Omaha s Combined Sewer Overflow Control Program. May 22, 2007 South High School

Transcription

1 Omaha s Combined Sewer Overflow Control Program Community Public Meeting May 22, 2007 South High School

2 Purpose of Tonight s Meeting Provide an update on the study s progress Show preliminary study results Describe next steps Receive input from the public

3 Review Where are we now? Meeting Agenda Steps to October 2007 Steps 2007 to 2009 Costs Questions Basin Information Stations

4 Review

5 Omaha Is Not Alone 772 CSO Communities

6 Challenges Facing Omaha Meeting the increased requirements of the federal Clean Water Act. Balancing the following needs: Regulatory compliance Economic affordability Community acceptance

7 Opportunities Continue efforts to eliminate sewer backups into basements Reduce overflows of raw sewage to our streams; improve water quality Replace aging sewer, gas, water and street infrastructure Integrate infrastructure upgrades with continued redevelopment Improve drainage and reduce flooding

8 CSO Control Program Timeline

9 CSO Program Management CH2M Hill/HDR/Lamp Rynearson selected as Program Management Consultants Coordinate a comprehensive LTCP Provide computer modeling Initiate accelerated study of NoDo Manage 9 additional City8selected consultant basin studies Total contract for planning $24.6M

10 CSO Study Basins

11 Public Participation Process Community Basin Panel (CBP) Appointed by Mayor Fahey Vision specific Quality of outcomes for a big picture perspective Opportunity focused Define and assign weights to non8monetary criteria

12 Public Participation Process Basin Advisory Panels (BAPs) Recruited through Neighborhood Center of Greater Omaha with input from City Council Basin specific Neighborhood focus Solutions oriented Refine weights locally for non8monetary criteria

13 CBP NonMonetary Criteria Weights Water Quality Improvement 16 Reduction of Combined Sewer Back%Ups into Basements 19 Reduction of Street Flooding 11 Minimizing Community Disruptions 13 Simplicity (Reliability) of Solutions 6 Opportunities for Infrastructure/Utility Improvements 13 Compatibility with Community 11 Opportunities for Community Enhancements 12

14 CSO Control Options Sewer separation 490 sq blocks per year for 15 years Then, treat separated stormwater? Storage and treatment Above8ground tanks Below8ground tanks Deep tunnels High8rate treatment Near points of discharge Operate only in wet weather Solution likely a combination of options

15 Costs and Benefit/Cost Ratios Example $130 Total Benefit Sc core $ $65 $ Cost ($ Million) Benefit/Cost Ratio Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

16 Where are we now?

17 Basin Study Results Being Drafted Initial Study Results Submitted to City Next Results Presented by June 15 th Six Complex Basins, four Less Complex

18 Preliminary Results Burt8Izard Basin

19 Burt8Izard Basin

20 Burt8Izard Basin Overflow Statistics for Average Year Number of CSO Events Annual Volume (MG) CSO CSO BI Basin (Combined) 505

21 Cost of CSO Control Increases with Volume Captured Cost Knee of the Curve 85%) Million Gallons of CSO Volume Captured ( Level of Control )

22 Community Defined Criteria & Weighting

23 Burt8Izard In8Basin Alternatives Storage Alternative Treatment Alternative Full Separation Alternative Limited Separation (1/3 of Basin) with Treatment near the Outfalls Extensive Separation (3/4 of the Basin) with Treatment near Grace Street Outfall Only

24 Burt8Izard Basin 85% Volume Capture Benefits and Costs Sewer separation has the highest cost, and the highest Benefit Score. High8rate treatment has the lowest cost, and the lowest Benefit Score. High8rate treatment has the highest Benefit8to8Cost comparison. At higher percentages of captured volumes, partial separation has highest Benefit8to8Cost comparison.

25 Burt8Izard Basin 88 85% Volume Capture Benefits and Costs

26 Burt8Izard Conclusions Sewer separation is high in cost, and high in benefits. Treatment is low in cost, and lower in benefits. Hybrid options of partial separation and treatment have promise Similar conclusions are being seen in other basins

27 Other Basins

28 Cole Creek Basin Targeted for sewer separation. Some storage possible.

29 Papillion Creek North Basin Targeted for sewer separation.

30 Papillion Creek South Basin Targeted for sewer separation.

31 Bridge Street Basin Targeted for sewer separation. Lift station replacement likely.

32 Minne Lusa Basin

33 Minne Lusa Basin Study Treatment at Minne Lusa and Grace Street overflows looks promising. At more stringent control levels, sewer separation is more expensive but may be competitive in terms of benefit/cost ratio. A hybrid option is being developed.

34 Leavenworth Basin

35 Leavenworth Basin Study Treatment near the Leavenworth overflow looks like the best alternative. Hybrid options hold promise and will be further investigated. Complete sewer separation is much more expensive.

36 Ohern/Monroe Basin

37 Ohern/Monroe Basin Overflow Statistics for Average Year Number of CSO Events Annual Volume (MG) CSO CSO O%M Basin (Combined) 244

38 Ohern/Monroe Basin Study Treatment near the Missouri River WWTP looks like the best alternative. At more stringent control levels, increasing levels of partial separation (i.e., hybrid approach) is recommended. Full sewer separation is much more expensive.

39 Potential Partial Separation Areas L to X, 24 th to 32 nd Streets E to V, 13 th to 28 th Streets

40 Treatment System 100% volume capture

41 South Interceptor Basin Annual CSO Volume = 59 MG

42 South Interceptor Basin Study Recommended approach is full separation in most of the basin, combined with storage at the Missouri Avenue CSO point. Hybrid options of partial separation and storage will continue to be evaluated. Stormwater ponds in the Missouri Avenue sub8 basin are being considered.

43 South Interceptor Separation & Storage

44 South Interceptor Basin Study Redevelopment in the Pierce Street, Hickory Street, and Martha Street sub8basins will help to facilitate sewer separation. Lack of available property for storage facilities drives separation in Grover Street and Riverview sub8basins.

45 Saddle Creek Basin CSO Outfall = Major Highway 8 Water Bodies Existing Sewer Highway 8 Stream Saddle Creek Basin Major Road Saddle Creek Basin

46 Saddle Creek Basin Study Several alternatives are very close in terms of cost & benefits: Storage Partial separation + storage Distributed storage Treatment Complete sewer separation is much more expensive.

47 Overall Conclusions Complete sewer separation in Less Complex Basins is appropriate. Sewer separation in Complex Basins is high in cost, and high in benefits. Treatment is low in cost, and lower in benefits. Hybrid options of partial separation and treatment have promise Cross8Basin alternatives need to be considered.

48 Cross8Basin Alternatives Ten (10) Engineering Alternatives Evaluated 5 Alternatives Eliminated Based on Cost 5 Alternatives Retained for Comparison to In8Basin Alternatives

49 Cross Basin Alternative 3 Tunnels along Missouri River Feet Deep Feet in Diameter Treatment at the Missouri River Treatment Plant

50 Steps to October 2007

51 Steps to October 2007 Basin Consultants to submit next evaluation results by mid8june Program Management Team to compile evaluation results Continue public participation and stakeholder input Continue water quality study Continue communicating and negotiating with regulators

52 Steps to October 2007 (continued) Propose to regulators a series of CSO control projects to implemented to 2024 Review results with regulators in August Submit preliminary plan to regulators by October 1 st

53 Public Involvement to October 2007 Continued dialogue with Community Basin Panel Meetings with Basin Advisory Panels Updates with other stakeholders Utilities Government agencies Landowners Public Meetings in August (proposed) August 16 August 21

54 Steps 2007 to 2009

55 Steps to October 2009 Receive and respond to regulator comments on the preliminary plan Refine CSO control projects Develop full Long Term Control Plan report for regulators Develop green solution strategies as part of overall LTCP

56 Green Solutions in Other Cities Portland: Targeting 30% to 40% reduction in CSO volume Low8intensity, long8duration storms are common Significant environmental activism Philadelphia: May target 30% reduction in CSO volume Extensive redevelopment is occurring

57

58 BioRetention Basin

59 Green Solutions in Other Cities Washington D.C. $3 million being spent on demonstration projects Based on results, reduction in tunnel sizing may be considered Kansas City Green Solutions program includes goal of 10,000 rain gardens Not anticipated to reduce sizing of gray solutions

60 Public Involvement to October 2009 Community and Basin panels provide continued input Continue discussion with the public, stakeholders and regulatory agencies Define and develop community opportunities

61 Costs

62 CSO Control Costs The future cost to implement the final LTCP is unknown at this time Atlanta, GA 8$3.0B for 19 sq mi Atlanta, GA 8$3.0B for 19 sq mi Cincinnati, OH 8$1.5B for 74 sq mi Cleveland, OH 8$1.6B for 75 sq mi Louisville, KY 8$500M for 27 sq mi Nashville, TN 8$1.3B for 15 sq mi Omaha, NE 8$?? for 51 sq mi

63 Sewer Rate Impacts Rates increases apply to all regional system users Inside/outside Omaha Residential/commercial/industrial Additional increases beyond 2010 are undefined Fee implementation over 158year period

64 Questions? Public Web Site Basin maps Copies of presentations Contact CSO Hotline:

65 Burt8Izard Basin 8898% capture Benefits and Costs