Lower Mill Creek Partial Remedy. Alternatives Evaluation Preliminary Findings Report

Transcription

1 Lower Mill Creek Partial Remedy Alternatives Evaluation Preliminary Findings Report Refined & Updated July 2012

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PURPOSE SCOPE LMCPR Scope of Work Partial Remedy Parallel Path Mandated Final Remedy Conceptualized Viable Plan MODELING Model History Model Related Terminology Updated Model Baseline Results Source Control Models COSTING Alternatives Costing Protocol Cost Related Terminology Bottoms Up Estimating Parametric Estimating DEFAULT WWIP Default WWIP Remedy Revised WWIP Design Concept Optimized WWIP Remedy LEGAL AND REGULATORY Relevant Consent Decree & WWIP Provisions Regulator Coordination Regarding Sustainable & LMCPR Alternatives PHASE 1 ALTERNATIVES Phase 1 Grey Alternative Phase 1 Sustainable/Hybrid Alternative Comparison of Phase 1 Alternatives June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

3 9 LMCFR GREY ALTERATIVE Overview Grey Alternative Model Results Grey Alternative Benefits Realized Grey Alternative Potential Risks LMCFR Grey Alternative Capital Costs LMCFR SUSTAINABLE ALTERATIVE Source Control Perspective Sustainable Parallel Path Overview Lick Run Watershed Overview (CSO 5) West Fork Watershed Overview (15 CSOs) Kings Run Watershed Overview (CSOs 217 & 483) Bloody Run Watershed Overview (CSO 181) Ludlow Run Watershed Overview (CSO 24) Denham Watershed Overview (CSO 10) Other Projects in the Sustainable Alternative Sustainable Alternative Model Results Sustainable Alternative Phase 1 Schedule Sustainable Alternative Benefits Realized Sustainable Alternative Potential Risks Sustainable Alternative Capital Costs LMCFR HYBRID OPTION Overview Hybrid Alternative Benefits Realized Hybrid Alternative Potential Risks Hybrid Alternative Capital Costs WATER QUALITY Water Quality Modeling Water Quality Conclusions Preliminary Biological Assessment Results June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

4 13 RATE IMPACT ANALYSIS Underlying Assumptions for this Analysis Impacts of Alternatives Short Term Impacts of Alternatives Long Term OTHER LMCFR CONSIDERATIONS SSO 700 Facility Carthage Options COMMUNITY FEEDBACK Lower Mill Creek Public Outreach Events NEXT STEPS CRITERIA FOR ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERATION BY USEPA APPENDIX A TECHNICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX B CONSENT DECREE and WWIP LANGUAGE REFERENCED IN CHAPTER APPENDIX C REGULATOR DOCUMENTS and FEEDBACK REFERENCED IN CHAPTER APPENDIX D HYBRID ALTERNATIVE MODEL RESULTS LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1-1: MODELED FECAL COLIFORM LEVELS IN MILL CREEK AFTER DAY 1 OF STORM EVENT OF LMCFR GREY AND SUSTAINABLE FIGURE 3-1: LMC STUDY PARALLEL PATHS FIGURE 4-1: EXAMPLE MODEL VALIDATION HYDROGRAPH FIGURE 5-1: LMC STUDY COST DEVELOPMENT FIGURE 6-1: LMCPR DEFAULT PLAN ORIGINAL CONCEPT FIGURE 6-2: LMCPR DEFAULT PLAN REVISED CONCEPT FIGURE 8-1: PHASE 1 GREY ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE FIGURE 8-2: PHASE 1 SUSTAINABLE/HYBRID ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE FIGURE 9-1: TREATMENT LEVELS OF THREE ALTERNATIVES AT COMPLETION FIGURE 9-2: LMCFR GREY ALTERNATIVE TOTAL CAPITAL COST BREAKDOWN FIGURE 9-3: LMCFR GREY ALTERNATIVE ENCUMBRANCE & CASH FLOW FORECAST ILLUSTRATION FIGURE 10-1: LICK RUN WATERSHED ENABLED IMPACT PROJECTS FIGURE 10-2: LICK RUN WATERSHED OVERVIEW OF PROJECTS FIGURE 10-3: WEST FORK WATERSHED OVERVIEW MAP FIGURE 10-4: KINGS RUN OVERVIEW OF PROJECTS MAP FIGURE 10-5: BLOODY RUN OVERVIEW OF PROJECT MAP FIGURE 10-6: LUDLOW RUN SUSTAINABLE PROJECTS FIGURE 10-7: DENHAM OVERVIEW OF PROJECT MAP FIGURE 10-8: SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVE PHASE 1 SCHEDULE FIGURE 10-9: SOUTH FAIRMOUNT CLEAN OHIO FUND PROJECT FIGURE 10-10: FORECLOSED PROPERTIES IN LICK RUN WATERSHED FIGURE 10-11: TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE FIGURE 10-12: LICK RUN VALLEY CONVEYANCE 100-YEAR FLOOD INUNDATION FIGURE 10-13: WEST FORK CHANNEL 100-YEAR FLOOD INUNDATION FIGURE 10-14: LMCFR SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL COST BREAKDOWN June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

5 FIGURE 10-15: LMCFR SUSTAINABLE OPTION ENCUMBRANCE & CASH FLOW ILLUSTRATION FIGURE 11-1: LMCFR HYBRID ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL COST BREAKDOWN FIGURE 11-2: LMCFR HYBRID ALTERNATIVE ENCUMBRANCE AND CASH FLOW ILLUSTRATION FIGURE 12-1: WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS FOR MILL CREEK FIGURE 12-2: GRAY/SUSTAINABLE DENSITY PERFORMANCE FIGURE 13-1: PHASE 1 IMPACTS FIGURE 13-2: LONG TERM IMPACTS FIGURE 15-1: LICK RUN WATERSHED COMMUNITY DESIGN WORKSHOP FEEDBACK LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1-1: PHASE 1 MAJOR COMPONENTS COMPARISON... 8 TABLE 1-2: PHASE 1 PERFORMANCE METRICS COMPARISON... 9 TABLE 1-3: LMCFR PERFORMANCE METRICS COMPARISON TABLE 1-4: PHASE 1 BENEFITS COMPARISON TABLE 1-5: PHASE 1 RISKS COMPARISON TABLE 1-6: CAPITAL COSTS COMPARISON TABLE 1-7: TOTAL LIFE CYCLE COST COMPARISON TABLE 4-1: MODEL VERSIONS COMPARISON TABLE 5-1: DESIGN CONTINGENCIES TABLE 5-2: LMC STUDY COST ESTIMATING SOURCES/FACTORS TABLE 8-1: PHASE 1 GREY ALTERNATIVE PROJECT COMPONENTS TABLE 8-2: PHASE 1 GREY ALTERNATIVE PERFORMANCE METRICS TABLE 8-3: PHASE 1 GREY ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL INVESTMENT COSTS TABLE 8-4: PHASE 1 SUSTAINABLE/HYBRID COMPONENTS TABLE 8-5: PHASE 1 SUSTAINABLE/HYBRID ALTERNATIVE PERFORMANCE METRICS TABLE 8-6: PHASE 1 SUSTAINABLE/HYBRID ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL INVESTMENT COSTS TABLE 8-7: PHASE 1 PERFORMANCE METRICS COMPARISON TABLE 8-8: PHASE 1 PROJECT COMPONENTS COMPARISON TABLE 8-9: PHASE 1 ALTERNATIVES COST COMPARISON TABLE 8-10: PHASE 1 ALTERNATIVE BENEFITS TABLE 8-11: PHASE 1 ALTERNATIVE RISKS TABLE 9-1: GREY ALTERNATIVE MODEL RESULTS AND SOLUTIONS TABLE 9-2: UPDATED BASELINE MODEL VERSION 3.2 PERFORMANCE METRICS TABLE 9-3: LMCFR GREY ALTERNATIVE PERFORMANCE METRICS TABLE 9-4: LMCFR GREY ALTERNATIVE TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS TABLE 10-1: PHASE 1 SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVE TABLE 10-2: PHASE 1&2 SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVE TABLE 10-3: MSD SUSTAINABLE WATERSHED EVALUATION PLANNING PROCESS TABLE 10-4: SUMMARY OF LICK RUN WATERSHED PROJECTS.69 TABLE 10-5: SUMMARY OF WEST FORK WATERSHED PROJECTS 73 TABLE 10-6: SUMMARY OF KINGS RUN WATERSHED PROJECTS 75 TABLE 10-7: SUMMARY OF BLOODY RUN WATERSHED PROJECTS..78 TABLE 10-8: LUDLOW RUN CSO / NESTED CSO S TABLE 10-9: DENHAM CSO 10 PHASING PROJECT PLAN TABLE 10-10: LMCFR ALTERNATIVE MODELED RESULTS AND SOLUTIONS TABLE 10-11: LMCFR SUSTAINABLE OPTION PERFORMANCE METRICS TABLE 10-12: LMCPR SUSTAINABLE OPTION CAPITAL INVESTMENT COSTS TABLE 11-1: LMCFR HYBRID OPTION PHASE 2 PROJECT COMPONENTS TABLE 11-2: LMCFR HYBRID OPTION PERFORMANCE METRICS TABLE 11-3: LMCFR HYBRID ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL COST SUMMARY June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

6 TABLE 12-1: MILL CREEK FECAL COLIFORM EVALUATION DURING 3-DAY STORM EVENT TABLE 12-2: DAY 1 FECAL COLIFORM DENSITIES TABLE 12-3: MILL CREEK BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

7 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Alternatives Evaluations This document reports the efforts that have gone into development of the Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati s (MSD) alternatives analysis for the first phase of improvement for the Lower Mill Creek (LMC) Watershed consistent with the LMC Study work plan. It is the culmination of extensive work undertaken for the past two and a half years, including detailed technical analysis, consultation with Regulators and partner agencies, and significant community involvement. This information has been developed in support of decisions that need to be made about available options. The Regulators recognized in 2009, as did the Co-Defendants, that the default tunnel solution was a concept that required vetting with technical and engineering expertise and cost. At the same time, Hamilton County led an effort to change State law to clarify opportunities for cost-effective options for stormwater removal. The Co-Defendants amended the 1968 Agreement to reflect these new opportunities. Accordingly, the Lower Mill Creek Partial Remedy Study (LMC Study) was negotiated to provide MSD a 3-year window to 1) refine the tunnel design and develop updated cost estimates and 2) develop a source control alternative approach having the same objectives as the default tunnel to reduce combined sewer overflows throughout the Lower Mill Creek. A study and any proposed alternative must be submitted to the Regulators by December 31, On the same date, the SSO Final Remedy Report is also due because of the close connection of SSO 700 and the Lower Mill Creek Final Remedy. During our last Executive Session, MSD updated the County regarding more detailed design and costs of the tunnel solution. Specifically, the default tunnel concept had to be revised to overcome constructability and safety concerns. Since then, MSD has taken the tunnel concept a step further and identified the cost-effective grey project that would be built today. At the same time, MSD has advanced a detailed planning and design for source control approach that is conducive to integrated watershed planning. MSD is working with professionals to develop a holistic, integrated approach for the Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) 700 Facility and its impact on the Lower Mill Creek Watershed. MSD has focused on leading with source control and removal of stormwater from the combined sewer system cost effectively and strategically to advance combined sewer overflow (CSO) reduction and community goals. The WWIP already included partial separation projects at several CSOs particularly the CSOs not in close proximity to the tunnel. Strategic sewer separation allows for more cost effective solutions to offload stormwater and natural drainage, reducing the liability that stormwater places on the combined sewer system. By strategically separating sewers, the MSD can prioritize significant opportunities to remove stormwater from the combined sewer system. Using best management practices (BMPs), stormwater can be returned to the natural environment, peak flows and volumes can be managed, and water quality can be improved. Through additional policy changes, watershed solutions can be developed to anticipate and plan for development potential and improve stormwater management practices. 6 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

8 USEPA has been actively engaging MSD with respect to the LMC Study. USEPA has acknowledged that the model will serve as the basis for evaluating the effectiveness of a source control approach. During the model review teleconference and source control presentations in 2011, USEPA staff was in agreement with the MSD s modeling approach. USEPA is eager to begin the formal model review process and would like MSD to submit the Alternative for consideration within a few months. For additional statements of Regulator comments and feedback refer to Appendix C. Phase 1 alternatives were developed by selecting suites of projects from each LMCFR concept that would meet the 2.0 BG CSO volume reduction goal for the least life cycle cost. Both Phase 1 alternatives include the four existing RTC facilities and recently completed West Fork Channel grate modifications. The Phase 1 Grey Alternative is comprised of a 25-foot diameter deep tunnel extending to CSO 14 (Station Avenue, just south of the confluence of West Fork Channel and Mill Creek); an 84 mgd deep tunnel pump station; and an 84 mgd EHRT at the Mill Creek WWTP. The Phase 1 Sustainable/Hybrid Alternative consists of the following: sustainable infrastructure projects in Lick Run, West Fork Channel, and Kings Run, including large-scale sewer separations, stormwater detention basins, naturalized and new channels, stream restoration, combined storage, and a small EHRT facility; a real-time control (RTC) facility in Bloody Run; and a 2.0 MG combined storage facility for CSO 488. The Phase 1 Sustainable/Hybrid Alternative is very flexible, as it enables the selection of a sustainable option or a hybrid option for Phase 2. A summary of the major project components for each of the two Phase 1 alternatives is presented in the table below. 7 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

9 PHASE 1 Grey Sustainable/Hybrid Tunnel (ft) 15,300 - Vertical Length of Drop Shafts (ft) 1,500 - Consolidation Sewers (ft) 10,400 - Tunnel Pump Station & EHRT (mgd) 84 - Real Time Control Facility Locations CSOs 5,125, 482, 485/487 CSOs 5,125, 181, 482, 485/487 West Fork Channel Grate Modifications yes yes New Storm Sewers (ft) - 104,400 Relocated Combined Sewers (ft) - 21,500 Naturalized and New Channels (ft) - 14,200 Stream Restoration (ft) - 20,300 Non-Tunnel Storage Capacity (mg) - 5 Additional EHRT Capacity (mgd) - 20 Stormwater Detention Basins - 15 TABLE 1-1: PHASE 1 MAJOR COMPONENTS COMPARISON Both alternatives meet the Phase 1 goal of 2 billion gallons CSO reduction, as shown in Table 1-2. Watershed percent control increases from the 50% baseline level to 71%. It is interesting to note, there are not significant differences in volumetric control between the alternatives for Phase 1. In addition to satisfying the Phase 1 compliance goal, the source control approach aligns with USEPAs integrated watershed planning approach. 8 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

10 Performance Metrics Original WWIP Model Updated Baseline Model 3.2 Phase 1 Grey Alternative Phase 1 Sustainable/Hybrid Alternative Combined System Inflow (MG) 13,602 10,148 8,698 7,710 Stormwater Separated (MG) 0 0 1,450 2,978 Overflow Mitigated (MG) 0 0 2,205 2,024 Flows Treated at EHRT (MG) Flows Treated at WWTP (MG) 5,349 5,071 5,825 4,080 Remaining Overflow (MG) 8,253 5,077 2,872 3,145 Watershed % Control 39% 50% 72% 71% Number of CSOs Eliminated Number of CSOs > 85% Control Number of CSOs < 85% Control No. of CSOs >100 MG overflow TABLE 1-2: PHASE 1 PERFORMANCE METRICS COMPARISON For the formal LMC Study submittal to USEPA, a detailed Phase 2 plan is not required. However, any alternative submitted must be able to reasonably fit into a long-term concept. MSD developed LMC Final Remedy concepts for each alternative considered for comparison purposes. The specific projects to be proposed in Phase 2 must be submitted to USEPA by December 31, LMCFR alternatives/options were prepared for three scenarios: Grey; maximum sustainable; and a hybrid of the two. The Grey Alternative emulated the Final WWIP Remedy and consists of the following: a deep tunnel to Mitchell Avenue with a tunnel pump station and enhanced high rate treatment (EHRT) facility at Mill Creek WWTP; EHRT facilities at Wooden Shoe (CSO 217),Daly Road (CSO 532), and Carthage (CSOs 171 and 490); storage facilities at Bloody Run (CSO 181), CSO 488, CSO 226, CSO 191, CSO 125, and CSO 559; partial sewer separations; and regulator improvements. The Sustainable Option incorporates large source control projects through sewer separation and stormwater detention facilities in the following six watersheds: Lick Run; West Fork Channel; Kings Run; Bloody Run; Ludlow Run; and Denham (CSO 10). The Sustainable Option does not have a deep tunnel to serve CSOs below Mitchell Avenue, but retains all other upstream CSO control solutions in the upper watershed that are not controlled through sustainable solutions. The modeled Sustainable Option did not achieve 85 percent CSO control at each CSO in the Mill Creek Basin, and provided 80 percent control for the entire basin. 9 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

11 The Hybrid Alternative replaces the sustainable solutions in the Bloody Run, Ludlow Run, and Denham watersheds with more cost-effective grey solutions. The Hybrid Option includes a down-sized deep tunnel extending to Mitchell Avenue to achieve 85 percent CSO control at each CSO in the Mill Creek Basin. Details of the three LMCFR alternatives/options are presented in Sections 8 through 10 of this summary document. The definition of longer-term compliance will be determined at some point in the future when MSD submits a Phase 2 plan for USEPA consideration. As previously stated, the decision for the LMCPR is not predicated on a well-defined plan for future Phase 2 improvements. Rather, it needs to be demonstrated that the selected LMCPR is viable and fits into a conceptual Phase 2 solution. A comparison of LMCFR alternative performance metrics is shown in Table 1-3. Performance Metrics Updated Baseline Model 3.2 LMCFR Grey Alternative LMCFR Sustainable Option LMCFR Hybrid Option Combined System Inflow (MG) 10,148 8,158 6,200 7,019 Stormwater Separated (MG) 0 1,990 3,948 3,129 Overflow Mitigated (MG) 0 3,902 3,005 4,051 Flows Treated at EHRT (MG) Flows Treated at WWTP (MG) 5,071 7,063 4,129 5,993 Remaining Overflow (MG) 5,077 1,175 2,072 1,026 Watershed % Control 50% 88% 80% 90% Number of CSOs Eliminated Number of CSOs > 85% Control Number of CSOs < 85% Control No. of CSOs >100 MG overflow TABLE 1-3: LMCFR PERFORMANCE METRICS COMPARISON The modeled Sustainable Option did not achieve 85% control at each CSO. However, the overall watershed is within five percent of reaching 85%. Most of the CSOs with <85% control are small and do not contribute large overflow volumes. MSD is prepared to develop a plan to achieve further volumetric reduction through a watershed-based approach that captures benefits from additional direct and enabled projects and policy changes. 10 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

12 The WWIP is based upon a volumetric control of CSOs. The Co-Defendants are not required to achieve a specific water quality goal or target with its Wet Weather Improvement Program. MSD has voluntarily conducted studies to verify a source control approach will not further impair Mill Creek of the Ohio River. Even if MSD were to achieve full compliance with the Mill Creek WQS, the benefits in terms of reduced public health risk or increased recreation days are minimal due to land use. The lower reach of Mill Creek is highly channelized and is adjacent to an industrial/transportation corridor that allows little if any access for water recreation. For this reason, the WWIP is based upon volumetric control in lieu of water quality improvement. In an absolute sense, the existing WQS cannot be achieved because of a host of reinforces that additional expenditure is difficult to justify given the use limitations in the Lower Mill Creek and the volume of stormwater not derived from MSD s service area. The figure shows that under the modeled conditions within Mill Creek, fecal coliform is not changed under any modeled scenario until River Mile 8 at Bloody Run. At that point the Sustainable scenario illustrates a better performance. Fecal Coliform levels remain unchanged until Bloody Run where Sustainable shows better performance. FIGURE 1-1: MODELED FECAL COLIFORM LEVELS IN MILL CREEK AFTER DAY 1 OF STORM EVENT OF LMCFR GREY AND SUSTAINABLE 11 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

13 As shown in Table 1-4 there are benefits offered by each of the alternatives. Two important benefits to consider are future flexibility and impact on MSD s operating budget. TABLE 1-4: PHASE 1 BENEFITS COMPARISON As summarized in Table 1-5, each alternative also has risks that will require mitigation and upfront understanding of the full implications. Each of the risks listed above are discussed in detail in this. Phase 1 Risk Long-term solution not adaptable Complex construction methods Limited local construction participation Higher energy demand & cost Larger carbon footprint Additional assumptions for modeling Potential future stormwater regulations Future NPDES regulations Potential large variance with cost for tunnel construction TABLE 1-5: PHASE 1 RISKS COMPARISON Grey Alternative X X X X X X X Sustainable/Hybrid Alternative X X 12 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

14 Both alternatives for Phase 1 represent a massive infrastructure investment, with the total costs of the Sustainable/Hybrid alternative being less than 40% of the Grey alternative. The Sustainable/Hybrid alternative also allows for flexibility in Phase 2. The table below summarizes the Phase 1 and Phase 2 capital costs for both alternatives and options. PHASE 1 Grey Alternative Lick Run Watershed $ - West Fork Watershed $ - Bloody Run Watershed $ - Kings Run Watershed $ - CSO 488 Storage $ - Tunnel $ 312,671,000 Consolidation Sewers $ 88,927,000 Tunnel Pump Station & EHRT $ 135,811,000 Total $ 537,409,000 PHASE 2 Grey Alternative Sustainable Option Hybrid Option Denham Watershed $ - $ 58,181,000 $ - Ludlow Run Watershed $ - $ 33,727,000 $ - Bloody Run Watershed $ - $ 83,526,000 $ 58,305,000 Upper Watersheds Part Seps $ 74,768,000 $ 29,345,000 $ 45,104,000 EHRT & Storage Facilities $ 186,568,000 $ 25,813,000 $ 25,813,000 Carthage EHRT $ 65,979,000 $ 65,979,000 $ 65,979,000 Regulator Improvements $ 15,918,000 $ 15,918,000 $ 15,918,000 Tunnel Pump Station & EHRT $ - $ - $ 135,811,000 $ Tunnel $ 218,130,000 $ - $ 414,584,000 Consolidation Sewers $ 83,123,000 $ - $ 165,718,000 Total $ 644,486,000 $ 312,489,000 $ 927,232,000 TOTAL LMCFR $ 1,181,895,000 $ 629,936,000 $ 1,244,679,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Sustainable/Hybrid Alternative 195,449,000 73,503,000 3,421,000 34,423,000 10,651, ,447, TABLE 1-6: CAPITAL COSTS COMPARISONS 13 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

15 A total cost summary, including capital, life cycle, and capital costs per gallon of CSO reduction, is provided in the table below. PHASE 1 Grey Alternative Capital $ 537,409,000 Life Cycle $ 431,349,000 Cost/gallon removed $ 0.24 $ $ $ Sustainable/Hybrid Alternative 317,447, ,851, PHASE 2 Grey Alternative Sustainable Option Hybrid Option Capital $ 644,486,000 $ 312,489,000 $ 927,232,000 Life Cycle $ 529,676,000 $ 250,735,000 $ 752,946,000 Cost/gallon removed $ 0.38 $ 0.32 $ 0.46 TOTAL PROJECT Capital $ 1,181,895,000 $ 629,936,000 $ 1,244,679,000 Life Cycle $ 961,025,000 $ 499,586,000 $ 1,001,797,000 Cost/gallon removed $ 0.30 $ 0.21 $ 0.31 CHANGE IN TREATMENT LIFE CYCLE COST (included in Life Cycle cost totals) Operating Differential $ 7,547,000 $ (3,569,000) $ 3,493,000 TABLE 1-7: TOTAL LIFE CYCLE COST COMPARISON 14 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

16 2 PURPOSE The purpose of this document is to provide a high-level summary of the detailed information developed in conjunction with the Lower Mill Creek Partial Remedy (LMCPR) Study. The Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati (MSD) retained a team of consultants to conduct the work discussed herein over a three-year period. The tasks associated with developing detailed design and study of various alternatives to the default solution identified in MSD s Final Wet Weather Improvement Plan (WWIP) have been sufficiently completed to enable the Consent Decree Co-Defendants to decide which path to advance. This document is not intended to replace all the technical publications associated with this project. Rather, it serves as a summary of work completed to-date. The complexity of this study required a wide array of technical, environmental, and economic issues to be evaluated to allow Co-Defendants to consider LMCPR alternatives in preparation for negotiations with regulators. The results of this report have been further summarized into a condensed presentation provided to the Hamilton County Board of Commissioners. Given the detailed nature of the work, it was prudent for MSD to document the level of effort performed by the Project Team. MSD retained professionals having specialized expertise with the technical aspects of the LMCPR study. The following firms and departments provided information and data used to develop this summary report. AECOM Limnotech AMEC Environment & Infrastructure Mactec Engineering & Consulting Arcadis Malcolm Pirnie-Arcadis ATC Environmental BHE Environmental Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati Black & Veatch Midwest Biodiversity Institute CDM Smith Ohio Department of Transportation CH2M Hill RA Consultants Hamilton County Planning & Development Strand & Associates Terracon Human Nature USEPA Jacobs Engineering Group XCG Consultants, Inc. Keramida Weston Solutions 15 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

17 3 SCOPE 3.1 LMCPR SCOPE OF WORK As part of the WWIP, MSD specifically negotiated a three-year period to review options for the Lower Mill Creek, including reviewing in greater detail the costs of the grey LMCPR default project. Several WWIP provisions were specifically tied to the reality that more detailed and accurate costs would be developed during this study. Specifically, the WWIP allows for additional implementation time in the event the total cost of the default project exceeds defined amounts. Lower Mill Creek is the largest sewershed in MSD s system. It consists of 9 subwatersheds having a combined total of 97 combined sewer overflows. Dry weather flow averages 90 mgd and increases to 450 mgd during wet weather events. 16 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

18 Phase 1 of the WWIP included a 3-year study/detailed design period to examine green measures and other measures to refine the Original LMCPR approach and cost estimates. The WWIP permits the Defendants to submit to the Regulators proposed changes to, or improvements on, the Original LMCPR remedy as a result of this study, provided the proposed revised remedy provides equal or greater control of CSO annual volume as the Original LMCPR and the remedy constructed by the Phase 1 end date, December 31, Defendants must submit to the Regulators a LMCPR Study Report and any proposal for a Revised Original LMCPR by December 31, Throughout the three-year Study period ( ), the LMCPR project has been subject to modifications to scope and cost. The LMCPR Study and the cost analysis described herein are best understood in the context from which the project and costs have evolved. The Global Consent Decree was negotiated in the context of a potential 16 mile dual purpose (flood/cso control) tunnel proposed by the Army Corps of Engineers for flood control of the Mill Creek Valley. The Defendants gave notice as required under the Consent Decree that the Army Corps, and thus Defendants, were not able to proceed with that 16 mile tunnel when the Army Corps recommended a non-tunnel solution to flood control for the Mill Creek. The 2006 Long Term Control Plan submitted by the Defendants, then, purposefully focused on the areas outside of the Lower Mill Creek due to schedule and affordability constraints and environmental benefit. Although a tunnel was considered it was eliminated on the basis of cost and environmental benefit in favor of other remedial measures. No further consideration of a Lower Mill Creek tunnel was undertaken. During 2006 and 2007 and into 2008, the US EPA and Ohio EPA repeatedly discussed developing CSO control measures in Mill Creek. In response, Defendants undertook examination of some Lower Mill Creek measures, including a tunnel from the Mill Creek Plant to Mitchell Avenue, while also discussing the challenging affordability constraints facing MSD. Defendants submitted a Conceptual Outline for a revised WWIP to Regulators in September 2008 that included planning level costs for a tunnel to Mitchell Avenue as part of the concept. During this period with USEPA, MSD considered green solutions which were not part of the original 2006 WWIP submission. During 2007 MSD undertook a preliminary investigation of green solutions and what it could mean to CSO control in Lower Mill Creek. In 2008 there was considerable review and vetting of the planning level costs of a conceptual tunnel to Mitchell Avenue by the Project Management Consultants (PMC) and MSD s other consulting engineers. In August 2008 the PMC group (CDM), the independent program manager, did a full development of an independent estimate. Consensus on the tunnel costs for all local entities was achieved by the end of The cost for a 31-foot diameter, 30,399-foot long Tunnel to Mitchell Avenue was `agreed upon by all parties at $545 Million. On November 25, 2008, the Regulators formally rejected the 2006 WWIP and the 2008 conceptual Outline and demanded significant measures in the Lower Mill Creek, including adding their own outline of an approvable WWIP that included a tunnel. 17 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

19 In February 2009, Defendants submitted to the Regulators an Alternatives White Paper for significant Lower Mill Creek projects. This Alternatives White Paper was based on the planning level costs that Defendants, Project Management Consultants and other consultants had recently compiled for the longer Mitchell Avenue tunnel. Cost estimate methodology for the WWIP was considered a very high level estimate of Class 5 for program level costing with a typical expected accuracy range of -50%/+100% by the AACE 18R-97 guidelines. Throughout 2009 and 2010, MSD s system-wide hydraulic model was updated. The model was converted from a planning level kinematic wave type model to a dynamic model having the computational power to perform simulations reflective of actual system operations. The following activities were completed during the model update processes: Incorporated new infrastructure Updated hydrology and hydraulics from projects Ground-truthed model components Eliminated double counting of overflows in series Incorporated more precise model conditions Detailed modeling of regulators vs. using cut-off values Reviewed data from >150 flow monitoring stations Created Technical Oversight Committee = Expert Peer Review Panel In April 2010, the LMCPR project team began work evaluating the default WWIP LMC tunnel and Enhance High Rate Treatment (EHRT) project, formulating sustainable infrastructure solutions throughout the watershed, and assessing opportunities to optimize the Mill Creek sewer system. Concurrent with the LMCPR Study, technical teams were assembled to perform preliminary design work for both the default tunnel and potential sustainable alternative remedies. Work progressed for both parallel tracks throughout A brief synopsis of the activities performed, assessments conducted, and results concluded are presented throughout this summary document. 3.2 PARTIAL REMEDY PARALLEL PATH MANDATED MSD has been moving along a parallel path as contemplated under the approved Final WWIP. The Regulator s demand for significant measures in the Lower Mill Creek early in the program required review of traditional grey measures, such as a tunnel. At the same time, Hamilton County led an effort to change State law to enable MSD to fund stormwater elimination projects, which opened the possibility for a range of sustainable alternatives. The Co-Defendants amended the 1968 Agreement accordingly. Co-Defendants asked for, and Regulators granted the three-year LMC Study so that grey and sustainable measures could be analyzed in parallel. 18 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

20 Affordability concerns with the deep tunnel combined with the common-sense approach to eliminate clean water from the combined sewer system, led to detailed evaluations of a range of sustainable projects throughout the Lower Mill Creek watershed. The primary emphasis of these projects has been focused on results that achieve the following objectives: Elimination of at least 2 billion gallons of combined sewer overflows in Phase 1 Restoration of natural drainage patterns Separation of stormwater from combined sewer system Increase of available storage capacity in existing sanitary system Creation of opportunities for community revitalization Positive Community feedback. For the sake of the LMCPR Study effort, the team defined partial remedy as follows: Partial Remedy = A combination of specific projects that collectively remove no less than 2 billion gallons of combined sewer overflows from the Lower Mill Creek watershed by December 31, This is also referred to as the Phase 1 solution. MSD recognizes the importance of complying with the Final WWIP as cost-effectively as possible. In order to satisfy the December 31, 2018 deadline for full implementation of the Partial Remedy, it was necessary to proceed with design evaluations for the deep tunnel and sustainable projects. The parallel path is graphically depicted in Figure 3-1. For both the default tunnel and sustainable remedies, the hydraulic model was updated and refined to reflect current conditions as well as the updated baseline condition (existing system as of December 2007 using the dynamic model). Specific projects were identified and evaluated to determine the level of CSO reduction, construction constraints, and resulting system-wide performance metrics. After each option was formulated, a cost comparison was performed. The result of these efforts led to development of a grey alternative and the sustainable/hybrid alternative (and its further options). Details of each of the alternatives and options are presented in this summary document. 19 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

21 Modified WWIP Solutions Developed Grey Solutions Modeling Costing 2012 Grey Plan Approved WWIP Updated Model Consent Decree Model Refinements & New Infrastructure Performance Metrics 85% Control at each CSO Costing Protocol Tool Developed for Comparable Cost Estimates Defined Sustainable Solutions Developed Sustainable Solutions Modeling Costing 2012 Hybrid Sustainable & Grey Plan FIGURE 3-1: LMC STUDY PARALLEL PATHS 3.3 FINAL REMEDY CONCEPTUALIZED VIABLE PLAN As alternatives are developed and vetted during the LMCPR Study, it is important to consider the longterm impact provided. The Final Remedy represents the long-term solution to be completed over several decades. The specific list of projects to be included in the Final Remedy will be presented to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) no later than December 31, For the sake of the LMCPR Study effort, the term final remedy is defined as follows: Final Remedy = A combination of specific projects that collectively achieve 85-percent volumetric control for each of the 97 combined sewer overflows throughout the Lower Mill Creek watershed. This is also referred to as the Phase 2 solution. This summary document demonstrates that each LMCPR alternative fits into a conceptualized Phase 2 strategy. The final remedies used for this assessment will be subject to future verification and were developed based upon the best available information at the time of the LMCPR Study. 20 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

22 4 MODELING 4.1 MODEL HISTORY The early consent decree negotiations required the Defendants to develop a system wide model under an approved plan by the Regulators. The Regulators approved the model development plan, the completed model and ultimately technical decisions based on the model results. The review of the model and any related risks, and any mitigation actions required were also within the scope of Camp Dresser and McKee Inc (CDM), as a program manager appointed by the Co-Defendants. The Lower Mill Creek Partial Remedy Partial Remedy (LMCPR) project has involved a comprehensive review and updating process of the Lower Mill Creek System Wide Model (LMC SWM). The LMC SWM updating process began in 2009 with the intent of an in-depth review on the combined sewer areas overflowing to the Mill Creek. Numerous activities improved system knowledge through flow monitoring, field investigations, review of record drawings, review of Geographic Information System (GIS) information, and operational information. The goal of the model updating processes has always been to improve the ability of the model to predict overflow and support the development of alternative solutions to reduce overflow volumes, and ultimately to serve as a guide to the design process for those solutions. The updating process necessitated changes to components of the original SWM hydrologic and hydraulic model based on the availability of new information collected by MSD since the development of the Wet Weather Improvement Program in Given the changes made to the LMC SWM, a detailed calibration process was undertaken to ensure the model is representative of system performance based on the best available information. Additionally, the model was subjected to a rigorous validation exercise utilizing independent data sets not used in the calibration. The purpose of the validation exercise was to verify that the calibration process had successfully and effectively adjusted the LMC SWM to simulate conditions within the collection system as compared to available data. An example model validation hydrograph is shown in Figure 4-1. Details are provided in report titled Lower Mill Creek Partial Remedy System Wide Model Validation Report prepared by XCG Consultants, Inc. dated January June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

23 FIGURE 4-1: EXAMPLE MODEL VALIDATION HYDROGRAPH The MSD Modeling Guidelines and Standards were consulted to evaluate whether the peak flow and total volume amounts were within acceptable ranges. The draft modeling guidelines suggest an acceptable difference between observed and model values of -15% to +25% for the peak flow, -10% to +20% for the total flow volume, and -15% to +15% for the peak depth of each storm. The goal for validation was for 60% of the simulated versus measured values (peak flows, volumes, and depths) to be within the acceptable difference. To calculate percent control and CSO volume removed statistics for proposed and actual projects, all statistics are compared to the December 2007 baseline system performance. For the WWIP, the WWIP Baseline Model was used. For the LMCPR study, MSD proposes to use the Updated Baseline Model Version 3.2, an updated, calibrated, dynamic model that reflects system conditions as of December It is important to note that model version 3.2 was not available as many of the sustainable projects were studied and evaluated. Therefore, the statistics included in many of the reports are different than those presented in this LMCPR document. As part of the LMCPR study, the modeling of discrete CSO solutions was incorporated as complete alternatives, into the system-wide model, to measure complete solution effectiveness. 22 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

24 4.2 MODEL-RELATED TERMINOLOGY During the course of updating the LMC SWM, multiple model versions were developed. The model versions referenced during the LMCPR Study are defined herein for clarity. WWIP BASELINE MODEL: The WWIP was based upon MSD s system-wide model in affect during In 2004 MSD s SWM model was originally constructed using SWMM 4.0 software as a detailed hydraulic model using the EXTRAN solution to simulate complex hydraulic conditions. The primary application of the SWM was for capacity assessment (CAPP) and single event analysis. The complexity of the SWM based in EXTRAN made it impractical for CSO planning and long-term simulations. Therefore, the SWMM 4.0 was converted into the newly available (at the time) SWMM 5.0 Beta Version G and converted into a TRANSPORT or kinematic wave model. This version of the model was utilized for development of MSD s Long-Term Control Plan (LTCP) Update. UPDATED BASELINE MODEL VERSION 3.2: The kinematic wave solution does not recognize surcharge or backwater conditions. As such, MSD converted the SWMM 5.0 version from a kinematic wave model to a fully dynamic model using SWMM Version 3.2 represents MSD s system and installed infrastructure as of December It is intended to be the updated model of record for use in studying the system response and developing alternatives. The update was a result of reviewing runoff catchment parameters, weir and orifice settings, regulator functions, etc. Dry and wet weather flows were calibrated with flow and level data collected from CURRENT SYSTEM MODEL VERSION 4.2: The model version 4.2 is based on changes made in the version 3.2 review process. This model contains all sewer infrastructure projects that were constructed after December 2007 through December These changes include the construction of four Real Time Control (RTC) facilities, grating changes to CSO 191 and CSO 111, West Fork Channel grate modifications, and removal of sediment/sewer cleaning of the Mill Creek Interceptor. This model version also accounted for projects in design or construction during A list of these projects is provided in Section 6.3 of this summary document. However, evaluation of performance is always done in comparison to version 3.2. The details regarding the evolution of the model from version 3 to version 4 are detailed in the Lower Mill Creek Systems Analysis Mill Creek Updated Model Report prepared by XCG Consultants, Inc. in September, Additional terminology related to the model and its results are further defined herein. ALTERNATIVE MODELS: Future condition models were developed for each alternative proposed in this report. The alternatives are: Grey Alternative Sustainable Alternative Hybrid Alternative 23 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

25 These proposed solutions were added into model version 4.2. The CSO statistics were calculated by comparing the results from the alternative model to model version 4.2. These models are denoted as alternative model 4.2. COMBINED SYSTEM INFLOW: The system inflow is defined as the volume (MG) of flow entering the system consisting of sanitary base flow and storm water inflow. This value is calculated by the model software based upon the system input parameters and hydrology. STORM WATER SEPARATED: The amount of storm water (MG) redirected away from the system through partial separation projects represents a quantity of storm water that is not being directed to the Mill Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant for processing. It is calculated from the model as the existing system as of December 31, 2007 (version 3.2) combined system inflow minus the alternative s combined system inflow (version 4.2+alternative). OVERFLOW MITIGATED: The amount of overflow removed from the combined system (MG) is calculated as the existing system as of December 31, 2007 (version 3.2) remaining overflow volume minus the alternative s remaining overflow volume (version 4.2+alternative). REMAINING OVERFLOW VOLUME: The amount of combined sewer overflow remaining (MG) in the modeled alternative is determined from the model simulation output. PERCENT CONTROL: The percent control is calculated as the (existing system as of December 31, 2007 (version 3.2) volume minus the alternative remaining overflow volume (4.2)) divided by the existing system as of December 2007 inflow volume. It represents the percent of wet weather flow that has been either removed or not allowed to overflow (captured in the system) from the baseline model condition. FLOW TREATED AT EHRT: The volume of flow treated at an Enhanced High Rate Treatment facility represents a volume of flow that is captured and directed to a remote treatment facility in lieu of the Mill Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. It is calculated from the model timeseries results. Note the SSO 700 is not included in these calculations. FLOW TREATED AT WWTP: The volume of flow treated at the Mill Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant is represented by the underflow volume (MG) reflected in the model. The amount of flow receiving primary treatment is calculated from the model time-series results. The amount of flow receiving secondary treatment is calculated by subtracting the alternative s primary treatment flow from the alternative s flows treated at the WWTP. 4.3 UPDATED MODEL BASELINE RESULTS As was expected, converting a kinematic-wave model to a fully dynamic model revised the inflow and overflow volumes for the modeled system. A summary of these results is shown in Table 4-1. It is 24 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

26 important to note that the results presented reflect information from the consolidated model run in lieu of the detailed model run. TABLE 4-1: MODEL VERSIONS COMPARISON The WWIP required MSD to eliminate 2 billion gallons of combined sewer overflows in Phase 1. This was equivalent to a 15% additional reduction. Applying a commensurate amount of CSO removal for Phase 1 to the updated model results (version 3.2) shows: Another approach could be used to evaluate the equivalent WWIP requirement of eliminating 2 billion gallons of combined sewer overflows in Phase 1. The 2 billion gallons was calculated by modeling the Original LMCPR Default Remedy in the kinematic model. If the Revised Plan for the LMCPR Default Remedy (See Section 6.2) including the four constructed real time control facilities (RTCs) is modeled in the updated dynamic version 3.2 model, the overflow removed during Phase 1 is 1.8 billion gallons. This is equivalent to 18% reduction of total inflow and therefore provides greater control of CSO annual volume than the WWIP requirement. The WWIP requires that the revised remedy provides equal or greater control of CSO annual volumes as the Original default LMCPR. For the purpose of this, 2 billion gallons was used as the metric of CSO control for the Phase 1 alternatives which exceeds the original WWIP control requirement as a percentage of the updated inflow volume. An important point to remember is that models are a tool to help size facilities which improve on some of the simplified techniques used in the past to size sewer facilities. Models are not 100% accurate, but 25 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

27 are based on a reasonable match of observed versus actual conditions for several wet weather periods, they can increase the confidence that a facility is being appropriately and cost-effectively sized. 4.4 SOURCE CONTROL MODELS Modeling for source control projects, especially related to sizing of proposed improvements, is an iterative process involving use of different software from both hydrologic and hydraulic models. Potential CSO reductions from source control projects were assessed using the previously-mentioned Alternative models in the SWMM 5 software. HYDROLOGIC MODELING: Hydrologic models were used to generate flows given topographic and hydrologic parameters. SWMM, Hydro CAD and HEC-HMS were used to varying degrees. These hydrologic flows were used as inputs for hydraulic models in many cases. HYDRAULIC MODELING: The proposed storm sewer projects are modeled using XPSWMM, SWMM, CDSS or StormCAD to determine appropriate pipe sizes, slopes, and invert elevations necessary to meet local design requirements and avoid existing utility conflicts. Input parameters include in part or in total, the following: existing ground surface, preliminary storm sewer alignments and profiles, pipe material, and structure size information. The peak flows, as determined from the hydrologic model results, are entered at each anticipated change in flow (inlet, catch basin, headwall, and detention basin outfall). Modeling is completed based on Stormwater Management Utility (SMU) Rules and Regulations and specific guidance provided by SMU. Stream systems were modeled using HEC-RAS. Details of the sub-basin watershed source control modeling are provided under separate reports listed in the Technical Bibliography of this Summary Document. 26 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

28 5 COSTING 5.1 ALTERNATIVES COSTING PROTOCOL Costing protocols were developed as part of the LMCPR Study for estimating the various costs for projects within the alternatives considered. Estimating methodology for the base construction costs, total construction costs, capital costs, and life cycle analysis costs are detailed in the Technical Memorandum prepared by CH2M Hill, February 7, These protocols were written to match existing MSD cost estimating guidance wherever possible. Deviations were made where necessary to enable fair comparisons within an alternative analysis framework. The purpose of these protocols is to develop costs for projects from various programmatic origins that may be at different stages of design completeness in a fair and consistent manner so that they can be combined into alternatives that can be compared. These protocols can be used for any combination of projects and alternatives desired for alternative analysis during the LMCPR Study. 5.2 COSTING-RELATED TERMINOLOGY The cost estimating protocols for the LMCPR Study was designed to standardize and normalize alternatives for comparison purposes. The basis for the cost estimation was historical data from local MSD experiences; data collected from other municipalities with similar projects; and published USEPA costing data. The costs are estimated primarily on the basis of the size or capacity of the facility required, but they also include allowances for the features unique to the particular installation. For example, new sewer costs may be adjusted for expected construction difficulties through bedrock and storage costs may be adjusted to reflect extraordinary odor control needs. The foundation of this consistency lies with the definition of terms being used to refer to specific values for a project. The four types of project costs used in the LMCPR Revised Plan are illustrated in Figure 5-1 followed by definitions. 27 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

29 Project A (Parametric) Life-cycle Cost Capital Cost Total Const. Cost Base Construction Cost Factor in Lifespan Add Soft Costs Add Design Contingency Project B (Detailed/Bottoms-up) FIGURE 5-1: LMC STUDY COST DEVELOPMENT BASE CONSTRUCTION COST: Represents the foundation of all project costs. Base construction costs were calculated differently, utilizing methods appropriate to the maturity of the project; inclusive the following line items: CONTRACTOR S BASE COSTS: Are made up of unit costs for each element of construction necessary to build a project. The components of the Contractor s Base Cost include the following: MATERIAL COSTS: Are based on a unit prices derived from vendor quotes or historical cost data. LABOR COSTS: Are based on probable labor production rates and crew sizes. This rate varies between trades, projects, climatic conditions, job supervision, complexity of the installation process, and other factors. EQUIPMENT: Consists of the contractor s major construction equipment costs including rental, transportation, handling on the job, operation, and maintenance costs. SUBCONTRACTOR COSTS: Include costs of material, labor, and equipment incurred by subcontractors. OTHER CONSTRUCTION COSTS (ALLOWANCES): Includes miscellaneous cost items that are not included in the unit costs. They may include costs associated with the following factors: weather, crew transportation, soil conditions, hazardous material removal, utility relocations, wetland replacements, road/highway/special crossings, traffic control, ground water, labor strikes, material and/or subcontractor availability, general material economic conditions, complexity of the project, and construction phasing. 28 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

30 CONTRACTOR S ON-SITE GENERAL CONDITIONS: Account for the cost of items that cannot be associated with a specific element of work but must be furnished to complete a project including supervision, temporary facilities, office trailers, toilets, utilities, permits, photographs, small tools, local Business and Occupation (B&O) taxes, and mobilization/de-mobilization. Some unforeseen conditions may include traffic control and barricades, construction crew parking, right of way costs, testing, staff time to attend and conduct meetings, restoration of property, OSHA requirements, new design or building code standards, work hour restrictions, and pollution controls. General conditions costs are based on the monthly cost of the project and can be calculated as a percentage of the construction cost. CONTRACTOR S OVERHEAD: Is calculated by gauging the amount of annual construction work of the contractor performing the work, the particular project size and complexity, and the knowledge of what historically has been used on similar projects of this type. For the LMCPR Analysis the Contractor s overhead will be applied as a 10% multiplier to the sum of the contractor s base costs and contractor s on-site general conditions to account for the cost of doing business. CONTRACTOR S PROFIT: Includes compensation for risk and efforts made to complete the project and are based on economic conditions for the local construction industry, the individual contractor s overhead costs, and their perception of the risk of losing money on the project. Contractor s profit will be applied as a 5% multiplier to the sum of the contractor s base costs and contractor s on-site general conditions. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST: Includes the cost of design contingency, bonding, and insurance in addition to the base construction cost. DESIGN CONTINGENCY: Is calculated as a percentage of the base construction cost, dependent upon the stage of the project, to account for the accuracy of a construction estimate at the given stage of development. Projects estimated at the conceptual planning stage have limited details, leading to a high level of uncertainty regarding the final cost to build the project. Therefore, these projects have the largest design contingency multiplier. The design contingency multiplier becomes progressively smaller as a project proceeds through preliminary and final design stages since more details are known, leading to less uncertainty regarding the overall cost of the project. The stage of the project was assigned by the Project Engineer developing the construction cost estimate, as they are best positioned to understand the level of detail in the design documents, project scope, and assumptions upon which the estimate is based. Design contingencies used for the LMCPR Study are summarized in the table below. 29 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

31 TABLE 5-1: DESIGN CONTINGENCIES Project Stage Multiplier Conceptual Planning 35 Facilities Planning 25 Preliminary Design 20 30% Design 15 60% Design 10 90% Design 5 BONDING COSTS: Account for the cost of the contractor bond and are determined as a 1% multiplier on the sum of the base construction cost and the cost of design contingency. This percentage was developed by CH2M HILL based on a review of historical projects and was agreed to by the LMCPR Revised Plan project team. INSURANCE COSTS: Account for the cost of protection against on-site accidents and are determined as a 1% multiplier on the sum of the base construction cost and the cost of design contingency. This percentage was developed by CH2M HILL based on a review of historical projects and was agreed to by the LMCPR Revised Plan project team. CAPITAL COST: Represents the known or estimated real estate costs and several soft cost multipliers applied to the total construction cost. Soft costs represent expenditures necessary for the successful completion of the project that are outside of the building contractors costs but are borne by the utility and therefore must be accounted for in budgeting for such a project. REAL ESTATE COSTS: Include the cost of the easement and property acquisition that occur to enable construction. Real estate costs can be incorporated into the capital cost of a project using actual property acquisition costs, if known, or by estimating acquisition costs based on the Project Engineer s knowledge of the property(ies) involved along the proposed alignment or around the proposed site. It is suggested that the Project Engineer refer to the Hamilton County Auditors web site for values of properties that will need to be purchased. If specific location information is not available and assumptions must be made regarding the cost of land acquisition, real estate cost curves were used in order to provide consistency in alternative cost comparisons. For conveyance projects, which typically involve easements along a route, the real estate costs were developed based on historical MSD project information. For storage and treatment-related projects, which require the purchase of a certain amount of land, costs are estimated using the equations that translated the volume or flow rate, 30 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

32 respectively, of the proposed facility to a footprint and then applied a real estate unit cost of $130,680 per acre or approximately $3 per square foot. This is the same process as was used for the development of real estate costs for the WWIP, at which time specific property acquisition information was unavailable for a majority of the projects. SOFT COST MARKUPS: ADMINISTRATION: Adds a multiplier that varies by project (based on its type, total construction cost, and construction duration) to account for various administrative costs such as MSD labor, legal fees or use of consultant staff support services for project management. PROJECT CONTINGENCY: Is a fixed 10% multiplier applied to the total construction cost of every project to account for the uncertainty of actual construction methods, unanticipated project requirements, cost overruns during planning, design or construction phases of the project, and any additional requirements of the owner not yet defined. This percentage is based on guidance from MSD's Financial Analysis Manual. CONSTRUCTION INTEREST: Accounts for the cost of bonds being issued to finance the projects during the construction phase. MISCELLANEOUS: Includes other undesignated costs. Pre-construction phase miscellaneous costs include but are not limited to permits, plan review fees, geotechnical investigations, environmental investigations, and right-of-way costs associated with property owners, paperwork, and legal work. Construction phase miscellaneous costs include but are not limited to contract permits, inspection fees, materials testing, geotechnical testing, environmental testing, training, instrumentation and control, and public relations. FIELD ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION: Accounts for project engineering and inspection cost of personnel and professional services used during construction. DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES: Accounts for costs of services provided by outside (non-msd or supplemental staff) engineering consultants and is determined as a percentage of the total construction cost. PLANNING AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN: Accounts for work by MSD s internal planning division that occurs before construction on projects. This would include preliminary modeling, alternative analysis, life cycle comparisons, project scope definition, project schedules, and project presentations to stakeholders. LIFE CYCLE COST: All life cycle costs are reported in terms of present worth (in 2006 dollars) using an analysis period of 25 years and a discount rate, i, of 4.2% The life span of each asset type (conveyance element or facility), and part of a facility (superstructure, foundation, tankage, mechanical, electrical, etc.), is taken into consideration when calculating equipment replacement costs and determining any 31 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

33 remaining value in those assets at the end of the analysis period 1. These considerations are paramount to assuring the comparability of project and alternative costs. Each life cycle estimate consists of the sum of the following net present values: Capital Cost minus the present worth of the residual value of the asset Present worth of the periodic equipment replacement costs and any residual values Present Worth of the annual operations and maintenance (O&M) costs LIFE CYCLE COST COMPARISON ASSUMPTIONS: Annual O&M costs for conveyance assets are $1.22 per foot of sewer. Fixed facility maintenance costs are calculated assuming that storage facilities require 8 hours of labor per week, or 416 hours per year (except stormwater detention basins); pump stations require 4 hours a week, or 208 hours per year; and treatment facilities require 40 hours a week, or 2080 hours per year, to maintain. Fixed facility maintenance costs for stormwater detention basins are calculated assuming that facilities require 52 hours per year and 0.5 hours per wet weather event. For storage facilities, an additional 8 hours of labor are included per wet weather event (which is a number provided by estimator/project Engineer). For treatment facilities, an additional 16 hours are added per event. The cost of labor, including fringe benefits, for all assets is assumed to be $39.57 per hour based on the union prevailing wage rates in Hamilton County for services in this field, from the State of Ohio Department of Commerce Bureau of Wage and Hour Administration ( Energy costs are based on the annual volume and the total dynamic head pumped, assuming a pump efficiency of 75%, a motor efficiency of 95%, and variable frequency drive efficiency of 98%. Electric costs estimated to be $0.104 per kilowatt-hour. The cost of Mill Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant operations is $ per million gallons, which includes the cost for energy, utilities, lab services, overtime labor, chemicals, and supplies. The cost of treatment chemicals is $ per million gallons for a ballasted flocculation facility and $99.00 per million gallons for an EHRT facility. The cost of disinfection chemicals for the ballasted flocculation or EHRT is $ per million gallons treated, which includes chlorination and dechlorination. 1 Other timeframes and additional analyses can be made before the final report is submitted. 32 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

34 5.3 BOTTOM-UP ESTIMATING Bottom-up estimating is the practice of developing detailed quantity take-offs for each material or component need to construct an asset or facility and applying widely accepted unit costs and factors to those quantities to arrive at costs. Such estimates are unique to each project and require a higher level of project definition. 5.4 PARAMETRIC ESTIMATING Parametric estimating is the practice of using algorithms or cost of parametric costs relationships that are highly probabilistic in nature (i.e., the parameters or quantified inputs tend to be abstractions of the scope). An example would be the use of a storage facility s overall capacity to derive a construction cost from a cost curve. The algorithms or cost relationships are different for each type of asset and are developed from a wide range of resources. TABLE 5-2: LMC STUDY COST ESTIMATING SOURCES/FACTORS Estimate Component Source or Factor Life Cycle Cost Straight-line Depreciation of Capital Cost over Present Worth of Residual Value 25-year Period % of Capital Cost Replaced at 10, 20, and 30-year Present Worth of Equipment Replacement Intervals Present Worth of Annual Operations and Maintenance Unit Costs for Fixed Maintenance, Event Maintenance, Labor, Energy, & Chemicals Capital Cost Curve, County Auditor, or MSD Conveyance: 8.5%, Storage/Treatment: curve Real Estate Costs Administration Costs Project Contingency 10% Construction Interest 0.5(i)(Y)(TCC) where i=4.2% Miscellaneous Curve (0.5% minimum) Field Engineering & Inspection Conveyance: 3.5%, Storage/Treatment: curve Design & Engineering Services Curve (6% minimum) Planning & Preliminary Design Curve (3% minimum) Construction Cost Insurance 1% Bonding 1% Design Contingency 5% to 35% Contractor Cost Contractor s Profit 5% Contractor s Overhead 10% Contractor s On-Site General Conditions Parametric Curve or Detailed Estimate Contractor s Base Cost Parametric Curve or Detailed Estimate 33 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

35 6 DEFAULT WWIP 6.1 DEFAULT WWIP REMEDY The LMCPR Default Remedy was identified in the Final WWIP with components to be constructed during both Phase 1 and Phase 2 time periods. The Default remedy original concept consists of the following major project elements and is shown on Figure ,600 feet long, 30-foot diameter deep tunnel, including multiple construction shafts and drop shafts for CSO consolidation sewer connections. The tunnel extends from just south of Gest Street to the vicinity of the CSO 5 (Lick Run) outfall and receives flow from the following CSOs: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 152, 428, 429, and 666; Several thousand feet of consolidation sewers to divert combined sewer overflows from near the combined sewer outfalls to the tunnel drop shafts; An 84 mgd deep pumping station to dewater the tunnel; 84 mgd enhanced high rate treatment (EHRT) facility to treat flows from the tunnel. FIGURE 6-1: LMCPR DEFAULT PLAN ORIGINAL CONCEPT 34 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

36 6.2 REVISED WWIP DESIGN CONCEPT Estimates of total project costs for the LMCPR Default Plan were revised from $244,342,000 to $407,300,000 (June 2006 dollars) from the WWIP Project of Record (February 2009) to the Revised Concept Report (December 2011). The reasons for the large increase in costs are numerous, but are mostly due to the following concepts and illustrated on Figure 6-2: Changes in facility locations to facilitate overlapping construction schedules to complete the project on time; Constructability and accessibility details that greatly increased the scope and costs of CSO consolidation sewers and diversion structures; Recommendation of a cavern-style pump station for hydraulic and safety reasons; Addition of a deep shaft screening structure prior to tunnel dewatering pumps; Slight increase in tunnel length to facilitate a retrieval shaft. FIGURE 6-2: LMCPR DEFAULT PLAN REVISED CONCEPT 35 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

37 6.3 OPTIMIZED WWIP REMEDY Both the original default and revised design concept included extending the tunnel from CSO 5 at the Lick Run Watershed to the discharge of the Mitchell Watershed at CSO 482 via 22,000 feet of 20-foot diameter tunnel and all associated consolidation sewers and regulator improvements. Both also included a Phase 2 project to construct a wet weather facility at the Carthage site. The default plan was based upon an estimated benefit from four real time control (RTC) facilities totaling 410 MG/typ year. The updated system-wide model combined with infrastructure BADGELY RUN RTC improvements MSD has invested since 2007, indicate the Phase 1 tunnel must be extended to CSO 15 to achieve 2 billion gallons of CSO volume reduction. In order to conduct a reasonable apples-to-apples comparison of grey and sustainable solutions, the LMCPR Study team developed an Optimized Grey solution that reflected components that would actually be constructed in the event a grey solution were to be implemented. This approach is in agreement with the scope of work for the LMCPR in that it provides a more detailed design to refine conditions assumed during the initial planning incorporated into the Final WWIP. The optimized alternative takes into account the following projects: REAL-TIME CONTROL FACILITY BENEFITS: The RTC facility constructed during at CSO 5 (Lick Run) has achieved a higher level of performance than originally modeled. WEST FORK CHANNEL GRATES: The original default concept was based upon an assumed condition for the West Fork Channel. The Channel was not actually modeled to determine its impact on the Mill Creek system. The LMCPR Study team incorporated the West Fork Channel into the system-wide model and determined existing grates were causing dry weather channel flow to enter the interceptor. MSD staff corrected this situation via an interim fix by raising the elevation of the grates above the water level typically present in the West Fork Channel. This improvement resulted in a significant benefit to the combined sewer system in that significant capacity was freed up to address wet weather flow. CSO 25 WINTON ROAD A REGULATOR IMPROVEMENTS: CDOTE oversaw completion of ( ) the Spring Grove Avenue & Clifton Avenue Sewer Separation Project which removed 12 inlets from the combined sewer along Spring Grove Avenue. The project served to reduce overflow volumes at CSO 25A and CSO 28, and to eliminate CSO 26A. Design & Construction were performed with the Cincinnati DOTE Spring Grove Avenue Road Improvement Project during first quarter of This project removed 23 million gallons of combined sewer overflows from the Lower Mill Creek system. 36 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

38 CSOS 37 AND 39 REGULATOR IMPROVEMENTS: ( ) Located in Elmwood Place, CSO 37 included installation of a flap gate & diversion dam in new chamber structure built over the existing 54-inch Mill Creek Interceptor. CSO 39 included installation of a flap gate & diversion dam at CSO 39 (64th Street Diversion Dam) and some improvements to the existing 48-inch diameter outfall pipe. Both projects were completed in 2011 and removed a total of 4 million gallons of combined sewer overflows from the Lower Mill Creek system. CSOS 179 SCARLETT OAKS: This project ( ) will remove a total of 10 million gallons of combined sewer overflows from the Lower Mill Creek system. This project is being designed and constructed under the WWIP Northside Upper Bundle in conjunction with the Ludlow and Lafayette Parallel Sewer Project ( ). Separate storm and sanitary sewers are currently under design with construction scheduled to begin August 2015 and be complete in June Attachment 1 to the WWIP requires construction to start no later than December 31, 2017 and be completed by December 31, CSOS PRODUCTION DRIVE GRATING: This project ( ) removed a total of 6 million gallons of combined sewer overflows from the Lower Mill Creek system. This project was completed in 2009 and included repairs to the existing cofferdam and replacement of a broken flap gate in the outfall pipe of CSO 191. CSOS 180 BLUE ROCK REGULATOR FULL SEPARATION: This project ( ) will remove a total of 2 million gallons of combined sewer overflows from the Lower Mill Creek system. It will eliminate CSO 180 and the Blue Rock Road Regulator to the tributary stream to Winton Lake. Separate storm water and sanitary sewer pipelines will be constructed. Design is on-going with construction scheduled for November 2013 through June Attachment 1 to the WWIP requires construction to start no later than December 31, 2014 and be completed by December 31, June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

39 7 LEGAL AND REGULATORY Section 7.1 briefly outlines relevant Consent Decree and WWIP provisions. Regulator comments to date regarding the alternatives. Section 7.2 reviews 7.1 RELEVANT CONSENT DECREE AND WWIP PROVISIONS Full text of the following provisions is provided in Appendix B. 1. LMCPR provisions a. WWIP A.2.a. (allows LMC Study and sets conditions for any alternative) b. WWIP A.2.c. ( automatic two-year extension if costs exceed $300 M; potentially longer if costs exceed $350 M) 2. LMCFR provisions a. WWIP B.1 (Phase 2 Scheduling after 2017 allows sub-phases) b. WWIP B.5 (LMCFR to be scheduled at end of Phase 2) 3. Affordability Protection provisions a. Phased Scheduling approaches above b. WWIP B.2. Outer Boundary Cap c. WWIP C.1. Bond Covenant Provisions 4. Flexibility provisions a. CD XXIX.B.1. (Allows Co-Defendants to petition to accommodate signatories mutual desire to conform program to any new regulations) b. WWIP C.2. (Adaptive Plan Alterations allows changes in approaches with first discussions to be held in 2013) c. WWIP C.3. (Co-Defendants are permitted to propose revisions to WWIP based on green infrastructure alternatives at end of LMC Study period and as part of Phase 2 scheduling) d. WWIP C.6 (Allowances for more flexible spending on WWIP needs, including Green/Sustainable measures) 5. SSO 700 provisions a. WWIP A.3. (Requires SSO 700 Final Remedy Report by December 31, 2012, but scheduling of design and construction to occur with Phase 2 scheduling in 2017) b. CD Amendment Para. 6. (Conforms CD to WWIP provision) 38 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

40 7.2 REGULATOR COORDINATION REGARDING SUSTAINABLE AND LMCPR ALTERNATIVES Over the last year and a half, MSD and Hamilton County Commission have led the Perfect Storm Community Coalition, a coalition of other CSO communities across the Midwest that advocates for policy flexibility and prioritized spending for federally mandated consent decrees. In Washington DC last month, MSD and Hamilton County Commission met with USEPA and other policymakers to craft a regulatory approach, consistent with the Clean Water Act, which will give Hamilton County ratepayers more flexibility to meet impending regulatory requirements. In December 2011 USEPA released a draft policy document that lays out an integrated planning framework to allow municipalities to prioritize their water quality investments to better manage future costs associated with their CSOs and SSOs in a more integrated, holistic manner. In the discussion with top EPA officials recognized MSD s innovative, cost effective wet weather alternative solutions and USEPA Office of Water Assistant Administrator Nancy Stoner acknowledged that the agency may be soon inundated with requests from other communities to consider an integrated plan alternative and that the Co-Defendants should consider submitting prior to the regulatory deadline of December Stoner stressed the importance of a timely submittal and in fact alluded that it would be ideal for MSD and Hamilton County submit a plan prior to the final integrated framework to avoid the rush of other communities submitting their plans for review a review backlog is anticipated. Over the last 6 months, USEPA has been actively engaging MSD with respect to the updated model and requested coordination calls and meetings. As of the date of this summary report, USEPA has developed draft case study document highlighting MSD/Hamilton County and Cincinnati; a draft is expected within the next week. Region 5 continues the dialogue with MSD and future update meetings anticipated. Officials have expressed an interest to come to Cincinnati to coincide with the next public meeting to hear and see how the parties are working jointly to develop and implement an alternative submittal. For additional statements of Regulator comments and feedback refer to Appendix C. 39 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

41 8 PHASE I ALTERNATIVES To ensure that the proposed LMCPR is a subset of the LMCFR, the LMCFR alternatives detailed in Sections 9 through 11 of this report were developed. Then the low-cost suite of projects from each of the three alternatives that met the CSO reduction goal of 2.0 billion gallons was selected to form Phase 1 Alternative Plans. The Phase 1 Alternative Plans are described in this section. 8.1 PHASE 1 GREY ALTERNATIVE There are two options available for a Phase 1 Grey Alternative: one that includes the default 30-ft diameter tunnel to CSO 5 that is under design; and one that replaces the default tunnel with a 25-ft diameter tunnel that extends to CSO 15. Updated model outputs for the Mill Creek Basin described earlier in this report reduced the CSO volume captured by the default tunnel such that the 2.0 billion gallons reduction goal, in conjunction with already constructed RTC projects, could not be achieved. Two additional projects from the Grey Alternative can be added to the default plan to achieve the CSO reduction goal. This would be the low-cost Phase 1 Grey Alternative, but its corresponding LMCFR alternative would be higher in cost than the Grey Alternative described in this section. For that reason, the second option is being proposed. Major components of the Phase 1 Grey Alternative are as follows: TABLE 8-1: PHASE 1 GREY ALTERNATIVE PROJECT COMPONENTS PHASE 1 Grey Tunnel (ft) 15,300 Vertical Length of Drop Shafts (ft) 1,500 Consolidation Sewers (ft) 10,400 Tunnel Pump Station & EHRT (mgd) 84 Real Time Control Facilities (CSOs) 5,125, 482, 485/487 West Fork Channel Grate Modifications YES 40 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

42 TABLE 8-2: PHASE 1 GREY ALTERNATIVE PERFORMANCE METRICS Performance Metrics Updated Baseline Model 3.2 Phase 1 Grey Alternative Combined System Inflow (MG) 10,148 8,698 Stormwater Separated (MG) 0 1,450 Overflow Mitigated (MG) 0 2,205 Flows Treated at EHRT (MG) 0 0 Flows Treated at WWTP (MG) 5,071 5,825 Remaining Overflow (MG) 5,077 2,872 Watershed % Control 50% 72% Number of CSOs Eliminated 5 5 Number of CSOs > 85% Control Number of CSOs < 85% Control No. of CSOs >100 MG overflow 11 8 A Phase 1 Grey Alternative schedule is shown in Figure 8-1. The proposed schedule conforms to the provision in the Final WWIP that a minimum two-year time extension is allowed when project costs for the default plan exceed $350 million. FIGURE 8-1: PHASE 1 GREY ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE 41 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

43 The capital investment required for the Phase 1 Grey Alternatives is presented in Table 8-3 (all costs are shown in 2006 dollars). The Phase 1 capital investment is focused on addressing combined sewer overflows from the lower 11 CSOs. The project consists of a deep tunnel to CSO 15 and supporting infrastructure including consolidation sewers, tunnel dewatering pump station, and tunnel EHRT. This cost differs from the default tunnel in that the tunnel length has been increased by 30%. Increasing the tunnel length also adds to the number of drop shafts and consolidation sewers needed to meet the Phase 1 goal of removing 2 billion gallons of overflows. TABLE 8-3: PHASE 1 GREY ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL INVESTMENT COSTS PHASE 1 Tunnel $ 312,671,000 Consolidation Sewers $ 88,927,000 Tunnel Pump Station & EHRT $ 135,811,000 total $ 537,409, PHASE 1 SUSTAINABLE/HYBRID ALTERNATIVE LMCFR Alternatives were developed for a maximum sustainable option and a hybrid option. The maximum sustainable option does not have a tunnel and includes large-scale sustainable solutions for the following six watersheds: Lick Run, West Fork, Kings Run, Bloody Run, Ludlow Run, and Denham. Details of a proposed LMCFR for the Sustainable Option are provided in Section 10. The hybrid option includes a tunnel to Mitchell Avenue that is re-sized based on doing large-scale sustainable projects in Lick Run, West Fork, Kings Run, and Ludlow Run. Less expensive grey solutions are incorporated into the hybrid option for Bloody Run (combined sewer storage) and Denham (discharge to the tunnel). Details of a proposed LMCFR for the Hybrid Option are provided in Section 11. A single Phase 1 Sustainable/Hybrid Alternative applies to both the LMCFR Sustainable Option and the LMCFR Hybrid Option. This allows the flexibility to pursue either option or other feasible LMCFR alternatives in the future. Projects comprising of the Phase 1 Sustainable/Hybrid Alternative are shown below: 42 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

44 TABLE 8-4: PHASE 1 SUSTAINABLE/HYBRID COMPONENTS Phase 1 Components LMCPR Lick Run Watershed partial separation & channel conveyance projects 78,900 feet of storm sewer 1,600 feet of relocated combined 8 stormwater detention basins; approximately 75 acre feet of storage 5 Vortech Units 8,700 feet a valley conveyance stream with approximately 5,600 linear feet daylighting as partial open conveyance system 9,900 feet of natural conveyance, inlet sealing and stream restoration West Fork Watershed partial separation & channel conveyance projects 19,800 feet of storm sewer 12,700 feet of new combined interceptor sewer 3 million gallons of CSO storage 2 stormwater detention basins; approximately 26 acre feet of storage 5,500 feet of naturalized stream (West Fork Creek 10,400 feet of natural conveyance, inlet sealing and stream restoration Kings Run Watershed partial separation & Wooden Shoe EHRT or Storage 5,700 feet of storm sewer 7,200 feet of combined sewer converted as stormwater only pipe and new combined sewer 20 mgd EHRT or storage at CSO stormwater detention basins; approximately 36 acre feet of storage Potential for stream restoration along Kings Run Real Time Control/Combined Flow Storage RTC s at CSOs 5, 125, 482, and 485/487 (already constructed) Bloody Run Watershed RTC at CSO million gallons of combined storage at CSO June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

45 TABLE 8-5: PHASE 1 SUSTAINABLE/HYBRID ALTERNATIVE PERFORMANCE METRICS Performance Metrics Updated Baseline Model 3.2 Phase 1 Sustainable/Hybrid Alternative Combined System Inflow (MG) 10,148 7,710 Stormwater Separated (MG) 0 2,978 Overflow Mitigated (MG) 0 2,024 Flows Treated at EHRT (MG) 0 17 Flows Treated at WWTP (MG) 5,071 4,080 Remaining Overflow (MG) 5,077 3,145 Watershed % Control 50% 71% Number of CSOs Eliminated 5 10 Number of CSOs > 85% Control Number of CSOs < 85% Control No. of CSOs >100 MG overflow 11 9 A Phase 1 Sustainable/Hybrid Alternative schedule in shown in Figure 8-2. The Phase 1 Sustainable/Hybrid Alternative can be completed by the end of 2018 as established in the Consent Decree even though it exceeds the $244 million value. FIGURE 8-2: PHASE 1 SUSTAINABLE/HYBRID ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE The capital investment required for the Phase 1 Sustainable/Hybrid Alternative is presented in Table 8-6 (all costs are shown in 2006 dollars). 44 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

46 The Phase 1 capital investment is focused on maximizing source control throughout the Lower Mill Creek basin. The project consists of the source control projects identified for the Lick Run, West Fork, and Kings Run Watersheds and a RTC for the Bloody Run Watershed. TABLE 8-6: PHASE 1 SUSTAINABLE/HYBRID ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL INVESTMENT COSTS PHASE 1 Lick Run Watershed $ 195,449,000 West Fork Watershed $ 73,503,000 Bloody Run Watershed $ 3,421,000 Kings Run Watershed $ 34,423,000 CSO 488 Storage $ 10,651,000 total $ 317,447, COMPARISON OF PHASE 1 ALTERNATIVES The two Phase 1 Alternatives are compared on the basis of CSO volumetric control and other performance metrics, mix of project components, capital and life-cycle costs, schedule, benefits, and risks. A comparison of CSO volumetric control and other performance metrics is provided in. CSO volumetric control exceeds the Phase 1 goal of 2.0 billion gallons for both alternatives. The Grey Alternative achieves a slightly higher CSO reduction volume due to multiple CSOs connecting to the terminal drop shaft of the Phase 1 Tunnel (serving CSOs 10, 13, and 14). 45 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

47 TABLE 8-7: PHASE 1 PERFORMANCE METRICS COMPARISON Performance Metrics Original WWIP Model Updated Baseline Model 3.2 Phase 1 Grey Alternative Phase 1 Sustainable/Hybrid Alternative Combined System Inflow (MG) 13,602 10,148 8,698 7,710 Stormwater Separated (MG) 0 0 1,450 2,978 Overflow Mitigated (MG) 0 0 2,205 2,024 Flows Treated at EHRT (MG) Flows Treated at WWTP (MG) 5,349 5,071 5,825 4,080 Remaining Overflow (MG) 8,253 5,077 2,872 3,145 Watershed % Control 39% 50% 72% 71% Number of CSOs Eliminated Number of CSOs > 85% Control Number of CSOs < 85% Control No. of CSOs >100 MG overflow The Phase 1 Grey Alternative projects are all associated with the tunnel from the Mill Creek WWTP to CSO 15, located just below the confluence of West Fork Channel and Mill Creek. A much broader mix of project components is associated with the Phase 1 Sustainable Hybrid Alternative, with elements of sewer separation, storage and detention facilities, naturalized and new channels, and stream restoration. TABLE 8-8: PHASE 1 PROJECT COMPONENTS COMPARISON PHASE 1 Grey Sustainable/Hybrid Tunnel (ft) 15,300 - Vertical Length of Drop Shafts (ft) 1,500 - Consolidation Sewers (ft) 10,400 - Tunnel Pump Station & EHRT (mgd) 84 - Real Time Control Facility Locations CSOs 5,125, 482, 485/487 CSOs 5,125, 181, 482, 485/487 West Fork Channel Grate Modifications yes yes New Storm Sewers (ft) - 104,400 Relocated Combined Sewers (ft) - 21,500 Naturalized and New Channels (ft) - 14,200 Stream Restoration (ft) - 20,300 Non-Tunnel Storage Capacity (mg) - 5 Additional EHRT Capacity (mgd) - 20 Stormwater Detention Basins June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

48 A cost comparison for the two Phase 1 alternatives is provided in Table 8-9. The Grey Alternative has significantly higher capital, life cycle, and CSO reduction unit costs. Phase 1 Grey Alternative capital costs are 68 percent higher; life cycle costs are 73 percent higher; and CSO reduction unit costs are 54 percent higher than those of the Phase 1 Sustainable/Hybrid Alternative. TABLE 8-9: PHASE 1 ALTERNATIVES COST COMPARISON PHASE 1 Grey Sustainable/Hybrid Alternative Capital $ 537,409,000 $ 317,447,000 Life Cycle $ 431,349,000 $ 254,903,000 Cost/gallon removed $ 0.24 $ 0.16 The Phase 1 Grey Alternative will require at least a two-year extension (to the end of 2020 or beyond) to construct due to its higher capital cost (over $500 million) and affordability limits. The Phase 1 Sustainable/Hybrid Alternative can be completed by the end of 2018 as established in the Consent Decree. Perceived benefits of the two Phase 1 alternatives are summarized in the table below. 47 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

49 TABLE 8-10: PHASE 1 ALTERNATIVE BENEFITS TABLE 8-11: PHASE 1 ALTERNATIVE RISKS Phase 1 Risk Long-term solution not adaptable Complex construction methods Limited local construction participation Higher energy demand & cost Larger carbon footprint Additional assumptions for modeling Potential future stormwater regulations Future NPDES regulations Potential large variance with cost for tunnel construction Grey Alternative X X X X X X X Sustainable/Hybrid Alternative X X 48 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

50 9 LMCFR GREY ALTERNATIVE 9.1 OVERVIEW An overview of the potential LMCFR Grey Alternative is presented in the map that follows. The alternative achieves 85% control at nearly all of the 98 CSO locations by the end of Phase 2 and 88% control in the Mill Creek Basin. The modeled solution for each CSO is presented in Table 9-1 on the next page. The results represent the culmination of several model runs and reflect an optimized condition for each CSO. The grey alternative presented herein is the most cost-effective grey alternative that could potentially replace the Lower Mill Creek Final Remedy. Components comprising the LMCFR Grey Alternative are shown below: 28,400 feet of 25-foot diameter tunnel to CSO 482 2,250 feet vertical length of drop shafts 23,600 feet of consolidation sewers 84 mgd Tunnel Pump Station 84 mgd Tunnel EHRT RTCs at CSOs 5, 125, 482, 485/487, 181 West Fork Channel Grate Modifications 65 mgd EHRT at Carthage for Anthony Wayne 67 mgd EHRT at CSO 217A 18 Regulator Improvements 65,000 feet of new storm sewers 31 million gallons storage 49 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

51 TABLE 9-1: GREY ALTERNATIVE MODEL RESULTS AND SOLUTIONS CSO Inflow Volume (MG) Overflow Volume (MG) Percent Control (%) Solution CSO Inflow Volume (MG) Overflow Volume (MG) Percent Control (%) % none required CSO >85% control % partial separation % regulator improvement 181 1, % RTC and storage % regulator improvement % storage Solution 5 1, % RTC and consolidation sewer to tunnel % none required CSO >85% control % regulator improvement % none required CSO >85% control % regulator improvement 655 ELIMINATED % consolidation sewer to tunnel % high rate treatment facility at Carthage % regulator improvement % high rate treatment facility at Carthage % consolidation sewer to tunnel % partial separation % none required CSO >85% control % partial separation % consolidation sewer to tunnel % regulator improvement % none required CSO >85% control % regulator improvement % consolidation sewer to tunnel % storage % regulator improvement % none required CSO >85% control % consolidation sewer to tunnel % partial separation % consolidation sewer to tunnel % regulator improvement % consolidation sewer to tunnel % regulator improvement % consolidation sewer to tunnel % eliminated 17 (17B) % regulator improvement % eliminated % regulator improvement % regulator improvement % none required CSO >85% control 510 (510A) % regulator improvement % consolidation sewer to tunnel % none required CSO >85% control % consolidation sewer to tunnel % none required CSO >85% control % consolidation sewer to tunnel % partial separation % consolidation sewer to tunnel % none required CSO >85% control % none required CSO >85% control % storage and regulator improvement % partial separation % partial separation % partial separation % partial separation & regulator imprv 111 ELIMINATED % partial separation % partial separation % none required CSO >85% control % none required CSO >85% control % storage % none required CSO >85% control % none required CSO >85% control 165 ELIMINATED % partial separation 25 (25A) % none required CSO >85% control 89 ELIMINATED 26 (26A) % none required CSO >85% control 117 (117A) % none required CSO >85% control % partial separation % none required CSO >85% control 29 ELIMINATED % RTC, partial separation, storage % partial separation % partial separation, storage % regulator improvement % none required CSO >85% control 217A % high rate treatment facility % partial separation % partial separation % partial separation % consolidation sewer to tunnel % convey to CSO % RTC and consolidation sewer to tunnel 527 (527A) % none required CSO >85% control % partial separation 528 (528A) % none required CSO >85% control % regulator improvement 530 (528B) % none required CSO >85% control 485/ % RTC and consolidation sewer to tunnel 529 (529B) % none required CSO >85% control 672 Este % none required CSO >85% control % partial separation % partial separation % partial separation % none required CSO >85% control % partial separation 50 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

52 9.2 GREY ALTERNATIVE MODEL RESULTS Model results for the Grey Alternative are graphically presented herein. The effectiveness of the Alternative is determined based upon performance metrics as compared to the updated baseline model version 3.2. The updated baseline has resulted in decreased amounts for combined system inflow and remaining overflow. Performance metrics of the baseline model are presented in Table 9-2, metrics for the grey alternative remedy are presented in Table 9-3. TABLE 9-2: UPDATED BASELINE MODEL VERSION 3.2 PERFORMANCE METRICS Performance Metrics Original WWIP Model Updated Baseline Model 3.2 BASELINE Combined System Inflow (MG) 13,602 10,148 Stormwater Separated (MG) 0 0 Overflow Mitigated (MG) 0 0 Flows Treated at EHRT (MG) 0 0 Flows Treated at WWTP (MG) 5,349 5,071 Remaining Overflow (MG) 8,253 5,077 Watershed % Control 39% 50% Number of CSOs Eliminated 0 5 Number of CSOs > 85% Control Number of CSOs < 85% Control Stormwater Separated Volume Treated at EHRTs Volume Treated at MCWWTP Volume Overflow No. of CSOs >100 MG overflow June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

53 Table 9-3: LMCFR Grey Alternative Performance Metrics Performance Metrics Updated Baseline Model 3.2 LMCFR Grey Alternative Combined System Inflow (MG) 10,148 8,158 Stormwater Separated (MG) 0 1,990 Overflow Mitigated (MG) 0 3,902 Flows Treated at EHRT (MG) Flows Treated at WWTP (MG) 5,071 7,063 Remaining Overflow (MG) 5,077 1,175 Watershed % Control 50% 88% Number of CSOs Eliminated 4 6 Number of CSOs > 85% Control Number of CSOs < 85% Control 69 6 No. of CSOs >100 MG overflow 11 2 Stormwater Separated Volume Treated at EHRTs Volume Treated at MCWWTP Volume Overflow 9.3 GREY ALTERNATIVE BENEFITS REALIZED The grey alternative offers benefits to the Lower Mill Creek Watershed including: Fewer assumptions in modeled results LMCFR 85% control at each CSO and watershed Higher volume of flow is treated at the WWTP or EHRT Higher degree of operational flexibility for interceptor maintenance Flexibility to incorporate various solutions for Carthage and SSO 700 LARGER AMOUNT OF FLOW RECEIVES TREATMENT: A primary benefit of constructing a deep tunnel to store and convey wet weather flow to the Mill Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant is the fact that a large percentage of flow receives a form of treatment. The advantage is demonstrated in Figure 9-1. However, it is important to note that while more flow receives a higher level of treatment prior to discharge, there is a cost required to treat the flow. 52 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

54 FIGURE 9-1: TREATMENT LEVELS OF THREE ALTERNATIVES AT COMPLETION 9.4 GREY ALTERNATIVE POTENTIAL RISKS The grey alternative involves potential risks to the Lower Mill Creek Watershed including: 74% increase in Wet Weather Flow to WWTP resulting with higher operating cost Limited flexibility for future changes to overall watershed plan No community surface benefit Complex construction method Limited local construction participation Higher energy demand and cost Larger carbon footprint and potential future carbon tax 74% INCREASE IN WET WEATHER FLOW TO WWTP: The grey alternative results with a 74% increase in wet weather flow to WWTP as compared to wet weather flows received today. The life cycle variable cost of treating a gallon of wet weather flow at the Mill Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant over a 25 year analysis period is $ per gallon or $250/MG. Increasing the volume of wet weather flow directed to the Mill Creek plant resulted with an estimated increase of $420,500 for the MSD wastewater treatment annual operating budget. Over a 25-year window, this equates to a net present value of $6,373,000. Over the past few years, MSD has been faced with declining 53 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

55 revenues, fewer customers, and higher operating costs. This situation has contributed to the rates our customers are required to bear. LIMITED FLEXIBILITY FOR FUTURE CHANGES TO OVERALL WATERSHED PLAN: Once a tunnel is started in the Lower Mill Creek that is sized for an all grey Final Remedy, it essentially commits MSD to continue following that plan. A future shift with an emphasis on source control would result in an oversized tunnel that would be less utilized, unless future regulations require a greater level of control. The opportunity to revitalize the Lick Run Watershed through extensive source control would be greatly deferred or lost completely, as the tunnel, would be sized to take the overflows that are currently being generated. POTENTIAL LARGE VARIANCE WITH COST FOR TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION: The actual cost for construction of a large-diameter deep tunnel is directly dependent upon the subsurface conditions encountered by contractors. For this reason, large variances might be expected with costing a grey alternative. For example, in 2006 little information was available to refine the concept of constructing a deep tunnel to address the Lower 11 LMC CSOs. The original LMCPR was estimated to cost $244 million to construct the first phase of the tunnel to CSO 5 with consolidation sewers extending to CSO 9. However, as the technical professionals vetted geotechnical conditions and developed detailed design criteria, the cost of the deep tunnel project evolved to $414 million for the phase 1 tunnel segment. 9.5 LMCFR GREY ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL COSTS TABLE 9-4: LMCFR GREY ALTERNATIVE TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS PHASE 1 ( ) Tunnel $ 312,671,000 Consolidation Sewers $ 88,927,000 Tunnel Pump Station & EHRT $ 135,811,000 PHASE 2 ( TBD) total $ 537,409,000 Regulator Improvements $ 15,918,000 The capital investment required for the grey alternative is presented in Table 9-4 (all costs are shown in 2006$). Partial Separations $ 74,768,000 EHRT & Storage Facilities $ 186,568,000 Carthage EHRT $ 65,979,000 Tunnel $ 218,130,000 Consolidation Sewers $ 83,123,000 total $ 644,486,000 TOTAL COST ( TBD) $ 1,181,895,000 Figure 9-2, at the conclusion of Phase 2 construction, nearly 75-percent of the total capital 54 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

56 investment will have been directly related to the deep tunnel components. Carthage EHRT 6% EHRT & Storage Facilities 16% Regulator Improvements 1% Partial Separations 6% Tunnel Pump Station & EHRT 11% Tunnel 45% Consolidation Sewers 15% FIGURE 9-2: LMCFR GREY ALTERNATIVE TOTAL CAPITAL COST BREAKDOWN For this evaluation, the Phase 1 Grey Alternative is taken from Section 7 where the Phase 1 Plan includes a tunnel to CSO 15, necessary consolidation sewers, and an 84 mgd deep pump station and EHRT at the Mill Creek WWTP. The encumbrance and cash flow forecast illustration for the Grey Alternative are presented in Figure 9-3. Encumbrances during Phase 1 peak during 2015 when the contract for the tunnel construction is slated to be awarded and again during 2018 when contracts for the tunnel pump station and EHRT are scheduled for award. The complexities of these projects warrant consideration for separate prospective bonds outside of MSD s traditional prospective funded annual Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The balance of projects included in the Phase 1 (through 2020) encumbrance forecast can be absorbed into MSD s annual CIP process. For this comparative illustration, Phase 2 improvements are shown being completed by the end of This is not based on an affordability analysis, which would be completed prior to the Phase 2 negotiations, and which would be expected to extend the date for completing Phase 2 projects as other MSD consent order projects are added to the evaluation. 55 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

57 Phase 2 encumbrances follow a similar pattern, with a peak in 2025 for the tunnel construction contract and again in 2026 for the Carthage EHRT contract. FIGURE 9-3: LMCFR GREY ALTERNATIVE ENCUMBRANCE & CASH FLOW FORECAST ILLUSTRATION 56 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

58 10 LMCFR SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVE An overview of the Phase 1 Sustainable Alternative is presented in Table Both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Sustainable Alternative are presented in Table The alternative achieves 2 billion gallons of CSO volume reduction in Phase 1 and 80% control for the watershed in Phase 2. TABLE 10-1: PHASE 1 SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVE Phase 1 Components LMCPR Lick Run Watershed partial separation & channel conveyance projects Kings Run Watershed partial separation & Wooden Shoe EHRT or Storage 78,900 feet of storm sewer 1,600 feet of relocated combined 8 stormwater detention basins; approximately 75 acre feet of storage 5 Vortech Units 8,700 feet a valley conveyance stream with approximately 5,600 linear feet daylighting as partial open conveyance system 9,900 feet of natural conveyance, inlet sealing and stream restoration 5,700 feet of storm sewer 7,200 feet of combined sewer converted as stormwater only pipe and new combined sewer 20 mgd EHRT or storage at CSO stormwater detention basins; approximately 36 acre feet of storage Potential for stream restoration along Kings Run West Fork Watershed partial separation & channel conveyance projects Real Time Control/Combined Flow Storage 19,800 feet of storm sewer 12,700 feet of new combined interceptor sewer 3 million gallons of CSO storage 2 stormwater detention basins; approximately 26 acre feet of storage 5,500 feet of naturalized stream (West Fork Creek 10,400 feet of natural conveyance, inlet sealing and stream restoration RTC s at CSOs 5, 125, 482, 485/487 (already constructed) Bloody Run Watershed RTC at CSO million gallons of combined storage at CSO June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

59 TABLE 10-2: PHASE 1&2 SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVE Phase 1 LMCPR Lick Run Watershed partial separation & channel conveyance projects West Fork Watershed partial separation & channel conveyance projects Kings Run Watershed partial separation & Wooden Shoe EHRT or Storage Real Time Control/Combined Flow Storage Phase 2 Components: LMCFR Denham Watershed partial separation project 45,000 feet of storm sewer 2 stormwater detention basins; approximately 12 acre feet of storage 6,600 feet of stream restoration 300 feet sanitary sewer RTC at CSO 10 Bloody Run Watershed partial separation project 31,400 feet of storm sewer 1 detention basin; approximately 161 acre feet of storage Ludlow Run Watershed partial separation project 18,700 feet of storm sewer 10,900 feet of relocated combined sewer 10,500 feet of restored stream Extended Wetland Detention; approximately 8 acre feet of storage Other Projects 65 mgd EHRT at Carthage for CSOs 171 and regulator improvements 33,700 feet of storm sewer for partial separation 2.8 million gallons of combined storage at CSOs 191, 226, and 559 Enabled Impact Projects for public/private partnerships to incentivize and share costs for reduction as redevelopment occurs 10.1 SOURCE CONTROL PERSPECTIVE MSD has determined source control to be an integral and important step with achieving the long-term goals and solutions outlined in the WWIP. The geographical area served by MSD has grown from small developer built systems to an interconnected regionalized system. Today, it is imperative for utilities to work with a regional perspective and to consider projects, infrastructure needs, and system operations from a holistic approach that incorporates integrated watershed planning. The first step in reducing MSD s combined sewer overflows, is to remove the natural drainage and cleaner stormwater from the combined sewer system. Over the last 100 years, natural drainage features have been replaced with hard-piped combined sewers. 58 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

60 From a Source control perspective, stormwater is considered a resource to be utilized for much broader sustainability purposes, rather than remain combined with sanitary sewage. Using a watershed approach to identify areas to control or limit natural drainage and stormwater from entering into the combined system, Co-Defendants could submit to the Regulators alternative source control solutions that reduce CSOs, utilize bioengineered systems that mimic natural systems and as a result, can provide opportunities for more sustainable community redevelopment. Additionally, source control solutions can help prepare communities for climate change effects and potential offset requirements, promote energy efficiency, and improve air quality, making communities more livable and desirable. Source controls may be significantly more cost effective than end-of-pipe controls. Source control systems have been proven effective and are supported by the EPA. Examples of source control solutions and their benefits if applied in Hamilton County and the City of Cincinnati can be considered in 3 distinct project types - Direct, Enabled or Inform and Influence. For the last 3 years, MSD has been utilizing Direct, Enabled & Inform and Influence framework to develop an integrated watershed approaches to CSO reduction. The alternative projects evaluated and discussed in the LMCPR evaluation summary are direct projects these are projects that MSD would own and operate to reduce CSO volumes. Direct source control projects are planned and designed to achieve CSO reduction goals but other community priorities, water quality and/or public health needs. These issues are taken into account to develop projects within the context of existing community or watershed conditions. Sewer Separation, Natural Conveyance in Ault Park, Upper Duck Watershed, 2012 MSDGC. Flow previously was directed into the combined sewer; this separation project has removed an additional 100 acres of park land from draining into the combined sewer. 59 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

61 Strategic separation and large-scale source control measures are the hallmark of the LMCPR Sustainable Alternative plan. The other features and measures can be added in the future to improve CSO mitigation and other overall benefits. While considering watershed approaches and watershed-specific solutions and strategies, areas within the Lower Mill Creek have been categorized as Tier 1 areas where specific source control or partial separation projects are proposed as well as Tier 2 areas where large scale solutions are not proposed but rather onsite solutions will be implemented over time to detain flows prior to discharge through existing or new policies and land use changes that could help implement innovative stormwater related reductions over time through enable impact projects. Source control solutions serve to increase local capacity and provide a higher level of service because they achieve the following results: Provides parallel, separate stormwater conveyance system Reduces sewer surcharging Reduces sewage in basement issues Reduces localized flooding Reduces energy costs and carbon footprint Additional analysis and planning has been done to evaluate water quality implications of Lick Run in particular using the Mill Creek Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) to identify water quality best management practices and features that reduce nutrient and sediment loading from the Lick Run watershed. This analysis identified locations for optimized water quality measures to reduce nutrients and sediment based on current land uses; additional water quality features could be added over time. When considering the long-term sustainability of infrastructure solutions it is important to include triple bottom line benefits, community and stakeholder input, opportunities for repurposing land, and opportunities for Brownfield remediation. Specific source control strategies considered best management practices (BMPs) and recommended under several of the Lower Mill Creek sustainable projects include the following: Strategic Separation: Strategic sewer separation is a targeted or prioritized approach to partial sewer separation within a watershed. Where strategic separation is used, typically there may be two different watershed zones Tier 1 (priority) and Tier 2 (non-priority). Tier-1 areas of a watershed, uses validated system-wide hydraulic model to optimize facility sizing for CSO control, stormwater pollution control, stream morphology, and sewer system capacity to remove stormwater from the combined system by means that are cost effective to meet the pre-established WWIP target and give priority to approaches 60 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

62 that best reflect sustainability and selected community value. Strategic separation provides an opportunity to also integrate the use of small, regional or large-scale stormwater BMPs in Teir-2 areas where separation is not pursued (i.e. non-separated /non-priority areas) to achieve wet weather reduction and community goals. The approach represents an opportunity to target investment in new traditional infrastructure and lay the foundation for more sustainable infrastructure use in an integrated, watershed-based solution. Strategic Separation involves characterizing watershed conditions, identifying volumes to redirect through an alternative stormwater offloading conveyance system. Source control volumes are determined, modeled and potential alignment identified, relative cost and risks determined and considered. As part of strategic separation, several items are considered including on-site storage, regional detention basins or wetlands are evaluated based on existing utilities, vertical alignment of storm sewers, potential for natural conveyance, maximum excavation depths/extents, bedrock and groundwater depths revealed through geotechnical borings, environmental site conditions, access for construction and maintenance, alternative inlet/outlet structures, and maximum side slopes based on safety and geotechnical considerations. CURBSIDE BUMP-OUTS: Also known as curb extensions, these features extend into existing parking lanes. Stormwater collected in the gutter flows into and through the bump-out. The bump-out serves as a temporary wet weather storage, filter, and infiltration. Additionally, it introduces green space and calms the traffic. These features offer the benefit of reducing peak impacts of small storms. PERVIOUS PAVEMENT: This BMP replaces the existing impervious surface with high rate infiltration pervious materials (pervious asphalt or pervious concrete). The pervious pavement system is comprised of two layers: bottom layer is comprised of gravel to allow water to drain quickly and the top layer of is comprised of pervious material. Stormwater infiltrates through the surface as it flows over parking lanes. Regular maintenance is required to maintain the porosity and prevent clogging. This can be accomplished with bi-annual street sweeping. PERMEABLE PAVERS: This BMP replaces This BMP replaces the impervious parking and walking surfaces with pervious material such as paving blocks. The paving blocks are laid across a surface with spaces left in between (interlocking) to allow the water to infiltrate. The pervious pavement system is comprised of three layers: bottom layer of gravel storage; middle layer of compacted leveling sand; and top layer of pavers. These pavers are typically used in low traffic areas. Regular maintenance is required to maintain the porosity and prevent clogging. This can be accomplished with street sweeping. EXTENDED DETENTION WETLANDS: These features are recognized as stormwater storage BMP. They provide treatment, habitat and eliminate permanent pooling. Wetland systems can be designed to recharge local groundwater sources. They provide the benefit of storing water over time and preventing downstream flooding. Additionally, the wetlands enhance the pollutant removal capacity. 61 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

63 DETENTION BASINS: A detention basin is a stormwater BMP structure that stores the water over a short period of time (if it is always full, then it is called retention) and then the water gets released slowly back into the system. Detention basins offer benefits of reducing peak flows, potentially reducing proposed storm sewer sizes, and providing stormwater quality benefits. Factors to consider include existing terrain and features, existing basins and depressions, and estimated pollutant loadings. OPEN CHANNEL CONVEYANCE: Locations have an existing ravine traversing the project limits may be favorable for open channel conveyance. Factors to consider include geotechnical conditions, existing vegetation, disturbance limits, required easements, inlet sealing and stability and construction cost and impacts. REFORESTATION: Reforestation in stormwater management is important because it increases the capture of stormwater which reduces the intensity of rain over the surface. This results with reduced stormwater runoff and prevents sediment erosion. Additionally, reforestation is essential to the restoration of many natural habitats. Forested buffers that lie between land and water are an essential part of the ecosystem. Reforestation programs attempt to preserve and restore forested buffers and natural forests. Further through reforestation, municipalities can accomplish several tasks, including park improvement, neighborhood and highway beautification, and the planting of shade trees in parking and pedestrian areas. SEDIMENT FOREBAY: A sediment forebay is a small pool located near the inlet of a storm basin or other stormwater management facility. These devices are designed as initial storage areas to trap and settle out sediment and heavy pollutants before they reach the main basin. Installing an earth berm, gabion wall, or other barrier near the inlet to cause stormwater to pool temporarily can form the pool area. Sediment forebays act as a pretreatment feature on a stormwater pond and can greatly reduce the overall pond maintenance requirements. Forebays also make basin maintenance easier and less costly by trapping sediment in one small area where it is easily removed, and preventing sediment buildup in the rest of the facility. ENABLED IMPACT PROJECTS: Direct source control solutions have been developed in Lick Run, West Fork, Bloody Run, Kings Run, Denham and Ludlow Run; these watersheds have been the focus of this evaluation. However, it should be noted and understood that source control offers additional flexibility to engage the private sector and other public partners in implementing Enabled Impact Projects. While most enabled impact projects will not reduce large volumes of CSO, these projects over time could be beneficial. Using an integrated approach could drive market forces to enable projects and the private sector to implement source control solutions to reduce runoff from entering the combined system, helping MSD to reduce overall costs of CSO reduction, while providing more community benefits. As redevelopment of new or old sites occurs, MSD, local policies or codes could enable a developer to implement additional source controls on their sites at costs born partially by them. Enabled impact projects could be additionally incentivized and influenced by polices set by the City or County as part of land development codes or form based codes. 62 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

64 To date, the MSD developed a successful Enabled Impact Program, capturing approximately 44 million gallons of stormwater from the combined system through partnerships with other public or private entities approximately 30 to date. Through current enable impact projects, MSD provides cost participation and in return, the enable impact partners agree to maintain the sites and stormwater reduction benefits. These market-driven efforts are part of what make source control attractive. With an intentional strategy to capture reductions from enabled impact projects each year, over years, there could be considerable benefits for MSD, its ratepayers and the community at large to close the gap more cost effectively than through traditional solutions. Figure illustrates the numerous enabled impact projects identified and considered throughout the Lick Run watershed; some of these projects are either constructed or in planning and design. FIGURE 10-1: LICK RUN WATERSHED ENABLED IMPACT PROJECTS 10.2 SUSTAINABLE PARALLEL PATH OVERVIEW As part of the LMCPR objectives, MSD began identifying large scale source removal opportunities in This led to several studies within individual sewersheds. These reports were a springboard for the Sustainable Watershed Evaluation Process (SWEP) which began in parallel. The SWEP is a formal planning process to facilitate an integrated decision support system for prioritizing and determining wastewater collection or treatment needs, particularly for the LMCPR, CSO volume reduction alternatives, that use a hybrid of both grey and green infrastructure which MSD had defined as sustainable infrastructure, facilitate other local community and economic benefits, and meet the objectives. Originally developed as a four step process, MSD has enhanced the SWEPP process with six 63 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

65 broad steps to develop and implement integrated watershed-based master plans; Data and Inventory Analysis, Opportunities & Constraints, Alternatives Evaluation, Development of a Master Plan, Implementation and Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation. The updated 6-step process is described in the diagram below. TABLE 10-3: MSD SUSTAINABLE WATERSHED EVALUATION PLANNING PROCESS MSDGC Integrated Sustainable Watershed Similar to comprehensive planning, the SWEPP identifies and analyzes the important relationships among the environment, infrastructure, the economy, transportation, communities/neighborhoods, and other components. It does so on a watershed-wide basis and in the context of a wider region and objective. MSD has draft a SWEPP manual on how it performs SWEPPs to guide further efforts and replicate the process in other watersheds and communities. The LMCPR team considered past and on-going studies initiated and managed the MSD Environmental Program Management group as a strategy to meet the Phase 1 and Phase 2 objectives. The team reviewed the report recommendations, model methodology, and costing methodology. The projects were also reviewed under the context of a system-wide solution. 64 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

66 In addition, the team made modifications to the modeling, costing and to a lesser degree, the technical components of the projects, to establish and maintain consistency with the LMCPR project and project alternatives. With the focus on consistency checks of the magnitude of potential CSO reductions from implementation of these projects, the model review includes the following elements: Evaluating input data (level of detail, hydraulic and hydrologic inputs, etc.) within the existing system model, relative to assessing the benefits of the proposed sustainable projects; Evaluating if implementation and performance assumptions for source control SI projects are realistic; Confirming that model inputs for the candidate source control SI projects comply with MSDGC s green infrastructure modeling guidance; Documenting sizing criteria; and confirming that storm SI projects, where explicitly modeled, divert SW flows correctly and appropriately. Meetings were held with the sustainable project teams to document the performance assumptions and methodology. Modifications were made to the model as necessary to improve consistency across the sustainable projects and to ensure that the basin models could be uploaded into the System Wide Model. The focus of consistency checks on the cost estimating from the six watershed projects was driven by the need to perform an alternatives analysis and to be able to add and compare bottoms up cost estimates from more developed projects (e.g. preliminary design, 30% design) to parametric estimates from a conceptual design process. Standardization of what is included in the base construction, such as general condition items and overhead and profit was made consistent between the projects. Confirmation of the level of the project (e.g. preliminary design) allowed for standardization of the design contingency. In addition, quantities and unit prices were generally checked with the assistance of MSDGC Cost Estimating. The capital cost markups applied to the total construction cost estimate were also updated to correspond throughout all Lower Mill Creek projects. Real estate costs were provided by MSD using a uniform methodology for the six watershed projects. Real estate costs of permanent easements, temporary easements and full takes have been calculated based the best available information of the current project alignment. The costs include the property value as well as soft costs such as appraisals, titles, closing costs, relocations, property management, potential environmental site assessments, potential appropriation, and staff administration. As mentioned, to a lesser extent, technical components of the six watershed projects were reviewed and modified to ensure consistency with the Lower Mill Creek system operating strategy or to adjust the CSO overflow to a more desirable level when evaluating the Mill Creek system as a whole. For example, the desire to maintain control of flows to the Mill Creek and Auxiliary Interceptors by use of regulators is 65 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

67 an operating strategy. Minor modifications to adjust the CSO overflows by increasing or decreasing pipe diameters, or removing storage facilities was also implemented. Specifically for the Sustainable Alternative presented in this section, six watershed solutions within the Lower Mill Creek Basin, were selected, along with several additional cost efficient projects LICK RUN WATERSHED OVERVIEW CSO 5 As one of MSD s largest combined sewer overflow basins, CSO 5 is a major focus of the WWIP Phase 1. This basin, also known as the Lick Run Watershed, is approximately 2,700 acres located on the west side of Cincinnati, just north of the downtown area. CSO discharges from the Lick Run Watershed are estimated to be 1.5 billion gallons annually without including real time control accounting for more than 10 percent of MSD s total annual average overflow volume and the greatest source of CSO volume in the Lower Mill Creek Watershed. In June 2009, MSD engaged a project team to evaluate wet weather control strategies utilizing large scale source control solutions in the Lick Run Watershed with the ultimate goal of satisfying CSO control objectives. A four-step sustainable watershed evaluation process (SWEP) was used to develop a Lick Run Watershed Plan including an inventory and evaluation of existing conditions of individual drainage sub-basins within the watershed, identifying sustainable strategies to effectively remove and/or delay stormwater from entering the combined sewer system in each of these drainage sub-basins, and selecting a recommended suite of projects for the wet weather strategy in the Lick Run Watershed. The projects resulting from this effort are shown in Figure 10-2 and following table. 66 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

68 FIGURE 10-2: LICK RUN WATERSHED OVERVIEW OF PROJECTS The Lick Run source control project is comprised of a sewer separation component and stormwater conveyance component. The strategic sewer separation element is comprised of 14 individual sewer separation projects totaling approximately 70,000 feet of new stormwater conveyance in both closed conduit and open channel designs. Eight new stormwater detention basins totaling 75 acre feet of storage volume and 5 Vortech units to reduce were included in the base design and would be constructed to manage the flows and improve water quality. The valley conveyance system is approximately 8000 linear feet long and is a hybrid of both an underground box conduit with an open channel conveyance system, an open water forebay, an on-line stormwater pond, and structural best management practices. The new storm sewers and conveyance channel will ultimately convey captured stormwater and natural drainage to Mill Creek. TABLE 10-4: SUMMARY OF LICK RUN WATERSHED PROJECTS PROJECT/CSO 5 DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS 67 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

69 PROJECT/CSO 5 Sunset Avenue, Sunset Lane, & Rapid Run Pike (including Rapid Run Early Success Project) Wyoming and Minion Avenues Harrison Avenue Phase A (in CONSTRUCTION) Harrison Avenue Phase B State Avenue White Street Quebec Road Queen City Avenue Phase 2 Queen City & Cora Avenues Quebec Heights Phase 1 Quebec Heights Phase 2 Grand & Selim Avenues Queen City Avenue Phase 3 Westwood Avenue Queen City Phase 1 DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS Strategic stormwater capture from approximately 480 drainage acres with 11,600 ft of separate storm sewers and 1,400 ft of natural conveyance along Rapid Run Park; installation of detention basin 21 Strategic stormwater capture from approximately 62 drainage acres with 3,900 ft of separate storm sewers Strategic stormwater capture from approximately 36 drainage acres with 3,900 ft of separate storm sewers and structural separator BMP (Vortech unit) Strategic stormwater capture from approximately 26 drainage acres with 1,900 ft of separate storm sewers Strategic stormwater capture approximately 12 drainage acres with 3,100 ft of separate storm sewers Strategic stormwater capture from approximately 64 drainage acres with 6,600 ft of separate storm sewers and structural separator BMP (Vortech unit) Strategic stormwater capture from approximately 197 drainage acres with 8,500 ft of separate storm sewers and structural separator BMP (Vortech unit) Strategic stormwater capture from approximately 226 drainage acres with 7,800 ft of separate storm sewers and structural separator BMP (Vortech unit) Strategic stormwater capture from approximately 146 drainage acres with 2,600 ft of separate storm sewers and approximately 2,800 ft of natural conveyance system and installation of detention basin 07, 09, 10 Strategic stormwater capture from approximately 72 drainage acres with 1,300 ft of separate storm sewers, approximately 5,600 ft of natural conveyance through Glenway Woods and extended wetland detention feature 17 Strategic stormwater capture from approximately 11 drainage acres with 1,500 ft of separate storm sewers Strategic stormwater capture from approximately 272 drainage acres with 14,400 ft of separate storm sewers and structural separator BMP (Vortech unit) Strategic stormwater capture from approximately 34 drainage acres with 4,500 ft of separate storm sewers Strategic stormwater capture from approximately 11 drainage acres with 5,400 ft of separate storm sewers Strategic stormwater capture from approximately 107 drainage acres with 2,800 ft of separate storm sewers and detention basin June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

70 PROJECT/CSO 5 Valley Conveyance System Tier-2 Areas (managed through land development code and enforcement of pre/post stormwater detention requirements) DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS The valley conveyance system (VCS) is a hybrid stormwater conveyance system of open channel & subsurface box conduit, to convey natural drainage and stormwater removed from the CSS. The installation includes a low flow above ground bioengineered conveyance system paired with a closed box conduit to convey the 100 year flood flows to the Mill Creek safely. The VCS would be designed as an innovative stormwater conveyance system to be as an asset for community revitalization through the use of best management practices such as green streets, porous pavement treatments to surface areas and water quality enhancements in the channel corridor zone. A daylighting feature will be located where the historic Lick Run stream once flowed and will include floodplain amenities for open space and access to an enhanced natural system, engineered to serve multiple community needs and benefits and potential for infill of neighboring sites. Innovations in stormwater management tools to further advance water quality and quantity improvements. The limits of the strategic separation areas within the 2,700-acre watershed were determined utilizing the strategic separation approach outlined previously and in the SWEPP with the goal of capturing as much stormwater as possible with strategic investments in new infrastructure. The separation approach targeted stream entry points, large undeveloped hillsides, and areas already served by separate storm and sanitary systems that discharge into the combined sewer system. These targeted areas of the watershed were identified as priority areas or Tier-1 areas for strategic separation and represent approximately 1,800 acres. Highly developed areas on the upper reaches were excluded from the Tier- 1 areas unless it was reasonably efficient to extend new separated storm sewers to connect with existing drainage systems. These upland areas were termed non-priority areas or Teir-2 areas and represent the remaining 900 acres. For the Tier two areas, future discharges are already regulated by the City of Cincinnati Stormwater Utility and Building Code. However, through the Land Development Code, the City of Cincinnati Planning Department is considering innovative stormwater planning and development codes and practices that can be implemented to further support and incentives for additional on-site volumetric reduction of runoff and flows. Additional incentive or onsite controls could be implemented as part of land use changes and restrictions as property develops or redevelops to manage stormwater from non-prioritized areas. The model was reviewed and no changes were made to the model received from the Engineer. Updates were made to the base construction costs received on December 14, 2011 to have consistency in the overhead and profit percentages and design contingencies. In addition, the six projects that were 69 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

71 in the preliminary 30% design phase rather an intermediate 30% design phase were reviewed in more details since those estimates were over one year old. Inclusion of a separate cost for general conditions and standardization of overhead and profit were made to these six projects. One of the 14 projects has been fully designed and bid as a construction coordination opportunity with City Department of Transportation and Engineering; the project came in less than 30% of the Engineer s estimate; due to the construction coordination savings and due to conservative estimating. The capital cost markups were also updated to correspond throughout all Lower Mill Creek projects WEST FORK WATERSHED OVERVIEW (15 CSOS) The West Fork Watershed covers an area of 6,117 acres and includes portions of Cincinnati neighborhoods: Cincinnati, Cheviot, and Green Township with Mr. Airy Forest comprising a significant portion of the drainage basin (1,459 acres). Fifteen CSO locations within the watershed contribute combined sewer overflow in a typical year. The CSOs in the West Fork Basin are consolidated in the existing interceptor, which was originally constructed beneath the channelized West Fork channel in This existing interceptor is hydraulically connected to the existing channel through 18 grated openings. These grates allow stream flow to enter directly into the interceptor during dry conditions and wet weather events and combined sewage to surcharge into the channel. Furthermore, the unnatural concrete stream bed obstructs the stream from attaining minor water quality objectives. 70 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

72 FIGURE 10-3 WEST FORK WATERSHED OVERVIEW MAP The primary objective of the West Fork Sustainable Watershed Project was to identify sustainable wet weather strategy for integrated (source control, conveyance and storage) solutions as an alternative to the 2006 WWIP default project. The sustainable solution will achieve CSO volume reduction goals and allow other benefits to be leveraged for the watershed s communities through the Communities of the Future vision. The West Fork sustainable solution includes improvements to reduce overflows from CSOs 130, 128, 127, 126, 125, 117, 528, 529, and 530. This alternative includes construction of a proposed 84-interceptor and two CSO storage tanks to reduce CSO volume from areas tributary to CSOs 130, 203, 126 and 125, in conjunction with alternatives recommended to reduce other individual CSOs. It also includes construction of 2 detention basins, providing approximately 23 acre feet of storage for water quality and quantity improvement. As part of the upsizing of a new interceptor, the West Fork solution provides a re-naturalization and removal of the concrete lined West Fork Channel. This solution also substantially reduces the stormwater and natural drainage entering the CSS, thereby reducing the wet weather volume in the existing interceptor downstream of CSO 125, thus eliminating the need for the portion of the interceptor downstream of CSO 125 to be replaced as recommended by the WWIP. 71 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

73 TABLE 10-5: SUMMARY OF WEST FORK WATERSHED PROJECTS PROJECT/ CSO CSO 130 Phase I FEMA Grants CSOs 127 & 128 CSO 126 CSO 125 CSO 117 CSO 528 CSO 529 CSO 530 West Fork Interceptor, Tank and Channel Renaturalization Tier-2 Areas DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS 1,957 LF of pipe to separate streams, in order to convey stormwater to the West Fork channel, and connect the combined sewer to the new interceptor. FEMA hazard mitigation program grants will allow MSD to purchase and demolish some of the homes located in the flood zone along the West Fork Channel. 3,674 LF of pipe to completely separate the sanitary sewer and storm sewer and convey the stormwater directly to the West Fork Channel. 1,030 LF of pipe to separate the stream and convey sanitary flow from lower portion of sewer for CSOs 127 & 128. Stormwater from the CSO 126 basins to be conveyed through the existing combined system. The upper portion of CSO 126 combined sewer will be directed to CSO 125 sewershed via a new combined sewer. 7,623 LF of pipe to convey the stormwater and streams that are to be separated and detained by two detention basins, which will discharge to the West Fork Channel. Installation of a 1.5 MG CSO storage tank, which will work in conjunction with the existing Badgeley Run RTC facility. 3,414 LF of storm sewer separation along Tappan Ave, Case Ave, Elmore Street, and Heffner Street. 1,400 LF of street separation along Beekman Street. 1,350 LF of street separation along Llewellyn Ave and Dreman Ave. 3,010 LF of street separation along Beekman Street, Webman Court, Emma Place and Lillie Place. 4,700 LF of combined sewer interceptor installed from the CSO 130 to the proposed 1.5 MG Interceptor storage tank near Beekman Street (4,700 feet), and the sealing of all existing grates in the remaining existing interceptor. 5,255 LF of channel re-naturalization from CSO 130 to Beekman Street, including removal of the concrete channel additional sinuosity and additional park amenities. Innovations in stormwater management tools to further advance water quality and quantity improvements. For the modeling of the West Fork Watershed many of the percent effective statistics in the sub catchments of the West Fork Basin model were revised and the Badgeley Run RTC controls were updated to reflect current conditions. The original West Fork cost estimates were updated to include new design contingencies, which were normalized across all Lower Mill Creek sub-basins and projects. The capital cost markups were also updated to correspond throughout all Lower Mill Creek projects. In order to meet the percent control goals the storm outfall pipe in the CSO 125 stream separation project was increased in diameter to permit more flow to reach the West Fork Channel from the two detention basins. 72 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

74 10.5 KINGS RUN WATERSHED OVERVIEW CSOS 217 AND 483 The Kings Run Watershed includes two large CSOs, 217 and 483, and includes portions of Cincinnati neighborhoods: College Hill, Winton Place, and Winton Hills. CSO 483 covers a drainage area of 1,076 acres comprised of a mixture of residential, commercial, and institutional development, woodland, and small-scale farmland. CSO 217 is nested within the CSO 483 drainage area. Roughly half of the CSO 483 drainage area is located upstream of CSO 217 thereby causing stormwater runoff to contribute to CSO overflow events at both locations. The flow that is surface discharged at CSO 217 and the flow that remains captured in the pipe are intercepted downstream by the same combined sewer flowing to CSO 483. An overview map of the Kings Run Watershed is presented in Figure FIGURE 10-4: KINGS RUN OVERVIEW OF PROJECTS MAP The solution for CSO 483 and CSO 217 includes five detention basins to reduce the peak volume entering the combined system, conversion of the existing 14 feet by 8 feet combined sewer to storm only, and strategic separation priority areas by installation of 7,200 LF of combined sewers and 5,700 LF of storm 73 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

75 sewers. For additional control at CSO 217 which is nested upstream from CSO 483 is a 20 MGD EHRT. After the solution is in place, the remaining overflow and EHRT effluent from the CSO 217 area will no longer be routed into the combined sewer above the CSO 483 regulator but will flow directly to the Mill Creek. TABLE 10-6: SUMMARY OF KINGS RUN WATERSHED PROJECTS PROJECT Measures 1 & 2 Measure 3 Measure 4 DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT Includes the construction of two detention basins and approximately 500 linear feet of storm sewer to capture runoff from 30 acres. Detains stormwater during peak flows and slowly releases to combined sewer. Enlargement of an existing detention basin to capture runoff from 119 acres via existing ravines. Detains stormwater during peak flows and slowly releases to combined sewer. Likely to enhance control of CSO 217 discharge for larger design storms. Proposed detention basin and approximately 200 linear feet of storm sewer to capture runoff from 16 acres via existing Winton Road sewer. Proposes to re-direct approximately 1,300 linear feet of sanitary lateral for Winton Road Reservoir to sewer to the north, leaving portion of existing Winton Road sewer as storm only. Measure 15 Enlargement of existing detention basin to capture runoff from 88 acres, primarily Gray Road Fill site. Existing detention basin discharge is to be modified under Measure 33 to divert stormwater into existing stream rather than returning it to the existing combined sewer. Likely to enhance control of CSO 217 discharge for larger design storms. Measure 26 Measure 31 A new 20 mgd storage and/or treatment facility (EHRT) for control of remaining overflow to maximize CSO reduction at existing CSO 217. CSO 217 cannot be brought into compliance without this improvement measure but is greatly reduced in size compared to the grey only alternative. Proposes the elimination of sanitary and combined sewer connections to the existing 14 x 8 sewer with the installation of separate sanitary. With the sanitary sewer connections eliminated, the 14 x 8 sewer will become a dedicated storm-only sewer and will discharge directly to the Mill Creek. Relocated combined sewer pipe is 5,200 feet. 74 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

76 PROJECT Measure 33 Scenario A Tier-2 Areas DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT The installation of approximately 400 linear feet of outlet storm pipe from the control structure at Measure 15 at the Gray Road Landfill and crosses Winton Road before discharging into the existing stream rather than discharging to the existing combined sewer upstream of CSO 217. Approximately 5,300 feet of additional storm separation in the vicinity of Kings Run Drive, Winton Road, and Winton Ridge Road to strategically separate approximately 122 acres of drainage from flowing into the combined sewer. Innovations in stormwater management tools to further advance water quality and quantity improvements. The model used in the LMCPR study is an earlier version than the current proposed project which is summarized above. The design continued to move forward after the models were reviewed and incorporated into the system wide model. The current proposed project meets or exceeds the model from the earlier version. The design change was the inclusion of Scenario A street separation and Measure 33 stream separation. For the modeling of the Kings Run Watershed many of the percent effective statistics in the sub catchments of Kings Run Basin model were revised. As a way to reduce cost for the Kings Run watershed, the storage tank at CSO 483 was eliminated from the project. The tank was included in the design to exceed 95% control of the CSO since that was the value included in the WWIP. However, CSO 483 does not meet the classification of requiring a higher level of control like CSO 217 which requires 90% control. Therefore, the tank was eliminated from the solution and the CSO still meets 85% control. The original Kings Run cost estimates were updated to include overhead and profit and revised design contingencies, which were normalized across all Lower Mill Creek sub-basins and projects. The capital cost markups were also updated to correspond throughout all Lower Mill Creek projects BLOODY RUN WATERSHED OVERVIEW CSO 181 The Bloody Run Watershed encompasses 2,224 acres of predominantly residential land with some commercial development and undeveloped areas. The watershed includes portions of these Cincinnati neighborhoods: Amberley Village, Bond Hill, Golf Manor, Roselawn, Pleasant Ridge, Columbia Township, and Norwood. Combined sewers serve approximately 40 percent of the area. Extensive areas within the Bloody Run watershed are currently served by separate storm and sanitary sewers that discharge 75 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

77 into combined sewers. Most of the separated sewers are located in Norwood, Roselawn, parts of Golf Manor, Pleasant Ridge, and the northeastern part of Bond Hill. The watershed contains one combined sewer overflow, CSO 181, also referred to as the Bloody Run Regulator. CSO 181 is estimated to have an average overflow volume of 590 MG during the typical year. The large amount of wet weather underflow in the system overwhelms the capacity of the Auxiliary Mill Creek Interceptor. A generalized overview of the Bloody Run Watershed is presented in Figure FIGURE 10-5: BLOODY RUN OVERVIEW OF PROJECT MAP The primary objective of the Bloody Run Separation Project is to remove stormwater from the combined sewer system to reduce the volume and frequency of combined sewer overflows during wet weather conditions, and to re-establish flows to the Bloody Run open channel and to Mill Creek. The project will utilize the following approach to achieve this objective. Strategically separate ~1200 acres from entering the combined system Utilize existing system for storage Utilize existing opportunities for detention and water quality 76 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

78 The recommended Bloody Run Separation Project is comprised of several major components to achieve CSO reduction, water quality improvements, and channel protection as summarized below and further presented in Table MG detention basin/storm water quality control facility constructed on vacant property in the TechSolve business park, providing approximately 161 acre feet of storage Approximately 31,400 ft of new storm sewer, ranging in size from 24-inch diameter to an 8 ft by 8 ft box section Real time control facility and regulator improvements to CSO 181 designed to maximize storage in the existing combined sewer system and maximize conveyance through the existing 42-inch underflow to the Auxiliary Mill Creek Interceptor Green Streets measures such as curb bump outs containing green storm water features to restore roadways/streetscapes along alignments of strategic separation storm sewers TABLE 10-7: SUMMARY OF BLOODY RUN WATERSHED PROJECTS PROJECT TechSolve Detention Basin Real Time Control Facility Norwood Langdon West DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS An 18 acre site for 52 million gallon detention basin to be constructed on vacant property in the TechSolve Business Park at Steiger Drive to capture and detain stormwater from 848 acres. This includes a temporary outlet to the combined sewer and eventual removal from the combined for conveyance through the Bloody Run channel. A RTC facility coupled with regulator improvements at CSO 181 to use in-system storage within the existing 10 ft x 15 ft combined trunk sewer. Cincinnati Gardens to TechSolve Storm Sewer Reach consists of approximately 5,080 feet storm sewer. This system is primarily in the Langdon Farm right-of-way west of the Cincinnati Gardens detention basin site and collects separate storm water within the City of Norwood and the Bond Hill neighborhood. 77 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

79 PROJECT Roselawn DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS Swifton Commons Storm Sewer Reach consists of approximately 7,050 feet storm sewer. This system would collect stormwater primarily from the Roselawn neighborhood, installed from Roselawn Park through the Hilltop and Seymour shopping centers to a discharge point along Cincinnati Gardens. Pleasant Ridge Langdon East Losantiville Country Club Storm Sewer Reach consists of approximately 10,410 feet storm sewer. This system would collect separate stormwater from the Pleasant Ridge neighborhood and from the City of Norwood, installed along Langdon Farm Road and Seymour Avenue. Phase 6 TechSolve Outlet Bond Hill Tier-2 Areas A permanent outlet of the TechSolve Basin to remove the stormwater from the combined sewer and restore flow to Bloody Run and Mill Creek. Requires construction to be coordinated with proposed I-75 improvements. TechSolve to Outfall Storm Sewer Reach consists of approximately 8,880 feet of basin outlet pipe. This system would convey discharges from the TechSolve Basin and Bond Hill neighborhood, installed parallel to the existing combined sewer. Innovations in stormwater management tools to further advance water quality and quantity improvements. For the modeling of the Bloody Run Watershed many of the percent effective statistics in the subcatchments of the West Fork Basin model were revised. The Bloody Run cost estimates were updated to apply new real estate estimates outside of the total construction cost, and to normalize the contractor s overhead and profit, design contingencies, and bonding and insurance. The capital cost markups were also updated to correspond throughout all Lower Mill Creek projects LUDLOW RUN WATERSHED OVERVIEW CSO 24 The Ludlow Run Sub-Basin services the Northside, College Hill, Winton Hills, and Winton Place Communities. This Sub-basin is within the Kings Run Watershed. There are six nested CSO s discharging into the Ludlow Run Stream which enters the combined sewer system. At the downstream end of the system CSO 24 discharges into Lower Mill Creek. The sub-basin encompasses approximately 1,200 acres. Land use in the area is a mix of urban industrial and forested land with steep topography. 78 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

80 Implementation of a sustainable infrastructure (SI) project is proposed to reduce the annual CSO volume entering the Mill Creek. A majority of the Ludlow Run sub-basin will undergo sewer separation to some degree. In order to achieve separation, separate storm sewer pipes and natural conveyance systems will be installed. Extended detention wetlands providing approximately 8 acre feet of storage, vegetated bump outs, and previous pavers will reduce peak runoff volumes and allow stormwater infiltration to occur and instream enhancements such as step pools improve water quality. A portion of the existing combined sewer system pipe network (5,000 LF) will be converted to stormwater only pipe; there are few sanitary connections yet significant volumes of stormwater and natural drainage that flow through this pipe. A relocated CSS pipes will transport the residual combined sewer flow to the trunk sewer. Removal of a portion of the stormwater flow from the existing combined sewer system will reduce the peak flow rates and reduce the annual CSO volume. The specific improvements are noted in Figure FIGURE 10-6: LUDLOW RUN SUSTAINABLE PROJECTS As part of the LMCPR review, several technical aspects were modified. The modifications were driven primarily by modifying the tie in location suggested in the basin study. The basin study recommended a direct tie-in to the interceptor. The LMCPR team modified this tie-in point to maintain connectivity at 79 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

81 the existing diversion structure. Other constructability issues were identified and the alignment was revised as well as lateral reconnections. TABLE 10-8: LUDLOW RUN CSO / NESTED CSO S PROJECT/CSO DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT CSO 151 CSO 162 CSO 109 CSO 112 CSO 110 Approximately 11,500 feet of new storm sewer, 2.89 acre footprint of wetlands, and 31 bumpouts. Approximately 1,700 feet of new storm sewer, 0.21 acre footprint of wetlands, 6 bumpouts, and 420 linear feet of step pools. Approximately 1,100 feet of new storm sewer, 2392 linear feet of pervious pavers, 7 bump outs, 550 linear feet of step pools. Approximately 3,100 feet of new storm sewers and 9 bumpouts. Approximately 1,400 feet of new storm sewer, acre footprint of wetlands, 224 linear feet of step pools CSO 24 Proposed improvements include CSO 24 regulator improvements and 8,500 feet of relocated combined sewer Tier-2 Areas Innovations in stormwater management tools to further advance water quality and quantity improvements. For the modeling of the Ludlow Run Watershed many of the percent effective statistics in the sub catchments were revised. The percent effective removal statistics were further refined in the commercial district, which is bounded by Dane Avenue and Crawford Avenue. The original Ludlow Run cost estimate was updated to include new design contingencies, which were normalized across all Lower Mill Creek sub-basins and projects. The project soft cost markups were also updated to correspond throughout all Lower Mill Creek projects. Furthermore the overall cost estimate was increased to take into account the constructability issues and the need to tie into the regulator prior to connecting to the auxiliary interceptor DENHAM WATERSHED OVERVIEW CSO 10 The Denham Watershed encompasses approximately 1,300 acres and includes a dense urban area mixed with steep mostly undeveloped wooded terrain. The watershed is located on the west side of Cincinnati including the North Fairmount area and portions of Westwood, South Fairmount, and English Woods. Combined and sanitary sewers service the area. In addition to combined sewer overflow, the aging sewer system has inadequate capacity for design storms in several locations, resulting in isolated 80 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

82 flooding and basement backup complaints. CSO 10, also referred to as the Denham Street Regulator, is the largest CSO in the Denham watershed and is the CSO of interest. Roughly 940 acres are tributary to this CSO. A generalized overview of the Denham Watershed is presented in Figure FIGURE 10-7: DENHAM OVERVIEW OF PROJECT MAP The objective of the Denham project is to reduce combined sewer overflows, and to also reduce flooding and basement backups utilizing source control, specifically strategic/partial separation components. The project will utilize the following approach to achieve these objectives: Remove large volumes of stormwater from the combined system Sets the stage for future water quantity and quality improvements Mitigate historic flooding and drainage issues experienced in the community The recommended Denham project is comprised of several major components as summarized below and further presented in Table 10-9 as phased projects. Approximately 45,000 ft of new storm sewers to serve 600 acres of prioritized areas 81 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

83 Three detention basins to manage stormwater discharge rates, providing approximately 12 acre feet of storage Improvements to four ravines to enhance surface conveyances Real-time control storage in the existing 108-inch diameter combined sewer once the sewer separation is largely complete Future innovative stormwater practices instigated by incentives and/or regulatory restrictions as property develops or redevelops to manage stormwater from non-prioritized /tier-2 areas TABLE 10-9: DENHAM CSO 10 PHASING PROJECT PLAN PROJECT Phase A Phase B Phase C Phase D Phase E Phase F Tier-2 Areas DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT Approximately 27,400 feet of new storm sewer for eastern portion of North Fairmont, to St. Leo, and to Mill Creek, detention basins, water quality features and improvements to St. Leo Ravine. Approximately 6,000 ft of new storm sewer extension to Baltimore to intercept street runoff, surrounding hillsides, and natural ravine north of the school. Approximately 4,800 ft of new storm sewer extension up Baltimore Ave. and the existing ravine to the detention basin at Westwood Northern, expansion and enhancement of existing detention basin, improvements to ravines. Approximately 3,700 ft of new storm sewer extension up Baltimore Ave. to Westwood Northern to intercept runoff from street and surrounding hillsides. Approximately 3,200 ft of new storm sewer for separation of Sutter Avenue and installation of stormwater detention by future English Woods developer. Installation of real-time control in the existing 108-inch diameter combined sewer to utilize available storage for further CSO reduction. Innovations in stormwater management tools to further advance water quality and quantity improvements. The original Denham cost estimates were updated to normalize the design contingencies and bonding and insurance, and to provide new real estate estimates. The project soft cost markups were also updated to correspond throughout all Lower Mill Creek projects. 82 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

84 10.9 OTHER PROJECTS IN THE SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVE Additional projects were added to the six watershed solutions to create a system wide solution for the Mill Creek watershed with added emphasis on sustainable infrastructure. These projects were developed and included in both the Grey and Sustainable/Hybrid Alternatives and include all feasible projects not associated with the tunnel. The projects include the following types: Partial separations outside of the sustainable project areas (similar to the partial separations of the Grey Alternative) Regulator improvements 4.8 MG of storage 65 MGD EHRT at Carthage With the inclusion of the projects, the model results indicate that the Lower Mill Creek watershed does not meet 85% control at the watershed. Additional cost-effective projects are being investigated to understand the cost associated with meeting a higher percent control at the watershed level SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVE MODEL RESULTS The Sustainable Alternative includes numerous source control projects, which utilize an array of stormwater control strategies. The major projects in the Sustainable Alternative occur in the Lick Run, West Fork, King s Run, Bloody Run, Ludlow, and Denham watersheds. The alternative achieves 2 billion gallons of CSO volume reduction during Phase 1 and 85% control for the majority of CSOs during Phase 2. The modeled solution for each CSO in the system is presented in Table The yellow highlighted entries in the table reflect the CSOs that have percent control less than 80%. 83 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

85 TABLE 10-10: LMCFR ALTERNATIVE MODELED RESULTS AND SOLUTIONS System-wide model results for the Sustainable Alternative are graphically presented herein. As with the Grey Alternative, the effectiveness of the Sustainable Alternative was determined based upon performance metrics compared with the updated baseline model version 3.2. Performance metrics for the Sustainable Alternative Final Remedy are presented in Table June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

86 TABLE 10-11: LMCFR SUSTAINABLE OPTION PERFORMANCE METRICS Performance Metrics Updated Baseline Model 3.2 LMCFR Sustainable Option Combined System Inflow (MG) 10,148 6,200 Stormwater Separated (MG) 0 3,948 Overflow Mitigated (MG) 0 3,005 Flows Treated at EHRT (MG) Flows Treated at WWTP (MG) 5,071 4,129 Remaining Overflow (MG) 5,077 2,072 Watershed % Control 50% 80% Number of CSOs Eliminated 4 11 Number of CSOs > 85% Control Number of CSOs < 85% Control No. of CSOs >100 MG overflow 11 6 Stormwater Separated Volume Treated at EHRTs Volume Treated at MCWWTP Volume Overflow Since the success achieved through separation projects can vary significantly, a sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate changes in performance metrics with decreasing success in separation. Success achieved through separation depends on several factors, including the actual stormwater runoff sources removed, implementation practices during construction, and pre-and post-construction monitoring conditions. While the resulting decreases in mitigated overflow volumes are substantial, the major projects still reduce CSO volumes by almost 1.5 billion gallons even with a 75% reduction in the drainage area being diverted off the CSS and into storm systems. Incremental decreases in percent control for the six watersheds are also small relative to decreases in separation success (4% decrease in percent control for a 25% decrease in the separation area to storm) SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVE PHASE 1 SCHEDULE The Partial Remedy for the sustainable alternative can be fully constructed by December 2018 as shown in Figure Nearly 75-percent of the Projects slated for Phase 1 have been through planning and 85 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

87 preliminary engineering. Design is actively on-going for all the partial separation projects in the Lick Run Watershed. FIGURE 10-8: SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVE PHASE 1 SCHEDULE SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVE BENEFITS REALIZED The sustainable alternative offers unique benefits to the Lower Mill Creek Watershed including: Phase 1 achieves > 2 billion gallons CSO reduction Consistent with USEPA Integrated Planning Framework for Clean Water Act priorities and community goals and affordability Surface investments to reduce CSO are also visible improvements that have increased public acceptance Infrastructure investments could spur additional economic development Opportunity to leverage private and grant funds to construct select components through enabled impact program Source control reduced volume to WWTP by approximately 20% for the typical year Construction more available to local companies including SBEs Less purchased energy for operations Flexibility for future decisions, more adaptable solution for water quality with community benefits with potential use and addition of best management practices Water quality improvements can be implemented where sources of pollutants exist 86 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

88 Brownfield Remediation and repurposing of such lands to improve quality of life and stability of rate base Sustainable Alternative is about half of the cost of a Phase 1 Default solution FLEXIBILITY FOR FUTURE DECISIONS: A highly desired benefit of the sustainable alternative is that is provides flexibility for future decisions. If the Co-Defendants agree to move the sustainable alternative forward during Phase 1 WWIP schedule, the knowledge and experience gained through implementation can be collected and utilized prior to the 2017 Phase 2 WWIP development. Source control extends the capacity and thereby life of the existing combined sewer system. It does not preclude or limit options for future CSO reductions. The Co-Defendants are not required to provide the Regulators the specific list of projects to be included in the Phase 2 scope of work until December The effectiveness of a source control approach can be assessed as individual partial separation projects are completed during This approach provides a timeframe in which to defer the decision of how to spend $500,000,000 to $1 billion dollars on future infrastructure improvements. Unlike the grey alternative, the Co-Defendants under a sustainable alternative would be able to adapt and adjust the approach based on future needs and conditions. A tunnel or other technology can be pursued if deemed appropriate by the Co-Defendants. Source control solutions are potentially more adaptable over time than conveying combined flow to a treatment facility where limits could get more stringent; meaning that if additional treatment requirements or best management practices are needed for stormwater, those quality improvements can be addressed in the watershed or at the source of the pollutant of concern rather than at the end of the pipe. BROWNFIELD REMEDIATION: Many of the Lower Mill Creek neighborhoods have experienced significant decline in recent years. The presence of Brownfield sites has contributed to the decline. The Brownfield corridor in Lick Run covers over 37 acres (based on parcel boundaries). Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) were completed in May 2011 for 20.4 acres (55% of the corridor). The sustainable alternative provides an opportunity to clean-up, repurpose and redevelop these blighted properties through potential financial assistance from federal and state agencies. In 2011 Hamilton County received a Clean Ohio Grant for the City-owned property at Beekman Avenue, and site classified as a Brownfield in South Fairmount within the urban waterway corridor, shown in Figure June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

89 FIGURE 10-9: SOUTH FAIRMOUNT CLEAN OHIO FUND PROJECT REPURPOSING LAND: The current economic climate has taken a heavy toll on areas of the Lower Mill Creek Watershed. Throughout the watershed, multiple communities and corridors have experienced declining population and households which has resulted in physical decline, foreclosure and vacancy. MSD customer accounts have also reduced over the last several years. Figure below graphically shows properties that have been subject to foreclosure within the Lick Run watershed in the last 18 months, this trend is widespread and there are opportunities to utilize some of this land for reducing inflows to CSOs and capturing stormwater before it enters the system. With a major capital investment that could address issues of property abandonment, foreclosure, brownfields and invest in infrastructure that would reduce CSOs and improve the quality of life, the investments made by the Co- Defendants to comply with this mandate could spur additional economic development and revitalization. 88 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

90 FIGURE 10-10: FORECLOSED PROPERTIES IN LICK RUN WATERSHED The sustainable alternative provides an opportunity for the South Fairmount community as well as areas of Northside, North Fairmount and other communities located in other areas that can serve as community based solutions to reduce CSOs. The proposed urban waterway in South Fairmount requires approximately 34 acres of land for staging, installation, grading and construction. The map above graphically shows necessary property and parcels currently owned by the City or the County. The urban waterway also provides opportunities for leveraging MSD s investment and repurposing 5.5 acres after the base project is complete. The preliminary master plan for the Valley Conveyance System has been developed with significant public input of the concept-plan with the potential repurposed areas, which are subject to further technical design and analysis. TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE EVALUATION: To help quantify social and environmental benefits or costs of a project, MSD has implemented a triple bottom line project evaluation tool for assessing and ranking options during the business case evaluation phase of a capital project. Based on the TBL evaluations for the source control projects in the Lick Run, West Fork, Bloody Run, and Kings Run watershed, all projects have positive impacts. 89 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

91 FIGURE 10-11: TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVE POTENTIAL RISKS Each of the three alternatives presented in this summary document have benefits and risks associated with their implementation. The sustainable alternative presents potential risks to the Lower Mill Creek Watershed including: Phase 2 achieves < 85% control at each CSO Additional projects needed to achieve 85% control of the Lower Mill Creek Watershed Additional assumptions required for modeling Potential future stormwater regulations (nutrients, bacteria, solids) for developed areas Non-tunnel solution may require higher capital investment to address Carthage solution PERCEIVED RISK OF FLOODING: New storm sewers and urban valley conveyance systems remove a significant amount of stormwater from the existing combined sewer system. Partial separation projects free up capacity and reduce hydraulic grade line elevations in large diameter sewers as well as tributary combined sewers. This not only reduces the CSO volume and improves the longevity of the existing sewer assets but it also reduces localized flooding, basement back-ups and surcharged sewers and other associated problems. As a result, the sewer separation projects and urban valley conveyance systems in the Lick Run and West Fork Watersheds are expected to provide a greater level of flood control, particularly in the central corridor, and reduce basement back-ups. These benefits are in addition to the anticipated CSO reduction. As part of planning/design for these projects, the impacts of the separated 90 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

92 flows on the downstream storm systems (including sizing of new facilities) will be assessed in accordance with SMU and other applicable standards. Any changes to the existing stormwater runoff from a site in a Tier-1 area would be subject to SMU regulations: The peak rate of runoff from an area after development shall not exceed the peak rate of runoff from the same area before development for 2-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year frequency, 24-hour storms. New and redevelopment projects in non-priority combined sewer areas would default to existing MSD rules and regulations for stormwater control, which is noted in Article III, Section 303 A: The volume of stormwater detained shall be the difference in runoff volume from the pre-developed site over a ten-year event of one hour duration and the post-developed site under a twenty-five year event of one hour duration. The peak rate of runoff from the site after development for a twenty-five year storm event of one hour duration shall not exceed pre-development site peak runoff for a ten-year event of one hour duration. With detention requirements already in place to detain new runoff to predevelopment conditions, future increased flows can be managed with existing rules and regulations. However, through land development code changes and improvements in policies to proactively assert desired detention conditions post development, land use changes can provide innovative use of stormwater and potentially can be incentivized in partnership with MSD. MSD has performed detailed evaluations of the 100-year flood inundation under proposed conditions along the Lick Run Channel and the West Fork Channel. The following information is noted to emphasis that localized flooding and increased water-in-basement events are not risks associated with the sustainable alternative. Mill Creek is a controlled stream designed with a maximum water level elevation of 52-feet. In addition, the creek was designed with an additional two feet of freeboard. Therefore, separating stormwater from the combined sewer system with ultimate discharge into Mill Creek will not cause a flood concern, unless the barrier dam experiences a catastrophic failure and the valley is experiencing flooding conditions throughout, thereby causing problems well beyond sewer separation impacts. When the Ohio River reaches flood stage the barrier dam keeps the water from the river from going up the Mill Creek and flooding the city basin. The pumps are used to drain water from the creek and away from the city into the Ohio River. The impact of removing stormwater from the existing combined sewer system has been modeled in Lick Run to quantify potential surcharge reductions and benefits from the separation projects. When modeled as a full and complete solution with the 2 year design storm conditions, there is approximately 65% reduction of modeled surcharge events for interceptors within the Lick Run Watershed. Alleviating the combined sewers from clean water, will free up capacity to store and convey sanitary flow. 91 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

93 As part of the preliminary design of the Lick Run Valley Conveyance System, a simulation was performed to assess limits of the 100-year flood inundation along Lick Run assuming the channel maintains its existing grade. The areas on this figure below represent flood and freeboard elevations resulting from bringing all separated stormwater to the urban waterway corridor with existing grades in place. This simulation helps to determine necessary property for acquisition to accommodate the construction and floodplain protection needs of the alternative solution. Given the existing grades of the proposed flood limits, it will be necessary to acquire properties that are impacted by the flood limits under the current grade conditions. A follow up simulation was performed to assess the limits of the 100-year flood inundation along the Lick Run Channel using the proposed grades. These limits represent flood and freeboard elevations resulting from bringing all separated stormwater to the urban waterway corridor with future grades (i.e., retaining systems, proposed grading) in place. Note the reduction in the 100-year flood inundation limits that will be realized after the Lick Run Valley Conveyance System is constructed. FIGURE 10-12: LICK RUN VALLEY CONVEYANCE 100-YEAR FLOOD INUNDATION 92 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

94 A similar simulation was performed for the West Fork Channel, a map of which is shown below. FIGURE 10-13: WEST FORK CHANNEL 100-YEAR FLOOD INUNDATION 93 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

95 Long-Term CSO Reduction: The largest risk associated with the sustainable alternative relates to interpretation of the Consent Decree and Final WWIP with regard to the basis or compliance with CSO volumetric reduction. The WWIP identifies a CSO volume remaining for each individual project listed in the long-term plan. The WWIP does not explicitly require 85 percent control at each of the 98 CSOs in the Lower Mill Creek Watershed. However, since conversion of its system-wide model from a kinematic wave type to a dynamic type resulted with different inflow and overflow values, MSD believes it is prudent to establish a quantifiable performance metric to compare alternatives with respect to longterm CSO volumetric reduction. Each of the three alternatives was crafted into a long-term Final Remedy plan with the goal of achieving 85 percent control at each CSO. The sustainable alternative does not meet those specific criteria for Phase 2 as of yet, however, the Phase 2 schedule and list is not required for submittal until December For this reason, a hybrid alternative was developed that maximized the amount of source control projects that are viable throughout the Lower Mill Creek Watershed. The remaining CSOs were addressed with various grey solutions including storage, tunnel, EHRT, and RTC facilities. More details regarding the hybrid alternative is presented in this summary document SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL COSTS The capital investment required for the sustainable alternative is presented in Table (all costs are shown in 2006 $). 94 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

96 TABLE 10-12: LMCPR SUSTAINABLE OPTION CAPITAL INVESTMENT COSTS PHASE 1 Lick Run Watershed $ 195,449,000 West Fork Watershed $ 73,503,000 Kings Run Watershed $ 34,423,000 Bloody Run Watershed $ 3,421,000 CSO 488 Storage $ 10,651,000 PHASE 2 total $ 317,447,000 Bloody Run Watershed $ 83,526,000 Denham Watershed $ 58,181,000 Ludlow Run Watershed $ 33,727,000 Upper Watersheds Part Seps $ 29,345,000 EHRT & Storage Facilities $ 25,813,000 Carthage EHRT $ 65,979,000 Regulator Improvements $ 15,918,000 total $ 312,489,000 TOTAL LMCFR $ 629,936,000 The Phase 1 capital investment is focused on providing sustainable infrastructure solutions to achieve CSO reduction of 2 billion gallons. A cost/benefit comparison was conducted to select the projects that achieve this removal. The project consists of the source control projects identified for the Lick Run, West Fork, and Kings Run Watersheds. The Phase 2 capital investment is focused on implementing to the fullest extent, sustainable infrastructure solutions. Source control projects developed for the Bloody Run, Ludlow Run, and Denham Watersheds were incorporated into the Final Remedy. CSOs located in the upper reaches of the Lower Mill Creek Watershed were addressed through a combination of separation, storage, and EHRT projects. As shown in Figure at the conclusion of Phase 2 construction, nearly 76-percent of the total capital investment is directly related to the sustainable project components. 95 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

97 FIGURE 10-14: LMCFR SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL COST BREAKDOWN The encumbrance and cash flow forecast for the sustainable alternative are presented in Figure FIGURE 10-15: LMCFR SUSTAINABLE OPTION ENCUMBRANCE & CASH FLOW ILLUSTRATION 96 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

98 11 LMCFR HYBRID OPTION 11.1 OVERVIEW An overview of the Phase 1 Hybrid Alternative is presented in the table below. Both the Partial Remedy and potential Final Remedy for the Hybrid Alternative is presented on the map on the following page. The alternative achieves 2 billion gallons of CSO volume reduction during Phase 1 and 85% control of each of the 97 CSO locations during Phase 2. Phase 2 major project components are summarized in Table The modeled solution for each CSO is presented in Appendix D. Performance metrics for the Hybrid Alternative Final Remedy are presented in Table The results represent the culmination of several model runs and reflect an optimized condition for each CSO. TABLE 11-1: LMCFR HYBRID OPTION PHASE 2 PROJECT COMPONENTS PHASE 2 CONCEPT ( TBD) Hybrid Option Tunnel (ft) 28,300 Vertical length of drop shafts (ft) 2,000 Consolidation Sewers (ft) 19,600 Tunnel Pump Station& EHRT (mgd) 84 EHRT at Carthage (mgd) 65 Regulator Improvements 18 CSOs New storm sewers (feet) 39,400 Relocated combined sewers (feet) 0 New sanitary sewers (feet) 19,600 Non-tunnel storage capacity (mg) 23 Natural Conveyance/Stream Separation (ft) 0 Stormwater detention basins 0 97 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

99 TABLE 11-2: LMCFR HYBRID OPTION PERFORMANCE METRICS Performance Metrics Updated Baseline Model 3.2 LMCFR Hybrid Option Combined System Inflow (MG) 10,148 7,019 Stormwater Separated (MG) 0 3,129 Overflow Mitigated (MG) 0 4,051 Flows Treated at EHRT (MG) Flows Treated at WWTP (MG) 5,071 5,993 Remaining Overflow (MG) 5,077 1,026 Watershed % Control 50% 90% Number of CSOs Eliminated 4 11 Number of CSOs > 85% Control Number of CSOs < 85% Control 69 6 No. of CSOs >100 MG overflow 11 2 Stormwater Separated Volume Treated at EHRTs Volume Treated at MCWWTP Volume Overflow 11.2 HYBRID ALTERNATIVE BENEFITS REALIZED The hybrid alternative offers benefits to the Lower Mill Creek Watershed including: Phase 1 achieves > 2 billion gallons CSO reduction Source control reduces volume to WWTP by 16% typical year Phase 2 85% control each CSO Phase 2 > 85% control watershed Right-sized Phase 2 tunnel Higher volume of flow treated at WWTP or EHRT than sustainable Flexibility to incorporate various solutions for Carthage and SSO 700 Combines benefits from both the grey and sustainable solutions 11.3 HYBRID ALTERNATIVE POTENTIAL RISKS The hybrid alternative involves potential risks to the Lower Mill Creek Watershed including: 43% increase in wet weather flow to WWTP resulting with higher operating cost Complex construction method for deep tunnel & pump station Limited local construction participation during Phase 2 98 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

100 Higher energy demand and cost for pump station Larger carbon footprint and potential future carbon tax Potential large variance with cost for tunnel construction Combines risks from both the grey and sustainable solutions 11.4 HYBRID ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL COSTS The capital investment required for the hybrid alternative is presented in Table 11-3 (all costs are shown in 2006$). A detail breakdown of the capital costs for each project included in the hybrid alternative Partial and Final Remedies has been provided. The Phase 2 capital investment is focused on addressing combined sewer overflows from the remaining CSOs. CSOs located in the upper reaches of the Lower Mill Creek Watershed were addressed through a combination of separation, storage, and EHRT projects. TABLE 11-3: LMCFR HYBRID ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL COST SUMMARY PHASE 1 PHASE 2 Lick Run Watershed $ 195,449,000 West Fork Watershed $ 73,503,000 Bloody Run Watershed $ 3,421,000 Kings Run Watershed $ 34,423,000 CSO 488 Storage $ 10,651,000 total $ 317,447,000 Upper Watersheds Part Seps $ 45,104,000 Regulator Improvements $ 15,918,000 EHRT & Storage Facilities $ 25,813,000 Carthage EHRT $ 65,979,000 Tunnel Pump Station & EHRT $ 135,811,000 Tunnel $ 414,584,000 Bloody Run Watershed $ 58,305,000 Consolidation Sewers $ 165,718,000 total $ 927,232,000 TOTAL LMCFR $ 1,244,679, June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

101 As shown in Figure 11-1 at the conclusion of Phase 2 construction, nearly 66-percent of the total capital investment is directly related to the grey project components. Balance of source control and deep tunnel Regulator Improvements 1% Tunnel Pump Station & EHRT 15% Lick Run 15% Kings Run 3% West Fork 6% More cost effective to put flow from Bloody Run, Denham, Clifton, Ludlow Run into tunnel did not consider non-economic factors and other benefits those projects offered Consolidation Sewers 13% Tunnel 31% Bloody Run 5% Upper Watersheds 3% EHRTs & Storage 3% Larger portion of costs for grey solution deferred to future Carthage EHRT 5% FIGURE 11-1: LMCFR HYBRID ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL COST BREAKDOWN The encumbrance and cash flow forecast for the hybrid alternative are presented in Figure FIGURE 11-2: LMCFR HYBRID ALTERNATIVE ENCUMBRANCE AND CASH FLOW ILLUSTRATION 100 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

102 12 WATER QUALITY 12.1 WATER QUALITY MODELING MSD has voluntarily initiated an effort to evaluate the water quality in the Lower Mill Creek Basin and its impact on the water quality in the Mill Creek of current and final remedy scenarios. The study was divided into two major parts. The 1 st part was the evaluation of the existing system. The 2 nd part was the evaluation of the suggested final scenarios on the combined sewer system. The improvements on the combined sewer system included both gray and sustainable combined sewer overflow (CSO) control options. The gray alternative included the tunnel option. The sustainable alternative included the source control as the lead strategy for CSO reduction with other solutions such as conveyance and storage in four watersheds in the Lower Mill Creek Basin. The gray solution (tunnel) extends from the wastewater treatment plant on Gest St until Mitchell Ave. The sustainable solution includes the following four watersheds: Lick Run, Bloody Run, West Fork, and Kings Run (inclusive of both Ludlow Run and Kings Run subwatersheds). Existing collection system and watershed/water quality models were used to quantify volume, pollutant concentrations and pollutant loads for each alternative. Pollutants evaluated include bacteria (E.coli and fecal coliform), total suspended solids (TSS), total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP). Existing receiving water quality (pollutant fate and transport) models were applied to quantify in-stream bacteria concentrations from the tributary areas as well as other pollutant sources in the Mill Creek watershed. The Water Quality Project Team, led by LimnoTech, assembled data and inputs needed for the receiving water (e.g. Mill Creek and Ohio River) modeling and analyses. The purpose of the analysis was two-fold: 1. Quantify water quality benefits in tributaries from control scenarios by evaluating load reductions in each tributary during a 0.75 inch design storm event. 2. Quantify in-stream bacteria benefits in Mill Creek and Ohio River from control scenarios over a three day period. EVALUATION 1: QUANTIFICATION OF WATER QUALITY BENEFITS The project team assembled water quality data and inputs needed to represent the proposed controls in each of the four watersheds. They utilized the existing hydraulic consolidated system wide model (SWMM) of the combined collection system. Additionally, the team was provided the hydraulic models of both the gray and sustainable systems. The utilized data in this analysis included, but not limited to, the following: precipitation, land use, pollutant concentrations, sanitary flow, and BMP performance. The pollutants under evaluation were 101 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

103 bacteria, total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), and total suspended solids (TSS). The pollutant loading was obtained from the National Stormwater Quality Database (NSQD) to develop the event mean concentrations (EMCs). The concentration of these pollutants depends on the land use and the rainfall intensity. The land use data was obtained from CAGIS. To complete the analysis, the consolidated version 4.0 December 2011 SWMM model was used for current conditions; the consolidated version 4.2 December 2011 SWMM model was used for grey control and the consolidated version 4.2_Sustainable Infrastructure February 2012 option A was used for sustainable control. Data Inputs Rainfall data NSQD database Land use data Consolidated SWMM Model Run scenarios through system models Develop EMCs Output/Deliverables Hourly volumes Hourly loads RESULTS 1: QUANTIFICATION OF WATER QUALITY BENEFITS The results of the water quality analysis were consistent with the conclusions identified in the 2006 LTCP. The Lower Mill Creek situation is unique in that hydrologic modification, existing physical and land use conditions; severely limit safe and practical recreation use. Analysis of the 0.75 design storm for both the gray and sustainable infrastructure control solutions improves water quality conditions with an average 50% reduction in bacteria from current conidtion loading and significant reduction in nutrients and total suspended solids. Reductions vary by individual tributary; for example, bacteria reductions range from 42% (Lick Run) to 92% (Kings Run) in the Sustainable scenario and from 39% (West Fork) to 99% (Bloody Run) in the Gray scenario. Other conclusions from the water quality analysis is that the Gray scenario results in slightly lower bacteria load than Sustainable scenario in Bloody Run and Lick Run but has higher bacteria load in West Fork and Kings Run. However, the total bacteria load from project areas in all four watersheds was comparable between the Gray and Sustainable scenarios with the bacteria load from project areas in all four tributaries was approximately 10% lower in Gray scenario than Sustainable scenario. 102 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

104 FIGURE 12-1: WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS FOR MILL CREEK 103 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

105 EVALUATION 2: QUANTIFY IN-STREAM BACTERIA LEVELS The water quality evaluation team utilized the consolidated SWMM model runoff flows and associated bacteria densities (estimated from land use-based EMCs) for each scenario for tributary project areas and in the larger watershed. Additionally, sources and methods used to calibrate a regional Ohio River Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC) water quality model were used to specify inputs for other sources, including upstream sources, CSOs and SSOs outside of the consolidated SWMM model and contributions from separated areas. The EFDC water quality model was applied to simulate bacteria levels in Mill Creek and the Ohio River. The model was set up to track the bacteria load from project areas in each priority watershed as distinct state variables within EFDC. The model was applied for each scenario to simulate E. coli for the 0.75-inch design storm, and then the hourly E. coli model results were transformed to fecal coliform equivalents using the OEPA translator so that in-stream hourly bacteria results could be evaluated. From this, an analysis was done to compare bacteria profiles for each scenario to evaluate effect of controls. Data Inputs Model Output/Delivera Rainfall data NSQD database Run scenarios through system models Hourly volumes Land use data Develop EMCs Hourly loads Rainfall data SD1 Watershed models SD1 CSO/SSO MSD CSO/SSO Run scenarios through EFDC WQ model Hourly instream E. coli Flow data Concentration data RESULTS 2: QUANTIFY IN-STREAM BACTERIA LEVELS The results of the water quality analysis are consistent with the conclusions identified in the 2006 LTCP. The Lower Mill Creek situation is unique in that hydrologic modification and existing physical 104 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

106 and land use conditions severely limit safe and practical recreation use. Analysis of the 0.75 design storm for both the grey and sustainable infrastructure control solutions over a three day period results in improvements of in-stream bacteria levels as illustrated in the timeseries plots in the figures that follow Table 12-1; however the numeric water quality criteria for bacteria of 400 cfu/1000 ml is not attained under either scenario. This is due, in part, to elevated bacteria levels even at the Hamilton County/Butler County line that are substantially higher than the water qualtiy standard. The Sustainable scenario results in the lowest bacteria densities in lower Mill Creek on the first day of the storm. Bacteria densities on subsequent days are comparable but the Sustainable scenario has slightly higher in-stream densities than the Gray scenario. This is because the Sustainable scenario detains runoff so bacteria load delivery to the creek is also delayed, resulting in slightly higher bacteria levels for this scenario after the second day of the storm than the other two scenarios. The Sustainable scenario provides the greatest reduction in peak bacteria levels in Mill Creek. Results near the mouth of Mill Creek are summarized in Table 12-1 and are shown graphically in figures following the table. TABLE 12-1: MILL CREEK FECAL COLIFORM EVALUATION DURING 3-DAY STORM EVENT Bacteria Analysis Results Bloody Run Lower Mill Creek Watershed Kings Run West Fork Lick Run Ohio River DAY 1 - Fecal Coliform (cfu/100 ml) Current Condition Grey Alternative Sustainable Alternative DAY 2 - Fecal Coliform (cfu/100 ml) Current Condition Grey Alternative Sustainable Alternative DAY 3 - Fecal Coliform (cfu/100 ml) Current Condition Grey Alternative Sustainable Alternative June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

107 106 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report Alternatives Evaluations

108 107 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report Alternatives Evaluations

109 TABLE 12-2: DAY 1 FECAL COLIFORM DENSITIES Day 1 Peak Fecal coliform density (cfu/100 ml) Comparison to Current Watershed Current Gray Sustainable Gray % Reduction Sustainable % Reduction Bloody Run 30, , % -87% King s Run 28,300 20,300 15,900-28% -44% West Fork 10,400 9,700 3,100-7% -70% Lick Run 24,700 5,600 10,600-77% -57% The lower portion of Mill Creek from the Bloody Run confluence to the mouth generally has better water quality in the Sustainable solution than the Gray or Current Conditions scenario, especially during the period when wet weather sources are most active (day 1 of the storm). A head-to-head comparison of the Sustainable vs. Gray scenarios shown in Figure 12-2 indicate that the majority of the model results from the Sustainable solution along this reach are lower than the corresponding Gray solution result (the points below the 1:1 line) for the three days of the storm. As noted above, the Gray solution has slightly lower bacteria levels on day 2 and 3 of the storm due to the delay in releasing detained storm water in the Sustainable scenario, however, bacteria levels on these days are much lower than on the first day. These results are represented in the lower left-hand portion of the graph, where the majority of points are slightly above the 1:1 line (gray is better) but overall bacteria densities are much lower. FIGURE 12-2: GRAY/SUSTAINABLE DENSITY PERFORMANCE 108 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

110 12.2 WATER QUALITY CONCLUSIONS In an absolute sense, the existing water quality standard cannot be achieved because of a host of confounding factors including: channelization, dry weather sources, upstream boundary loads from other jurisdictions, and stormwater sources. The sustainable alternatives utilizes source control approaches to identify water quality and quantity sources of flow or quality and attempts to improve or assess water quality use attainability. Loads from other sources within Mill Creek are significant. Currently, loads from priority tributaries comprise ~50% of total in-stream bacteria simulated near the mouth of Mill Creek. With both the Gray and Sustainable scenarios, this percentage is reduced to ~30%. Controls in the Gray and Sustainable scenarios reduce in-stream bacteria levels in the Ohio River by approximately 30% just downstream of the Mill Creek confluence. Bacteria loads in the Ohio River from controlled areas are well-mixed by the Great Miami River confluence. In 2011 MSD initiated a watershed based bioassessment of the chemical, physical and biological conditions within its receiving watersheds to evaluate the impacts to reeivign waters and more closely align its future capital expenditures to water quality needs and priorities. MSD embarked upon this effort to assess attainment condition and is positioned to use this data in future policy or standard changes. Preliminary results for specific conductivity, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and ph indicate the concrete channel is significantly impairing Mill Creek s ability to support fish and invertebrates. Data evaluation and condition assessment will continue through Spring 2012 and this information will allow the Co-Defendant to pursue a path to make regulatory changes to the waterway, particularly given the level of impairments and other contributing sources on non-attainment of water quality standards. Preliminary data is provided in the next several pages PRELIMINARY BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT RESULTS MSD has initiated a watershed based bioassessment of the chemical, physical and biological conditions within Mill Creek. Preliminary results for specific conductivity, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and ph indicate the concrete channel is significantly impairing Mill Creek s ability to support fish and invertebrates. Preliminary sampling results for specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, ph, and temperature indicate the concrete channel impairs Mill Creek s, Lick Run s, Bloody Run s, and West Fork s ability to support biological habitats. 109 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

111 Four parameters (Temperature, DO, ph, and Specific Conductivity) were analyzed using the data sounds throughout the Mill Creek. The plots below show the values of the different parameters from upstream to downstream (MC12 to MC70). The plot to the left covers the duration from July 19 th to 21 st from upstream to mid point and the August 2 nd to 4 th is the lower part of Mill Creek. The same readings were taken during August 9 th to 11 th for the upper part and August 16 th -18 th for the lower part. TABLE 12-3: MILL CREEK BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT Mill Creek Condition Upstream SSO 700 Concrete Channel Mitchell Lick Run Temperature (deg C) Optimal Range 26.5 to to to to to 29.5 Dry Period Range 26 to to to to to 33 Wet Period Range 23 to to to to to 29 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) Optimal Range 4 to 5 4 to 5 4 to 5 4 to 5 4 to 5 Dry Period Range 4.5 to to 10 6 to 10 5 to to 10 Wet Period Range 6 to 11 6 to 9 7 to 9-6 to 20 Specific Conductivity (umhos/cm) Optimal Range Dry Period Range 800 to 900 1,500 to 1,700 1,100 to 1, to 1, to 1,000 Wet Period Range 400 to to 1, to 1, to 900 ph Optimal Range 6.5 to to to to to 9 Dry Period Range 7.7 to to to to to 8.4 Wet Period Range 7.6 to to to to 8.7 SPECIFIC CONDUCTIVITY: The specific conductivity results show that during the period of July 19th -21st it was hot and dry. The increase in the specific conductivity values between MC06 and MC11 is due to the starting of the industrial area at St Bernard and the concrete channel. The period between August 2nd - 4th was a wet period and the mean values tend to be relatively close. However, the specific conductivity values are higher than what it is supposed to be (~400 mbos/cm). DISSOLVED OXYGEN: The dissolved oxygen results show that they are close to the minimum and average value for a warm water habitat and the modified warm water. The main reason behind the low dissolved oxygen values is due to the concrete channel. This channel promotes the growth of algae. The concrete and the shallow flow is a good habitat for the algal growth. The algae in the Mill Creek looks like an orange slime. TEMPERATURE: The water temperature is a very critical parameter in the bioassessment and the eco-life. Due to the concrete channel and the low flow the water temperature levels are high and hitting levels that are lethal for fish species. 110 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

112 PH: The ph levels in the creek are within the range. The areas at the industrial sites their ph values become lower due to industrial discharges and the concrete channel and low flow. Additional information is expected to be provided to MSD in May 2012 summarizing the bioassessment findings. 13 RATE IMPACT ANALYSIS 13.1 UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS FOR THIS ANALYSIS Rates to MSD s customers are set based on the total revenue requirements of the utility. The day-today operating costs, cash financing of capital projects, the debt payments on bonds and low interest loans, are the major components of the annual requirements. The rate model then takes these inputs and produces a long-term forecast of revenue increases needed to maintain adequate fund balances and debt service coverage, while minimizing large rate spikes. In evaluating the impact on revenue requirements of the alternatives, only the incremental changes in the capital costs between alternatives were considered. The encumbrance schedules shown in prior sections were utilized for the model runs. The remaining short and long term capital program both WWIP Phase 1, an $100M annual spend on Phase 2 (outside of the LMCFR projects), and the asset management program and the incremental annual changes to the operating costs were left constant in model runs. A summary of the assumptions used in estimating potential future revenue increases is found below: Traditional funding instruments are utilized o Repayment of revenue bonds is based on equal annual P&I payments, 25 year term at 5.4% interest rate with 1% issuance costs o Repayment of low interest loans is based on equal annual P&I payments, deferred 2 years, 20 year term at 3.4% interest rate Assumed $25M starting in 2013 for five years and increasing $5M per year in 5 year increments through 2030 Assumes no grants are garnered Phase 2 assumed to conclude by 2030 for forecasting illustrations Does not include incremental increase in O&M for any alternative Phase 2 Program o Assumed to conclude by 2030 for forecasting illustrations o Additional $100M (2006$) per year for identified projects outside of LMCFR o Asset Management program assumed to continue at $51M (2006$) 111 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

113 Increase in Rev Req Alternatives Evaluations Contingency o Assumed at 6% of annual program costs for non-lmcpr/lmcfr projects o Utilized contingency developed in costing tools for LMCPR/LMCFR projects Capital costs escalated at 3.5% Customer growth, revenues under existing rates, and O&M projections based on the 2011 Comprehensive Rate Study 13.2 IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES SHORT TERM Figure 13-1 illustrates the differential impact on the projected annual revenue increase required between the LMCPR alternatives through 2019 which includes all of the WWIP Phase 1 capital activities. All alternatives show a drop in 2018 due to the retirement of a large bond issue in % 8% 6% 4% 2% Phase 1 Grey Alternative Phase 1 Sustainable Hybrid Alternative 0% FIGURE 13-1: PHASE 1 IMPACTS 13.3 IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES LONG TERM The figure below illustrate the differential impact on revenue increases required between the LMCFR alternatives from 2019 through 2030 given the cash flow forecast illustrations shown in prior sections. FIGURE 13-2: LONG TERM IMPACTS 112 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

114 14 OTHER LMCFR CONSIDERATIONS Alternatives Evaluations 14.1 SSO 700 FACILITY The SSO 700 High Rate Treatment and Storage Facility is required as a condition of a negotiated Final WWIP with USEPA and Ohio EPA. The Final WWIP stipulates that MSD must complete the SSO 700 Remedial Plan by December 31, The Final WWIP requires a two-year performance assessment report of the facility, including recommendations for optimizing operations. The two-year assessment study and report is being prepared with data collection and analyses underway. The Interim Partial Final WWIP identified a minimum of $10 million and up to $15 million in total project costs (2006$) be expended on the interim facility. The final facility size, configuration and operation were assessed using sound engineering practices consistent with industry standards recognizing cost and performance to arrive at a design concept for the facility. SSO 700 is located on the East Branch Mill Creek Interceptor approximately 13 miles upstream of the Mill Creek WWTP. The service area upstream of SSO 700 is approximately 27 square miles out of the entire 166 square mile Mill Creek WWTP service area. Land use in the East Branch Mill Creek service area is mixed with approximately 43% of the lands classified as residential, 36% industrial/commercial, 12% transportation or mixed urban, 6% available for new development and 3% open space. The area is a primarily separate sanitary sewer system that experiences a high degree of Rainfall Derived Inflow/Infiltration (RDII). Dry weather flows in conjunction with RDII exceed the capacity of the East Branch Mill Creek Interceptor sewer resulting in sanitary sewer overflows at SSO 700. SSO 700 discharges into Mill Creek at River Mile 13.68, upstream of the combined sewer service area. The SSO 700 Interim Remedial Measures Plan was submitted to USEPA and OEPA for approval on February 15, The plan presented the methodology applied to arrive at a facility designed to meet the requirements of the Interim Partial Final WWIP and MSD's desire to improve area water quality. The Plan included screening and pumping of flows up to 30 mgd, a 1 million gallon storage tank and a chemically enhanced high rate settling (CEHRS)/disinfection facility with a peak design rate of 15 mgd. The one million gallons of storage would enable the facility to capture and/or treat all events in a defined typical year. Any design events in excess of a one year recurrence would result in bypassing. In an effort to meet a more comprehensive standard of capturing and/or treating the 10 year recurrence event, the design was enhanced with an additional 2.6 million gallons of storage. MSD constructed the larger facility in an effort to further improve water quality in the Mill Creek with a goal of complying with the more aggressive 10 year recurrence standard. MSD commissioned the SSO 700 High Rate Treatment and Storage Facility in The facility was designed to store and/or treat most of the wet weather volume in excess of the downstream sewer capacity from an estimated average of 40 overflows per year. A nominal storage volume of 3.6 million 113 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

115 gallons is provided in three above-ground tanks. A 15 mgd (CEHRS) process with ultraviolet disinfection is provided for excess flow treatment. A 30 mgd firm capacity (40 mgd installed capacity) influent pumping station lifts flow that passes over a diversion weir into the storage tanks. FACILITY OPERATIONS: During the first year of operation, the facility was placed in operation on numerous occasions in response to wet weather conditions and excessive flows in the tributary sewer system. The original design intent was to: Divert up to 30 mgd of excess flow that would normally overflow at SSO 700. Store up to 3.6 million gallons. Treat up to 15 mgd for direct discharge to Mill Creek. When treating 15 mgd of excess flow while the storage tanks were full, it was intended that any additional excess flow would overflow without treatment. In this manner, most overflow events at SSO 700 that were due to upstream flow conditions would be fully captured in the storage tanks or be treated prior to discharge. Flow that is stored is returned to the sewer system for treatment at the Mill Creek WWTP. The ideal goal would be to capture the 3.6 MG storage volume prior to turning on the treatment facilities to treat any excess flow. However, this would make the influent flow to the CEHRS facility highly variable, which would impair treatment performance. As a practical matter, the facility is currently operated by filling the first two storage tanks and then throttling the influent valve to the CEHRS facility to maintain the flow between 3 and 15 mgd. Once the sustained flow to the CEHRS facility reaches 15 mgd and the level in Tank No. 2 continues to rise, flow overflows to Tank No. 3. When Tank No. 3 is full, flow overflows through the single 36-inch outfall from the facility along with the treated discharge from the CEHRS facility. FACILITY CHALLENGES: The demonstration facility has not performed completely as it was intended. In May 2011, MSD requested an additional $10,408,165 be legislated for construction of facility improvements. Some of these improvements were focused on system reliability and safety concerns. The legislation included a request to proceed with construction of an additional storage tank to be incorporated into a Final Remedy for the SSO 700 facility. The storage facilities are necessary to attenuate peak flows, store solids when the downstream interceptor is full, and protect the existing interceptor from heavy surcharging upstream of the SSO 700 facility. The County monitor team met with MSD staff in October 2011 to express concerns with moving forward with MSD s request prior to development and full vetting of the long-term Final Remedy for both SSO 700 and the Carthage facility included in the Lower Mill Creek Final Remedy. In the meantime, the SSO 700 facility will continue to direct overflows during severe wet weather events directly to Mill Creek when existing storage tanks are full and unable to accept flow. 114 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

116 The proposed SSO 700 Facility Improvements project will improve the service and reliability of this existing facility, based on findings and recommendations from the 2 year effectiveness study and facility peer reviews and evaluation. MSD will continue to collect performance monitoring data from the operation of this storage and treatment facility (flow rates, influent water quality and effluent water quality). MSD will also perform collection system modeling to provide information regarding the anticipated performance of the Final Remedial Plan. The SSO 700 Final Remedial Plan is due for submission to the Ohio EPA by December 31, INTERCONNECTIVITY WITH CARTHAGE FACILITY: The Final Remedy for the SSO 700 Facility may involve directing flow to a new treatment facility or tunnel drop shaft located at the Carthage (Fairgrounds) site. If the SSO 700 Facility can be expanded, then the Final Remedy would include construction of large diameter trunk sewers to direct more flow to the facility. However, if the SSO 700 facility is temporary and taken off-line, then regional storage and conveyance options need to be considered. Multiple alternatives are under consideration as part of the SSO 700 and LMC Final Remedies. Construct express sewers from SSO 700 to Carthage EHRT/tunnel. Construct additional storage at SSO 700 and new sewer from SSO 700 to Carthage. Expand SSO 700 treatment. Replace existing interceptor sewer(s) upstream of SSO 700 to Carthage CARTHAGE OPTIONS The Final WWIP included a Phase 2 project intended to address interceptor surcharging conditions that result in overflows from under Anthony-Wayne Avenue near Ronald Reagan Cross County Highway. The hydraulic conditions of the sewer network cause manholes to surcharge up to 50 feet during wet weather conditions. The Phase 2 WWIP included construction of a 70 mgd EHRT at the Carthage site to address the Anthony Wayne flooded manholes. The $65 million (2006$) WWIP envisioned project at Carthage is only viable under the following constraints: Anthony Wayne manholes (along the Mill Creek Auxiliary Interceptor) are classified as combined sewers not sanitary sewers. Flows from SSO 700 are not directed to the Carthage site. The regulatory issues of comingling sanitary and combined flows to Carthage and off-loading surcharged interceptors must be fully addressed before a long-term solution can be developed at Carthage. The Carthage EHRT has been included in all alternatives evaluated for the Lower Mill Creek Partial Remedy Study. It is important to note, that the planned $65 million EHRT project may not adequately address system needs and thereby costs may vary with each alternative. 115 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

117 Carthage and SSO 700 solutions are likely to be more expensive than considered in the past, as more integrated, comprehensive solutions are being provided in lieu of some simplified place-holders that are in the existing plan (e.g. partial separation and regulator improvements ). CARTHAGE EHRT: MSD is evaluating alternatives to site an EHRT facility on the Hamilton County Fairgrounds property. Two CSOs currently discharge to Mill Creek in the vicinity of the Fairgrounds site: outfall CSO 171 discharges to the creek opposite the north end of the site, and CSO 490 discharges just to the east of the site. The original intent in laying out the facility was to treat overflows from CSOs 171 and 490, while minimizing the impacts to activities that currently take place on the Fairgrounds site. In order to maximize the benefit of locating an EHRT facility on the Fairgrounds site, consideration was given to the feasibility of expanding the scope of the facility to treat other outfalls beyond CSOs 171 and 490. MSD GIS mapping was reviewed to identify other CSO outfalls in the general vicinity of the Fairgrounds site. The LMCPR team is looking at all of the outfalls north of Carthage. There are 17 total outfalls, of which 12 are achieving less than 85% control. The Phase 2 CSO control goal for outfalls along the Mill Creek is 85% capture of the wet weather flow tributary to each CSO regulator. The existing performance of the outfalls was reviewed to determine which of the outfalls would benefit from additional controls through the EHRT facility. The grey, sustainable, and hybrid solutions presented in this summary document were modeled to determine the optimal solution for each CSO. TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR CARTHAGE: The LMCPR Study team has evaluated the following options regarding the Carthage location. Until all options are fully vetted and have undergone costing, the default Phase 2 WWIP project remains in each alternative. The team is currently working to assess the following conceptual solutions: Carthage WWTP (probable performance metrics: 10/12/ (Summer-Winter)/1.0 for BOD/TSS/Ammonia/Total Phosphorus) Carthage EHRT (ballasted floc w/storage for 85% solids removal and disinfection) 20-ft diameter deep tunnel extension from Mitchell (CSO 482) to Carthage (Fairgrounds). 116 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

118 15 COMMUNITY FEEDBACK Community engagement is critical to the success of Project Groundwork, and MSD has undertaken a comprehensive effort for more than a year to ensure ratepayers and citizens have a voice in the complex decisions required to meet the USEPA Final WWIP requirements. Under its strategic Communications Plan for Project Groundwork completed in 2010, MSD tailored a communications approach to the unique needs and issues of South Fairmount. Rather than rely solely on one outreach pathway such as a website, MSD is employing multiple communication channels to ensure all voices within the community are heard and considered. Significant time and resources have been dedicated to this endeavor. Below is a brief overview of this communication and outreach strategy. To assist and guide MSD with the Community of the Future vision, a Community of the Future Advisory Committee (CFAC) was created in February 2010 as a forum for dialogue, discourse and counsel. A CFAC white paper is available through First convened in March 2010, the committee is also directed to help MSD align with initiatives such as Hamilton County's Community Compass, Agenda 360: A Regional Action Plan and the upcoming City of Cincinnati's Comprehensive Plan Update. MSD with assistance from Hamilton County Regional Planning has convened quarterly. The CFAC is comprised of representatives from a variety of public and private organizations, as well as private citizens, each providing their own unique perspectives and sharing ideas to help MSD engage with citizens and stakeholders within the watersheds in MSD's service area. There are three subcommittees that are: Economic Development, Inform and Influence/community engagement and Policy and Integration LOWER MILL CREEK PUBLIC OUTREACH EVENTS Open Houses have recently been held in Kings Run, Bloody Run and West Fork. Through these efforts, MSD and CFAC partners have reached over 1000 face to face interactions through public meetings and tens of thousands of contact via mail or . In Spring 2010 as the alternative solution was initially being conceptualized, an MSD representative visited a number of local businesses in the South Fairmount community who could potentially be impacted by or have interest in solutions proposed for 117 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

119 the corridor in order to engage them in a dialogue introducing the high level goals of Project Groundwork, offering an overview of why the Lower Mill Creek watershed is critical to that effort, offering potential solutions being considered for the area, and to ask for input on how the property owner would like to see the community improved through the process, as well as other stakeholders that should be engaged. MSD has met one-on-one with property owners and residents in the area who have requested additional information, and has maintained an ongoing dialogue with interested individuals through multiple exchanges, phone calls, and meetings. An MSD Communications address is available on the project website and on all communications to the public providing community members a direct and ongoing channel to ask questions or provide input to MSD. As invited, MSD has attended meetings of the South Fairmount Business Association, making presentations and directly responding to questions and concerns. MSD also agreed to meet regularly with a core committee of members of this group (the Committee of Five) to ensure information is made available and dialogue is ongoing between meetings of the full association. MSD s Communities of the Future Advisory Committee (CFAC), whose meetings are planned, coordinated and scheduled with representatives from Hamilton County Regional Planning since the inception in early 2010, is comprised of a cross-section of public agencies, community members, and members of County Administration and legal team. The CFAC has been meeting regularly, generally every quarter, for more than a year to provide input to Project Groundwork. Members of the South Fairmount community who have expressed interest have been invited to participate with this group; both the Vice President and President of the SF Community Council as well as Vice President and President of the SF Business Association been attending CFAC meetings as well as meetings of the three sub-groups formed by CFAC to address specific issues. In January 2011, MSD conducted an informational open house about Project Groundwork in South Fairmount that was attended by more than 120 members of the community with more than 50% from the Lick Run watershed. MSD had more than 30 CFAC and public agency volunteers at eight stations talking one-on-one with attendees about Project Groundwork, the potential Lick Run solution, and the default tunnel project and timeline. Extensive information was provided on the overall effort, as well as concepts under consideration for the Lick Run watershed. Attendees were able to speak directly with MSD and other representatives to have their concerns addressed and issues documented. During the summer and fall of 2011, tours of the Lick Run watershed were conducted for members of the community to help them gain a better understanding of the challenges associated with combined sewer overflows (CSOs). Tour guides provided on-site information about facilities such as the CSO in the South Fairmount community that discharges into Mill Creek, and other areas that contribute to the complex issue of managing water resources. Todate, more than 100 people have participated in the tours, with more scheduled in the spring when weather is more conducive. 118 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

120 On August 11, 2011, MSD conducted the first of three Community Design Workshops to give community members an opportunity to provide specific input on proposed project designs. The workshops are intended to allow all voices within South Fairmount to share their unique perspectives and offer direct feedback on how their area may be transformed by the alternative solution. Community Design Workshop #1 focused on the proposed urban waterway in South Fairmount and topics ranging from waterway characteristics to recreational opportunities. The meeting was advertised by sending postcard invitations to more than 6,500 Lick Run residents, property owners, businesses and local stakeholders, and also by publishing the information in the South Fairmount community newsletter and other community newsletters and on the Lick Run website. The workshop was attended by 113 people, with 60% indicating they live, work or own property in the Lick Run watershed. Of this 60%, 45% were from South Fairmount. On the breakout session survey that participants were asked to complete, 84% of those responding indicated they feel the proposed urban waterway in South Fairmount could benefit the community, 89% said they support the proposed Lick Run alternative, and 90% said they felt better informed after the workshop. (Note: 51% of attendees complete the exit survey) On October 26, 2011, MSD conducted Community Design Workshop #2. Using feedback obtained from the first workshop, revised concepts were presented for review and comment at small group breakouts. Along with discussion of the proposed urban waterway, this second workshop covered transportation network opportunities, green planning principles, and trail network opportunities. The meeting was advertised by sending postcard invitations to more than 6,500 Lick Run residents, property owners, businesses and local stakeholders, and also by publishing the information in the and also by publishing the information in the South Fairmount community newsletter and other community newsletters, on the Lick Run website and in the local news media. The workshop was attended by 93 people, with 63% indicating they live, work or own property in the Lick Run watershed. Of this 63%, 43% were from South Fairmount. On the exit survey, 54% of respondents said they attended the first workshop, 78% said they support the proposed Lick Run alternative, and 89% said they felt better informed after attending the second workshop. (Note: approximately 60% of attendees completed some section of the exit survey). Following the two workshops, MSD prepared summary brochures, which were mailed to workshop participants and were posted on the Lick Run website (see below). 119 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

121 On November 2, 2011, a follow-up input session was held with the leadership of both the South Fairmount Business Association and South Fairmount Community Council and representatives from Hargrove Engineering attended; On January 23 rd, a preview discussion of the Community Design Workshop #3 concept and input session was held with the leadership of the South Fairmount Business Association and South Fairmount Community Council as promised to the two organizations. The SFBA and SFCC indicated that Hargrove s role is to come up with more opportunities for business retention within the community. The business survey is anticipated to be finalized by January 30 th for delivery to the SFBA and SFCC as well as CFAC. On February 23, 2012, MSD conducted Community Design Workshop #3. Using feedback obtained from the first two workshops, as well as feedback obtained from a November meeting with leaders of the South Fairmount Community Council and the South Fairmount Business Association, revised concepts for the proposed urban waterway will be presented for comment and input. MSD developed a dedicated website for Project Groundwork ( to provide an overview of the Final WWIP and the solutions being considered to achieve compliance. An area of the website is dedicated to the Lick Run Alternative, and providing community members with updated information on concepts and issues in the South Fairmount community, and across the watershed ( MSD participated in Make A Difference Day on October 22, At the request of the South Fairmount Community Council, MSD helped to beautify a park in South Fairmount. MSD also participates annually in the Bethany House Children s festival held each July to provide information about Project Groundwork to the community. MSD has worked with local and national news media to publicize the project, including the Cincinnati Enquirer, the Business Courier, and Greenwire. The Greenwire article resulted in coverage in the New York Times. MSD is currently surveying local businesses in the South Fairmount community to determine their relocation needs or if they prefer to stay within the corridor. In December 2011, MSD was awarded the National Environmental Achievement Award from the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) in the Public Education & Information category specifically for the community outreach efforts related to Project Groundwork. This prestigious industry award will be presented in February. 120 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

122 To demonstrate how sustainable solutions can address both stormwater issues and contribute to overall quality of life for the community, MSD has partnered with local properties in the Lick Run watershed and the South Fairmount community and organizations such as the Cincinnati Park Board to create Early Success Projects. These on-site projects demonstrate the effectiveness of various stormwater controls such as rain gardens, green roofs, bioswales and pervious paving that absorb stormwater into the ground and prevent or delay it from reaching combined sewers. Early Success Projects implemented to-date include: Immanuel United Church demonstration project Queen City Avenue Reforestation demonstration project St. Francis Court Apartments demonstration project There are a multitude of other endeavors that MSD has undertaken across the Lick Run watershed to capture community insights and provide information, and these can be discussed in more extensive detail upon request. Project updates and information on upcoming community meetings can always be found on the project website, FIGURE 15-1: LICK RUN WATERSHED COMMUNITY DESIGN WORKSHOP FEEDBACK 121 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

123 16 NEXT STEPS CRITERIA FOR ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERATION BY USEPA USEPA has been actively engaging MSD with respect to our updated model. They have acknowledged that the model is the basis for evaluating the effectiveness of a source control approach. In 2011 USEPA issued a draft for discussion purposes of a Guidance Pertaining to Consideration of Any Proposed Revised Original Lower Mill Creek Partial Remedy Defendants May Choose to Submit in Accordance with Paragraph A.2 of the Wet Weather Improvement Program. The draft documents specifically states: The primary means of determining if green control measures are equivalent to a planned grey infrastructure control measure will be model runs. The following model related information must be presented to the Regulators for review: Hydrology & hydraulic model used to simulate effects of source control measures Model also simulates grey components of the alternative Specific information on volume of overflows in a typical year Good understanding of assumptions used in model Adjustments made to hydrology inputs As you can infer from these bullets, the Regulators understand that things change when it comes to modeling. In fact, they stated that All models are wrong, but some are a good enough tool for making a decision. During our model review teleconference and source control presentations in 2011, USEPA staff was in agreement with the MSD s modeling approach. Both USEPA and Ohio EPA are eager to begin the formal model review process and would like the Co-Defendants to submit the Alternative for their consideration within a few months. MSD is confident the model satisfies all industry standards and provides a basis for the Co-defendants to make a reasonable decision with regard to the LMCPR. After reviewing the model and concurring with the results, USEPA will evaluate the following source control program components: Detailed description of technologies and mode of operation List of tasks required for implementation Source control/green infrastructure maintenance activities Legal authority to retain permanent access and sufficient public control over the land Stakeholder outreach and public participation Identify areas of low household incomes, poor educational attainment, or concentrated minority population 122 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

124 Tracking of implementation, operation, maintenance, and reporting activities Unique issues anticipated for Post-Construction Monitoring Study MSD is well underway with many of these activities including obtaining public control of land that would benefit either the grey or sustainable alternative as well as conducting an extensive stakeholder outreach campaign over the past two years. 123 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

125 Appendix A Technical Bibliography Consent Decree & WWIP ''Capacity Assurance Program and Combined Sewer Overflow Long Term Control Program''. Prepared by MSDGC. June ''Combined Sewer Overflow Long Term Control Update''. Prepared by MSDGC. April ''Combined Sewer Overflow Long Term Control Update''. Prepared by MSDGC. July ''Evaluation of Combined Sewer Overflows Control Strategies''. Prepared by MSDGC. May ''Evaluation of Stormwater and Water Quality Impacts in Hamilton County''. Prepared by MSDGC. November ''Global Consent Decree''. Prepared by U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of the U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA, and with the approval of the Hamilton County Board of Commissioners and the City of Cincinnati. June ''High Rate Chlorination Dechlorination for Combined Sewer Overflow Disinfection''. Prepared by XCG Consultants, Inc. April ''Interim Partial Consent Decree on Sanitary Sewer Overflows''. Prepared by U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of the U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA, and with the approval of the Hamilton County Board of Commissioners and the City of Cincinnati. February ''Wet Weather Improvement Plan (WWIP) - FINAL''. Prepared by MSDGC. June ''Wet Weather Improvement Program (WWIP) Summary Update''. Prepared by MSDGC. May ''Wet Weather Improvement Program V.01''. Prepared by MSDGC. June ''Wet Weather Improvement Program V.02''. Prepared by MSDGC. June ''Wet Weather Improvement Program V.03''. Prepared by MSDGC. June ''Wet Weather Improvement Program V.04''. Prepared by MSDGC. April ''Wet Weather Improvement Program V.05 Part II''. Prepared by MSDGC. March ''Wet Weather Improvement Program V.05''. Prepared by MSDGC. March ''Wet Weather Improvement Program V.06''. Prepared by MSDGC. March ''Wet Weather Improvement Program V.07''. Prepared by MSDGC. March ''Wet Weather Improvement Program V.08''. Prepared by MSDGC. April ''Wet Weather Improvement Program V.09''. Prepared by MSDGC. April ''Wet Weather Improvement Program V.10''. Prepared by MSDGC. April ''Wet Weather Improvement Program V.11''. Prepared by MSDGC. April ''Wet Weather Improvement Program V.12''. Prepared by MSDGC. April ''Wet Weather Improvement Program V.13''. Prepared by MSDGC. April ''Wet Weather Improvement Program V.14''. Prepared by MSDGC. April ''Wet Weather Improvement Program V.15''. Prepared by MSDGC. April ''Wet Weather Improvement Program V.16''. Prepared by MSDGC. April ''Wet Weather Improvement Program V.17''. Prepared by MSDGC. April ''Wet Weather Improvement Program V.18''. Prepared by MSDGC. April ''Wet Weather Improvement Program V.19''. Prepared by MSDGC. April ''Wet Weather Improvement Program V.20''. Prepared by MSDGC. April ''Wet Weather Improvement Program V.21''. Prepared by MSDGC. April ''Wet Weather Improvement Program V.22''. Prepared by MSDGC. April ''Wet Weather Improvement Program V.23''. Prepared by MSDGC. March ''Wet Weather Improvement Program V.24''. Prepared by MSDGC. June Default Tunnel & EHRT ''Final Draft Section 4.7 Revised Phase II Flow Analysis''. Prepared by Black and Veatch Corporation. July ''Final EHRT Basis of Design Report''. Prepared by Black and Veatch Corporation. December ''Task 108 Risk Management''. Prepared by Black and Veatch Corporation. May ''Task 203 Geotechnical Investigation Report - FINAL''. Prepared by Black and Veatch Corporation. June ''Task 204 Final Data Review Report''. Prepared by Black and Veatch Corporation. August ''Task 205 ESA Investigation Approach Memorandum''. Prepared by Black and Veatch Corporation. June ''Task 205 Keramida Environmental Reports ''. Prepared by Black and Veatch Corporation. July ''Task 205 Property Information Report''. Prepared by Black and Veatch Corporation. May ''Task 208 Final Geotechnical Investigation Work Plan''. Prepared by Black and Veatch Corporation. August ''Task 302 Final Geotechnical Data Report''. Prepared by Black and Veatch Corporation. June ''Task 302 Revised Geophysical Alignments''. Prepared by Black and Veatch Corporation. April June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

126 Appendix A Technical Bibliography ''Task 304 Technical Baseline Report FINAL.'' Prepared by Black and Veatch Corporation. March ''Task 304 Technical Baseline Report - REVISED FINAL.'' Prepared by Black and Veatch Corporation. August ''Task 305 Alignment Analysis-Facilities Location_Work in Progress Info '' Prepared by Black and Veatch Corporation. July ''Task 306 Alignment Analysis and Facility.'' Prepared by Black and Veatch Corporation. March ''Task 306 Workshop - Alignment Analysis and Facility.'' Prepared by Black and Veatch Corporation. March ''Task 308 Revised Concept Design Report DRAFT.'' Prepared by Black and Veatch Corporation. March ''Task 308 Revised Draft-Appendix_A '' Prepared by Black and Veatch Corporation. June ''Task System Hydraulics and Operation Report.'' Prepared by Black and Veatch Corporation. January ''Wade Trim Review of EHRT Cost Estimate.'' Prepared by Wade-Trim Inc. July LMCPR ''Costing Protocol TM_DRAFT_110902''. Prepared by CH2M Hill, Inc. September ''Geophysical Maps and Address Lists''. Prepared by RA Consultants, LLC. October ''Lower Mill Creek Partial Remedy Revised Plan, Task 107: Project Cost Estimating Protocols''. Prepared by CH2M Hill, Inc. February ''Lower Mill Creek Partial Remedy Study, Costing Protocols Presentation to the County Monitor Team''. Prepared by CH2M Hill, Inc. February ''Lower Mill Creek Partial Remedy System Wide Model Validation Report''. Prepared by XCG Consultants, Inc. January ''Lower Mill Creek Systems Analysis Mill Creek Updated Model/Report''. Prepared by XCG Consultants, Inc. January ''MSDGC Modeling Guidelines and Standards''. Prepared by N/A. February ''MSDGC's Financial Analysis Manual''. Prepared by MSDGC. January ''Updated Model V ''. Prepared by XCG Consultants, Inc. September Bloody Run ''Bloody Run Preliminary Models Transmittal.'' Prepared by Strand. June ''Bloody Run SWEP Models.'' Prepared by XCG. June ''Bloody Run Watershed Strategic Separation Project.'' Prepared by Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc (CDM). January ''Bloody Run Watershed SWEP Evaluation FINAL.'' Prepared by Strand. March ''Business Case Evaluation (BCE): Bloody Run, CSO 181 Source Control - Phase 1.'' Prepared by Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc (CDM). January ''Model Validation and Capture Area / Volume Confirmation Tech Memo.'' Prepared by Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc (CDM). August ''Open House Summary: Bloody Run, CSO 181 Source Control - Phase 1.'' Prepared by Hamilton County Planning & Development. February Clifton ''100% Design - Drawings: CSO 12''. Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. July ''100% Design - Engineers Opinion of Construction Cost: CSO 12''. Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. July ''100% Design - Transmittal: CSO 12''. Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. July ''50-scales, CAGIS data, Surveys, Modeling, Specs & Drawings, TV Inspections (Consultant Data Package)''. Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. August ''75% Design - Drawings: CSO 12''. Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. July ''Burnet Woods Green Infrastructure Modeling''. Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. September ''Business Case Evaluation (BCE): CSO 12 Source Control''. Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. December ''Business Case Evaluation (BCE): CSO 30 Stream Separation Stage 1''. Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. December ''CSO 12 Modeling Report''. Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. February ''CSO 12 Outfall at CSX''. Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. July ''CSO 12 Phase A Hydrologic and Hydraulic Model Summary''. Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. June ''CSO 12 Phase A.1 and A.2 Soil Borings''. Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. July ''CSO 30 - Data Collection Report''. Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. December ''Hopple Street Interchange ODOT/MSD Coordination''. Prepared by Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT). September ''Interstate 75 Opportunities (maps)''. Prepared by Human Nature, Inc. December June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

127 Appendix A Technical Bibliography ''Proposed ODOT Retaining Wall 26b: CSO 12''. Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. September ''Revive Cincinnati: Neighborhood of the Lower Mill Creek Valley''. Prepared by Urban Design Associates. July ''Stage 2 Design Package - Construction Estimate''. Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. May ''Stage 2 Design Package - Drainage Report''. Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. May Denham ''50-scales, CAGIS data, Surveys, Modeling, Specs & Drawings, TV Inspections (Consultant Data Package)''. Prepared by BHE Environmental. April ''Business Case Evaluation (BCE): CSO 10 Source Control (Basin F, Phase A) - DRAFT''. Prepared by BHE Environmental. November ''CSO 10 Geotech Report''. Prepared by BHE Environmental. November ''CSO 10 Modeling and Shapefiles''. Prepared by BHE Environmental. August ''CSO 10 Reconciled Estimate''. Prepared by BHE Environmental. August ''Urban Audit: CSO 10''. Prepared by BHE Environmental. October Kings Run ''Alternative Analysis Report: CSO 217/483 Stream Separation''. Prepared by BHE Environmental. September ''Coarse Evaluation: CSO 217/483 Stream Separation''. Prepared by Human Nature, Inc. November ''Easement Acquisition Costs Estimating: CSO 217/483 Stream Separation''. Prepared by BHE Environmental. January ''Estimate Report: CSO 217/483 Stream Separation''. Prepared by BHE Environmental. April ''Geotechnical Report: CSO 217/483 Stream Separation''. Prepared by BHE Environmental. October ''GIS Shape files and Explanation: CSO 217/483 Stream Separation''. Prepared by BHE Environmental. August ''Planning Level Modeling Report: CSO 217/483 Stream Separation''. Prepared by BHE Environmental. September ''Preliminary Plan Set: CSO 217/483 Stream Separation''. Prepared by BHE Environmental. August Lick Run ''30% DRP - Technical Design Memo: Quebec Heights''. Prepared by Strand. January ''30% DRP - Updated 02/27/12 - Cost Opinion Summary: Quebec Heights''. Prepared by Strand. February ''Analysis of Value Engineering Recommendations: CSO 5''. Prepared by Strand. August ''Business Case Evaluation (BCE): CSO 5 Sustainable Infrastructure''. Prepared by MSDGC. September ''Community Design Workshop #1 Results''. Prepared by MSDGC. August ''Community Design Workshop #2 Results''. Prepared by MSDGC. October ''Community Design Workshop #3 Results''. Prepared by MSDGC. February ''Design Schedule: Sunset Rapid Run Area Separation''. Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. March ''Glenway Woods Project Concept Plan Technical Memo''. Prepared by Strand. May ''Harrison Avenue Sewer Separation Phase A 90% Design (Resubmittal) - Drawings ''. Prepared by Strand. May ''Harrison Avenue Sewer Separation Phase A 90% Design (Resubmittal) - Special Provisions''. Prepared by Strand. May ''Harrison Avenue Sewer Separation Phase A 90% Design (Resubmittal) Modeling Information''. Prepared by Strand. June ''Harrison Avenue Sewer Separation Phase A Modeling Calculations - Hydrologic and Hydraulic''. Prepared by Strand. January ''Harrison Avenue Sewer Separation Phase B 30% Design Drawings''. Prepared by Strand. July ''Harrison Avenue Sewer Separation Phase B 30% Design Technical Memo''. Prepared by Strand. July ''Lick Run Conceptual Report''. Prepared by Strand. August ''Lick Run Geotechnical Report - Harrison Ave Phase A & B and White St Phase A''. Prepared by Thelen Associates, Inc. March ''Lick Run Green Temp Connections Report''. Prepared by XCG. April ''Lick Run Green Ultimate Conditions Tech Memo''. Prepared by XCG. June ''Lick Run Preliminary Engineering Analysis - Hydrology and Hydraulics Report Appendices''. Prepared by Strand. November ''Lick Run Preliminary Engineering Analysis - Hydrology and Hydraulics Report''. Prepared by Strand. November June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

128 Appendix A Technical Bibliography ''Lick Run Watershed Master Plan - DRAFT''. Prepared by Human Nature, Inc. March ''Lick Run Watershed Strategic Integration Plan - FINAL''. Prepared by USEPA. August ''Lick Run Wet Weather Strategy Basis of Design Report''. Prepared by Strand. April ''Lick Run Wet Weather Strategy Community Opportunities Plan''. Prepared by Human Nature/Strand. April ''Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report for Lick Run - South Fairmount Neighborhood''. Prepared by Weston Solutions. 02/17/20104/1/2010. ''Phase A 90% Design (Resubmittal) Cost Opinion Summary''. Prepared by Strand. May ''Preliminary Property Acquisition Plan for Lick Run Wet Weather Strategy Basis of Design''. Prepared by Strand. October ''Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) / Headwater Habitat Evaluation Index (HHEI) Report - Quebec Heights''. Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. January ''Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) / Headwater Habitat Evaluation Index (HHEI) Report - Sunset Rapid Run Area Separation''. Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. November ''Quebec Heights Interim Geotechnical Exploration - FINAL''. Prepared by Thelen Associates, Inc. July ''Queen City & Cora Ave - Alternatives Analysis - FINAL''. Prepared by Malcolm Pirnie Inc. February ''Queen City & Cora Ave - Interim Geotechnical Exploration Report - FINAL ''. Prepared by Thelen Associates, Inc. August ''Queen City Avenue Sewer Separation Phase 2 Technical Design Memo''. Prepared by Arcadis US, Inc. January ''South Fairmount - CSO #5 Urban Audit Report''. Prepared by Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission. September ''Sunset Rapid Run Area Separation - Revised QA-QC Plan''. Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. November ''Sunset Rapid Run Area Separation 30% Updated Design Modeling Information''. Prepared by Strand. June ''Sunset Rapid Run Area Separation 30% Updated Design Package - Transmittal''. Prepared by Strand. May ''Value Engineering Study: CSO 5''. Prepared by Arcadis et al. January ''Voluntary Action Plan Phase 1 Property Assessment - The Lick Run - South Fairmount Neighborhood''. Prepared by Keramida. May ''Voluntary Action Plan Phase 2 Assessment - The Lick Run - South Fairmount Neighborhood''. Prepared by Keramida. July ''White Street Sewer Separation 30% Design Drawings - Updated ''. Prepared by Strand. July ''White Street Sewer Separation 30% Design Resubmittal - Technical Design Memo''. Prepared by Strand. July ''White Street Sewer Separation 30% Design Transmittal - Drawings''. Prepared by Strand. October ''White Street Sewer Separation Transmittal of CAD file''. Prepared by Strand. August ''Wyoming & Minion Avenues Sewer Separation Alternatives Analysis - FINAL''. Prepared by Malcolm Pirnie Inc. September Lick Run Pre-Design Report ''Lick Run Comprehensive Design Report (CDR)''. Prepared by Strand. September Lower Mill Creek ''Lower Mill Creek Coarse Evaluation Planning Background Report''. Prepared by Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission. February ''Lower Mill Creek Watershed Coarse Evaluation''. Prepared by Strand. November ''Lower Mill Creek Watershed Water Quality Evaluation - Initial Results''. Prepared by LimnoTech. March Ludlow Run ''50-scales, CAGIS data, Surveys, Modeling, Specs & Drawings, TV Inspections (Consultant Data Package)''. Prepared by Mactec. April ''CSO 24 Alternatives Analysis''. Prepared by Mactec/AMEC. September ''CSO 24 Cost Opinion Reconciled''. Prepared by Mactec. September ''CSO 24 Modeling Report''. Prepared by Mactec. July Mill Creek ''Biological and Water Quality Study of Mill Creek and Tributaries''. Prepared by MSDGC. March ''Mill Creek Evaluation - Initial Results''. Prepared by MBI. February ''Prototype TMDL Development Proposal for Mill Creek''. Prepared by MSDGC. January ''RDII Pilot Study - Mill Creek Phase 1''. Prepared by CH2M Hill, Inc. December June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

129 Appendix A Technical Bibliography Overall ''Enabled Impact Report - Interim Project Summary''. Prepared by MSDGC. December ''MSDGC Property Acquisition Report''. Prepared by MSDGC. March ''Sustainable Infrastructure Gap Analysis Memo''. Prepared by Hamilton County Regional Planning/MSDGC/CFCT. January ''Sustainable Infrastructure Policy Gap Analysis''. Prepared by Hamilton County Regional Planning/MSDGC/CFCT. January ''Sustainable Watershed Evaluation Planning Process for the Communities of the Future - DRAFT''. Prepared by CH2M Hill, Inc. December ''Watershed Monitoring and Bioassessment Plan for the MSD Greater Cincinnati Service Area''. Prepared by MBI. June Ross Run ''Ross Run Watershed Sustainable Watershed Evaluation Process (SWEP)''. Prepared by Human Nature, Inc. May West Fork ''60% Cost Reconciliation Meeting''. Prepared by Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc (CDM). July ''Alternative Analysis Report & Preferred Alternative Concept Design - FINAL''. Prepared by Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc (CDM). May ''B CSO 125 Geotechnical Report''. Prepared by Resource International, Inc. November ''Business Case Evaluation (BCE) - Executive Summary: CSO 125 Stream Separation''. Prepared by MSDGC. May ''Business Case Evaluation (BCE): West Fork Watershed''. Prepared by MSDGC. January ''Cash Flow Chart - CSO 125 Schedule''. Prepared by Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc (CDM). January ''Cave Salamander Habitat Evaluation Report''. Prepared by Arcadis US, Inc. June ''CSO % - CDM Transmittal ''. Prepared by Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc (CDM). November ''CSO % - Design Memorandum''. Prepared by Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc (CDM). November ''CSO % - DRAFT Technical Specifications''. Prepared by Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc (CDM). November ''CSO % - Drawings''. Prepared by Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc (CDM). November ''CSO 125 Alternative Screening Evaluation - FINAL''. Prepared by Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc (CDM). January ''CSO 125 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)''. Prepared by Resource International, Inc. May ''CSO 125 Surface Water Assessment''. Prepared by Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc (CDM). January ''CSOs 127 & 128 Stream Separation Alternatives Analysis Report''. Prepared by Malcolm Pirnie Inc. March ''Estimate Review Memo''. Prepared by MSDGC. March ''Geotechnical Study Report''. Prepared by HC Nutting. May ''Open House Summary: West Fork''. Prepared by Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission. January ''Phase I ESA Report Update''. Prepared by Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc (CDM). April ''Revised ESA Report''. Prepared by MSDGC. June ''West Fork Alternatives Analysis Report''. Prepared by Malcolm Pirnie Inc. October ''West Fork Sustainable Watershed Evaluation (SWEP) Report - August 2010''. Prepared by Strand. August ''West Fork Sustainable Watershed Evaluation (SWEP) Report - Revised May 2011''. Prepared by Strand. May Website '' Prepared by MSDGC. '' Prepared by MSDGC. 128 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

130 Appendix B Consent Decree and WWIP Language Referenced in Chapter 7 WWIP Section A.2.a., LMC Study/Revised Original LMCPR Phase 1 will include a 3 year study/detailed design period to examine green measures and other measures to refine the Original LMCPR approach and cost estimates. Defendants may submit to the Regulators proposed changes to, or improvements on, the Original LMCPR remedy as a result of this study, provided the proposed revised remedy ("Revised Original LMCPR") provides equal or greater control of CSO annual volume as the Original LMCPR and is completed by the Phase 1 End Date. Defendants shall submit to the Regulators a LMCPR Study Report and any proposal for a Revised Original LMCPR by December 31, WWIP Section A.2.c., LMCPR Schedule Extensions It is presently expected that the Original LMCPR will cost approximately $244 million. If Defendants demonstrate that the projected costs of the Original LMCPR or Revised Original LMCPR will exceed $300 million, then Defendants have the right to extend the schedule for completing the Original LMCPR or Revised Original LMCPR by up to 2 years. If Defendants demonstrate that the projected costs will exceed $350 million, Defendants may also submit to the Regulators a proposed schedule extension beyond 2 years if the Defendants can demonstrate that the additional time is necessary and that the schedule for completion is as expeditious as practicable. Any extension allowed under this Paragraph A.2.c would not serve to extend any other aspect of Phase 1, and would not serve to extend the deadline for submission of the Phase 2 schedule described below, but see Paragraph B.4 below. WWIP B.1, Phase 2 Schedule of Work By June 30, 2017, Defendants shall submit to the Regulators a proposed Phase 2 schedule for additional WWIP projects to be constructed consistent with the priority order established in Attachment 2, and according to the design and performance criteria set forth on Attachment 2 (and Attachment 5 for EHRT facilities). The Phase 2 schedule shall be as expeditious as practicable, based on the considerations set forth in Exhibit 4, Section II. F of the CSO Consent Decree (June 9, 2004) (including the Residential Indicator analysis through the method set forth below) (in Paragraph B.3), and other relevant factors, including but not limited to (a) the impact that the cost and length of schedule of Phase 2 will have on Defendants' financing in the tax exempt market, (b) local and national experience with the time, cost, economics and practicality of CSO/SSO program implementation, and (c) availability of "stimulus" money applicable to WWIP projects. WWIP B.5 LMCFR No later than two years before any first Milestone Date that Defendants are required to meet for the LMCFR (as that project bundle is set forth in Attachment 2), Defendants may submit to the Regulators a proposal for a different project or projects for the LMCFR, provided the proposed remedy provides equal or greater control of CSO annual volumes as, and can be completed in a comparable timeframe to, the LMCFR set forth in Attachment 2. For purposes of scheduling, the LMCFR shall remain at the end of the Attachment 2 priority list. 129 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

131 Appendix B Consent Decree and WWIP Language Referenced in Chapter 7 WWIP B.2 Outer Boundary Cap In no event shall Defendants be required to propose a schedule for any Phase 2 WWIP projects or work or implement, including continuation of, an approved schedule for Phase 2 WWIP projects or work where the cost of the projects or work for the specific schedule at issue would cause or contribute to the Residential Indicator ("RI") for the proposed or approved Phase 2 schedule at issue exceeding a cap of 2.8% (see Paragraph B.3 below on the RI analysis). This cap is solely an outer boundary, not- to-exceed, percentage established to assist in obtaining financing by providing some financial certainty, and shall not create an inference or suggestion as to what constitutes "as expeditious as practicable" as that term is used in Paragraph B.1 above. If this cap is exceeded, its effect (to extend the schedule(s) for implementing the WWIP) shall not relieve Defendants of the requirement ultimately to implement all WWIP measures under a schedule that is as expeditious as practicable. WWIP C.1 Bond Covenants The Regulators and Defendants do not presently expect or anticipate that implementation of the WWIP will cause Defendants to violate their existing bond covenants. However, because of the expected significance of a violation of bond covenants, if facts or circumstances arise that suggest that implementation of the WWIP may result in Defendants violating their bond covenants, Defendants may submit to Regulators a request for a modification of the WWIP as necessary to avoid violating their bond covenants. Consent Decree XXIX.B.1 [U]pon issuance of any new U.S. EPA final regulation (as promulgated in the Federal Register) or national policy governing SSOs, CSOs or bypassing; upon U.S. EPA approval or promulgation of new or revised water quality standards in accordance with 33 U.S.C. 1313(c) and 40 CFR and ; upon ORSANCO's approval of new or revised regulations in a manner consistent with its Compact and pollution control standards; or upon the issuance of a Current Permit that contains new or more stringent requirements pertaining to Defendants' WWTPs or Sewer System, Defendants may request modification of this Consent Decree (including requests for extensions of time) from U.S. EPA/Ohio EPA/ORSANCO to conform this Consent Decree to such regulation, national policy, new or revised water quality standard, or Current Permit. For the purposes of this Paragraph, "national policy" refers to a formal written policy statement issued by the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water and the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Upon Defendants' request, the Parties shall discuss the matter. If the Parties agree on a proposed modification to the Consent Decree, they shall prepare a joint motion to the Court requesting such modification. WWIP C.2 Adaptive Plan Alterations Defendants may submit to the Regulators proposed significant changes to specific projects, to groups of projects, to watershed approaches, priorities, and other matters through the concepts of "adaptive 130 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

132 Appendix B Consent Decree and WWIP Language Referenced in Chapter 7 management." Defendants should propose such requests for Adaptive Management review no more frequently than every 5 years. In Phase 1, the Parties anticipate Major/Adaptive Management review in about 2013 and also as part of the Phase 2 scheduling. This provision does not prohibit requests for nonmajor alterations to projects or project bundles. The Regulators retain discretion to approve in conformance with the terms of the Consent Decree and this Final WWIP appropriate changes requested by Defendants to Performance and Design Criteria. The Regulators' decisions to approve or disapprove any modifications under this Section are not subject to dispute resolution. WWIP C.3 Green Projects Defendants may identify proposed revisions to WWIP projects by adding or substituting "green infrastructure" for "grey infrastructure" where it is justified by business case evaluation in Defendants' sole discretion. At the end of the LMC Study Period (Paragraph A.3), Defendants may submit to Regulators such proposed modifications for review. At the time of submission of any Phase 2 schedule (Paragraph B.1), Defendants may submit to the Regulators such proposed modifications. Defendants will make reasonable best efforts to request any such green modifications or substitutions in one of these submissions, although requests may be made at other times as appropriate. The Regulators' decisions to approve or disapprove any WWEP modifications under this Section are not subject to dispute resolution. WWIP C.6 Allowances In addition to the Long Term Control Plan and the Capacity Assurance Program Plan projects, the WWIP includes eight subject matter programs, referred to as "Allowances." The Allowance programs exist to address, reduce and/or eliminate overflows and improve water quality consistent with federal and state law. Allowance program activities complement the LTCP and CAPP projects. However, unlike fixed location, discrete projects, Allowances instead arise due to newly discovered circumstances (e.g., WIB, Sewer/Manhole Relining, RDI/I, Urgent Capacity), opportunities to directly improve water quality (e.g., HSTS), District-wide, regional, or large-scale circumstances (e.g., RDI/I, Green), or information/analysis needs (e.g., RDI/I, WWIP studies). Because Allowances are typically not planned or designed years in advance, their budgets will vary from year to year. The Phase 1 Allowance budget for this WWIP represents a reduction relative to the budgets and needs identified in MSD's 2006 and 2008 submissions to the Regulators. Projected Allowance expenditures for 2009 and 2010, with breakdowns by Allowance Program, including specific defined projects where they have been determined, are listed on Attachment 4. A budget for Allowances, including each of the eight programs, will be prepared as part of the MSD annual capital budget which is then submitted to the Board of County Commissioners, becomes subject to public review and evaluation, and then requires approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Annually, in one of the quarterly reports, Defendants shall provide an accounting and listing of the work for which Allowance monies have been spent during the preceding year as well as MSD's 3-year estimate of future expenditures. Listed below are names and descriptions of the Allowance programs. 131 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

133 Appendix B Consent Decree and WWIP Language Referenced in Chapter 7 WWIP A.3 SSO 700 Phase 1 will also include a 3 year study to identify the SSO 700 Final Remedial Plan ("SSO 700 Remedial Plan"). This study will augment work Defendants have already performed for the SSO 700 Remedial Plan required by Section VI.C.3 of the SSO Consent Decree, and will also consider information arising from the evaluation of the effectiveness of the SSO 700 Interim Remedial Measures, the LMC Study being conducted pursuant to Paragraph 2.a., examinations of the potential use of green measures, RDI/1 work upstream of SSO 700, and other factors. Defendants shall submit to the Regulators the SSO 700 Remedial Plan by December 31, 2012 (rather than December 31, 2009 as currently required by the SSO Consent Decree), which shall contain all of the information required in SSO Decree Section VI.C.3, except that the schedule for design and construction of the proposed remedial measures shall be submitted to the Regulators in accordance with, and shall be subject to, the Phase 2 schedule requirements specified in Paragraph B.1, below. The SSO 700 remedial measure (project # ) set forth on Attachment 2 is conditioned on, and may be changed as a result of, the Defendants' submittal of the SSO 700 Remedial Plan and the Regulators' approval of the SSO 700 Remedial Plan. Consent Decree Amendment Paragraph 6 Defendants shall submit to U.S. EPA/OHIO EPA/ORSANCO an SSO 700 Remedial Plan by December 31, The SSO 700 Remedial Plan shall set out a plan for installation of remedial measures that have the goal of eliminating SSOs from SSO 700. The SSO 700 Remedial Plan shall consider information arising from the evaluation of the effectiveness of the SSO 700 Interim Remedial Measures, the Lower Mill Creek Study being conducted pursuant to Paragraph A.2.a of the Final WWIP, examination of the potential use of green measures, RDI/I work upstream of SSO 700, and other factors. The SSO 700 Remedial Plan shall also include a detailed technical description of the proposed remedial measures, estimated costs (capital, annual operation and maintenance (O&M) and either present value of annualized costs), and information regarding the expected performance of the measures during storms of various sizes and the maximum storm that the measures can be expected to capture or otherwise address). In addition, the Plan shall indicate whether the CEHRS and Storage Facility will remain in operation after construction of the proposed SSO 700 remedial measures, and if so, in what capacity and with what expected performance results. The SSO 700 Remedial Plan need not include a schedule for implementation of the proposed remedial measures. Rather, the schedule for design and construction of the proposed remedial measures shall be submitted to the United States/State/ORSANCO in accordance with Paragraph A.3 and the Phase 2 schedule requirements set forth in Paragraph B.1 of the Final WWIP. This schedule shall: a) include critical construction milestones, including, at a minimum, deadlines for submission of a Permit to Install; commencement of construction, and completion of construction; and b) be as expeditious as practicable. 132 June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

134 Appendix C Regulator Documents and Feedback Referenced in Chapter 7 1. Guidance from USEPA Region 5 a. Guidance Pertaining to Consideration of Any Revised Original Lower Mill Creek Partial Remedy Defendants May Choose to Submit in Accordance with Paragraph A.2 of the Wet Weather Improvement Program Draft for Discussion October b. April 20, 2011 Policy Memo to EPA Regional Administrators from Headquarters Office of Water and Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance: Protecting Water Quality with Green Infrastructure in EPA Water Permitting and Enforcement Programs c. October 27, 2011 Policy Memo to USEPA Administrators from Headquarters Office of Water and Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance: Achieving Water Quality through Integrated Municipal Stormwater and Wastewater Plans d. Draft USEPA Integrated Municipal Stormwater and Wastewater Plans, January MSDGC and Regulator LMCPR Technical Workshop Meeting Minutes; December 1, MSDGC and Regulator LMCPR Hydraulic Modeling Teleconference Meeting Minutes; November 17, Status Update LMCPR Discussions with Regulator to Staff; December June 2012 Refined & Updated Report

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173