adjusted in known cases of older uncleaned pipes or field survey evidence of sedimentation (WaPUG, 2002).



Manning’s Roughness Coefficient, n – This is the most sensitive parameter in the hydraulic model. Numerous factors can contribute to the roughness including: material, age, sedimentation and hydraulic phenomena (hydraulic jumps, pipe bends, etc.). The initial values were set using readily available material roughness (WaPUG, 2002).

3-14

www.savetherain.us

Section 3  SWMM Update

3.3.2 Dry Weather Flow (DWF) Calibration For the DWF calibration of the 2014 conditions model, the flow monitoring data (see Section 3.2) and the rainfall data were analyzed using the USEPA Sanitary Sewer Overflow Analysis and Planning (SSOAP) tool. The average DWF and diurnal flow patterns for both weekdays and weekends were analyzed with the SSOAP tool. For each flow monitor, the DWF was divided into two flow components: base sanitary flow (BSF) and groundwater infiltration (GWI) (WaPUG, 2002). The GWI was assumed to be 90 percent of the minimum nighttime flows, but adjusted to account for upstream and downstream flow balances. The monthly dry weather influent flows at Metro headworks were used to generate seasonal adjustment factors (monthly pattern curve) by normalizing the lowest daily flow of each month (as shown in Figure 3‐5). This curve was used to develop the seasonal DWF patterns (monthly). Diurnal patterns based on the SSOAP analysis were applied to the BSFs, and monthly patterns based on the Metro influent data were applied to the GWIs.

Figure 3‐5: Monthly Dry Weather Flow Pattern Based on Metro Influent Flow Data Once the DWF for each meter was established, the flow was distributed throughout the metershed. Subcatchment area was used to distribute the flow in the model. After the flows had been distributed through the model, the results were analyzed and adjusted if necessary to meet the criteria laid out by WaPUG in Section 3.3.1.1. Figures 3‐6 and 3‐7 are examples of dry weather calibration results, showing the results for FM‐5 and FM‐16.

3-15

www.savetherain.us

Section 3  SWMM Update

Figure 3‐6: Dry Weather Flow Calibration Comparison for FM‐5

Figure 3‐7: Dry Weather Flow Calibration Comparison for FM‐16

3-16

www.savetherain.us

Section 3  SWMM Update

3.3.3 Wet Weather Flow (WWF) Calibration After DWF calibration, the WWF calibration was performed with both hydrologic and hydraulic parameter adjustment noted in the Sections 3.3.1.3 and 3.3.1.4. Calibration was performed using data collected during the sewer flow monitoring program described in Section 3.2. WaPUG recommends two diverse storm events for calibration. Since the main purpose of the model is to assess combined sewer capture during a typical year which consists of many storm events with diverse characteristics (intensity, duration, total rainfall volume, event interval, antecedent climate/soil conditions etc), the County’s SWMM model was calibrated with the following nine rainfall events: 6/17, 6/24, 7/23, 7/27, 7/28, 8/3, 8/12, 8/16 and 8/21/2014 (where metered data permitted). The storm events include a diverse range with intensity from 0.25 in/hour to 1.8 in/hour and precipitation duration from 15 minutes to 24 hours. Table 3‐4 shows the precipitation volume for various durations for each selected rainfall event, and compares storm events with return frequency data provided by Northeastern Regional Climate Center (NRCC)6.

Midland RTF Raingague

NRCC Return Frequency

Duration 1‐year

15‐minute 30‐minute 0.54 0.7

Precipitation Volumes (inches) 1‐hour 2‐hour 3‐hour 6‐hour 0.76 0.98 1.22 1.46

12‐hour 1.72

24‐hour 2.02

2‐year

0.64

0.84

0.91

1.18

1.46

1.73

2.03

2.36

5‐year

0.78

1.04

1.15

1.46

1.85

2.18

2.53

2.9

10‐year

0.9

1.22

1.37

1.7

2.21

2.59

2.98

3.38

25‐year

1.09

1.51

1.73

2.11

2.79

3.25

3.71

4.15

50‐year

1.26

1.77

2.06

2.48

3.35

3.88

4.38

4.86

100‐year 17‐Jun 24‐Jun 23‐Jul 27‐Jul 28‐Jul 3‐Aug 12‐Aug 16‐Aug 21‐Aug

1.48 0.25 0.32 0.44 0.24 0.31 0.06 0.27 0.12 0.2

2.1 0.36 0.46 0.47 0.38 0.44 0.1 0.38 0.19 0.35

2.46 0.38 0.66 0.47 0.47 0.58 0.2 0.41 0.24 0.46

2.92 0.42 0.72 0.47 0.47 0.98 0.34 0.58 0.31 0.46

4 0.42 0.83 0.49 0.49 1.31 0.41 0.79 0.34 0.46

4.6 0.42 1.28 0.49 0.49 1.5 0.52 0.96 0.44 0.46

5.16 0.42 1.32 0.49 0.49 1.76 0.52 1.01 0.44 0.47

5.68 0.43 1.98 0.49 0.49 1.95 0.52 1.37 0.44 0.65

Table 3‐4: Storm Event Data Comparison with NRCC Extreme Event Results

The WWF calibration results are plotted showing the comparison between metered data and modeled data in Appendix F for each valid flow meter location. Figures 3‐8, 3‐9 and 3‐10 are example scatter plots of wet weather event hydrographs for flow meter 1, and Figures 3‐11, 3‐12 and 3‐13 are example scatter plots and wet weather event hydrographs for flow meter 15. The scatter plots (Figures 3‐8 and 3‐11) compare metered data to modeled data at each of the accurate 13 meters that measure flows in sewer lines: 

The top left plot compares the metered and modeled total volumes of the nine WWF events. The +20/‐10 percent error envelope lines are also shown on the plot.

6 http://precip.eas.cornell.edu/

3-17

www.savetherain.us

Section 3  SWMM Update



The top center plot compares the metered and modeled maximum flows of the nine WWF events. The +25/‐15% error envelope lines are also shown on the plot.



The top right plot compares the metered and modeled maximum depth for the nine WWF events. The +1.67/‐0.33 foot error envelope lines are also shown on the plot.



The bottom plot compares the metered and modeled flow hydrographs for the whole flow monitoring period.

Figure 3‐9 and 3‐12 compare the metered and modeled flow hydrographs for nine wet weather periods and Figures 3‐10 and 3‐13 compare the metered and modeled depths for the same nine wet weather periods. The charts show reasonable goodness of fits between modeled and metered values. Goodness of fit is balanced between large and small storms. In some cases, the goodness of fit fall out of the targeted ranges. This could be attributed to model framework uncertainties and/or the quality of measurement data (flow and rainfall measurements) as described in Section 3.3.1.1.

3-18

www.savetherain.us

Figure 3‐8: Calibration Scatter Plots and Hydrographs at Flow Meter Site FM‐1

3-19

www.savetherain.us

Section 3  SWMM Update

Figure 3‐9: Comparison of Event Hydrographs at Flow Meter Site FM‐1

3-20

www.savetherain.us

Section 3  SWMM Update

Figure 3‐10: Comparison of Flow Depths between Calibrated Model Results and Metering Data at Flow Meter Site FM‐1

3-21

www.savetherain.us

Section 3  SWMM Update

Figure 3‐11: Calibration Scatter Plots and Hydrographs at Flow Meter Site FM‐15

3-22

www.savetherain.us

Figure 3‐12: Comparison of Event Hydrographs at Flow Meter Site FM‐15

Section 3  SWMM Update

3-23

www.savetherain.us

Section 3  SWMM Update

Figure 3‐13: Comparison of Flow Depths between Calibrated Model Results and Metering Data at Flow Meter Site FM‐15

3-24

www.savetherain.us

Section 3  SWMM Update

3.3.4 Validation USEPA’s recent CSO planning guidance document7 promotes green infrastructure as part of CSO abatement measures and specifically provides a hydraulic modeling example using EPA SWMM5 modeling software. It states that monitoring is essential to validate a CSO model. The purpose of validation is to assess the level of confidence in model results through a long‐term simulation of system performance. The County’s flow monitoring contractor began monitoring CSOs at representative outfalls at the beginning of 2014. The measured volume and frequency data collected at the representative outfalls for all of 2014 was used to validate the calibrated model while the model results of CSOs at other locations provide an estimate of annual discharges as listed in Table 3‐5. It should be noted that two monitoring locations used for validation measured flows within the collection system rather than combined sewer overflow discharges to Onondaga Creek as described below: 

CSO 034 was measured at the overflow to the Clinton Storage Facility and not to Onondaga Creek, and therefore the model was validated to the meter location and not the actual CSO.



CSO 077 is not a direct CSO, meaning it feeds into another regulator (060) before the flow is discharged to the creek.

The validation used rainfall data acquired from the Midland RTF Rain Gauge. This rain gauge is the most centrally located and has data for the entire 2014 period. The rainfall is shown in Figure 3‐14.

Figure 3‐14: 2014 Midland RTF Rainfall for Validation Period 7 EPA, 2014 Greening CSO Plans: Planning and Modeling Green Infrastructure for Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control, EPA/832‐R‐14‐001, March 2014

3-25

www.savetherain.us

Section 3  SWMM Update

Table 3‐5 shows the estimated annual CSO discharge volume and frequency predicted by the calibrated model for all of the County’s CSO outfalls. Table 3‐5: CSO Volume and Frequency Predicted by the Calibrated Model Sewer Service Area

CSO

Hiawatha RTF

075 003 004 005 006 006A 007 009 010 011 014 015 017 018 063A 063B 078 080 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 020 021 073A 065 066 071 039 042 044 052 060 061 067 076

Harbor Brook

EBSS

Clinton / Lower MIS

Midland RTF

Total

CSO Annual Volume (MG) 1.6 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.1 5.9 11.3 1.7 3.0 1.4 4.8 2.4 2.4 4.3 0.2 65.7 5.1 2.9 22.7 0.5 10.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 22.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 29.2 53.4 2.2 2.0 9.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 3.9 17.0 0.1 0.9 0.0 288.5

Activation Frequency (no./yr) 21 0 1 32 8 36 35 19 31 28 26 27 28 28 1 58 38 1 36 11 45 0 13 0 0 24 0 1 4 31 43 10 35 41 0 1 0 0 35 48 22 21 0

3-26

www.savetherain.us

Section 3  SWMM Update

The validation shows that the model performs very well and produces results within a reasonable range of deviation from the metering data. As shown in Figure 3‐15, during 2014, for the five validation flow meters, a total of 21 MG of CSOs (61 MG of total flow) were metered and the model simulated 21 MG CSO (61 MG of total flow) which is well within the +20/‐10 percent accuracy range. The total number of CSO events metered was 83 and the model predicted 86 of the CSO events, as shown in Figure 3‐16.

Figure 3‐15: Comparison of CSO Volume between Calibrated Model Results and Observed CSO during 2014

Figure 3‐16: Comparison of CSO Frequency between Calibrated Model Results and Observed CSO during 2014

3-27

www.savetherain.us

Section 3  SWMM Update

3.4 Annual Capture Results The ACJ specifies combined sewage capture as a percentage of the total volume of combined sewage collected by the system during precipitation on a system‐wide annual average basis. This section describes combined sewer capture results by performing calibrated 2014 conditions model simulations with the typical year rainfall data (1991 year) that was used to calculate the capture percentages specified in the Fourth Stipulation of the ACJ.

3.4.1 Typical Year Capture Results of December 31, 2014 System Conditions The capture results based on the 2014 conditions model are provided in Table 3‐6. With a newly calibrated model, better representing the actual system conditions than the 2013 conditions model, the annual combined sewage volume capture increased to 480 MG. This capture volume represents a combined contribution from various green and gray projects completed since 2009. After correcting the over‐prediction issues inherent in the 2013 conditions model (described in 2013 ACJ report), the calibrated 2014 conditions model predicts a combined sewer overflow volume of 286 MG during a typical year. The typical year model results show the annual capture percentage for the December 31, 2014 system conditions exceeds the 95 percent final capture milestone mandated for 2018. Table 3‐6: 2014 Annual Capture Results1

[1]

Additional Average Annual Combined Sewage Volume Captured by Green/Gray Infrastructure or Eliminated (MG)3 [2] = [5] – [1] – [4]

Hiawatha

641

642

644

99.7%

Harbor Brook

930

1,013

101

1,114

90.9%

EBSS

159

166

167

99.4%

Midland

1,728

1,766

1,784

99.0%

Clinton / Lower MIS

1,750

330

2,080

164

2,244

92.7%

Sewer Separation Areas

128

150

100.0%

Sewer Service Area

Average Annual Combined Sewage Volume Conveyed to Metro for Treatment (MG)2

Total Annual Combined Sewage Volume Captured or Eliminated (MG)3

CSO to Creek / Brook (MG)4

Total Annual Combined Sewage Volume Generated by the Metro Combined Sewer Service Area (MG)2

Percent Capture

[3] = [1] + [2]

[4]

[5]

[6] = [3]/[5]

Total 5,336 480 5,817 286 6,103 SWMM results based on the typical year (1991) precipitation record 2 Data source for [1] and [5]: Typical year results from the pre‐GI conditions (2009) model 3 Eliminated by sewer separation 4 Data source for [4]: Typical year results from the calibrated 2014 conditions model

95.3%

3-28

www.savetherain.us

Section 3  SWMM Update

3.4.2 2018 Capture Projection The following projects are planned for future construction; some are already under construction and scheduled to be completed prior to 2018:      

CSO 063 conveyance project (under construction) CSO 061 sewer separation CSO 018 wetland pilot project (commissioning stage) System optimization projects Three GI projects under construction (in addition to the CSO 018 wetland pilot project) Additional GI projects in design and anticipated to complete construction prior 2018

Table 3‐7 shows the projected numerical goals after completion of the projects listed above in 2018. Table 3‐7: 2018 Annual Capture Projection1

Metro Service Area Total

Total Annual Combined Sewage Volume Eliminated or Captured (MG)

CSO to Creek/Brook (MG)2

Total Annual Combined Sewage Volume Generated by the Metro Combined Sewer Service Area (MG)3

[1] = [3] – [2]

[2]

[3]

[4] = [1] / [3]

5,867

236

6,103

96.1%

Percent Capture for Treatment at Metro or Eliminated

SWMM results based on the typical year (1991) precipitation record Data source for [2]: Typical year results from the 2018 conditions model 3 Data source for [3]: Typical year results from the pre‐GI conditions (2009) model 2

3-29

www.savetherain.us

SECTION 4

CSO Project Status Section 14H of the Fourth Stipulation of the ACJ requires the County to annually report 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. This section provides project descriptions, locations, scope of work, milestones, and current status. Section 3 of this report presents the projected capture rates for the service areas in which these projects are located and the methodology used to arrive at these projections. For additional project‐specific information, please go to the Save the Rain (STR) 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 (Table 4‐1), and projects developed afterward that address the reduction of CSO. Over the past 5 years, Onondaga County has advanced numerous construction projects that presented numerous challenges, especially considering the aggressive regulatory milestone dates. The completion of these projects represents a strong commitment by Onondaga County to the improvement of water quality in Onondaga Lake and its tributary streams. Table 4‐1: ACJ Gray Infrastructure Milestone Schedule Project

CSO 044 Conveyances

Harbor Brook Interceptor Sewer Replacement

Milestone Description 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

Minor

09/01/2010

Achieved

Major

12/31/2011

Achieved

Plans and specs to NYSDEC for review and approval

Minor

02/01/20111 Achieved

Commence construction

Minor

10/01/20111 Achieved

Complete construction and commence operation

Major

12/31/2013 Achieved

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

Clinton Storage Facility

Milestone Milestone Compliance Type Date Status

4-1

www.savetherain.us

Section 4  CSO Project Status

Table 4‐1: ACJ Gray Infrastructure Milestone Schedule Project

Milestone Description Plans and specs to NYSDEC for review and approval

Harbor Brook Storage Commence construction Facility

Complete construction and commence operation 1

Milestone Milestone Compliance Type Date Status Minor

04/29/20111 Achieved

Minor

12/31/20111 Achieved

Major

12/31/2013

Achieved

Date reflects ACJ Milestone extension approved by the NYSDEC on November 4, 2010.

4.1.1 CSO 044 Conveyances The CSO 044 Conveyance Sewer, originally part of the larger Midland Avenue Regional Treatment Facility (RTF) Phase 3 Conveyances Project, conveys combined sewer flow from the 62.5‐acre CSO 044 drainage basin. In 2012, the County and its contractor conducted the final walk‐through for the CSO 044 Conveyances Project. The project provides for the diversion of wet weather flow from CSO 044, which discharges to Onondaga Creek at South Avenue and West Castle Street, and transmission of the flow to the Midland Avenue RTF on the south side of Syracuse. The notice of Partial Beneficial Occupancy for 500 linear feet of a 96‐inch conveyance sewer and a new CSO 044 regulator structure, issued on December 31, 2011, constituted completion and operation of the new conveyance sewer. At that time, the sewer began to transmit flow to the Midland Avenue RTF. The new section of pipeline added 0.4 MG of additional storage volume raising the total storage volume for the Midland Avenue RTF to approximately 5 MG. The CSO 044 pipeline was installed in a residential area, which required careful planning and coordination with the area residents. For example, the Green Community Planting along Porous Concrete Trail over the CSO 044 Conveyance Sewer Infrastructure installation in the project footprint provided an opportunity to involve the community with plantings to take ownership of how their neighborhood appears after construction. In 2014, the contractor completed the work items included on the punch list attached to the final certificate of Beneficial Occupancy and Substantial Completion dated October 9, 2013. After completion of this work, the County closed out the project and released the remaining retained funds to the contractor in December of 2014.

4.1.2 Harbor Brook Interceptor Sewer (HBIS) Replacement Project The HBIS Replacement Project provided a much needed upgrade to the existing HBIS between West Fayette Street and Velasko Road on the southwest side of Syracuse, upsizing approximately 7,500 linear feet of interceptor sewer. This portion of the interceptor sewer conveys dry weather and combined flow from CSOs 009, 010, 011, 013, 014, 015, 016, 017, 018,

4-2

www.savetherain.us

Section 4  CSO Project Status

and 078 for conveyance to Metro for treatment (see Figure 4‐1). The existing interceptor, constructed in the 1920s, had fallen into disrepair and as a result, flow restrictions developed which decreased the capacity and increased infiltration in some areas. The increase in size over the entire length of the replacement increased the HBIS capacity by 500,000 gallons and the flow by 0.4 mgd, maximizing the flow to the HBIS downstream. In addition to the sewer work, the County rehabilitated and replaced portions of the Harbor Brook culvert on the Fowler High School property due to its condition and proximity to the sewer and to limit the potential for future repair work after the planned renovation of the high school campus.

Figure 4‐1: HBIS Replacement Project Area Prior to 2013, the contractor completed the 7,500 linear feet of interceptor replacement, culvert rehabilitation, 75 percent of the green infrastructure installation, and the full separation of CSO drainage areas 013 and 016 was added to the project after bid because of the availability of additional American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) funds. The closure of these two CSOs demonstrates Onondaga County’s commitment to apply adaptive management principals to provide the best water quality for Onondaga Lake at the lowest cost. The decision to separate these overflows was above and beyond any regulatory requirement under the ACJ; however, the separation projects were determined to be the best option once construction was underway.

www.savetherain.us

4-3

Section 4  CSO Project Status

In 2014, the County closed out the project and released all retainage to the contractor in July of 2014.

4.1.3 Clinton Storage Facility The Clinton CSO storage facility, located in the Clinton/Lower MIS service area and capable of storing over 6.5 MG of combined sewage, is operating and received wet weather flow for the entire 2014 calendar year. Soon after Onondaga County signed the Fourth Stipulation agreement in November of 2009, the County immediately began to design a storage facility with a stipulated volume of at least 3.7 MG. The County decided to install the facility in downtown Syracuse at the Trolley Lot site, previously proposed for the RTF. The facility would accept wet weather flow from CSOs 028, 030, 031, 032, 033, 034, 035, 036, and 037. The tributary drainage area represents 787 acres of predominantly urban land in the central city area. Early in the design phase, the project team determined that simply converting the RTF into a storage facility would not provide Onondaga County with the desired level of service. The use of conventional construction techniques (i.e. convention open‐cut with dewatering) was not possible due to the presence of high‐chloride groundwater in the area. The design engineer developed multiple design concepts to address the groundwater issue, while still maximizing storage volume and minimizing operation and maintenance costs and impacts to the surrounding community. The project submitted for bid had a three‐cylindrical tunnel design with a total capacity of 5 MG; an increase of 26 percent more capture volume than required by the Fourth Stipulation. In addition, the Clinton Storage Facility ‐‐ West Chamber Green Roof designers faced challenges developing a project that did not limit the future development of the property, which also had limited site access. The configuration of the underground tunnels and the installation of a temporary bridge over Onondaga Creek provided solutions to these issues. The low bid contractor, Jett Industries Inc., presented a design alternative that would limit the groundwater impacts, meet the ACJ milestone and increase the capture volume of the facility to 6.5 MG; 44 percent more CSO capture than the stipulated volume. The reconfigured Clinton Street Storage Facility would consist of three underground, 19 by 15‐foot square box tunnels and a series of conveyance pipelines. Construction on the facility began in September 2011. In 28 months, the modern, complex CSO storage facility was accepting flow. On December 31, 2013, the new facility began operating and receiving wet weather flow, meeting the milestone stipulated in the ACJ. The major components of the storage facility include:  

4-4

Three parallel 850‐foot long, 19‐foot by 15‐foot square box culvert tunnels A 50‐foot deep, 5,000‐square foot west storage chamber and aboveground structure

www.savetherain.us

Section 4  CSO Project Status

    

An east diversion structure that diverts flow to each of the three tunnels A 96‐inch conveyance sewer from Dickerson Street to the east chamber A 84‐inch conveyance sewer from Jefferson Street A 36‐inch conveyance sewer from Tully Street A force main connection to the MIS and outfall to Onondaga Creek

Although the project represented a huge accomplishment for Onondaga County, the construction presented several significant challenges. Construction noise was a significant concern for the construction team. A high‐rise residential apartment building, Armory Square businesses, and the Rescue Mission shelter are located in close proximity to the construction site. The engineers, construction management team, and the contractors monitored the construction site noise, which resulted in minimal noise complaints associated with the construction. Early in the project, the subcontractor installing the 36‐inch sewer by micro‐tunneling methods encountered differing site conditions which would not allow installation of the pipe as planned, resulting in a delay of approximately 3 months. Because this work was on the critical path and impacted the schedule for completion of the overall project, Onondaga County made the decision to compensate the contractor to accelerate the schedule to meet the ACJ milestone. The acceleration change order included requirements for Clinton Storage Facility – Final Site Restoration completion of critical components of the project necessary to meet the ACJ milestone, i.e. to capture, store and pump to Metro the combined sewage from the nine CSOs as defined in the Engineering Report for this project. The completion of the major components despite the construction difficulties is a testament to the County and its entire construction team of managers, engineers, and contractors. The facility was capable of accepting wet weather flow prior to the ACJ stipulated milestone of December 31, 2013 and in fact the first event occurred on December 27, 2013 and the facility has been functioning as planned since that time. 4.1.3.1 Design for a Community Space The constructed storage facility is not only consistent with the architecture of Armory Square, but provides a much‐needed facelift to the parking lot that has served the area for a long time. The smaller structures and underground storage tunnels allow a greater amount of the Trolley Lot to return to its previous use as a parking lot and utilize the property as a community asset. The Save the Rain program provided the flexibility to create a more sustainable facility by capturing stormwater from the resurfaced parking area to flush the Clinton Storage Facility ‐‐ East subsurface tunnels following a storage event. This minimizes the Chamber Access Building

www.savetherain.us

4-5

Section 4  CSO Project Status

use of potable water required for cleaning the facility. Other GI elements incorporated into the facility to mitigate the impacts on Onondaga Creek include a green roof on the west chamber and a bioretention area to control runoff from the facility. The stormwater piping also routes excess stormwater from the parking area through a high rate separation device prior to discharge to Onondaga Creek. 4.1.3.2 Floatables Control The constructed facility also provides floatables control for all nine tributary CSOs up to the design storm. The facility is constructed to allow the tunnels to fill sequentially from 1 to 3, and a series of sluice gates, trash racks and baffle walls are designed to capture and control the amount Clinton Storage Facility ‐‐ West Chamber Access of floatables that enter the effluent pumping Building chamber. Within the effluent pumping chamber the three 54‐inch diameter pipe columns and 350‐horsepower pumps do not begin pumping for discharge to the creek until the flow has reached an elevation of a minimum of 12 feet above the pump intake elevation. These mechanisms allow the County to collect and remove floatables by vacuum truck or clam shell hoist after the storm event has ended and the chamber is dewatered and flushed clean. 4.1.3.3 Completion of Automated Controls, Site Restoration, and Miscellaneous Work in 2014 The Contractor continued work from January through July 2014 on electrical and instrumentation systems, automated controls, miscellaneous building work and site work. Several CSO events occurred during this time period allowing the contractor to “debug” the operational equipment and controls. The Design Engineer and County operations personnel completed the supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system programming. By April 17, 2014, the system was operating in automatic mode and the Contractor’s one year performance period began on that date. As soon as weather allowed, the Contractor completed the parking lot and access road paving, the bioretention area, and the green roof on the West Chamber building. Several items were added to the contract by change order, including back water prevention gates on the CSO connections to Clinton Storage Facility ‐‐ Public walking path between the railroad Onondaga Creek, revisions to the tunnel and Onondaga Creek through the new parking lot.

4-6

www.savetherain.us

Section 4  CSO Project Status

96‐inch sluice gate operator, additional lighting and new sidewalk in the public access tunnel from West Jefferson Street to the parking lot, and other miscellaneous items to improve the operations and safety of the facility. The contractor is continuing to complete these added items as the materials are received at the site. It is planned to have all work complete, including change order work, prior to the completion of the Contractor’s Performance Period in April 2015. 4.1.3.4 Performance Period The contractor’s performance period for the facility began on April 17, 2014 after the instrumentation and controls (SCADA) systems and the odor control system were installed and operating. The contract requires that the Contractor operate the facility for one year or three CSO events of sufficient size to operate all of the equipment and instrumentation systems in automatic mode, whichever occurs sooner. To date, one of the three required CSO events has been accepted as a qualifying event in accordance with the contract. A qualifying event is defined as a CSO event of sufficient size to utilize all pumps and operate the flushing device with stored CSO and stored rainwater or potable water. The Performance Period will continue until two additional qualifying events occur or until April 17, 2015, whichever comes sooner. 4.1.3.5 Raising of the Weir at CSO 036 The County also completed a small optimization project in the Clinton Storage Facility Service Area during 2014. The County increased the height of the weir at CSO 036 by 5.5 inches on November 13, 2014, to divert more flow volume into the Clinton Storage Facility and reduce the frequency of overflow for CSO 036. Based on the SWMM, raising the weir effectively eliminates CSO discharge during the 1‐year, 2‐hour storm at the CSO 036 outfall. 4.1.3.6 Clinton Storage Facility Service Area and Green Infrastructure Projects Through 2014, 59 GI projects, including 31 GIF projects have been constructed within the Clinton Storage Facility service area (CSOs 028, 030, 031, 032, 033, 034, 035, 036, and 037). These projects include commercial and residential green streets, vacant lots, porous pavement, bioretention, and cistern systems. Combined, these completed projects capture impervious area runoff from approximately 64 acres, resulting in 43 million gallons of runoff reduction. The GI project locations within the Clinton Storage Facility service area and a listing of these GI projects are provided in Figure 4‐2. This figure shows the 59 completed projects and two additional projects that are under construction.

www.savetherain.us

On Center Green Roof Three Years after Completion

4-7

N CROUSE AVE

UNIVERSITY AVE

CHERRY ST CHERRY ST

IRVING AVE RENWICK AVE

FINEVIEW PL

COLUMBUS AVE

PINE ST

WALNUT AVE

FORMAN AVE

NB I 81 SB I 81

HARRISON PL LINDEN ST

S CROUSE AVE

N MCBRIDE ST

ALMOND ST

S WARREN ST

BANK ST

S SALINA ST

S MCBRIDE ST

N SALINA ST

N CLINTON ST

AVE

CROTON TER

N FRANKLIN ST

S CLINTON ST

LAN D

WALNUT PL

VE RA

KENSINGTON PL

WESTCOTT ST

HURON ST

S TOWNSEND ST

SALINA ST N SALINA ST

ST UT ERN BUT T

SOUTH AVE

COR T

ONEIDA ST

HO LL AN D

HUDSON ST

MILES AVE

TE INS

WINDSOR PL

DR BERKELEY

RICH ST

E AV

M ST WE

ROOSEVELT AVE

LENNOX AVE 028 030 STRATFORD ST 031 DR S U P M A ESF C T RD 032 DORSE DAKOTA ST 033 RD N TO KENSING 034 035 TH PA ACORN D ST BROA036 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, 037 and the GIS User Community FORESTRY DR

CIRCLE RD

COOLIDGE AVE

CSO Basin

N RO ST

TE R

MARYLAND AVE

EUCLID AVE

LANCASTER AVE

CLARKE ST

Clinton Storage Facility GI Project Boundary

ACKERMAN AVE

MALCOL M

CONCORD PL

ID EUCL

KE LL OG G

GR AC E

ST E

FELLOWS AVE

SA BI N

VICTORIA PL

ALLEN ST

D OO

AVE

LEY

WESTMORELAND

CAMBRIDGE ST

H EC BE NW EE GR

SUMNER AVE

DU D

S WEST ST

BARKER AVE

N WEST ST

PLUM ST

LEAVENWORTH AVE

WAL LAC E

VAN RENSSELAER ST

SAND ST

N GEDDES ST

WALL ST

S NE

IVES AVE

I DEV

COLUMBUS AVE

S G EDDE S ST

TEALL AVE

D BLV

BASSETT ST

MAPLE ST

PL INITY

PL DALE AVON

LIVINGSTON AVE

BRADLEY ST

PEAT ST

WINTON ST

SHERWOOD AVE

VINE ST

FAIRVIEW AVE

OAKLAND ST

SIMS DR

E ERI

HARVARD PL

REDFIELD PL

OSTROM PL

STANDART ST

Legend CLARENDON ST

COMSTOCK AVE

Y ST

VAN BUREN ST

VE DA KID

LEXINGTON AVE

COLLEGE PL

Y ST

N BEECH ST

C-146

WAVERLY AVE

DYER CT

DR CROUSE

NED

ED ENN E K

VE ER A BAK

T AN S

EN W K

E ADAMS ST

MARSHALL ST

STADIUM PL

N ST LEO

BLAINE ST

M FUR

HARRISON ST

C-75b

HENRY ST

E RAYNOR AVE

T LE S AST E C

LE AST W C

COMSTOCK PL

UNIVERSITY PL

S MCBRIDE ST

E D AV

IN RG MA

T LS

T YS VE

TOWERS LN

ST TATE S S

STERLING AVE

LAR BAL

CHENEY ST

CHESTER ST

PALMER AVE

ONONDAGA AVE

RUSKIN AVE

BELLEVUE AVE

BURT ST

PAVILION TER

OXFORD ST

E FAYETTE ST

ASHWORTH PL

C-149

E TAYLOR ST

OAKWOOD AVE

MS T

LOR ST W TAY

MIDLAND AVE

HS T

T LE S

KI NG

C-126

C-12b JACKSON ST

L ST

LOMB ARD AVE

C-85

C-75a

EL ST RIEG 0 I 69 EB

CH LYN

C-29a

C-95

ANGELOU TER

NEW ST

MONTGOMERY ST

AV E

TALLMAN ST

SUMMIT AVE

CLAIRMONTE AVE

HUBBELL AVE

ROBERTS AVE

STOLP AVE

P TEM

A CAN

OSTROM AVE

ES S

LE ST TEMP

MATHER ST

C-181 C-158

LINCOLN AVE

W ONONDAGA ST

C-199

C-198

MANILLA ST

E GENESEE ST

CEDAR ST

C-38 C-07

ELM ST

CO NG R

C-34

HAWLEY AVE

MADISON ST

C-09

C-11

C-55

C-73

ST WHITE

ELLIOTT ST

S ST ADAM

WELLINGTON PL

C-12a

LATIMER TER

C-156 C-159

C-128

DELHI ST

C-129

ST OAK ST

C-219

C-192 C-102

C-99

MERRIMAN AVE

PU TN A

C-78

C-110 C-60

SHONNARD ST

FIT C

MADISON ST

E WATER ST

MCCARTHY AVE

C-33

GIFFORD ST

WB I 690 TO I 81 SB

C-216

DICKERSON ST

C-122 C-70

BURNET AVE

C-29b

C-56

T FABIUS S

HAWLEY AVE

C-29de C-57

C-186

ST S WEST

FABI

T US S

ING S

SEYMOUR ST

DAVIS ST BA RR DE ET LA TS WA T RE ST

M WYO

C-101 NIAGARA ST

Y TULL

C-45

C-166

TULLY ST

81 N

RU RT E G

VANN ST

C-74a

C-31

E WASHINGTON ST

C-21 C-59

C-86b

C-52

C-103 C-141

C-92

O ST

C-94

T CO S E OTIS L AV TRA CEN

A TIOG

EG OSW

ST LUS CE L MAR

E ST

ST EN E GR LO D

RD WA HO

WALTON ST

C-175 C-168 TT AYE W F

C-96

S ME JA

E YN WA

W WASHINGTON ST

I 69

Figure 4-2 Clinton Storage Facility

OW LL WI

D EN

RICHMon OND11"x17." AVE ST 1" = 1,380' Map prepared on CY11/20/2014 TRA VD IE BL ERin Figure 4-2: Clinton Storage Facility - GI Projects Service Area

T TER S W WA

S WN TO

Feet

E AV

WILKINSON ST

1,380

HERALD PL

E AT ST

690

Clinton Storage Facility PARK AVE PARK AVE in Service GI Projects Area

RMP

L AR PE

Onondaga County Department ofW Water GENESEE STEnvironment Protection

EVANS S T

WEST ST FR OM I 690 E W BELDEN AVE B

RY KO HIC

E RIN

WB I 69 0

EDISON ST

VE NA O I UN CT PE OS PR

EDISON ST

E TH CA

M PLU

MARQUETTE ST

Section 4  CSO Project Status

4.1.4 Lower Harbor Brook Conveyances and Storage Facility In accordance with the terms and conditions of the ACJ, the Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility (LHBSF), constructed on State Fair Boulevard between Hiawatha Boulevard and West Genesee Street in the City of Syracuse, was able to accept wet weather flow starting December 31, 2013. The constructed facility captures and stores CSO generated by a storm event (up to the 1‐year, 2‐hour design storm event) conveyed from the 60‐inch diameter CSO 003 and the 54‐inch and 48‐inch diameter CSO 004 conveyance sewers. In the future, it will also accept flow from CSO 063 via a 48‐inch conveyance pipeline scheduled for completion in 2015. The measured capacity of the facility is 4.9 MG. The construction of the conveyance pipelines was bid as two contracts; one for the CSO 003/004 pipelines which is complete, and one for the CSO 063 pipeline which is under construction. 4.1.4.1 Lower Harbor Brook (CSO 003/004) Conveyances Project The County issued the Certificate of Beneficial Occupancy for the work associated with the Lower Harbor Brook Conveyance contract effective November 12, 2013. The design engineer, the contractor, and the County signed the certificate on January 15, 2014. The one‐ year guarantee period for the project expired on November 12, 2014. The Certificate of Substantial Completion was issued on December 5, 2014 and a partial release of retainage was processed at this time. The work on this project is complete. Interior of Lower Harbor Brook Storage 4.1.4.2 Lower Harbor Brook Storage Tank Project As of December 31, 2013, the LHBSF was capable of accepting wet weather flow, in accordance with the ACJ milestone of the same date. The first CSO event with combined sewage collected, stored, and pumped back to Metro occurred in January 2014 and the facility has been capturing CSO events up to the one‐year design storm since that time. From January to July 2014, the Contractor continued work on the following items:   

Electrical and Instrumentation to allow automatic operation of the facility Miscellaneous building work Completion of Site Work including paving, tree planting, installation of two bioretention areas, storm sewer replacement along State Fair Boulevard, and modifications to the odor control electrical system to comply with safety requirements.

During this period of time (January to July 2014), the Design Engineer completed programming and the system is now fully functional in automatic mode over the County’s SCADA system.

www.savetherain.us

4-9

Section 4  CSO Project Status

4.1.4.3 Performance Period The contractor’s performance period for the facility began on July 18, 2014 after the instrumentation and controls (SCADA) systems and the odor control system were installed and operating. The contract requires that the Contractor operate the facility for one year or three CSO events of sufficient size to operate all of the equipment and instrumentation systems in automatic mode, whichever occurs sooner. To date, no CSO event has been accepted as a qualifying event in accordance with the contract. A qualifying event is defined as a CSO event of sufficient size to utilize all pumps and operate the flushing device with stored CSO and stored rainwater or potable water. The Performance Period will continue until three qualifying events occur or until July 18, 2015, whichever comes sooner. 4.1.4.4 Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility Service Area and Green Infrastructure Through 2014, eleven GI projects, including three GIF projects, have been constructed within the current service area to the Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility (CSOs 003 and 004). One additional project (H‐33) is not within the service area, but will be upon the completion of the CSO 063 Conveyances project (Section 4.1.6), and at that time the Lower Harbor Brook service area will be expanded to include the CSO 063 basin. These projects include green roofs, bioretention and porous pavements, and the five GI projects completed at the Zoo (Stormwater Wetland and Cistern, Entrance Enhancements, Parking Lot Renovations, Elephant Exhibit Green Roof, and Primate Exhibit/Courtyard improvements). In total, these projects (including H‐ 33) capture impervious area runoff from approximately 13 acres, resulting in approximately 8.6 million gallons of runoff reduction. The Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility service area, the GI project locations within the service area, and a listing of these GI projects are provided in Figure 4‐3.

Rosamond Gifford Zoo Stormwater Wetland One Year after Completion

4-10

www.savetherain.us

T MIL AVE ON

L WIL

H-56

H-24

APPLE ST LA KE VIE W

H-39 N W ILB UR

ER IE B

E AV

SY RA CU

LER YS CR

VE NA R SO YD ER FFE EM CO

AV E

ST BE AR

WILKINSON ST

RICHMOND AVE

LV D

SE ST

HU SC

T RS YLE

W GENESEE ST

PARK AVE

VE IS A

MI HA

T NS LTO

W BELDEN AVE

Y AVE

LVD

ST AVE

Figure Figure 4-3: 4-3: Lower Lower Harbor Harbor Brook Brook Storage Storage Facility Facility - GI Projects in Service Area

ST GA U Y CA

T KA S

AVE

E DEW

RB FAI

E WAIT

RY AVE

E AV EN YD HA

H-05

E TT YE FA

H-05b

TE OT

T IE S ER

AVE LL WE LO

E EUR

SS IAM

TE STA

L WIL

L AR CH

IM RK HE

EB I 690 EDISON ST

WALL ST

R HARBO

LIBERTY ST

H-33

LE RT MY

N RTO MO

IS LEW

IS AR PH

SE ES

BEAR ST TO I 690 WB RMP

N GEDDES ST

Feet

T XS

BL VD

1" = 1,080' on 11"x17." Map prepared on 11/13/2014

SPE NCE R ST

SL EY

I 69

HI AW AT H

G UN

KIN G

DU KE D

LIBERTY ST

END DR

EM CH

AVE

1,080

RE GE

VE OLI

W MARCELLUS ST

H-34 AVE GE

Legend H-20

SALISBURY RD

Harbor Brook Storage Facility GI Project Boundary

H-31 BURN

RK ET PA

SEYMOUR ST

CSO Basin

S G EDDE S

SALISBURY RD

003

H-19

004

Y AM

ID LER

AV E

S ORCHARD RD

S AVERY AV E

VE TA

H-13

AVE ER I T IT

ST OLIA

YAN BR

VE NA SO

N MAG

CA AVO

NY TEN

W FA YETT E

ON LS NE

E AV

VE NA SO Y N TEN

UR LB WI

T SS

AVE

NT SO RT BE RO

H-11

KIN MP TO

LL WE LO

RS STE

AVE DY CO

LE RT MY

ST W GENESEE

GR AN D

ER RN WA AVE AID C N KI VE NA GA R MO

SON AVE

STA TE F AIR BLV D 690 WB RMP

WT OI

WES T

Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility GI Projects in Service Area 540

EME R

BLV D

PU LA SK IS

GIMINSKI DR

HIA WAT HA

Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection

SACKETT ST

E KAN

063 (Future) Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User RRIMAN AVE MECommunity

Section 4  CSO Project Status

4.1.5 Sewer Separation of CSO Areas 022 and 045 In 2014, the contractor completed the final portions of the CSO 022/045 Sewer Separation Project and the project was officially closed out. The completed work included installing the final tree grate supports for the enhanced tree pits, modifying the stormwater planter grading within Robert Haggart Park, replanting honey locust trees in the Park, and other miscellaneous punch list items. The County issued the Certificates of Beneficial Occupancy and Substantial Completion on May 27, 2014 and granted final retainage release in November of 2014. The County performed a monitoring study to verify that the CSO 022/045 Sewer Separation Project correctly separated the sanitary and sewer flow from each structure within the basin. The initial study took place over 2 weeks in April of 2013, during which time each building connection was dye tested and verified by placing a closed‐circuit television (CCTV) recorder downstream of the sanitary and stormwater pipe connections. During this period, the monitoring study determined that two laterals in the basin, one each from 234 Robert Haggart Park in Autumn and 248 West Willow Street, were not connected to the appropriate sewer, causing an illicit discharge to Onondaga Creek. The County notified the property owners of these illicit connections and took steps to limit access to sanitary facilities attached to these laterals until rectified. The implemented plan, completed in June 2013, minimized the impact to both businesses and corrected the issue. Additional monitoring conducted during July 2013 verified this conclusion. The County will issue the final CSO 022/045 Sewer Separation monitoring study in early 2015. This project marks the last sewer separation project under the original Army Corp of Engineers funding agreement with the County. In total, this agreement allowed for the separation of 13 CSO basins and the conversion of as many outfalls to stormwater flow only. The total area of CSO basins separated was approximately 160 acres.

4.1.6 CSO 063 Conveyances Project In 2014, the County completed the design of the CSO 063 Conveyances Project, satisfactorily addressing NYSDEC comments, and the NYSDEC issued a conditional approval of the plans and specifications on May 30, 2014. In order to maximize the use of the construction season the County put the CSO 063 Conveyances out to bid on March 6, 2014. The County held a pre‐bid meeting on March 20, 2014 at which time potential bidders received an overview of the project and posed questions. The County also extended the bid opening date by two weeks to April 28, 2014. At the bid opening, Marcellus Construction Inc. was the apparent low bidder with a total bid of $5,365,007. The County held a post bid meeting with the contractor to discuss the bid and plan for the work on

www.savetherain.us

4-12

Section 4  CSO Project Status

May 16, 2014. Satisfied with the contractor’s plan and ability to perform the work, the County entered into an agreement on July 2, 2014, and issued the Notice to Proceed (NTP) on August 8, 2014. The contractor began the submittal process soon after the NTP was issued. As the submittal reviews progressed, the contractor began to mobilize in October. After mobilization the contractor installed the jacking pit between Harbor Brook and the Syracuse, Binghamton, and New York Railroad tracks. The project includes 150 linear feet of pipeline installed by pipe jacking to minimize the disturbance to the three sets of railroad tracks between the brook and Erie Boulevard West. The contractor also performed the dynamic pile testing on piles installed in the jacking pit. The contractor completed the testing in late November, and then began to install the pipeline starting near Hiawatha Boulevard.

CSO 063 – Jacking Pit for Trenchless Railroad Crossing

Once the Contractor completes the lower section of pipeline up to the and including the railroad crossing, construction activities will move to Erie Boulevard West and eventually to Emerson

CSO 063 Conveyances Project Map showing the new outfall location 4-13

www.savetherain.us

Section 4  CSO Project Status

Avenue, the current location of the CSO 063 regulator. The project will abandon the current CSO 063 overflow pipeline which currently crosses and discharges from private property, and install a new outfall to Harbor Brook near the trenchless railroad crossing. A new regulator and grit chamber will also be installed in the shoulder of Erie Boulevard improving access to both structures. The NYSDEC completion date for this project is October 1, 2015 and the County expects to meet this completion date.

4.1.7 CSO 061 Sewer Separation In 2014, the County initiated the planning and design phases for the Sewer Separation of CSO Area 061 within the Midland Avenue CSO Service Area. The proposed project will separate sanitary and storm flow within the CSO 061 basin. The planning process, initiated prior to the end of 2014, included CSO 061 Project Area Location updating the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) and State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), commencement of the inter‐ municipal agreement between the County and the City, preparation of a preliminary design report, and performing a topographic and utility survey of the proposed project area, so design can progress through the winter.

4.1.8 Gray Infrastructure Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Requirements This section provides a summary of the O&M requirements for gray infrastructure implemented to abate CSO discharges in Onondaga County. The County tracks and schedules O&M tasks using its Maximo software system. Below is a summary of O&M requirements by project type consistent with the USEPA’s suggested proper O&M of combined sewer systems (CSSs) and associated facilities. 

Sewer Separation: Typical O&M for sanitary and storm sewers includes routine inspections and cleaning of the sewers. The City of Syracuse owns the combined sewers separated within the City. As a result, through an Inter‐municipal Agreement (IMA) between the City and the County, the City is responsible for the O&M of the separated basins.



Interceptor/CSO Conveyance Piping: The County applies a tiered approach to its interceptor pipelines and CSO conveyance sewers. Newly‐installed large diameter pipelines have their flushing chambers exercised and maintained after storm events. The County inspects and maintains siphons, CSO regulators, and regulator sewers connected to existing or new smaller diameter pipelines monthly. In addition, the County visually inspects CSO conveyance and interceptor manholes for grit deposition, blockages and deterioration. If excessive grit or debris is present, a crew removes the deposits, followed by cleaning and flushing of the sewer. If the problem persists, the County televises the section of sewer and repairs it if necessary. The grit chambers located along the interceptor sewer alignments are on a yearly cleaning and maintenance schedule.

www.savetherain.us

4-14

Section 4  CSO Project Status



Maintenance of CSO storage and/or treatment facilities during dry weather conditions includes: o Pull and service pumps o Inspect, lubricate and exercise mechanical equipment o Calibrate flow metering/measuring devices o Adjust limits on valves/actuators o Service air handling units o Calibrate gas detectors o Perform house and grounds‐keeping o Prepare and review staffing plans



Operation of CSO storage and/or treatment facilities, pre‐wet weather event includes: o Plan staffing o Check condition/charge chemical feed system (where applicable) Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility – o Record baseline levels and readings Diversion Chamber o Check SCADA system for proper operation o Check equipment fluid levels



Operation of CSO storage and/or treatment facilities during wet weather events includes: o o o o



Operation of CSO storage and/or treatment facilities, post‐wet weather event includes: o o o o o o o



Monitor flow levels Record start and end times and other data on operational logs Monitor and operate equipment Dewater Flush and clean basins and wet wells Flush and clean equipment Remove grit and floatable material Compile/report data Debrief staff Lubricate equipment Check fluid levels

Operation and maintenance of floatable control facilities includes: o Routine visual inspection and cleaning of the facility, specifically the floatables removal equipment o Routine cleaning of associated regulators and chambers o Removal and replacement of net bags following storm events (where applicable) o Removal, cleaning and reinsertion of trash racks following storm events (where applicable)

4-15

www.savetherain.us

Section 4  CSO Project Status

4.2 Green Infrastructure (GI) 4.2.1 Projects Completed Through 2014 Twenty‐two GI projects were completed as part of the Save the Rain (STR) Program in 2014, including 15 GIF projects. These projects are part of a complete list of 169 GI projects implemented in the County and incorporated into the SWMM model. Details including their location, property ownership, year procured, CSO basin, dominant GI technology, impervious drainage area managed, and runoff reduction are provided in Table 4‐2. It is estimated that the completed 169 GI projects, shown in Figure 4‐4, are capturing runoff from 166 impervious acres, reducing stormwater runoff by over 108 MG per year, and providing CSO reduction of approximately 51 MG per year.

Figure 4‐4: Completed 169 GI Projects Map

4.2.2 Projects Currently Under Construction Four GI projects are currently under construction and are expected to be completed in 2015. These projects will be added to the SWMM model after construction is complete and operation has commenced. Details including their location, property ownership, year procured, CSO basin, GI technology, and anticipated impervious drainage area managed are provided in Table 4‐3. The following subparagraphs provide descriptions of each of the four projects. 4.2.2.1 Connective Corridor Phases 2 and 3 Phases 2 and 3 of the Connective Corridor are scheduled to be completed during 2015 with significant progress being made in 2014. The project exemplifies the continued partnership of Onondaga County with the City of Syracuse and Syracuse University. The green infrastructure

www.savetherain.us

4-16

Section 4  CSO Project Status

installed in this project includes porous pavers in parking lanes and snow storage areas, tree pits, and underground infiltration trenches. The green infrastructure installed on Phases 2 and 3 of the Connective Corridor captures runoff from streets, adjacent hardscapes and upstream areas; a total of 623,000 square feet of drainage area. This equates to an estimated 10,975,000 gallons of stormwater capture annually, making this one of the largest projects in the Save the Rain Program to date. These final two phases will complete the Connective Corridor. Phase 1 and Forman Park included similar green Porous Pavers Installed on Phases 2 and 3 of the Connective infrastructure and were constructed Corridor from 2011 to 2013. Upon completion, the Connective Corridor as a whole will provide significant runoff reduction for the Save the Rain Program and also create a valuable link between the Downtown and University communities. When complete, the three phases of the Connective Corridor will capture an estimated 26 million gallons of stormwater each year. 4.2.2.2 GIF #130 – St. Joseph’s Hospital The GIF project at St. Joseph’s Hospital is located at 301 Prospect Avenue. The project consists of a subsurface cistern system that will capture stormwater runoff and slowly release it into the sewer, reducing peak flows during larger rain events. The cistern system will consist of a piping network that collects runoff from a parking lot area of approximately 34,400 square feet and runoff from the roof of the adjacent building with a roof area of 6,500 square feet. Once collected, the water will be conveyed to a 25,477‐gallon subsurface cistern. In total, the project will capture Stormwater Cistern at the Atrium Parking Garage approximately 713,300 gallons of runoff annually. Construction is expected to be completed during summer 2015. 4.2.2.3 Atrium Parking Garage Stormwater Cistern The Atrium Parking Garage Stormwater Cistern has been installed on the ground level floor of the garage, located at the corner of South Franklin Street and West Washington Street. In 2015, the cistern will be connected to an adjacent downspout that collects stormwater from approximately 6,000 square feet of the deck of the garage. Once connected, the cistern will

4-17

www.savetherain.us

Section 4  CSO Project Status

capture approximately 62,000 gallons of stormwater runoff annually and slowly release it back to the sewer system. 4.2.2.4 Harbor Brook CSO 018 Wetland Project The Harbor Brook CSO 018 Constructed Wetlands Pilot Treatment System will serve dual purposes of treating overflows from CSO 018, currently discharged into Harbor Brook, while also acting as a demonstration project to test the effectiveness of three types of constructed wetland treatment systems (floating wetland island, vertical downflow and surface water treatment wetlands). In 2011, the Compensatory Storage portion of the work was completed. Construction of the pilot wetlands treatment system began in 2012, and it will be operational in 2015. Based on the knowledge gained from this pilot project, these wetland systems may be integrated as part of a larger constructed wetland treatment system along Harbor Brook with additional water quality, natural habitat, recreational, educational, and other community benefits. The project is located within the approximately 34 contiguous acres of Onondaga County owned land known as the Velasko Road Detention Basin. This constructed wetland pilot project will treat approximately 14.9 million gallons of combined sewage each year and substantially improve the quality of the stormwater discharge into Harbor Brook.

Harbor Brook CSO 018 Wetlands during Plant Establishment Phase

www.savetherain.us

4-18

Section 4  CSO Project Status

Table 4‐2: Completed Green Infrastructure (GI) Projects through December 31, 2014

Project ID C‐75a

C‐75b

Project Name IMA: SUNY Upstate: Cancer Center Green Roof IMA: SUNY Upstate: Cancer Center Rain Garden

Project Address

Parcel Owner

Year Year Procured Completed

Basin

GI Technology

Impervious Drainage Area (ft2)

Runoff Reduction (gal/yr)

750 E Adams St

Private

2011

2014

034

Green Roof

750 E Adams St

Private

2011

2014

034

Bioretention

2,900

436,000

33,000

233,000

Private

2012

2014

029

Cistern System, Underground Infiltration System

14,700

356,000

C‐96

GIF#034 Pike Block

300 S Salina & W Fayette St

C‐122

GIF#052 St. Lucy's Parking Lot

432 Gifford Street

Private

2013

2014

035

Porous Pavement

15,600

256,000

C‐125

GIF#055 Bethany Baptist Church (Phase I)

149 Beattie Street

Private

2013

2014

EBSS Storm Basin

Porous Pavement Parking Lot, Bioretention

33,200

415,000

C‐153

East Washington Street Green Corridor

727 E Washington St

City of Syracuse

2013

2014

027

Bioretention, Porous Paver Parking Lane, Infiltration Trench

76,900

923,000

900 Irving Ave

Syracuse University

2013

2014

039

Cistern

48,100

903,000

488 W Onondaga St.

Private

2012

2014

036

Porous Pavement Parking Lot

51,000

88,000

Underground infiltration, Bioretention, Pavement Removal

8,000

353,000

Underground Infiltration

41,400

52,000

17,200

233,000

45,600

1,134,000

5,800

276,000

26,000

43,000

22,300

588,000

13,200

155,000

10,800

204,000

51,500

347,000

69,100

233,000

Green Roof

10,400

153,000

C‐155

C‐159

Carrier Dome Rainwater Harvesting System GIF#073 Onondaga Commons (Rural Metro)

C‐165

GIF#075 Syracuse Center for Peace and Social Justice

2013 East Genesee Street

Private

2012

2014

EBSS Storm Basin

C‐172

GIF#122 Butternut Commons

Butternut Street and North Townsend Street

Private

2014

020

506 West Onondaga St

Private

2013

2014

036

414‐16 West Onondaga Street

Private

2014

036

C‐181

C‐192

GIF#091 Onondaga Commons Parking Lot/Roof GIF#090 Onondaga Commons Rural Metro

Porous Pavement Parking Lot, Pavement Removal Porous Pavement Parking Lot, Pavement Removal Porous Pavement Parking Lot, Pavement Removal Porous Pavement, Cistern System, Bioretention

C‐195

GIF#102 JNJ Syracuse

725 East Fayette Street

Private

2014

027

C‐196

GIF#103 VanKeuren Square

2223 East Genesee Street

Private

2013

2014

EBSS Storm Basin

C‐202

GIF#105 JC Smith, Inc. 338 Peat Street

338 Peat Street

Private

2013

2014

EBSS Storm Basin

C‐204

GIF#123 University Hill Apartments

205 Westcott Street

Private

2013

2014

EBSS Storm Basin

C‐214

GIF#121 Taksum Development

708 East Genesee Street

Private

2014

027

C‐217

GIF#096 Bethany Baptist Church (Phase 2)

149 Beatie Street

Private

2013

2014

EBSS Storm Basin

C‐219

GIF#125 Nojaims' Grocery Store

307 Gifford Street

Private

2014

035,036

2308 Grant Blvd

City of Syracuse

2014

020‐2

147 Hughes Place & 220 Lorraine Ave

Syracuse City School District

2014

077

Rain Garden, Pavement Removal

53,900

858,000

Infiltration Trench, Porous Pavement, Bioretention

50,200

623,000

Separated Sewer

509,100

7,767,000

F‐07

M‐29bc

Magnarelli Community Center Green Roof Vacant Lots at 147 Hughes Place and 220 Lorraine Avenue

Porous Pavement, Added Green Space Porous Pavement, Drywell, Added Green Space Porous Pavement Parking Lot, Pavement Removal Porous Pavement Parking Lot, Pavement Removal Underground Infiltration Trench, Porous Pavement, Pavement Removal

M‐43

Green Park: Comfort Tyler Park

1212‐14 E Colvin St and Comstock Ave

City of Syracuse

2014

077

C‐29f

West Fayette Street Sewer Separation

West Fayette Street between the Creek and Salina Street

City of Syracuse

2013

027/029

C‐69

GIF#017 Create Public Art

713 E. Fayette St

Private

2012

2013

027

Green Roof, Porous Pavement Parking Lot, Pavement Removal

5,900

125,000

C‐73

West Onondaga Street Green Corridor

From W Adams to South Ave

City of Syracuse

2013

036

Green Street

317,200

5,355,000

C‐86a

Bank Street/Alley Storm Sewer

Alley between E Washington and E Fayette St

City of Syracuse

2012

2013

027

Infiltration Trench

24,700

312,000

4-19

www.savetherain.us

Section 4  CSO Project Status

Table 4‐2: Completed Green Infrastructure (GI) Projects through December 31, 2014

Project ID

Project Name

Project Address

Parcel Owner

Year Year Procured Completed

Basin

Impervious Drainage Area (ft2)

Runoff Reduction (gal/yr)

GI Technology Bioretention, Porous Pavement Parking Lot, 2,500 Street Trees, Pavement Removal Porous Pavement Parking Lot, 26,200 Bioretention, Pavement Removal Bioretention, Vegetative Swale, 5,500 Stormwater Planter Stormwater Planter ‐ Raised, Porous 20,400 Pavement Parking Lot, Tree Trench Porous Pavement Parking Lot, Street 34,300 Trees

C‐94

GIF#032 Consuela’s Westside Taqueria and BBQ

523 Marcellus St

Private

2012

2013

028

C‐102

IMA: Leonard Apartments

400‐412 W Onondaga Private St / 828 S West St

2013

036

C‐103

GIF#039 Home HeadQuarters Marcellus

223 Marcellus St.

Private

2013

028

C‐128

GIF#058 Loon Creek Properties

601 E. Genesee Street Private

2012

2013

030

C‐129

GIF#059 McMahon‐ Ryan Child Advocacy Center

601 E. Genesee Street Private

2012

2013

030

C‐140

GIF#061 The Spa at 500 Green Roof

500 W Onondaga St

Private

2013

036

Green Roof

5,600

91,000

C‐141

GIF#062 Peace Incorporated

200 Wyoming Street

Private

2013

028

Porous Pavement Parking Lot, Pavement Removal

6,800

127,000

C‐149

GIF#063 Brewster Medical Properties

1200‐1224 E Genesee St

Private

2013

030

Infiltration Bed, Cistern/Rain Barrel

C‐151

GIF#065 Housing Visions

114‐116 Hawley Ave

Private

2012

2013

080A

Porous Pavement, Bioretention, Cistern/Rain Barrel, Landscape Restoration

32,300

529,000

C‐156

GIF#070 Onondaga Commons (Slocum Ave)

207‐11,213,215 Slocum Ave

Private

2012

2013

036

Porous Pavement Parking Lot

19,500

450,000

C‐157

GIF#071 Onondaga Commons (Harris Health Center)

301 Slocum Ave

Private

2012

2013

036

Porous Pavement Parking Lot, Pavement Removal

12,100

244,000

C‐158

GIF#072 Onondaga Commons (Lean On Me Daycare)

422‐28 W Onondaga St

Private

2012

2013

036

Porous Pavement Parking Lot, Pavement Removal

30,300

618,000

C‐166

GIF#076 360 Warren Associates

125 East Jefferson Street

Private

2012

2013

030

Green Roof

14,600

882,000

C‐168

GIF#079 Near Westside Initiative Case Supply

104 Marcellus Street

Private

2013

026,028

Bioretention, Pavement Removal

10,300

70,000

C‐169

GIF#080 Grace Episcopal Church

819 Madison Street

Private

2012

2013

080B

14,400

242,000

C‐175

GIF#084 WCNY Case Supply Building

415 W Fayette St & Wyoming St

Private

2013

026,028

61,200

389,000

C‐176

GIF#085 Graham Millwork Co

126 Richmond Ave

Private

2012

2013

066

Green Roof

5,800

63,000

C‐190

GIF#100 Salt Quarters

109‐15 Otisco Street

Private

2013

031

Bioretention, Porous Pavement Parking Lot, Pavement Removal

17,400

105,000

C‐191

GIF#101 Erie Bruce Corp.

2112 Erie Boulevard East

Private

2013

EBSS Storm Basin

Bioretention, Porous Pavement Parking Lot

38,800

501,000

C‐198

Road Reconstruction: Oneida Street

City of Syracuse

2013

037

Infiltration Trench

89,400

1,462,000

C‐199

Road Reconstruction: South Clinton Street

City of Syracuse

2013

037

Infiltration Trench

50,700

872,000

C‐201

Road Reconstruction: Richmond Ave

City of Syracuse

2013

007,066

Infiltration Trench

82,400

1,038,000

C‐212

GIF#117 United Auto Supply

450 Tracy Street

Private

2013

066

Infiltration Bed

42,500

460,000

E‐33

I‐690 Downspout Disconnections

I‐690 between Willow, James and State St.

New York State DOT

2013

080A, EBSS Storm Basin

Infiltration Trench, Bioretention

138,800

2,758,000

E‐40ab

Westcott Street Green Westcott St from Dell Corridor and Knoll to S. Beech St

City of Syracuse

2013

EBSS Storm Basin

Porous Pavement Parking Lane, Infiltration Trench

88,800

999,000

www.savetherain.us

Oneida Street between W Adams and Temple St S. Clinton Street between W. Adams St. and Temple St. Richmond Ave. between N. Geddes St. and Van Renssellaer St

Rain Garden, Porous Pavement, Pavement Removal Pavement Removal, Bioretention, Porous Pavement Parking Lot, Street Trees

57,000

357,000

84,000

329,000

681,000

854,000

47,100

4-20

Section 4  CSO Project Status

Table 4‐2: Completed Green Infrastructure (GI) Projects through December 31, 2014

Project ID H‐31

Project Name Rosamond Gifford Zoo: Stormwater Wetland

Project Address

Parcel Owner

Year Year Procured Completed

Basin

One Conservation Place

County of Onondaga

2013

004

GI Technology Stormwater Wetland, Cistern/Rain Barrel

Runoff Reduction (gal/yr)

99,000

847,000

29,800

551,000

224,800

3,938,000

55,400

934,000

35,600

492,000

H‐33

Green Park: Lewis Park

305 Lewis St and 825 Milton Ave

City of Syracuse Parks Department

2012

2013

003,063

H‐34

Rosamond Gifford Zoo: Parking Lot

One Conservation Place

County of Onondaga

2012

2013

004

H‐36

Green Park: Wadsworth Park

1204 Glenwood Ave and Wolcott Ave

City of Syracuse Parks Department

2012

2013

018

H‐39

GIF#077 St. Patrick's Apartments

216 North Lowell Ave. Private

2013

004

H‐40

Infiltration Basin at Woodland Reservoir

Stolp Avenue and Hancock Drive

City of Syracuse

2013

017

Infiltration Bed

24,400

456,000

H‐48

GIF#083 Smith Housing

542‐548 Seymour Street

Private

2012

2013

011

Porous Pavement Parking Lot

11,700

214,000

H‐52

GIF#099 VNA Home Care

1050 W Genesee St

Private

2013

005

Infiltration Bed, Cistern/Rain Barrel

24,300

434,000

H‐53

GIF#113 Genesee Plaza

1001‐1055 West Genesee Street

Private

2013

006A

Infiltration Trench, Pavement Removal

206,500

3,325,000

M‐12a

Green Roof at the Salina Street Post Office

2200 S. Salina St

United States Postal Service

2012

2013

060/077

Green Roof

11,600

268,000

M‐16

SUNY ESF Gateway Building

1 Forestry Drive

SUNY ESF

2010

2013

039

Green Roof

9,500

194,000

Private

2011

2013

060/077

Porous Pavement Parking Lot

5,700

119,000

Private

2011

2013

077

Porous Pavement Parking Lot

8,700

181,000

Porous Pavement Parking Lot, Porous Paver Sidewalk, Tree Trench, Pavement Removal

10,300

177,000

M‐31 M‐32

GIF#025 Salina Shoe 2809 S. Salina Street Company Inc GIF#027 People's AME 2226‐28 South Salina Zion Church Parking St. Lot

M‐51

GIF#107 South Side Community Coalition

C‐07

OnCenter Parking Garage

C‐11

Commercial Green Streets: Harrison Street

C‐12a

Townsend St Median Revegetation Phase 1

C‐28

IMA: SUNY Upstate: Biotechnology Center

820‐900 E. Water St.

Connective Corridor Phase 1 ‐ Contract 1 (University Ave) Connective Corridor Phase 1 ‐ Contract 2 (E. Genesee St)

University Ave, from E Genesee to Waverly City of Syracuse St E Genesee St from University Ave to City of Syracuse Forman Ave

C‐33

Cistern System at the War Memorial

200 Madison Street

C‐38

OnCenter Surface Parking Lot

C‐29a

C‐29b

C‐48

C‐54c

C‐54d

C‐54e

Green Roof at the Erie Canal Museum Visitor Center Downtown Streetscape: 200 Water Street (North) Downtown Streetscape: 200 Montgomery Street (West) Downtown Streetscape: 200

4-21

2331 South Salina Street

Porous Pavement Roadway, Porous Pavement Court Porous Pavement Parking Lot, Bioretention, Vegetated Infiltration Basin, Infiltration Bed Infiltration Bed, Pavement Removal, Bioretention Cistern/Rain Barrel, Porous Pavement Parking Lot, Pavement Removal

Impervious Drainage Area (ft2)

Private

2013

060/077

County of Onondaga

2011

2012

034

Bioretention

72,500

1,177,000

City of Syracuse

2011

2012

034

Stormwater Planter ‐ Sidewalk

10,200

178,000

City of Syracuse

2012

030,034

Landscape Restoration

18,000

392,000

SUNY Upstate

2012

027

Bioretention, Pavement Removal

179,800

1,974,000

2011

2012

030,080B

Green Street

294,000

4,388,000

2011

2012

030,080B

Green Street

160,700

2,885,000

County of Onondaga

2011

2012

034

Cistern/Rain Barrel

59,200

288,000

801 ‐ 813 S. State Street; 422 ‐ 434 Harrison St

County of Onondaga

2011

2012

034

Tree Trench, Porous Pavement Parking Lot

318 Erie Blvd. East

County of Onondaga

2011

2012

027

Green Roof

2,200

51,000

200 block E Water

City of Syracuse

2011

2012

027

Tree Trench Silva Cells High

7,400

107,000

300 block Montgomery

City of Syracuse

2011

2012

027

Tree Trench Silva Cells High

9,500

137,000

200 block Montgomery St

City of Syracuse

2012

027

Tree Trench Standard

10,400

152,000

817 ‐ 835 S. State Street and E. Adams Street Harrison Street, from Montgomery to State Streets S Townsend St, from E Adams St to E Genesee St

134,000

www.savetherain.us

2,417,000

Section 4  CSO Project Status

Table 4‐2: Completed Green Infrastructure (GI) Projects through December 31, 2014

Project ID

C‐54f

Project Name Montgomery Street (East) Downtown Streetscape: 100 South State Street (West) Green School: SCSD Institute of Technology Green School: Seymour Academy Playground

Project Address

Parcel Owner

Year Year Procured Completed

Basin

GI Technology

Impervious Drainage Area (ft2)

Runoff Reduction (gal/yr)

100 S. State St.

City of Syracuse

2012

027

Tree Trench Standard

15,200

224,000

258 E. Adams St.

Syracuse City School District

2011

2012

037

Sewer Separation

127,800

2,154,000

108 Shonnard Street

Syracuse City School District

2012

036

40,300

161,000

Water Street Green Gateway

300 Block of East Water Street

City of Syracuse

2011

2012

027

52,500

866,000

Otisco Street Green Corridor ‐ Phase 1 GIF#024 CNY Regional Transportation Authority

from Ontario St to Seneca St

City of Syracuse

2011

2012

011,031

162,400

1,959,000

624‐662 South Warren Street

Private

2011

2012

034

Infiltration Trench

71,000

193,000

C‐85

SCSD Central Offices

725 Harrison Street

Syracuse City School District

2011

2012

034

Porous Pavement Parking Lot, Infiltration Trench

124,600

2,130,000

C‐95

IMA: SUNY Upstate: Townsend Towers

507‐523 E Adams Street

SUNY Upstate Medical University

2012

034

Bioretention

45,800

857,000

C‐99

Vacant Lot: 701 Oswego St.

701 Oswego Street

City of Syracuse

2011

2012

036

Urban Garden, Infiltration Trench

14,700

192,000

C‐101

Green Park: Skiddy Park (Site)

Tully St between Oswego and Tioga

City of Syracuse

2011

2012

031,032

27,700

240,000

C‐105

GIF#041 CNY Philanthropy Center

431 E Fayette St

Private

2012

027

10,800

81,000

C‐108

GIF#044 American Beech

500 Westcott Street

Private

2012

EBSS Storm Basin

5,600

178,000

C‐110

Seymour Academy Parking Lot

180 Shonnard St

Syracuse City School District

2012

036

Porous Pavement Parking Lot

28,300

510,000

5,900

96,000

8,000

144,000

8,200

150,000

73,800

864,000

C‐55

C‐60

C‐61

C‐74a C‐78

Bioretention, Pavement Removal, Tree Trench Porous Pavement Parking Lot, Green Street, Infiltration Trench Curb Extension, Pavement Removal

Stormwater Planter, Porous Pavement, Pavement Removal Porous Pavement Parking Lot, Bioretention, Green Roof Porous Pavement Parking Lot, Cistern/Rain Barrel

C‐118

GIF#047 Gemmi Boy

508‐510 Westcott Street

Private

2012

EBSS Storm Basin

Cistern/Rain Barrel, Infiltration Bed, Pavement Removal, Porous Pavement Parking Lot

C‐119

GIF#048 Mister Lady Bug

500‐506 Westcott Street

Private

2012

EBSS Storm Basin

Porous Pavement

C‐121

GIF#051 Park Central Presbyterian Church

509 E Fayette St

Private

2012

1054 East Genesee St

Private

2012

301 Park Ave and Matty Ave

City of Syracuse Parks Department

2012

066

Bioretention, Porous Pavement Court

93,000

1,199,000

511 East Fayette St.

Private

2012

027

Cistern/Rain Barrel

18,800

260,000

Tree Trench, Infiltration Trench, Cistern/Rain Barrel, Pavement Removal

7,300

92,000

Bioretention, Porous Pavement Parking Lot

152,000

1,695,000

C‐126

C‐132 C‐139

GIF#056 Copper Beech Commons Student Housing Green Park: Leavenworth/Barker Park GIF#060 Kopp Billing Agency

Porous Pavement Parking Lot, Street Trees Porous Pavement 027,030,080C Parking Lot, Infiltration Trench 027

C‐164

GIF#074 Synapse Downtown

360 Erie Boulevard East & East Water Street

Private

2012

EBSS Storm Basin

C‐167

GIF#078 Teall Centre

1605‐41 Erie Blvd

Private

2012

EBSS Storm Basin

C‐173

GIF#082 100 Clinton Square

100 Clinton Square

Private

2012

021

Infiltration Trench

85,000

1,034,000

C‐186

Tree Pit Pilot Project

441 South Salina Street

City of Syracuse

2012

034

Porous Pavement Sidewalk

3,000

51,000

C‐220

St. Joseph's Hospital Campus Expansion and Redevelopment

301 Prospect Ave.

Private

2010

2012

020

Green Roof

51,000

725,000

E‐08

Green Library: Petit Branch

105 Victoria Place

City of Syracuse

2012

EBSS Storm Basin

Porous Pavement Parking Lot

15,100

168,000

www.savetherain.us

4-22

Section 4  CSO Project Status

Table 4‐2: Completed Green Infrastructure (GI) Projects through December 31, 2014

Project ID

Project Name

Project Address

Parcel Owner

Year Year Procured Completed

Basin

E‐12

Dr Edwin E Weeks Elementary School

710 Hawley Ave

Syracuse City School District

2011

2012

080A

E‐16

Lower Sunnycrest Park

Caleb Ave

City of Syracuse Parks Department

2011

2012

080H

E‐39

East Water Street Pavement Removal

Intersection of S Beech and E Water at Erie Blvd.

City of Syracuse

2011

2012

EBSS Storm Basin

E‐43

Westcott Community Center

822‐26 Euclid Ave and City of Syracuse Westcott St

2012

EBSS Storm Basin

GI Technology Bioretention

Impervious Drainage Area (ft2)

Runoff Reduction (gal/yr)

123,700

1,512,000

36,000

227,000

44,300

449,000

Porous Pavement Parking Lot

8,700

100,000

24,200

728,000

70,900

1,267,000

Pavement Removal, Bioretention, Storage Bed Tree Trench, Porous Pavement, Pavement Removal

F‐02

Green Library: White Branch

763 Butternut St

City of Syracuse

2012

020‐2

Infiltration Trench, Cistern/Rain Barrel, Porous Pavement Parking Lot, Bioretention

F‐04a

City Parking Lot #4

Butternut and N State Sts

New York State DOT

2012

020‐1

Porous Pavement Parking Lot

F‐04b

North State Street Green Street

N State St bw Butternut and Ash

City of Syracuse

2012

020‐1

Bioretention, Bioretention

H‐05

Green Roof at Hazard Branch Library

1620 West Genesee St

City of Syracuse

2011

2012

003

Green Roof

5,400

123,000

H‐05b

Green Library: Hazard Branch Site Improvements

1620 West Genesee St

City of Syracuse

2012

003

Porous Pavement Parking Lot, Bioretention

21,800

408,000

H‐06

Green Library: Mundy Branch

1204 South Geddes St City of Syracuse

2012

014

Tree Trench, Porous Pavement Parking Lot

12,100

228,000

H‐11

Pass Arboretum

Avery Ave and Tompkins St

City of Syracuse Parks Department

2011

2012

004

Bioretention

38,800

682,000

H‐13

Zoo Entrance Enhancements and Coleridge Ave. Widening

S Wilbur Ave and Coleridge Ave

City of Syracuse

2011

2012

004

Bioretention

38,600

686,000

H‐17

Rain Garden at Grand & Delaware

Grand Ave & Delaware St

City of Syracuse

2011

2012

014

Bioretention, Porous Pavement Roadway

27,000

534,000

H‐24

GIF#031 ARC of Onondaga County

401 Lowell Ave.

Private

2011

2012

004

Porous Pavement Parking Lot

14,000

266,000

H‐30

Vacant Lot: 1344‐50 W. Onondaga St

Arthur St and W Onondaga St

City of Syracuse

2012

015

Bioretention, Urban Forestry

7,500

131,000

H‐38

Vacant Lot: 224‐226 Putnam Street

224, 226 Putnam St

City of Syracuse

2012

014

Bioretention, Urban Forestry

7,800

132,000

200 S Geddes St.

Private

2012

010

Green Roof

12,800

295,000

109 Hartson Street

City of Syracuse

2012

014

Bioretention, Urban Forestry

6,500

109,000

H‐41 H‐44

GIF#069 Vibrant Syracuse Spaces Green Roof Vacant Lot: 109 Hartson Street

60,400

1,207,000

H‐47

Road Reconstruction: Gifford Street

Geddes St to Ontario St

City of Syracuse

2012

011

Infiltration Trench

72,600

1,259,000

H‐56

GIF#081 Brooklyn Pickle

1600 West Genesee Street

Private

2012

004

Bioretention, Infiltration Trench

4,000

45,000

M‐10b

Green Library: Beauchamp Site Improvements

2111 S. Salina St

City of Syracuse

2012

060/077

Bioretention

12,900

234,000

M‐23

Greening the Grey in Basin 044

400‐700 W Castle Street

Private

2011

2012

044

Bioretention

52,200

487,000

370 Jamesville Ave

Syracuse City School District

2011

2012

077

Infiltration Bed, Porous Pavement Parking Lot

80,200

1,178,000

2307‐2315 S. Salina St Private

2012

077

Green Roof

5,500

120,000

19,000

M‐29

M‐35

Hughes Magnet School Parking Lot GIF#030 The People's Community Development Corporation

M‐37

Rooftop Disconnect in CSO 045

119 Crescent Ave

Private

2011

2012

045

Downspout Disconnect 3,900

M‐52

Road Reconstruction: South State Street

From Kennedy to E Colvin

City of Syracuse

2012

044

Infiltration Trench

133,200

1,435,000

M‐53

Road Reconstruction: Sumner Ave.

From Euclid to Stratford

City of Syracuse

2012

077

Infiltration Trench

17,900

329,000

4-23

www.savetherain.us

Section 4  CSO Project Status

Table 4‐2: Completed Green Infrastructure (GI) Projects through December 31, 2014

Project ID M‐61

Project Name OEI Demonstration Rain Garden: 133 Vale Street

Project Address

Parcel Owner

Year Year Procured Completed

Basin

GI Technology

Impervious Drainage Area (ft2)

Runoff Reduction (gal/yr)

133 Vale Street

Private

2012

067

Bioretention

100

6,000

C‐09

Townsend Parking Lot B

431 Harrison St & Townsend Street

County of Onondaga

2010

2011

034

Tree Trench Standard

55,400

1,009,000

C‐12b

Townsend St Median Revegetation Phase 2

E. Adams St to E. Taylor St

City of Syracuse

2011

034

Pavement Removal

3,000

59,000

C‐34

Green Roof at OnCenter

800 S. State Street

County of Onondaga

2011

034

Green Roof

66,000

1,515,000

C‐45

GIF#018 Putnam Properties

210 E. Fayette St.

Private

2011

030

Green Roof

2,700

61,000

C‐51

GIF#001 The Spa at 500 W. Onondaga

500 W. Onondaga St

Private

2010

2011

036

Porous Pavement Parking Lot, Rain Garden

8,000

128,000

C‐56

GIF#012 The Galleries Office Towers

147 E. Onondaga St.

Private

2010

2011

034

Porous Pavement Parking Lot

20,000

462,000

C‐57

GIF#013 The Monroe Building

333 E. Onondaga St.

Private

2011

030

Green Roof

5,200

64,000

C‐58

GIF#007 Hotel Skyler

609 S. Crouse Ave.

Private

2010

2011

080B

Porous Pavement Parking Lot

9,800

226,000

C‐70

GIF#020 St Lucy's Church

316 ‐ 318 ‐ 320 Seymour Street

Private

2011

035,036

Porous Pavement Parking Lot

18,000

321,000

441 E. Washington Street

Private

2011

027

Green Roof

2,500

33,000

Tully St between Oswego and Tioga

City of Syracuse

2011

031

Porous Pavement Court

E Adams St and Comstock Ave

Syracuse University

2011

030

Porous Pavement Parking Lot

4,000

80,000

Syracuse University

2011

080B

Porous Pavement Parking Lot

7,300

161,000

City of Syracuse

2011

EBSS Storm Basin

Infiltration Trench

38,500

365,000

Syracuse City School District

2010

2011

080H

Bioretention, Cistern/

1,700

24,000

108,200

1,096,000

11,000

258,000

C‐79

C‐92

C‐146 C‐147 E‐10

E‐34

GIF#026 Central New York Jazz Arts Foundation GIF#040 Courts4Kids: Skiddy Park Porous Basketball Courts Havens Parking Lot at SU

Waverly Parking Lot at 805 South Crouse SU Avenue Concord Place from Road Reconstruction: Westcott St. to Allen Concord Place St. Rain Garden at Henninger High 600 Robinson St School

Bioretention, Pavement Removal, Porous Pavement Parking Lot Porous Pavement Parking Lot, Bioretention

329,000

19,500

E‐36

Upper Sunnycrest Park

St. Anne Dr and Robinson St

City of Syracuse Parks Department

2011

080H

H‐07

GIF#011 Vibrant Syracuse Spaces

196 S. Geddes St

Private

2011

010

H‐08

Road Reconstruction: Geddes Street

300‐500 blocks S. Geddes St

City of Syracuse

2011

011

Bioretention

H‐19

Rosamond Gifford Zoo: Elephant Exhibit

One Conservation Place

County of Onondaga

2011

004

Green Roof

11,000

185,000

Rosamond Gifford Zoo: Primate Exhibit GIF#009 SUNY ESF Residence Hall (Centennial Hall)

One Conservation Place

County of Onondaga

2010

2011

004

Porous Pavement Sidewalk

16,500

283,000

1 Forestry Drive

SUNY ESF

2010

2011

039

Porous Pavement Sidewalk

3,500

81,000

H‐20 M‐17

543,000

29,700

M‐20

GIF#008 Dunbar Association

1453 S. State St.

Private

2010

2011

039

Porous Pavement Parking Lot

18,800

392,000

M‐24

GIF#003 Syracuse Model Neighborhood Corp

1721 S. Salina Street

Private

2011

044

Porous Pavement Parking Lot, Bioretention

22,000

508,000

M‐36

GIF#033 Matawon Development Group

2221 South Salina Street

Private

2011

077

Infiltration Bed

3,300

57,000

M‐44

Site Improvements at Bishop Foery Center

Edmund Ave

Private

2011

067

Bioretention

1,500

17,000

M‐45

Rain Garden at Barnabas Center

1941 S Salina St

Private

2011

044‐2

Bioretention

2,000

23,000

M‐49

Stadium Parking Lot at Stadium Place at E SU Raynor Ave

Syracuse University

2011

039

Porous Pavement Parking Lot

138,000

2,231,000

www.savetherain.us

4-24

Section 4  CSO Project Status

Table 4‐2: Completed Green Infrastructure (GI) Projects through December 31, 2014

Project ID

Project Name

C‐01

City Parking Lot #21

C‐20

Green Roof at Center of Excellence

C‐21

GIF#004 Jefferson Clinton Commons

C‐31

C‐52

GIF#010 Near Westside Initiative Lincoln Supply GIF#006 Green Roof at King & King Architects

Project Address Southwest corner of W. Washington and Clinton Streets

Parcel Owner

Year Year Procured Completed

Basin

GI Technology

Impervious Drainage Area (ft2)

Runoff Reduction (gal/yr)

Syracuse Urban Renewal Agency

2010

027

Tree Trench Standard

26,200

127,000

727 E. Washington Street

Syracuse University

2010

027

Green Roof

17,000

216,000

500 S. Clinton St

Private

2010

030

Porous Pavement Parking Lot, Green Roof

19,000

693,000

109 Otisco St

Private

2010

032

Bioretention

27,000

624,000

358 W. Jefferson St.

Private

2010

028, 031

Green Roof

11,200

259,000

7,400

171,000

C‐59

GIF#015 Near West Side Initiative: Artist Studio

109‐115 Otisco & Wyoming St

Private

2010

032

Porous Pavement Sidewalk, Vegetated Infiltration Basin, Bioretention

C‐93

Seymour School Rain Garden

108 Shonnard Street

Syracuse City School District

2010

036

Bioretention

600

11,000

E‐06

City Parking Lot #3

101 Oswego Blvd

Syracuse Urban Renewal Agency

2010

EBSS Storm Basin

Porous Pavement Parking Lot

38,500

708,000

F‐01

Pearl Street Parking Lot

400 block of Pearl Street

New York State DOT

2010

021

Porous Pavement Parking Lot

73,000

1,143,000

H‐16

Porous Concrete Sidewalk on Grand Ave

100 Grand Ave

City of Syracuse

2010

014

Porous Pavement Sidewalk

600

13,000

M‐15

IMA: SUNY ESF Parking Project at Bray Hall

19,400

314,000

M‐60

SUNY ESF: Baker Lab Baker Lab on Campus Stormwater Collection Drive West System

6,300

105,000

TOTALS

1 Forestry Drive/930 Irving Ave Rear

SUNY ESF

2009

2010

039

Cistern/Rain Barrel, Porous Pavement Parking Lot, Landscape Restoration, Bioretention

SUNY ESF

2010

039

Cistern/Rain Barrel

7,184,100 107,248,000

NOTE: The green infrastructure database is constantly being updated as information is received. Post‐construction as‐built information is incorporated upon receipt. For this reason, there might be slight variations in database information versus SWMM versus www.savetherain.us at any point in time.

4-25

www.savetherain.us

Section 4  CSO Project Status

Table 4‐3: Green Infrastructure (GI) Projects Under Construction as of December 31, 2014 Project ID

Project Name

Project Address

Parcel Owner

Year Procured

Basin

GI Technology

Impervious Drainage Area (ft2)

Expected Completion

C‐228

GIF#130 St. Joseph's Hospital

301 Prospect Ave

Private

2014

021

Subsurface Storage/Cistern System

40,500

Summer 2015

C‐29de

Connective Corridor Phase 2/3

East Genesee St from Forman Ave to State St and West Fayette from Townsend to West St

City of Syracuse

2013

026, 027, 029, 030

Porous Pavement/Underground Infiltration

623,100

Summer 2015

C‐42

Private Parking Garage: Atrium Garage SW Cistern

S. Franklin St and W Washington St

Private

2012

027

Cistern

6,000

Spring 2015

H‐14

Harbor Brook CSO 018 Wetland Project

Velasko Rd & Grand Ave

County of Onondaga

2012

018

Constructed Wetland

1,996,000

Spring 2015

2,665,600

TOTAL NOTE: Impervious Drainage Area is estimated and pending receipt of as‐built data.

4-26

www.savetherain.us

Section 4  CSO Project Status

4.2.3 GI Projects Proposed for 2015 and Beyond The 66 GI projects listed in Table 4‐4 represent identified GI opportunities and have been sorted by their project ID; 37 are GIF projects. Table 4‐4 provides details including their location, property ownership, CSO basin, GI technology (if known), and anticipated impervious drainage area to be managed (if known). These projects are currently under review by the Green Planning Committee (Section 4.2.5) for potential implementation in 2015 and beyond. Additional projects not listed may be developed by the Green Planning Committee during 2015. 4.2.3.1 GI Opportunities for the “I‐81 Challenge” One project that presents a significant opportunity for GI implementation that will be constructed, but will not be complete until after the final ACJ milestone, is the Interstate‐81 highway replacement (currently known as the “I‐81 Challenge” http://thei81challenge.org/). This project will be constructed either as a new elevated highway, or as one of several other options, including a boulevard at grade. Regardless of the merits of the multiple alternatives presented, one thing that the County strongly supports is that the alternative be responsible with respect to its stormwater management. Onondaga County expects the New York State Department of Transportation will do its part to help protect the environment, comply with the NYSDEC Stormwater Management Design Manual, and utilize best practices that will avoid direct connection to the County combined sewer system. To accomplish these goals, the County encourages the incorporation of GI features into the project to the greatest extent possible. Subsurface storage and infiltration zones could easily be accommodated within the right‐of‐way either below an elevated highway, or below the pavement of a boulevard system, and multiple attractive bioretention areas could be included in grade‐level pockets where space allows. Application of this technology for the elevated highway alternative has already been demonstrated as part of the I‐690 Downspout Disconnection project (E‐33), and numerous examples would apply for the at‐grade alternative, most notably the Connective Corridor (C‐29).

Bioretention Area at Site 6 of the I‐690 Downspout Disconnections Project

To put into perspective the importance of this issue to the Syracuse community, the I‐81 project will cut through many high priority sewersheds in the combined sewer system, affecting over 35 acres of impervious area. This translates to over 33 million gallons of stormwater runoff. The potential to reduce CSO discharges and improve local receiving water quality is tremendous. The County recognizes that this project will not affect ACJ milestone compliance, but the opportunity to impact the long term legacy of the Save the Rain program is extraordinary. Looking forward, this project has the potential to be the single most important environmental issue facing the community, and the County urges all parties to become active in ensuring that the selected alternative be stormwater responsible.

4-27

www.savetherain.us

Section 4  CSO Project Status

This project opportunity illustrates the value of the County’s balanced green‐gray approach to CSO control. The integration of redevelopment projects such as this one, over time, has the potential to impact environmental quality in a positive way. This would be less true (if at all) with a gray only approach. Not only can large transportation projects affect the future of our water environment, but the aggregate of smaller private (and public) redevelopments can have significant impacts as well. With stronger stormwater management requirements, such as through an improved City of Syracuse Stormwater Ordinance, the community can benefit from these responsibly developed projects. Unfortunately, the alternative is also true, and without vigilance, backsliding on progress already made is possible if development projects revert to the same methods that created the problem in the first place. The I‐81 Challenge website states that “the project has transitioned from the I‐81 Corridor Planning Study to the I‐81 Viaduct Project environmental review process” and that “the people of greater Syracuse have an opportunity to provide comments and ideas that will help shape the project.”

The “I‐81 Challenge” presents a significant opportunity for GI implementation.

WWW.SAVETHERAIN.US

4-28

Section 4  CSO Project Status

Table 4‐4: Green Infrastructure (GI) Projects Proposed for 2015 and Beyond

Project ID

Project Name

Project Address

Basin

Parcel Owner

GI Technology

Impervious Drainage Area (ft2)

C‐49

Wyoming Street Green Street

Wyoming St. from Gifford Street to Marcellus Street

028, 031

City of Syracuse

Green Street

TBD

C‐109

GIF#045 Pemco Montgomery

217 Montgomery Street

027

Private

Underground Infiltration

48,500

C‐137

Green Park: Schiller Park

112 Whitwell Dr

020‐2

City of Syracuse Parks Department

TBD

C‐178

GIF#089 COTA Development

624‐628 E Willow St

080A

Private

Porous Pavement

14,500

C‐179

Sidewalk Removal at County Court House

511 S State Street

030

City of Syracuse

TBD

414‐416 W Onondaga St

036

Private

Cistern

6,100

225 Wilkinson Street

066

Private

6,100

225 Wilkinson Street

066

Private

Porous Pavement/Added Green Space

C‐182 C‐183 C‐184

GIF#092 Onondaga Commons Garage Building Cistern GIF#093 Syracuse Business Center GIF#094 Superior Office Interiors

C‐194

GIF#098 Open Hand Theatre

608‐612 North Salina Street

021

Private

Porous Pavement

4,200

C‐197

GIF#104 JC Smith, Inc. 405 Peat

405‐411 Peat Street

EBSS Storm Basin

Private

Bioretention/Porous Pavement

102,500

C‐202

GIF#105 JC Smith, Inc. 338 Peat

338 Peat Street

EBSS Storm Basin

Private

Bioretention/Porous Pavement

18,700

C‐203

GIF#106 Zip Networks

100 Wilkinson Street

066

Private

Green Roof

2,000

C‐205

GIF#108 Ra‐Lin

320 Peat Street

EBSS Storm Basin

Private

Green Roof

23,000

C‐206

GIF#109 Burnet Railroad Association

400 Burnet Avenue

080A

Private

Green Roof

34,000

C‐207

GIF#110 522 RJ Westcott Holding

522 Westcott Street

EBSS Storm Basin

Private

Porous Pavement

25,300

C‐208

GIF#111 471 RJ Westcott Holding

471 Westcott Street

EBSS Storm Basin

Private

Porous Pavement

52,700

C‐209

GIF#112 466 RJ Westcott Holding

466 Westcott Street

EBSS Storm Basin

Private

Porous Pavement

3,900

C‐210

GIF#114 Ra‐Lin Retail Facility

607, 609‐611 Burnet Avenue

080A

Private

Porous Pavement, Bioretention, Added Green Space

61,600

C‐213

GIF#119 Loew's Building

108 Jefferson Street

029

Private

Green Roof

10,200

C‐215

GIF#116 Cerio Law

409 South Warren Street

034

Private

Porous Pavement

3,000

C‐218

GIF#124 Auto Row Realty

737 West Genesee Street

066

Private

Porous Pavement, Added Green Space

35,200

C‐221

Road Reconstruction: Hixson Avenue

Hixson Avenue from Melrose to Boyden

073A

City of Syracuse

Green Street

TBD

C‐227

GIF#126 McKinney Loring

1607 Grant Blvd

020

Private

Porous Pavement

5,400

C‐230

Road Reconstruction: Butternut Street

Butternut Street from Hood to Hillside

020

City of Syracuse

Green Street

TBD

C‐231

GIF# 131 712 East Feyette Street

712 East Feyette Street

027

Private

Porous Pavement/Added Green Space

17,100

City of Syracuse

Green Street

TBD

P1: Between Burt St. and E. Adams St. P2: Between E. Fayette St. and 080A/021 E. Water St. P3: Between James St. and N. Salina St.

C‐232

South State Street Green Corridor

C‐233

GIF#133 R.F. Esposito LLC

538 Erie Blvd. West

066

Private

Porous Pavement/Added Green Space

20,500

C‐234

GIF#135 900 East Fayette Street

900 East Fayette Street

020

Private

Porous Pavement, Underground Infiltration System

20,000

C‐235

GIF#137 Marcellus Commons

450 Tracy Street

066

Private

Underground Infiltration

101,300

410 Hickory Street

020

Private

Underground Infiltration

19,400

Prospect Park, E Laurel St to N Salina St

020‐2

City of Syracuse

TBD

C‐236 F‐05a

GIF#138 St. Joseph's Hospital (410 Hickory Street) Prospect Park Green Gateway ‐ Phase 1

4-29

www.savetherain.us

Section 4  CSO Project Status

Table 4‐4: Green Infrastructure (GI) Projects Proposed for 2015 and Beyond Project ID F‐05b F‐06 H‐09 H‐22 H‐28

Project Name Prospect Park Green Gateway ‐ Phase 2 Triangle at Grant Blvd and Butternut St Green School: Playground at Delaware School Green Street: 800 block Park Ave GIF#036 Dependable Paving: 945 Emerson

Basin

Parcel Owner

GI Technology

Impervious Drainage Area (ft2)

020‐2

City of Syracuse

TBD

Grant Blvd & Butternut St

020‐2

City of Syracuse

TBD

900 S Geddes St

014

Syracuse City School District

TBD

800 block Park Ave @ Liberty St

006A

City of Syracuse

Green Street

TBD

945 Emerson Ave

063

Private

Cistern/Bioretention

3,900

Project Address N Salina and 200 Block Butternut St

H‐29

GIF#037 Dependable Paving: 947 Emerson

947 Emerson Ave

063

Private

Porous Pavement

4,000

H‐32

Greening of Sackett Tract

W Genesee St., Park Ave., Lakeview Ave.

006

City of Syracuse

TBD

100,102 Dudley & 401 Delaware

014

City of Syracuse

TBD

409 & 411 Merriman Ave.

014

City of Syracuse

TBD

1415 West Genesee Street

004/006

Private

Bioretention/Green Roof

13,100

415 South Wilbur Ave

004

Private

Porous Pavement

11,300

1001 Park Avenue

006

Private

Porous Pavement

12,300

200‐258 S Geddes St

010/011

Private

Porous Pavement

30,800

H‐37 H‐45 H‐51 H‐54 H‐55 H‐59

Vacant Lot: Delaware/Dudley Orchard Vacant Lot: 409 & 411 Merriman Ave. GIF#095 Syracuse New Times GIF#118 Burnet Park Newsstand GIF#120 Syracuse Academy of Science Charter School GIF#129 Vibrant Syracuse Spaces

HW‐03

GIF#134 Pastime Athletic Club

1314 N. Salina Street

Private

Bioretention/Added Green Space

47,200

M‐06

Stream Inflow Removal #2

I‐81 near Colvin Ave.

077

City of Syracuse

TBD

M‐07

Stream Inflow Removal #3

077

City of Syracuse

TBD

M‐08

Residential Green Street at Euclid Ave

Oakwood Cemetery near Moore Ave. Euclid Avenue from Sumner Ave. to Ackerman Ave.

077

City of Syracuse

Green Street

TBD

M‐09

Residential Green Street at Baldwin Ave

Baldwin Avenue from Newell Street to Kirk Park Drive

067

City of Syracuse

Green Street

TBD

2200 S. Salina St

077

United States Postal Service

TBD

601 South Avenue

042

Private

Green Roof

11,600

Salina b/w E. Colvin and E. Brighton

077

City of Syracuse

Green Street

TBD

Midland Basin 067 ‐ Newell St

067

Public

TBD

Rear of 2426 South Avenue

052

Private

TBD

401 E Brighton Ave

076

Private

Porous Pavement

415 E Brighton Ave

076

Private

Porous Pavement

Charmouth Drive from Summit Ave to Wellesley Rd

052

City of Syracuse

Green Street

TBD

M‐12b M‐19 M‐46 M‐47 M‐50 M‐57 M‐58 M‐64

US Post Office on Salina Street: Site Improvements GIF#005 Jubilee Homes of Syracuse Green Street: Salina b/w E. Colvin and E. Brighton Neighborhood GI in Midland Basin 067 Green Separation in CSO 052 (Garzone's) GIF#087 FASS 401 Brighton Ave GIF#088 FASS 415 Brighton Ave. Road Reconstruction: Charmouth Drive

40,100

M‐66

GIF#128 Tucker Missionary Baptist Church

515 Oakwood Ave

039

Private

Porous Pavement, Underground Infiltration System

70,100

M‐69

GIF#136 Swallow's Restaurant

1902‐1912 South Ave. and 805 Brighton Ave.

052

Private

Porous Pavement/Added Green Space

24,200

M‐70

GIF#132 Islamic Society of CNY

925 Comstock Ave.

060/077

Private

Green Roof

3,200

M‐71

Residential Green Street at Comstock Ave.

Between Euclid Ave. and Colvin St.

060/077

City of Syracuse

Green Street

TBD

M‐72

Residential Green Street at Lancaster Ave.

Between Euclid Ave. and Stratford St.

060/077

City of Syracuse

Green Street

TBD

M‐73

Residential Green Street at Ackerman Ave.

Between Euclid Ave. and Stratford St.

060/077

City of Syracuse

Green Street

TBD

M‐74

East Colvin Street (Dead End at I‐81)

East Colvin Street between I‐81 Dead End and Moore Ave.

060/077

City of Syracuse

Green Street

TBD

M‐75

Residential Green Street at McKinley Ave.

Between State St. and Salina. St.

060/077

City of Syracuse

Green Street

TBD

M‐76

Roney Ln. Traffic Circles

Roney Ln. at Smith Ln.

060/077

City of Syracuse

Green Street

TBD

TOTAL

907,000

NOTE: Impervious Drainage Area is estimated pending design TBD = to be determined

WWW.SAVETHERAIN.US

4-30

Section 4  CSO Project Status

4.2.4 Green Infrastructure O&M Requirements In 2014, O&M continued to be performed on GI projects implemented to reduce CSO discharges in Onondaga County. GI technologies typically do not have any specific operating requirements; however, regular maintenance activity is required for most GI technologies to keep them functioning in an effective manner. Table 4‐5 provides a summary of typical maintenance activities for a variety of GI types that have been implemented within the County. This maintenance summary is consistent with the New York State (NYS) Stormwater Management Design Manual, prepared by the Center for Watershed Protection, dated August 2010. The County provides maintenance using a variety of traditional and creative work forces, as described in this section. The County continues to track all of its maintenance responsibilities using its Maximo software system. For GI projects on public property, maintenance is performed by the County, the City, their Biweekly Warranty/Maintenance Checklist contractors, and/or volunteers. Maintenance for GI projects on private property is provided by the owner, with the County performing inspections (see Section 6.2 for more information on maintenance of GI projects on private property). Each municipally‐procured project by Onondaga County includes a 1‐year warranty/maintenance agreement with the Contractor. During this period, the Contractor is required to maintain any landscaped areas of the project and replace any landscaping species that die during the warranty period. The County tracks compliance with this agreement by requiring the Contractor to submit a warranty/maintenance checklist biweekly throughout the warranty/maintenance period documenting the Contractor’s warranty and maintenance work at each project.

4-31

www.savetherain.us

Section 4  CSO Project Status

Table 4‐5: O&M Activities GI Technology

Typical Maintenance Activities

Porous Pavement

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

Infiltration Practices

 Inspect and clean all catch basins and intels 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  Little to no maintenance needed once vegetation is established  Water, mulch, trim, prune, weed, and remove litter as needed  Annual inspection for erosion, sediment buildup, vegetative conditions  Biannual inspection of cleanouts, inlets, outlets, etc.  Water, mulch, treat diseased trees, and remove litter as needed  Annual inspection for erosion, sediment buildup, vegetative conditions  Biannual inspection of cleanouts, inlets, outlets, etc.  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  Check materials for leaks and defects  Remove accumulated debris, especially from gutters  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  Follow the manufacturer’s guidelines  Inspect each water quality device at least twice per year and after all major storm events if possible  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

Green Roofs Rain Gardens

Tree Trenches, Enchanced Street Trees, and Tree Pits

Rain Barrels / Cisterns

Disconnection of Rooftop Runoff

Inlet Filter Inserts

www.savetherain.us

NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual Relevant Section(s) 5.3.11 – Porous Pavement

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

5.3.8 – Green Roofs 5.3.7 – Rain Gardens

5.3.3 – Vegetated Swale 5.3.4 – Tree Planitng/Tree Pit 5.3.9 – Stormwater Planters 5.3.11 – Porous Pavement 6.3 – Stormwater Infiltration 6.5 – Open Channel Systems 5.3.9 – Stormwater Planters 5.3.10 – Rain barrels and Cisterns

5.3.5 – Disconnection of Rooftop Runoff

9.5 – Alternative Stormwater Management Practices – Proprietary Practices

4-32

Section 4  CSO Project Status

4.2.4.1 Filter Insert Maintenance Filter insert maintenance is performed by the County. There are 255 filter inserts across 44 GI projects as shown in Table 4‐6. The filter inserts help remove roadway debris and floatable materials at the source, keeping material from clogging the subsurface infiltrations systems or potentially becoming floatable discharge.

GI Filter Insert Maintenance

Table 4‐6: Filter Insert Locations

GI Project

CSO Basin

Number of Filter Inserts

C‐29a

Connective Corridor Phase 1 ‐ University Ave.

030, 080B

Flexstorm by ADS

‐

C‐29b

Connective Corridor Phase 1 ‐ Genesee St.

030, 080B

Flexstorm by ADS

‐

C‐38

OnCenter Parking Lot

034

Ultra Urban by Abtech

‐

C‐54c

Downtown Streetscapes ‐ 200 Water

027

Ultra Urban by Abtech

‐

C‐54d

Downtown Streetscapes ‐ 200 Montgomery West

027

Ultra Urban by Abtech

‐

C‐54e

Downtown Streetscapes ‐ 200 Montgomery East

027

Ultra Urban by Abtech

‐

C‐54f

Downtown Streetscapes ‐ 100 State

027

Ultra Urban by Abtech

‐

C‐60

Seymour Academy Playground

036

Ultra Urban by Abtech

‐

Project ID

Type of Filter Insert

Baffles/ Hoods

Type of Baffle/ Hood

4-33

www.savetherain.us

Section 4  CSO Project Status

Table 4‐6: Filter Insert Locations Project ID

GI Project

CSO Basin

Number of Filter Inserts

Type of Filter Insert

Baffles/ Hoods

Type of Baffle/ Hood

C‐61

Water Street Green Gateway

027

Ultra Urban by Abtech

‐

C‐73

West Onondaga Street

036

Flexstorm by ADS

‐

C‐74a

Otisco Street Phase 1

011, 031

StormSak by Fabco

‐

C‐86

Bank Alley

027

Flexstorm by ADS

‐

C‐99

Vacant Lot at 701 Oswego

036

Flexstorm by ADS

‐

C‐101

Skiddy Park Enhancements

031, 032

Ultra Urban by Abtech

‐

C‐110

Seymour Academy Parking Lot

036

Ultra Urban by Abtech

‐

C‐132

Leavenworth/Barker Park

066

Flexstorm by ADS

‐

C‐153

East Washington Street

027

Flexstorm by ADS

1 Hood

ADS Envirohood

C‐198

Oneida Street

037

Flexstorm by ADS

‐

C‐199

South Clinton St.

037

Flexstorm by ADS

‐

C‐201

Richmond Ave

007, 066

Flexstorm by ADS

‐

E‐06

City Lot #3

EBSS Storm Basin

Flogard by Kristar

‐

E‐33

I‐690 Downspout Disconnect

080A, EBSS Storm Basin

Flexstorm by ADS

E‐39

E. Water St. Pavement Removal

EBSS Storm Basin

Ultra Urban by Abtech

‐

E‐40

Westcott Street Green Corridor

EBSS Storm Basin

Flexstorm by ADS

3 Hoods

ADS Envirohood

E‐43

Wescott Community Center

EBSS Storm Basin

Ultra Urban by Abtech

‐

F‐01

Pearl Street Parking Lot

021

Flexstorm by ADS

‐

F‐02

White Library

020

Ultra Urban by Abtech

‐

F‐04ab

City Lot #4/N. State Green Street

020

Ultra Urban by Abtech

‐

H‐05b

Hazard Library

020

Ultra Urban by Abtech

‐

www.savetherain.us

7 Sediment SAFL Baffle Baffles ADS 4 Hoods Envirohood

4-34

Section 4  CSO Project Status

Table 4‐6: Filter Insert Locations Project ID

GI Project

CSO Basin

Number of Filter Inserts

Type of Filter Insert

Baffles/ Hoods

Type of Baffle/ Hood

H‐30

Vacant Lot at 1344‐50 West Onondaga

015

Flexstorm by ADS

‐

H‐31

Zoo Stormwater Wetland

004

Flexstorm by ADS, StormSak by Fabco

H‐33

Lewis Park

003, 063

Ultra Urban by Abtech

‐

H‐38

Vacant Lot at 224‐226 Putnam

014

Flexstorm by ADS

‐

H‐44

Vacant Lot at 109 Hartson

014

Flexstorm by ADS

‐

H‐47

Gifford Street Road Recon.

011

Flexstorm by ADS

‐

060/077

Ultra Urban by Abtech

‐

M‐10b

Beauchamp Library

M‐29

Hughes Magnet School Parking Lot

077

Ultra Urban by Abtech

‐

M‐29bc

Hughes Magnet School Vacant Lots

077

Flexstorm by ADS

‐

M‐43

Comfort Tyler Park

077

Flexstorm by ADS

1 Hood

ADS Envirohood

M‐52

State Street Road Recon.

044

Flexstorm by ADS

‐

M‐53

Sumner Ave. Road Recon.

077

Flexstorm by ADS

‐

TOTAL =

255

4.2.4.2 West Fayette Street Sewer Separation Manufactured Treatment Device In the spring of 2014, a manufactured treatment device (MTD) was installed as part of the Connective Corridor project. The MTD is located just prior to the West Fayette Street storm sewer’s discharge to Onondaga Creek and removes a significant amount of grit and floatable materials prior to discharge. This device helps ease maintenance requirements for multiple reasons. First, it can quickly be hydro‐vacuumed. Second, due to its location at the end of the storm sewer network, it is an alternative to using 20 filter inserts throughout this separated stormwater collection system. Due to the size and location, this was an attractive alternative and provides significant water quality benefit to the receiving water. The County is responsible for the maintenance of the MTD.

4-35

www.savetherain.us

Section 4  CSO Project Status

Manufactured Treatment Device Installation

4.2.4.3 GI Landscape Maintenance Proper maintenance of the vegetated GI facilities is a vital component of the County’s maintenance program. Landscape maintenance is performed not only for aesthetic reasons, but it assures that the intended design function of the GI remains intact. The landscape maintenance component of the Save the Rain Program includes: Litter removal from rain gardens and bioretention areas to remove floatables at the source; weeding and mulching the planting beds, and keeping the soils uncompacted and permeable to accept surface water runoff; and snow removal from facility sidewalks to keep them open for public use during the winter months. OCDWEP provides landscape maintenance at 21 facilities with an in‐house work force of three people, supplemented by a contract with the Onondaga Earth Corps (OEC). Other than the maintenance provided by WEP, 37 additional locations are maintained by other County and City departments. Table 4‐7 indicates the landscape maintenance responsibility for projects on public (City or County‐owned) property. In 2015, the County will continue to work to develop a municipal contract for landscape maintenance that is similar to the green roof and porous pavement maintenance contracts already in use. Landscape GI Maintenance

www.savetherain.us

4-36

Section 4  CSO Project Status

Table 4‐7: Landscape Maintenance Responsibilities Landscaping Maintained by OCDWEP and OEC C‐12a: Townsend St Median Revegetation Phase 1 C‐12b: Townsend St Median Revegetation Phase 2 C‐132: Leavenworth Barker Park C‐153: East Washington Street Green Corridor C‐54f: Downtown Streetscape at West Side 100 S State St C‐61: Water Street Green Gateway C‐73: West Onondaga Street Green Corridor C‐99: Vacant Lot Project #2: 701 Oswego St E‐16: Lower Sunnycrest Park E‐33: I‐690 Downspout Disconnections E‐39: East Water St Pavement Removal F‐01: Pearl Street parking Lot F‐04a: City Parking Lot #4 H‐11: Avery Ave Greening at Pass Arboretum H‐14: Harbor Brook CSO 018 Wetland Project H‐17: Rain Garden at Grand and Delaware H‐27: Greening the Grey at Lower Harbor Brook Storage H‐30: Vacant Lot: 1344‐50 W Onondaga St H‐38: Vacant Lot: 224‐226 Putnam St H‐44: Vacant Lot: 109 Hartson St M‐23: Greening the Grey in Basin 044 Landscaping Maintained by the City of Syracuse Department of Public Works C‐01: City Parking Lot #21 C‐29a: Connective Corridor Phase 1 ‐ Contract 1 (University Ave) C‐29b: Connective Corridor Phase 1 ‐ Contract 2 (E Genesee St) C‐29de: Connective Corridor Phases 2 and 3 C‐54c: Downtown Streetscape at Water St C‐54d: Downtown Streetscape at Montgomery St C‐54e: Downtown Streetscape at Montgomery St (East Side) C‐73: West Onondaga Street Green Corridor

4-37

www.savetherain.us

Section 4  CSO Project Status

Table 4‐7: Landscape Maintenance Responsibilities Landscaping Maintained by the City of Syracuse Department of Public Works CW‐01: Creekwalk Jefferson to Walton Streets CW‐02: Creekwalk Walton to Fayette Streets E‐06: City Parking Lot #3 E‐40ab: Westcott Street Green Corridor Landscaping Maintained by Onondaga County Public Libraries F‐02: White Library H‐05b: Hazard Library H‐06: Mundy Library M‐10b: Beauchamp Library Landscaping Maintained by Onondaga County Facilities Management C‐07: OnCenter Parking Garage C‐09: County Parking Lot B at S Townsend St C‐11: Harrison Street Green Street C‐38: OnCenter Parking Lot C‐98a: Greening the Grey at Clinton Storage Landscaping Maintained by the City of Syracuse Parks Department C‐132: Leavenworth Barker Park C‐101: Green Park: Skiddy Park C‐29c: Connective Corridor Forman Park H‐36: Wadsworth Park E‐31: Pocket Park at N. Clinton and W. Genesee St M‐43: Comfort Tyler Park Landscaping Maintained by the Onondaga County Parks Department H‐13: Wilbur Ave Zoo Entrance Enhancement H‐20: Rosamond Gifford Zoo Primate Exhibit Courtyard H‐31: Zoo Stormwater Wetland and Cistern H‐34: Rosamond Gifford Zoo Parking Lot Landscaping Maintained by the Syracuse Central School District C‐110: Seymour Academy Parking Lot C‐60: Seymour Academy Playground

www.savetherain.us

4-38

Section 4  CSO Project Status

Table 4‐7: Landscape Maintenance Responsibilities Landscaping Maintained by the Syracuse Central School District E‐12: Dr. Edwin E Weeks Elementary School E‐36: Upper Sunnycrest Park M‐29: Hughes Magnet School Parking Lot M‐29bc: Hughes Vacant Lot

4.2.4.4 Volunteer Efforts In an effort to enlist community support for the new GI installations, the County is actively developing the “Adopt‐A‐GI Project” program. The program has been kick started by community groups and organizations which have provided volunteer services at several GI facility locations including: the Harrison Street Green Street (CH2M HILL), the Rosamond Gifford Zoo Entrance (Men’s Garden Club of Syracuse), portions of the Connective Corridor (Syracuse Stage/Syracuse University), and Forman Park (Retired Police Association). It is anticipated that this program will be expanded in 2015.

Volunteer Efforts – Adopt‐a‐GI Projects

4.2.4.5 Porous Pavement Vacuuming The County’s porous pavement projects continue to function at an optimal level of service with porous asphalt and porous pavers showing the best long‐term performance. The porous concrete installed on previous projects since the start of the STR program in 2010 has begun to show degradation – presumably due to a number of factors including the porous concrete mix design, placement late in the fall season, insufficient curing procedures, and significant salt applications before the concrete has fully cured. As a result, there currently is a moratorium on porous concrete use within the program, and previous installations are being replaced with porous asphalt. Porous pavement maintenance continued to be performed by contract services twice a year in 2014. The OCWEP contract covers 37 project locations having a total vacuumed area of approximately 250,000 ft2. Table 4‐8 lists the porous pavement projects and the paved area for each project.

4-39

www.savetherain.us

Section 4  CSO Project Status Pavement Vacuuming Maintenance

Table 4‐8: Porous Pavement Vacuuming Project C‐01: City Parking Lot #21

Porous Pavement Area (ft2) 750

C‐101: Skiddy Park

14,350

C‐110: Seymour Academy Parking Lot

7,350

C‐132: Leavenworth Barker Park

5,100

C‐153: East Washington Street Corridor

3,200

C‐29a: Connective Corridor Phase 1 ‐ Contract 1 (University Ave)

18,800

C‐29b: Connective Corridor Phase 1 ‐ Contract 2 (E Genesee St)

19,500

C‐29de: Connective Corridor Phases 2 and 3

55,000

C‐38: OnCenter Parking Lot

26,700

C‐54c: Downtown Streetscape at Water St

700

C‐54e: Downtown Streetscape at Montgomery St (East Side)

1,250

C‐61: Water Street Green Gateway

5,650

C‐85: SCSD Central Offices Parking Lot

9,350

CW‐01: Creekwalk Jefferson to Walton Streets

6,500

CW‐02: Creekwalk Walton to East Fayette Streets

4,800

E‐06: City Parking Lot #3

8,500

E‐08: Petit Library

3,450

www.savetherain.us

4-40

Section 4  CSO Project Status

Table 4‐8: Porous Pavement Vacuuming Project

Porous Pavement Area (ft2)

E‐31: Pocket Park at N. Clinton St and W. Genesee St.

1,600

E‐36: Upper Sunnycrest Park

6,600

E‐39: East Water St Pavement Removal

2,450

E‐40ab: Westcott Street Green Corridor

5,500

E‐43: Westcott Community Center

350

F‐01: Pearl Street Parking Lot

25,200

F‐02: White Library

2,350

F‐04a: City Parking Lot #4

10,000

F‐04b: Green Street: N State St at City Lot 4

7,900

H‐05b: Hazard Library

5,600

H‐06: Mundy Library

3,650

H‐13: Wilbur Ave Zoo Entrance Enhancement

1,050

H‐16: Porous Concrete Sidewalk on Grand Ave.

560

H‐17: Rain Garden at Grand and Delaware

4,300

H‐20: Rosamond Gifford Zoo Primate Exhibit Courtyard

2,600

H‐33: Green Park Lewis Park Enhancements

10,700

H‐34: Rosamond Gifford Zoo Parking Lot

17,250

M‐29: Hughes Magnet School Parking Lot

3,600

M‐43: Comfort Tyler Park

3,350

4.2.4.6 Green Roof Maintenance Onondaga County has four green roofs on County owned facilities installed as a part of the STR program: The OnCenter Convention Center (66,000 ft2), Erie Canal Museum (5,200 ft2), Hazard Library (2,800 ft2), and Rosamond Gifford Zoo Elephant Exhibit (11,000 ft2). All four locations are maintained through an annual contract administered by the County. The green roofs are in good health and continue to reduce stormwater runoff from entering the combined sewer system.

4-41

www.savetherain.us

Section 4  CSO Project Status

Green Roof Maintenance

4.2.4.7 Tree Maintenance Onondaga County has planted more than 3,500 trees on public lands within the combined sewer service area. The newly planted trees have been added to the County’s GIS inventory which includes the tree location and tracking of maintenance needs. In the first few years of tree growth, it is important to keep the tree well maintained. Watering and pruning of a tree is crucial for survival and training of a tree’s mature shape and size. Table 4‐9 summarizes the projects with trees and the responsible party for maintaining them. Table 4‐9: Tree Maintenance Responsibilities Trees Maintained by OCDWEP and OEC C‐153: East Washington Street Green Corridor C‐61: Water Street Green Gateway C‐98: Greening the Grey at Clinton Storage E‐16: Lower Sunnycrest Park E‐33: I‐690 Downspout Disconnections Trees Maintained by OCDWEP and OEC E‐39: East Water St. Pavement Removal F‐04a: City Parking Lot #4 H‐11: Avery Ave Greening at Pass Arboretum Trees Maintained by OCDWEP and OEC H‐17: Rain Garden at Grand & Delaware H‐30: Vacant Lot: 1344‐50 W Onondaga St H‐38: Vacant Lot: 224‐226 Putnam St H‐44: Vacant Lot: 109 Hartson St

www.savetherain.us

4-42

Section 4  CSO Project Status

Table 4‐9: Tree Maintenance Responsibilities M‐23: Greening the Grey in Basin 044 Trees Maintained by the City of Syracuse Department of Public Works C‐01: City Parking Lot #21 C‐29a: Connective Corridor Phase 1 ‐ Contract 1 (University Ave) C‐29b: Connective Corridor Phase 1 ‐ Contract 2 (E Genesee St) C‐29de: Connective Corridor Phases 2 and 3 C‐54c: Downtown Streetscape and Water St C‐54d: Downtown Streetscape and Montgomery St C‐54e: Downtown Streetscape and Montgomery St (East Side) C‐73: West Onondaga Street Green Corridor E‐06: City Parking Lot #3 E‐40ab: Westcott Street Green Corridor Trees Maintained by Onondaga County Facilities Management C‐07: OnCenter Parking Garage C‐09: County Parking Lot B at S Townsend St C‐11: Harrison Street Green Street C‐38: OnCenter Parking Lot Trees Maintained by Onondaga County Parks Department H‐13: Wilbur Ave Zoo Entrance Enhancement H‐31: Zoo Stormwater Wetland and Cistern H‐34: Rosamond Gifford Zoo Parking Lot Trees Maintained by the Syracuse Central School District C‐60: Seymour Academy Playground E‐36: Upper Sunnycrest Park M‐29: Hughes Magnet School Parking Lot

4-43

www.savetherain.us

Section 4  CSO Project Status

4.2.5 Green Planning Committee As the County continues to consider new GI project candidates for upcoming construction seasons, the program is now pivoting to a more focused and strategic planning approach for implementation and ACJ compliance. The County and their GI Program Manager have developed an updated version of the SWMM that identifies specific sewersheds where GI implementation will provide the most efficient CSO reductions (see the 2013 ACJ Report). In 2014, a new planning committee was created to work with this new SWMM data, and with community stakeholders, to help facilitate the development of future green projects that support ACJ objectives. The stated goal of this Green Planning Committee (GPC) is to “identify and support the selection of potential GI projects in communities within the City of Syracuse that are targeted for CSO reduction.” The GPC is tasked with providing guidance in the development of green infrastructure projects, including pursuing project ideas, giving input on community culture and nuances, and suggesting engagement activities to foster cooperation and feedback. The committee is using Bioretention Area on the 147 Hughes Place Vacant Lot the existing GI project database as a starting point in the development of opportunities, and generating new project opportunities. The committee meets on a routine basis, with eight meetings in 2014. The following specific items provide guidance to the GPC: 

SWMM o Project development will be guided utilizing SWMM calculated CSO volumes and frequency of events o “Efficiency” or the CSO reduction per gallon of stormwater managed will also be a factor in guiding project development o The sewershed prioritization map, Figure 4‐5, provides an “at a glance” summary of the above data and establishes a foundation for the geographic boundaries (priority sewersheds) and scale of project requirements. This map reflects priority levels at the end of 2014, and will be updated in 2015 based on the recent 2014 SWMM recalibration.



060/077 Sewershed Focus o SWWM results have identified the need to focus CSO mitigation efforts in the 060/077 sewershed locations where overflow events have been classified as frequent.

www.savetherain.us

4-44

Section 4  CSO Project Status

These locations are east and southeast of downtown and traditionally have moderate to scarce GI activity. Identification of local community advocates to assist in project planning is underway. 

Budget o Budget allocation will be a factor in project development as the program will strive to implement the most cost efficient GI approach to meet ACJ requirements. Budgets have been allocated to focus on water quality improvements in specific geographic boundaries.



Green Design Team o Project implementation will be managed by a new team of design professionals selected by Onondaga County. The new design team will be tasked with developing project plans and specifications (concepts, preliminary design, and final design) based on recommendations from the GPC and in coordination with the program manager.

Figure 4‐5: Sewershed Prioritization Map

The GI Program Manager has assigned Bj Adigun to chair the GPC and be the primary administrative liaison to the program. Mr. Adigun is tasked with facilitating the committee’s progress as it works towards achieving goals, including preparation of meeting agenda and following through on additional data requests from the committee members. Committee membership at this time includes:

4-45

www.savetherain.us

Section 4  CSO Project Status

   

Onondaga County Legislature Chairman (Hon. Ryan McMahon) Green Infrastructure Program Coordinator (Bj Adigun, CH2M HILL) City of Syracuse (Owen Kerney, Planning and Sustainability) Partnership for Onondaga Creek (Aggie Lane)

The committee may develop sub‐committees associated with prospective project locations to gain a better understanding of local challenges and opportunities within specific sewersheds. The work of the committee shall build upon existing relationships in the community, and will include identifying additional stakeholders and developing resources to gain neighborhood support for proposed GI projects. Future projects will represent a unified stance on the approach to CSO reduction and community benefit. The committee reports regularly to the Commissioner of WEP on progress.

4.2.6 CSO 022, 027, 029, 052, 060, 077 and 067 Facility Plan Update Section 14O(ii) of the ACJ requires a detailed facilities plan to address CSOs 022, 027, 029, 052 and 060/077, as well as to assess the Newell Street Facility (CSO 067) for reconstruction or replacement. Onondaga County prepared and submitted the Facilities Plan on November 16, 2010 to the NYSDEC and ASLF, and the Facilities Plan was conditionally approved by the NYSDEC on August 5, 2011. The plan identified conceptual level control options for the stated CSOs, applied an alternative evaluation and decision framework, and recommended a number of actions. The plan is to be implemented in the holistic context of all of the CSOs in the service area, as the County works towards its water quantity and water quality goals. An update on the progress of the CSOs in the plan is summarized below.

Green Infrastructure Improvements at Comfort Tyler Park: Bioretention Area (left) and Porous Asphalt Basketball Court (right)

CSO 022: As identified in the plan, the tributary CSO area has been separated and the CSO closed per a project that was completed in 2013. Please see Section 4.1.5 for additional information on this project. CSO 027: The plan identifies three primary actions, including regulator modifications, standard green infrastructure implementation, and floatables control. The regulator modifications are

www.savetherain.us

4-46

Section 4  CSO Project Status

part of a SWMM‐based, holistic system evaluation of optimization opportunities, including multiple regulator orifice and weir settings. This evaluation will determine if a modification in this CSO tributary area should proceed towards design, based on the significantly improved understanding of the system that SWMM has provided. If the that a conclusion is modification will provide adequate value in reducing CSO volume, the design and construction will be advanced. If the conclusion suggests otherwise, justification will be provided in a Facilities Plan Amendment. Flow monitoring data is being gathered in the collection system that, combined with area rainfall data, Water Street Green Gateway Two Years after Completion will enable better calibration of the SWMM and therefore determination of the conclusions previously stated. For more information on these SWMM updates, please refer to Section 3. The standard green infrastructure implementation is underway, with multiple projects completed in the 027 sewershed (see Tables 4‐2 and 4‐3). Furthermore, a portion of the Fayette Street separated storm sewer was extended to pick up stormwater runoff from a large drainage area between Salina Street and Onondaga Creek (see table 4‐2, C‐29f). This stormwater separation project was completed in advance of the soon‐to‐be completed Connective Corridor, affecting a significant portion of the impervious area within the 027 sewershed (see Table 4‐2, C‐29a and b and Table 4‐3, C‐29de). CSO 029: The plan identifies three primary actions, including regulator modifications, aggressive green implementation, and floatables control. The regulator modifications are part of a SWMM‐based, holistic system evaluation of optimization opportunities, including multiple regulator orifice and weir settings. The aggressive green implementation is underway, as the GPC is working with stakeholders on a green corridor project for Walton Street (from Onondaga Creek to Clinton Street). Although planning is in the early stages, this project has the potential to address approximately half of the impervious area in this sewershed. Further, the GPC is initiating a door‐to‐door campaign to connect with private property owners, making them aware of the grant funding opportunity within the GIF program, and hopefully identifying some green projects on private property (the other half of the impervious area in this sewershed). SWMM has also presented findings that the 028 sewershed may be causing a hydraulic condition in the MIS that affects CSO at 029. Therefore, the GPC is investigating GI project opportunities in the 028 sewershed and expects these to reduce CSO from 029. This discovery was made late in 2014 and additional investigation is underway.

4-47

www.savetherain.us

Section 4  CSO Project Status

CSO 052: The plan identifies four primary actions including regulator modifications, standard green implementation, runoff management in the upper parts of the drainage area, and floatables control. The regulator modifications are part of a SWMM‐based, holistic system evaluation of optimization opportunities, including multiple regulator orifice and weir settings. The standard green implementation is on hold while runoff from the upper region of the drainage area is evaluated. This evaluation has advanced considerably, resulting in a preliminary engineering report for a runoff management strategy in a neighborhood currently experiencing localized flooding (“CSO Abatement Project at South Avenue and Armstrong Place,” a project on property behind the former Garzone family restaurant). The drainage area surrounded by and upstream of South Avenue, Armstrong Place, and Mitchell Avenue presents a significant opportunity to address CSO within this basin. Further opportunity exists to expand the project beyond simply CSO control, including hazard mitigation. The property necessary for construction of a stormwater management facility has been seized by the City of Syracuse. The County and City have negotiated a deal that will result in the County constructing the project, and upon completion, the City taking ownership and assuming operation and maintenance responsibilities. An inter‐municipal agreement has been drafted and is currently in review by County legal staff. The County is in the process of delegating final design responsibility to a design professional that will advance the project from the preliminary engineering report through implementation. The Onondaga County Legislature is considering funding that would expand the project beyond CSO abatement and include the hazard mitigation feature. The Green Planning Committee will begin investigation of additional candidate projects in the 052 sewershed to fully abate remaining CSO after the SWMM is updated in Tree Trench on the 220 Lorraine Avenue early 2015. Vacant Lot in the CSO 060/077 Basin

CSO 060/077: The plan identifies two primary actions including aggressive green implementation and floatables control. The green implementation is underway with numerous projects planned. The GPC has identified numerous candidate projects within this sewershed, including multiple green street opportunities, a few small vacant lot opportunities, and zero park property opportunities. The candidate projects are currently being prioritized and the County’s design professionals will develop concept designs for further evaluation. The intent is to implement multiple, significant projects within this sewershed. For more information on floatables control, see Section 1.3.4. Newell Street Demonstration Facility: The facilities plan recommends this facility be demolished and removed. This action is on hold pending development of the GI projects in this sewershed (CSO 067). A conceptual design for residential green streets near this facility has been completed. Further action on projects within this sewershed are being considered as the SWMM is updated in early 2015.

www.savetherain.us

4-48

SECTION 5

Public Outreach 5.1 Save the Rain Program In 2014, the Onondaga County Save the Rain (STR) Program continued its exceptional work to restore Onondaga Lake and its tributaries. The program’s vast array of gray and green infrastructure solutions to manage stormwater runoff has positioned Onondaga County as a national model for sustainable stormwater management. After meeting several milestones at the end of 2013, the Save the Rain logo at Comfort Tyler Park basketball courts 2014 STR campaign has built upon the success of previous years, while strategically positioning the program for the future. The utilization of an updated Stormwater Management Model (SWMM) tool provides targeted identification of proposed project sites and priority CSO basins. The program has also further developed maintenance protocols to support existing projects. An important aspect of STR is the continued development of public education and outreach activities. As outlined in Section 14H(vi) of the Fourth Stipulation of the Amended Consent Judgment (ACJ) Order, Onondaga County is required to: “engage the public through a comprehensive public outreach plan to encourage community support and participation for the program.”

5.2 General Public Outreach Activities The Save the Rain public education and outreach program works with the local community by building awareness and establishing relationships through various activities including public meetings, project workshops/training sessions, community events, youth education, tours of STR project sites, and an extensive social media campaign. The outreach program is also intended to encourage community participation, and to educate the public on Onondaga Lake and improving water quality through the mitigation of CSOs. Children from Danforth Middle School learn about the impacts of tree planting during Arbor Day

5-1

www.savetherain.us

Section 5  Public Outreach

5.2.1 Save the Rain Educational Videos In 2014, the STR team created two new educational videos to promote program activities. The first video provides a general overview of the program, highlighting the incredible impact STR has made on the local community. A variety of Save the Rain program participants gave testimonials on how the program has transformed the City of Syracuse, while reducing pollution to Onondaga Lake and its tributaries. The second video produced in 2014 features a detailed look at green infrastructure improvements installed at the Rosamond Gifford Zoo. Save the Rain has implemented a Screenshot from the 2014 “Save the Rain” diverse portfolio of GI elements throughout the Zoo program educational video campus including bioretention, rain barrels, a green roof, porous pavement, a cistern system, and a recirculating natural treatment/water reuse wetland. Visitors to the Zoo campus also have the opportunity to learn about the different ways stormwater is managed and reused on‐site.

“Save the Rain has exceeded our wildest expectations.” – Onondaga County Executive Joanne Mahoney

The educational videos provide an engaging look at many aspects of the STR program. Both videos are available via the STR website and on the STR YouTube channel

(https://www.youtube.com/user/savetherainus).

5.2.2 Rain Barrel Art Contest Since 2010, the STR rain barrel program has offered educational workshops and free rain barrels to City residents in the combined sewer system service areas. In 2014, STR added a unique component to the rain barrel program. The STR Rain Barrel Art Contest provided a chance for the community to show its support for stormwater management in a very creative way. Residents of Onondaga County were asked to submit art designs on rain barrels provided by STR. Several local artists participated in the contest, as well as aspiring artists from local elementary, middle, and high schools. In total, 20 painted rain barrel submissions were accepted for the contest. In April, Onondaga County hosted the Rain Barrel Art Gala at the Rosamond Gifford Zoo. The rain barrel submissions were all on Rain Barrel Art Contest Flyer display at the event and Onondaga County Executive Joanie Mahoney announced the contest winners. Several submissions were also recognized through on line and in person voting for the “People’s Choice” categories for elementary school, middle school, high school and adult categories. The event provided a great opportunity for Onondaga County to further the conversation about stormwater management in residential settings while engaging the community in a fun and interactive way.

5-2

www.savetherain.us

Section 5  Public Outreach

5.2.3 Save the Rain Educational Signage With 169 green infrastructure projects completed through the STR program, the County kicked off a new pilot program using educational signage to inform the public about the different ways green infrastructure protects Onondaga Lake.

STR educational signage at the Rosamond Gifford Zoo

The STR signage program was introduced at the Rosamond Gifford Zoo in fall 2014. The pilot signage program identifies sites where green infrastructure is being utilized and its impact on the environment. The Rosamond Gifford Zoo offered the most effective location for the pilot signage program because there are several different types of GI installations on its campus and because of the large number of visitors to the site.

Signage at the zoo highlights the functional aspects of each green infrastructure component installed on the campus. Educational illustrations and the “How it Works” section of the signage are outlined to give visitors an in‐ depth look at how the GI projects at the zoo capture stormwater. “Fun Facts” are also provided to give the reader an estimate of how many gallons of stormwater are being captured, for example 30 million bottles of water worth. The pilot signage at the zoo will be evaluated in 2015 and could potentially be used program‐wide for STR projects throughout the city.

5.2.4 Clean Water Fair The 2014 Save the Rain Clean Water Fair was held at the Onondaga County Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant on Saturday, September 6, 2014. The fair offered an opportunity for the community to learn about Onondaga County’s extensive investments in restoring and protecting Onondaga Lake. The 2014 Clean Water Fair featured:      

Hourly tours of the Metro wastewater treatment plant Viewing fish from Onondaga Lake Educational demonstrations and displays Games and activities for children Instructional rain barrel workshops Green infrastructure project bus tours

Kids view fish and wildlife captured from Onondaga Lake at the 2014 Clean Water Fair

Approximately 400 attendees participated in the 2014 Clean Water Fair. Several new features were added to the event this year. OCDWEP partnered with the Onondaga County Parks Department to offer Clean Water Fair attendees a free adult ticket to the Beaver Lake Nature Center’s Golden Harvest Festival. Another added attraction for the fair was the participation of

5-3

www.savetherain.us

Section 5  Public Outreach

the “Zoo to You” program from the Rosamond Gifford Zoo. The zoo staff brought animals native to New York State for visitors to learn about and view up close. These partnerships encourage greater community participation with local organizations that advocate for the environment.

“The Clean Water Fair is a chance to show the community all the great work being done to revitalize Onondaga Lake.” – Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection Commissioner Tom Rhoads

5.3 Signature Projects The 2014 construction season included several signature green infrastructure projects for the STR program. Signature projects are high‐profile projects that showcase the use of GI and build greater awareness in the community. In addition to acting as an educational opportunity for the general public, these signature projects also help protect the local sewer system by managing stormwater runoff and pollution to local waterways.

5.3.1 Comfort Tyler Park Project The Comfort Tyler Park project was constructed in 2014 through the partnership of the STR Program, City of Syracuse Parks Department, and the Jim and Juli Boeheim Foundation’s Courts 4 Kids Program. The Comfort Tyler Park project is a comprehensive renovation of the site that includes capital improvements to the park infrastructure (paid for by the City Parks Department) and the utilization of green infrastructure to capture stormwater runoff.

Rain Garden installation at Comfort Tyler Park

Porous Pavement Basketball Courts at Comfort Tyler Park

Porous pavement/tree plantings at Comfort Tyler Park

One of the green infrastructure enhancements was the installation of a bioretention area at the northeast corner of the park. This bioretention area captures runoff from both Comstock Avenue and East Colvin Street and is very similar to the bioretention areas previously installed at Pass Arboretum, the Rosamond Gifford Zoo Entrance, and Wadsworth Park. Another green infrastructure enhancement was the replacement of the existing basketball court on‐site with a porous asphalt court – making Comfort Tyler the fourth park with a basketball court converted to porous pavement in the partnership between Save the Rain and the Courts 4 Kids Program. Since 2009, porous pavement basketball courts have been constructed at Skiddy Park, Barker Park, and Lewis Park within the City of Syracuse. 5-4

www.savetherain.us

Section 5  Public Outreach

Finally, an infiltration trench and bioswale system was constructed along Vincent Street at the south end of the Park. This system captures stormwater runoff from Vincent Street and provides a defined curb line to limit the illegal parking that commonly occurs in this area. The Comfort Tyler project captures over 600,000 gallons of stormwater annually in a high priority sewershed, CSO 060/077.

5.3.2 Street Tree Program

“Neighborhood tree planting events are a great way to engage the local community.”

In 2014, over 1,200 trees were planted – City/County Arborist Stephen Harris as part of the ongoing STR street tree program. Residential street tree plantings help support stormwater capture efforts in addition to providing an opportunity for community engagement and education. Teaching young students about tree planting is also a key component of the program. On October 16, 2014, Save the Rain led the annual Arbor Day tree planting celebration and the 3,500th STR tree was planted by Danforth Middle School students along with Onondaga County and City of Syracuse officials. A total of 20 trees were planted at Danforth School as part of the Arbor Day event.

Neighborhood tree planting event

Neighborhood tree planting events allow residents to assist with tree installation and learn about tree care and maintenance. On November 8, 2014, residents participated in the annual STR Community Tree Planting. Nearly 100 trees were planted in the Northside neighborhood of the City of Syracuse. Since 2011, approximately 3,600 trees have been planted as part of the STR program.

5.3.3 East Washington Street Green Corridor Project The East Washington Street Green Corridor project is a comprehensive green street application located on East Washington Street, between Almond Street and Forman Avenue, adjacent to the Syracuse University Center of Excellence. Several green infrastructure elements were installed that capture stormwater and enhance the urban landscape. This project was the first STR project to utilize a new porous pavement technology called PaveDrain. PaveDrain is an interlocking concrete block porous paver system installed in eight‐foot long mats. The individual blocks are held together with a complex cabling system. The County will benefit from significant View of East Washington Street project maintenance advantages with this porous pavement system since there is not a joint stone infill that needs to be replaced each time maintenance occurs. Another benefit of this technology is the ability to lift the mats of interlocking pavers if needed in the course of underground infrastructure maintenance and return the mats when finished.

5-5

www.savetherain.us

Section 5  Public Outreach

The project included the construction of an underground infiltration trench, a PaveDrain parking lane, and bioswales along both sides of the street to capture stormwater and reduce combined sewer overflows. In addition to these beneficial green infrastructure items, the entire streetscape was retrofitted with new sidewalks and pedestrian crossings. Runoff from approximately 76,900 square feet of impervious area is captured by this green infrastructure project, reducing annual stormwater runoff by approximately 923,000 gallons. The East Washington Street project is the fourth STR project to be funded in part by the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation through their Green Innovation Grant Program (GIGP). It joins the Rain Barrel Program, the War Memorial Cistern System, and the I‐690 Downspout Disconnection project as past and present projects with GIGP funding.

5.3.4 Connective Corridor Project – Phases 2 and 3 In 2014, construction began on Phases 2 and 3 of the Connective Corridor project on East Genesee Street between Forman Avenue and South State Street and East and West Fayette Street from South Townsend Street to West Street. The Connective Corridor project is a partnership between the City of Syracuse, Syracuse University, and Onondaga County to build a comprehensive public transportation system and green street to seamlessly connect Syracuse University to Downtown Syracuse. Several applications with a variety of green infrastructure technologies, including Connective Corridor: View from East Fayette Street subsurface infiltration trenches, permeable paver parking lanes, and tree plantings are being installed as part of the project. The project is on track to be completed in the summer of 2015. Once complete, the green infrastructure included in Phases 2 and 3 will capture approximately 11 million gallons of stormwater annually, keeping it out of the combined sewer system. In total, including Phases 1, 2, and 3, Forman Park and the West Fayette Street Sewer Separation project, the green infrastructure on the Connective Corridor will capture approximately 23 million gallons of Connective Corridor: View from East Genesse stormwater annually. Street

5.3.5 Rosamond Gifford Zoo In 2014, the contractor for the Zoo Parking Lots project completed the bioswale punch list work, marking the full completion of all five of the green infrastructure projects at the Rosamond Gifford Zoo. In total, these projects capture nearly 6 million gallons of stormwater annually. In 2014, the County was able to begin collecting data on the Stormwater Wetland and Cistern project, assessing its performance and calculating the water and energy savings compared to the year before the project was constructed.

5-6

www.savetherain.us

Section 5  Public Outreach

With the improvements at the duck pond, Zoo staff no longer need to drain and clean the pond of algae biweekly in the summer months, as they had to do in the past. After the cistern recirculation system was constructed at the bear exhibit, the Zoo has been able to recycle and reuse water within the exhibit, rather than continuously pumping potable water through it. Because of these improvements, in 2014, compared to 2012, the County used 13 million gallons less potable water at the Zoo, equating to an approximate savings of $50,000.

Rain Garden installation at the entrance of the Rosamond Gifford Zoo

Aerial view of the porous pavement parking lot at the Rosamond Gifford Zoo

Green roof on the Elephant Barn at the Rosamond Gifford Zoo

5.4 Program Recognition/Awards/Events In 2014, Onondaga County continued to receive recognition and awards for its outstanding and innovative STR program.

5.4.1 Audubon New York

“County Executive Mahoney has brought innovative solutions to real‐time sustainability challenges facing Central New York.” – Erin Crotty, Executive Director

In June, Onondaga County Executive Joanne Mahoney received the Donald G. Colvin Award from Audubon New York for improvements at Onondaga Lake from the Audubon New York STR program. The award is the top honor given annually by the 50,000 member Audubon conservation group.

5.4.2 WEF Video Award In August, The Water Environment Federation (WEF) announced that Onondaga County’s STR program would be the 2014 recipient of the StormTV project award for best non‐ profit/government video. Onondaga County was recognized with this award at the Stormwater Congress at WEF’s Annual Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC).

5.4.3 USEPA Technical Assistance In October, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) announced that Onondaga County would be one of five communities that would receive technical assistance and integrated planning for stormwater and wastewater projects. The USEPA selected Onondaga County after evaluating several technical factors including human health and water quality challenges, innovative approaches, community and national impacts, and commitment to integrated planning. The technical assistance will facilitate the development of a new process to

5-7

www.savetherain.us

Section 5  Public Outreach

engage stakeholders and identify, evaluate, and select stormwater and wastewater projects for Onondaga County’s Department of Water Environment Protection. At the end of the technical assistance period in October 2015, the result will be a report for the USEPA on how to engage multiple MS4s and other stakeholders in integrated planning and development of evaluation criteria for proposed wastewater and stormwater projects, using Onondaga County as a model for other communities.

5.4.4 New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation GI Summit/Tour On October 14, 2014, Onondaga County Executive Mahoney and NYS Environmental Facilities Corporation President Matthew Driscoll welcomed communities to a New York State Green Infrastructure Summit at the Syracuse Center of Excellence. At this one‐day event representatives from Onondaga County, New York City, Buffalo, and other municipalities from across the state shared the lessons they have learned implementing their green infrastructure programs over the past few years. The agenda included sessions on program development; GI Summit – Fall 2014 GI Summit at the measuring performance; project selection, design, Syracuse Center of Excellence implementation, and maintenance; and financing mechanisms. Attendees also visited a selection of Save the Rain green infrastructure projects within walking distance of the Center of Excellence on a tour led by CH2M HILL.

5.5 Conclusion The 2014 construction season was very active once again for the STR program. From signature projects, to program awards, and community participation, the STR program continues to demonstrate national leadership in innovative stormwater management approaches. As we look ahead toward 2018, Onondaga County will continue its mission to invest in the community, improve water quality, and protect Onondaga Lake for future generations.

5-8

www.savetherain.us

SECTION 6

Intergovernmental Cooperation 6.1 City‐County Green Infrastructure Initiatives The City and County met biweekly from January 2010 through December 2013, and then monthly in 2014 (with few exceptions) to discuss the Save the Rain (STR) Program implementation issues. These meetings have enabled multiple objectives: 

Working through policy and technical barriers to GI implementation



Identifying and prioritizing project opportunities



Developing a consensus approach to design, including development of guidelines/policies and standards/typical details (and improving those details as experience is gained)



Addressing construction challenges



Addressing maintenance issues and achieving repeatable standards with clear responsibilities

The reduction in meeting frequency is a result of overall efficiency in the program mechanics. Improvements have been made in the following categories and are summarized in the following subsections: 

GI Permission Ordinance (annual submittal)



City Road‐Cut Application Process



City Site Plan Review Process



Dig Safely New York Mark‐out

GI Improvements to City Streets under Phases 2 and 3 of the Connective Corridor Project

6.1.1 GI Permission Ordinance A progressive development resulting from the City‐County meeting forum and partnership is the City of Syracuse’s GI Permission Ordinance, the first of which was approved in the spring of 2011. The 2013 Permission Ordinance (see Appendix G of the 2013 ACJ Annual Report) was signed by Mayor Stephanie Miner on March 5, 2013, identifying a list of 61 candidate projects for the 2013 construction season. Each permission ordinance has been very similar in language, starting with multiple recitals articulating the interest in facilitating green infrastructure within the community. The legislation has traditionally included 21 or 22 articles with specific terms and conditions for implementation of green projects including property access and maintenance. This legislation has yielded 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 Council, 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).

6-1

www.savetherain.us

Section 6  Intergovernmental Cooperation

Whereas no projects were being considered for construction in 2014 beyond those already in the 2013 Permission Ordinance, and because the Ordinance grants permission to a candidate project for 5 years, there was not a requirement to return for legislation in 2014. The County expects to present a revised list of projects in early 2015, and to seek approval from the City with a new ordinance that will supersede the 2013 Ordinance.

6.1.2 City Road‐Cut Application Process Another development, also related to improving program efficiency, is the way projects are now reviewed by the various City departments as part of the Road Cut Permit application process. An improved process was developed in 2012 and first implemented in 2013. In the past, a contractor would apply for the Road Cut Permit after receipt of a project’s Notice of Intent to Award. The process for obtaining a permit would typically take 4 to 6 weeks to complete, or longer if issues were identified that needed to be resolved, delaying the start of construction.

City Road Cut Permit Flowchart

6-2

www.savetherain.us

Section 6  Intergovernmental Cooperation

Onondaga County and its GI program manager worked with the City to develop a new process by which the 100 percent design technical review begins at the time of the project’s advertisement, rather than after the Notice of Intent to Award. City departments are now conducting their review during the bidding period and forwarding any comments or questions to the attention of the Engineer. These are then addressed by either addendum, discussion at the preconstruction meeting, or contract modification. After the project bid opening and issuance of the Notice of Intent to Award, the Contractor has 7 days to submit their work zone traffic control plans and all required insurances to the City for review and approval. This process still requires 4 to 6 weeks to complete; however, since the technical review begins prior to the contract award, the lag to obtain the Road Cut Permit and mobilize for construction is significantly reduced. This process efficiency continued with the projects completed in 2014 and produced minimal delay between the time that Notices to Proceed were issued and construction began.

6.1.3 City Site Plan Review Process The same process efficiency described above for the City Road Cut Application was proposed 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). Under the new process, the Engineer begins the technical review of the project plans with Syracuse City Codes Enforcement (CCE) at the time of the project advertisement. Once the contractor receives their Notice of Intent to Award, they submit their insurances to CCE, and the permit is issued accordingly. This process was used in 2014 for the Comfort Tyler Park and Hughes Vacant Lot projects, and greatly improved the efficiency by which general site permits were issued by the City of Syracuse.

6.1.4 Dig Safely New York Mark‐out Onondaga County and its GI program manager have developed a draft framework and guidelines for digging and backfilling in City Site Plan Review Flowchart and around installed GI. The City of Syracuse Departments of Engineering, Water, Public Works, etc., are reviewing the framework and evaluating how this works in conjunction with their standard operations. For the time being, the City is notifying the County of any instances of work adjacent to installed GI. In 2014, the County started integrating the GI project boundaries into their GIS system such that they could identify record drawings and provide appropriate mark‐out when receiving a Dig Safely ticket.

6-3

www.savetherain.us

Section 6  Intergovernmental Cooperation

6.2 Public‐Private Partnership The Green Improvement Fund (GIF) is a grant program to incentivize the development of green infrastructure stormwater mitigation techniques on private property as outlined in Section 14H (v) of the ACJ. The GIF program was established in 2010 and has played a significant role in supporting Onondaga County’s efforts to capture and manage stormwater through the use of green infrastructure. The program also provides an opportunity to demonstrate innovative solutions in private redevelopment projects. In 2014, the GIF GIF Project ‐ Porous Pavement Parking Lot at program was active from May 15, 2014 to Onondaga Commons (506 West Onondaga Street) December 5, 2014. A public meeting was held May 8, 2014 at the Department of Water Environment Protection with local design professionals to announce the kick‐off of the application period. GIF projects completed in 2014 are listed in Table 4‐2. Project fact sheets are on the Save the Rain website (http://savetherain.us/p‐ type/green‐improvement‐fund‐gif‐projects/).

6.2.1 GIF Program Highlights The year 2014 proved to be another successful year for the GIF program with the completion of 15 projects during the construction season. Projects ranging from parking lot renovations to the installation of bioretention systems were completed as part of the program. To date, the GIF program has produced the following results: 

132 applications submitted for grant funding



74 grant‐awarded projects completed



26 grant‐awarded projects currently in progress



6 applications currently being reviewed and finalized



26 applications failed to receive grant funding (due to not being able to meet eligibility requirements or applicants deciding not to move forward with projects)

For the completed projects, approximately 27 million gallons of stormwater are captured and removed from the combined sewer system annually.

6.2.2 GIF Program Boundary Modifications In May 2014, Onondaga County announced changes to the GIF program. During the kick‐off meeting on May 8, 2014 for the 2014 application period, potential GIF participants were informed that eligible areas within the GIF program boundary would be funded at the same levels introduced in the 2013 application season. Boundary areas were categorized using Low, Medium, and High priority identification, as shown on Figure 6‐1. However, an additional classification was developed to identify Potential Future Funding Areas, for which a determination on priority is pending an update to the SWMM. Proposed funding per gallon 6-4

www.savetherain.us

Section 6  Intergovernmental Cooperation

runoff remained at $0.30/gallon for high priority areas, $0.20/gallon for medium priority areas, and $0.10/gallon for low priority areas. Some CSO basins were eliminated from the program entirely. The only significant change to the GIF Program boundary map came in the form of several areas receiving the above mentioned designation of “Potential Future Funding Area.” This refers to areas that would not be eligible to receive GIF funding during the 2014 application period, and are being evaluated for future funding opportunity based on a review of system‐wide capture needs. Future funding priority areas will be established based on 2014 SWMM analysis and will be presented in the next round of the GIF. It should be noted that these boundaries and funding levels are not developed as a function of available program funding, but rather volume and frequency of CSO as well as efficiency (relationship between runoff reduction and CSO reduction). The intended outcome is always improved water quality. Please see Section 3.4 of the 2013 ACJ Report for additional detail on the method for defining priority levels and boundaries. The start of the 2015 GIF application season is again scheduled to be announced in the spring with a closing period for submissions expected in early December.

Figure 6‐1: 2014 GIF Program Boundary Map

6.2.3 GIF Program Maintenance Maintenance for GIF projects continued in 2014 with an increased program management effort due to the large number of projects that were completed in 2013. Under GIF contract requirements, applicants:

6-5

www.savetherain.us

Section 6  Intergovernmental Cooperation

“Affirm that as part of acceptance of the GIF grant, I am solely responsible for proper maintenance of the green infrastructure installed pursuant to the Agreement. I agree to maintain, preserve and keep the green infrastructure, or cause the green infrastructure to be maintained, preserved and kept in good repair and working order, shall provide proper maintenance documentation upon request and shall make or cause to be made all necessary repairs, replacements and renewals so that at all times the green infrastructure is operated and maintained properly in a manner consistent with the GIF Program standards and procedures.” The Maintenance Agreement is in place for a period of 10 years from the date of project completion. In the spring, completed GIF project applicants were contacted to schedule routine maintenance follow‐up visits. The site visits were conducted by GIF technical staff and applicants were required to provide proof of maintenance on‐site (documentation) or provide a schedule for when maintenance procedures would be completed. In some cases, the site visits allowed applicants to obtain additional information to assist them in meeting maintenance requirements. Additionally, GIF technical staff worked with applicants in the fall on maintenance requirements and completion. GIF technical staff continuously track ongoing applicant maintenance efforts. The tracking spreadsheet is included in Appendix G. The maintenance program is a key element in the long term success of the GIF program. The continued functionality of green infrastructure projects on private property will reduce pollution entering the local sewer system and protect the County’s investment in the GIF program.

GIF Project ‐ Green Roof at Putnam Properties

GIF Project ‐ Porous Pavement Parking Lot at United Uniform

GIF Project ‐ Bioswale at the Van Keuren Square Building

6.3 Inter‐Municipal Agreements The County has maintained cooperative inter‐municipal relationships with state and local agencies dating back to the First Stipulation of the ACJ. From time to time it is necessary to enter into a contract to address legal issues that arise from CSO abatement 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

6-6

www.savetherain.us

Section 6  Intergovernmental Cooperation

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 following project‐specific IMAs were executed in 2012 and utilized in 2013: 

SUNY Upstate Medical University (project locations include Cancer Center Expansion green roof & rain garden; Institute of Human Performance tree planting; Biotechnology Center bioretention systems; Townsend Towers Renovation bioretention system; Kennedy Square Redevelopment Project, and others to be determined)



SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry (porous pavement, bioretention, 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 limited to projects at Concord Place, Sumner Avenue, South State Street, Gifford Street, Richmond Avenue, South Clinton Street and Oneida 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.)

6-7

www.savetherain.us

Section 6  Intergovernmental Cooperation



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 is a remarkable illustration of government cooperation across State, County, and City institutions. The relationship with SUNY Upstate Medical University continues to develop with more projects implemented in 2014 and planned for the future. The above noted Road Reconstruction IMA was amended on July 9, 2014, to increase funding to $1,338,833.38. This amendment covered costs for projects completed or slated for completion through the end of 2014. A new IMA with the City to address a list of projects on City Park property was executed on July 9, 2014. This included work at the following locations: 

Barker Park



Lewis Park



Wadsworth Park



Comfort Tyler Park



Magnarelli Community Center

6.4 Ordinances In addition to the City of Syracuse’s Green Infrastructure Permission Ordinance mentioned previously in Section 6.1, the County is currently in negotiation with the City of Syracuse to revise the existing Stormwater Ordinance, as well as the existing Tree Ordinance. This could affect the amount of stormwater allowed to leave property redevelopment within the City boundary, as well as better manage the City’s forest canopy. A revised proposal was provided to the City Administration in the summer of 2014 and negotiations are ongoing to find a mutually acceptable package of revisions. Onondaga County’s Sewer Use Ordinance, Local Law No. 1 of 2011 (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 CMOM program provides a mechanism to address wastewater capacity, construction, and O&M for new projects through the entire process from planning to post‐ construction. This legislation affects and assists the County’s requirement to comply with the CSO capture schedule and support the long‐term sustainability of development within the district. Revisions to existing IMAs with neighboring communities are needed to reflect the requirements of the new law. Negotiations with satellite municipalities continued in 2014.

6-8

www.savetherain.us

SECTION 7

Conclusions The CSO compliance schedule set forth in the ACJ includes deadlines for both CSO percent capture by volume and gray infrastructure project implementation. The County has worked diligently to maintain compliance with schedules set forth in the ACJ and has successfully met the deadlines to date, as shown in this 2014 annual report and summarized below.

7.1 ACJ CSO Capture Compliance The first compliance date related to percent capture is December 31, 2013. Table 7‐1 presents the ACJ CSO capture compliance percentages and deadlines alongside the actual CSO capture status of the County’s Save the Rain Program. Although there is not a compliance deadline in 2014, the capture volume for 2014 conditions was calculated to be 95.3 percent, based on the recently calibrated SWMM (2014 conditions). The annual capture percentage under 2014 system conditions exceeds the 95 percent final capture milestone mandated for 2018. Table 7‐1: CSO Capture Compliance Schedule1 ACJ Compliance Stage

ACJ Percent CSO Capture by Volume

Onondaga County Save the Rain Program Status Percent CSO Capture by Volume

ACJ Compliance Deadline

Stage I

89.5 %

92.9 %

December 31, 2013

Stage II

91.4 %

TBD

December 31, 2015

Stage III

93.0 %

TBD

December 31, 2016

Stage IV

95.0 %

TBD

December 31, 2018

SWMM results based on the 1991 precipitation record. TBD = To Be Determined

7.2 Gray Infrastructure Project Implementation 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 stipulated projects are all operational and have achieved the major and minor compliance milestones dates as presented in Table 7‐2. Table 7‐2: ACJ Gray Infrastructure Milestone Schedule and Compliance Status Project

CSO 044 Conveyances

Milestone Description

Milestone Compliance Milestone Date Type 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

7-1

www.savetherain.us

Section 7  Conclusions

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

Harbor Brook Interceptor Sewer Replacement

Milestone Description 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

Minor

09/01/2010

Achieved

Major

12/31/2011

Achieved

Plans and specs to NYSDEC for review and approval

Minor

02/01/20111

Achieved

Commence construction

Minor

10/01/20111

Achieved

Complete construction and commence operation

Major

12/31/2013

Achieved

Plans and specs to NYSDEC for review and approval

Minor

04/29/20111

Achieved

Commence construction

Minor

12/31/20111

Achieved

Complete construction and commence operation

Major

12/31/2013

Achieved

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

Clinton Storage Facility

Harbor Brook Storage Facility

Milestone Compliance Type Milestone Date Status

Date reflects ACJ Milestone extension approved by the NYSDEC on November 4, 2010

7.3 Program Assessment Onondaga County’s Save the Rain (STR) Program continued to progress in 2014. To date under the STR Program, the County has constructed: 

The CSO 044 conveyance project totaling 500 LF of a 96‐ inch diameter pipeline connected to the Midland RTF. The Midland RTF includes 3.6 MG of storage and an additional 1.4 MG of conveyance storage with the extension of the pipeline to CSO 044.



The HBIS project which included upsizing of 7,500 LF of interceptor sewer, rehabilitation of 1,860 LF of existing sewers; 2,500 LF of brook culvert, and 4,100 LF of water mains and abandoned CSOs 013 and 016.



The Erie Boulevard Storage System gate modifications which provide approximately 3.5 MG of useable storage.



The Clinton Storage Facility with 6.5 MG of storage. Clinton Storage Facility

7-2

www.savetherain.us

Section 7  Conclusions



The Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility with 4.9 MG of storage.



The separation of combined sewer areas tributary to CSOs 022 and 045.



169 individual green infrastructure projects totaling over 108 MG of annual stormwater capture, including several signature projects such as the 3,825–linear foot Connective Corridor capturing over 15 MG of stormwater annually; the OnCenter 66,000‐square foot green roof, parking garage and surface lot Rosamond Gifford Zoo Elephant Exhibit Green Roof capturing over 5 MG of stormwater annually, the War Memorial Stormwater Capture and Reuse project capturing 300,000 gallons stormwater annually; and the Zoo campus improvements capturing 5.9 MG of stormwater annually.



The installation of approximately 3,600 trees and over 1,200 rain barrels.

Planting the 3,500th STR Tree on Arbor Day at the Danforth Middle School

The County also continued 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. Additional flow monitoring was conducted during 2014 within the combined sewer system, to provide data for calibrating the County’s SWMM. The newly calibrated 2014 conditions model calculates CSO capture by green and gray infrastructure to be 480 million gallons based on the typical year rainfall. This capture volume corresponds to a capture rate of 95.3 percent, exceeding the final capture

milestone mandated by the end of 2018.

7.4 2015 Program Plans The County intends to advance the following projects and activities in 2015:     

CSO 063 conveyance project CSO 061 separation Additional green infrastructure projects, focusing on high priority CSO basins such as 060/077, 029, and select others where water quality benefits will be maximized Continued monitoring of CSOs (dialog has been initiated with NYSDEC and will continue in 2015 to potentially adjust current monitoring locations to canvass different locations of the sewershed, instead of gathering more data at the same “representative” CSOs) Ongoing updates to SWMM

www.savetherain.us

7-3

Section 7  Conclusions

A primary focus of 2015 is expected to be system flow optimization and maximization of conveyance, storage, and treatment facilities. The 2015 AMP will focus on implementation of the PCCM, and include a sampling program targeted for sampling overflows from the discharge outfalls of the new Clinton and Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facilities. Sampling program requirements of individual CSO outfalls, which have been abated for up‐to the 1‐year, 2‐hour storm (CSOs 003, 004, 030 and 034), will be re‐evaluated with the NYSDEC and ASLF in 2015. Approaches for assessing receiving water impacts and attainment of AWQS will be reviewed and evaluated to select an analysis which will be utilized in analyzing the impact of the remaining CSOs on receiving waters. The goal is to support a focused sampling program that will produce the data needed to continue assessment of tributary compliance with AWQS, track progress toward designated use attainment, and support future management decisions.

7-4

www.savetherain.us

Appendix A SPDES Permit No. NY 002 7081 for Metro

Appendix B 2014 Combined Sewer Overflows Annual Report

Appendix C 2014 CSO Flow Monitoring Data for Representative CSOs

Appendix D 2014 AMP Annual Data Report

Appendix E 2014 Sewer Flow Monitoring Data

Appendix F SWMM Calibration Charts

Appendix G GIF Maintenance Log