7. Alternatives, Onondaga Lake Improvement

Clinton CSO Abatement: Environmental Information Document (Nov 2005)
Clinton Street CSO Abatement Project (Nov 2005)
Prepared by SGD Environmental Services for Environmental Engineering Associates, LLP
LEAD AGENCY: Onondaga Co. Dept of Water Environment Protection
650 Hiawatha Blvd., W., Syracuse, NY 13204
Contact: Randy R. Ott, PE, Commissioner, 315-435-2260

7. Alternatives

The purpose of this section is to identify reasonable alternatives to the Clinton Street CSO Abatement Project (i.e., RTF at Clinton Station). Alternative siting locations and abatement approaches are described herein.

7.1 Technology evaluation

As described in greater detail in the Facilities Plan, a variety of CSO treatment approaches and technologies were preliminarily identified (EEA 2005):

Treatment approaches
- Sewer separation
- Regional conveyance and storage
- Regional conveyance, in-line storage and treatment (with disinfection)

Treatment technologies:
- Vortex separators
- Enhanced vortex separators
- Continuous deflective separation (CDS)
- Ballasted flocculation
- Coarse screening (mechanically cleaned)
- Fine screening
- Brush screens
- Rotary drum screens/sieves
- Microscreens
- Net bags
- Overflow retention facility (ORF)

Based upon screening evaluations identified in the Facilities Plan, the most feasible CSO treatment technology/approaches for achieving compliance with the Clinton Street CSO service area ACJ treatment requirements were identified as follows:

As detailed herein in Appendix E and the Facilities Plan (Section 4, Section 5), and Section 6), based on a comparison of the advantages-disadvantages of various technologies, as well as input from the City and potentially affected community groups (residential and business), in-line storage and a RTF using vortex separators (including closure of existing CSOs 028 and 029) was identified as the recommended/preferred treatment approach for the Clinton Street CSO Abatement Project:

The recommended/preferred alternative (in-line storage and a RTF using vortex separators and closure of existing CSOs 028 and 029) maximizes flow to Metro while providing cost-effective treatment and disinfection of CSO discharge from larger storms.

7.2 Siting evaluation

As summarized in the Clinton Street CSO Abatement Project Facilities Plan (EEA 2005, Section 3, Alternative Site Analysis), the siting of the RTF involved the review of aerial photographs, tax mapping, and discussions with City of Syracuse and County personnel, and field reconnaissance. Based on the information gathered through siting evaluation process, the following criteria were established:

Based on these criteria, an initial six sites were identified by EEA as reasonable RTF locations with a seventh site (with two options) identified late in the evaluation process. The potential RTF sites are illustrated on Figure 7-1 and include the following:

Following identification of reasonable alternatives based on siting criteria, a non-cost evaluation of the potential sites was conducted using the following criteria (EEA 2005):

As stated in the Facilities Plan (EEA 2005), in conjunction with the County and its representatives, the identified site alternatives were ranked from the most favorable location (preferred site) to the least favorable location:

From this ranking, further evaluation of the potential impacts to the existing natural and human resources associated with the two most feasible sites (Clinton Station and Dickerson Street) was conducted (see below).

7.3 Environmental impact comparison (including "no action")

This section provides a summary comparison of the potential short- and long-term impacts associated with the following alternatives:

As described above, other RTF locations considered during the siting process consisted of Gifford Street, Tully Street, West Onondaga Street, West Washington Street and Wyoming Street. However, based on a variety of environmental and engineering factors, these options are not considered reasonably viable and, therefore, were not considered further by the County. The Facilities Plan (Section 3) provides detailed information pertaining to these considerations.

Click to enlarge

Table 7-1 illustrates expected impacts (temporary and permanent) from the implementation of the project at Clinton Station and Dickerson Street. In addition, a summary of the potential impacts associated with the "no action" alternative is presented. The following summarizes the information presented in Table 7-1.

7.3.1 No action alternative

No action means that the County would not respond to the requirements mandated by the ACJ and would not abate CSOs in the downtown service area. Implementation of the no action alternative would fail to meet both federal and state water quality standards as CSO would continue to enter the Creek and Lake. For these reasons, the no action alternative is not viable and judged unacceptable.

7.3.2 Dickerson Street alternative

Figures 7-2 and 7-3 depict the location of the Dickerson Street East and West options. A summary of the potential impacts to the neighboring environmental (natural and human) resources has been presented in Table 7-1. In summary, the following can be highlighted with regard to the Dickerson Street options:

The Dickerson Street options would represent temporary and permanent impacts to the Rescue Mission, a community service resource and sensitive receptor. The East option involves the acquisition, demolition, and relocation of the Rescue Mission recreation center (the West option would not involve demolition of Rescue Mission structures). In addition, both options require residential and commercial unit acquisition, demolition, and subsequent relocation assistance. Furthermore, given the inadequacy of a suitable staging area for construction activities onsite, construction of the RTF at either location (East or West) represents a greater challenge regarding adequate onsite staging (and therefore, a greater potential for adverse consequences). Lastly, the opportunity for community enhancement associated with the Dickerson Street alternative (East and West) is limited.

In conclusion, further consideration of the Dickerson Street alternative (East or West) will be deemed appropriate only if the County is unable to proceed at the preferred Clinton Station location. Although viable, the Dickerson Street alternative (both East and West) has been discounted by the County as the recommended-preferred alternative given the number and degree of impacts to area residents, sensitive receptors, and community services as well as the lack of adequate onsite staging (see below). As noted in Section 5.6.4, should the County be forced to reconsider the Dickerson Street site, and it is ultimately determined that implementation of the project at this site will result in significant adverse impacts, it is the County's position that the overall public health and environmental benefits of the project will nevertheless justify such impacts.

7.3.3 Clinton Station (Trolley Lot) alternative

Siting of the Clinton Station RTF and associated conveyances (and force main) is depicted in Figure 1-7. Table 7-1 summarizes the potential impacts to the natural and human resources in, and around, the Clinton Station site. In summary as presented in Table 7-1, the following is provided:

The greatest potential challenge posed by the siting of the RTF at Clinton Station will be developing parking mitigation measures. As noted within this document, although the City has indicated that more than 600 spaces currently exist as vacant in the Armory Square area (and more than 500 when the Creekwalk is completed), the County is dedicated to implementing a cost-effective parking resources development program to maximize the number of parking spaces available to the patrons and employees of downtown businesses. Given that parking will be replaced through the County's plan, the possibility of long-term potential impacts to the area are not anticipated.

Clinton Station offers the least amount of permanent impacts to area residents, sensitive receptors, and existing community resources. No residential structures will be demolished and relocation will not be required (only one vacant commercial structure requires demolition). In addition, adequate staging for construction at the RTF site will result in fewer impacts to the area in that offsite staging will not be necessary. Furthermore, opportunities for enhancing planned community projects exist (proposed Creekwalk near Walton, connection to the MOST, and possibly the next phase of the Creekwalk in the area behind the RTF).

In conclusion, in comparison with the other viable siting alternatives, consideration of the above factors results in a determination by the County that Clinton Station is the recommended/preferred alternative for the siting of the RTF.

Table 7-1 - Alternative Siting Comparison

No action

Air resources
- Long-term negative impact: continual odor from CSO discharged to Creek.

Water quality
- Violation of State and Federal water pollution control laws.
- Long-term negative impact: continual degradation of water quality due to discharge of untreated CSO into Creek.

Storm water
- Long-term negative impact: sewage will continue to enter Creek during storm water events.

Terrestrial ecology
- Long-term negative impact: continual degradation of terrestrial ecology along creek banks due to discharge of untreated CSO into Creek.

Aquatic ecology
- Long-term negative impact: continual degradation of aquatic ecology due to discharge of untreated CSO into Creek.

Planned land use
-Long-term impact: odor impacts and aesthetic issues could limit the use of the planned Creekwalk or other future plans.

Historical and archeological resources
- No adverse impacts (short- or long-term).

Environmental justice, Title VI
- Continued discharge of solids and floatables to the Creek (that eventually can be deposited along the creek bank and lakeshore).

Clinton Station

Project area disturbed (estimated) None
- 5.5 acres (2 acres RTF site; 3.5 acres piping)
- Approximately 6,000 linear feet (LF) of total piping (conveyance line, force main and outfall)
- See Figure 1-7

Geology
- Potential short-term construction impact: erosion and sedimentation. Ground water will be encountered. Mitigation measures: development of erosion and sediment control plan and storm water pollution prevention plan (see Section 4.1). Laboratory analyses of ground water would dictate proper disposal.
- Potential for settlement at the elevated railroad tracks exists from excavation wall movement and/or consolidation settlement. Careful planning and adherence to permit requirements during construction would minimize the potential for such settlement (see Section 4.1).
- No long-term impacts

Air resources
- Short-term impacts: temporary increase in dust and traffic emission. Mitigation measures: construction limits, sweeping, spraying, mulching, etc. would reduce impacts to temporary disruptions (see Section 4.2).
- No operational odor impacts from RTF expected based on odor-control system and other design and operational features (see Section 4.2.2).
- Long-term benefit: overall improvement of air quality (i.e., odor from Creek).

Water quality
- Compliance w/State and Federal water pollution control laws.
- Potential short-term impacts: siltation, flow disruption, damage to the flood control channel, and creek bed contour changes from two creek crossings (if bored). Mitigation may consist of boring under Creek. If open cut is selected, contractors will be required to work within federal/state permit conditions. Restoration activities to maintain and restore the flood control channel will occur. Also, ground water quality (e.t. turbidity and salinity) will be assessed prior to establishing appropriate disposal procedures (e.g., discharge to Creek or sanitary sewer).
- No long-term operational negative impacts expected: Chlorination/ dechlorination has been accepted by the State for the ACJ and is recognized by the USEPA as the best alternative for CSO treatment at this time. NYSDEC's position on chlorination/dechlorination is that it is a safe practice for human contact recreation and sensitive aquatic organisms (see Section 4.3.1).
- Long-term benefit: overall improvement of water quality (Creek and Lake).

Flood prone area
- No negative short-term or long-term impacts. Mitigation measures for creek crossings involve restoration of channel consistent with flood control requirements thus improving flow during such events (see Section 4.3.2).

Storm water
- Potential short-term construction impact: erosion and sedimentation. Mitigation measures: development of erosion and sediment control plan and storm water pollution prevention plan (see Section 4.1).
- No long-term impacts.

Terrestrial ecology
- Short-term impacts: temporary displacement of wildlife.
- No long-term impacts: no known RTE or species of concern exist within the project area; vegetation and wildlife is typical of urban area; RTF site will be landscaped and conveyances along Creek will be restored consistent with flood control requirements (see Section 4.4.1).

Aquatic ecology
- Potential short-term impacts: siltation, flow disruptions, damage to the flood control channel, and creek bed contour changes from two creek crossings (if bored). Mitigation may consist of boring under Creek. If open cut is selected, contractors will be required to work within Federal and State permit conditions. Restoration activities to maintain flood control channel will occur. In addition, ground water quality will be assessed prior to establish appropriate disposal procedures [(e.g., discharge to Creek or sanitary sewer (see Section 4.3.1)].
- No long-term negative operational impacts: based on chemical risk assessment, chlorination and dechlorination by-products have a very low tendency to bioconcentrate in aquatic organisms (see Sections 4.3.1 and 4.4.2).
- Long-term benefit: overall improvement of water quality stimulates growth and diversification of aquatic ecology (Creek and Lake).

Contaminated materials assessment
- A Phase I Environmental Assessment (draft) conducted by EEA in July 2003, identified several properties located in the RTF area, northwestern, northeastern, and southern conveyance areas have been used at different times for commercial/industrial purposes that may pose potential environmental concern.
- Federal and State regulations will govern the County's management of contaminated materials if identified during the construction phase of the project regardless of siting (e.g., contaminated soils, asbestos-containing materials, and lead-contaminated building materials).

Traffic patterns
- Short-term impacts: temporary construction-related delays from detour routes (vehicular and pedestrian). Mitigation involves carefully planned detour routes along length of conveyances during construction activities (see Section 5.1.1).
- Requires construction access from west side of Creek (e.g., reconstruction of Fabius Street bridge).
- Long-term benefit: Reconstruction of Fabius Street bridge would improve ingress and egress from Clinton Station parking lot. This would in turn likely reduce vehicular traffic along Dickerson and Gifford Streets that have the potential to impact foot traffic in and around the Rescue Mission.
- No long-term negative traffic-related impacts identified.

Parking areas
- Short-term impact: temporary alternative parking will be required along conveyance route (both public and private parking) and the Clinton Station parking lot (approximately 455 spaces of which 270 require permanent relocation to enhance future opportunities for economic development).
- Long-term impact: Although a City parking assessment in 2002 identified that sufficient available vacant parking exists in the Armory area, the County will mitigate the actual loss of parking at Clinton Station.
-1. The County seeks to work cooperatively with the local agencies to achieve a parking enhancement program (see Section 5.1.4).

Land use
- Short-term impacts: during construction, the potential loss of patrons could potentially cause disruptions to a small number of businesses. An extensive mitigation plan to reduce such impacts to the greatest extent practicable has been identified by the County (see Section 5.2.1).
- Long-term impact: The installation of the conveyance pipes will restrict building development but will be compatible with land uses (such as the Creekwalk and surface parking amenities). In addition, a goal of the County is to mitigate potential adverse parking impacts.
- Benefit: Project implementation will improve area aesthetics thereby increasing attractiveness of downtown area for residential and/or commercial growth.

Planned land use
- Short-term impacts: none are expected based on the coordination efforts with the entities planning projects in the vicinity of the project area (see Section 5.2.2).
- Long-term benefits: provides opportunity for Creekwalk improvements and opportunity for interconnected MOST educational exhibit.
- Long-term benefits: Mitigation for parking disruptions within Clinton Station could assist the City in providing additional parking at locations that will retain and attract new businesses within downtown.

Noise
- Short-term impacts: temporary construction-related noise to be mitigated as described in Section 5.2.3.
- Long-term impacts: based on distance of RTF from neighboring buildings, the design of RTF, and the planned operational measures, noise impacts will not occur (see Section 5.2.3).

Community services
- Project will not place an unusual burden on community services such as fire, police, recreation, or utilities. An increase in screenings and sludge ultimately produced at Metro will occur (see Section 5.3).

Population
- Separated from downtown businesses and residents by elevated tracks and Creek vegetation.

Housing
- No residential buildings require demolition. One vacant commercial building will require demolition.
- South eastern end of Clinton Station lot, beyond elevated tracks, Clinton Plaza Apartments (sensitive receptor) exists.
- Beyond tracks, Armory residential complexes exist.

Employment
- Short-term benefit: regional and local construction jobs created
- Long-term: none, operation-related jobs not anticipated

Economics
- The total estimated project cost for in-line storage/vortex separator RTF at Clinton Station (including closure of existing CSOs 028 and 029) is $74,080,000 (EEA 2005).
- The total 15-year impact of the program on the sewer unit charge has been estimated to be approximately $234 per unit. The increase is projected to rise over the period of 15 years between $5 and $25 per year.

Historical and archeological resources
- Detailed studies have been performed and documented by Hartgen (2001 and 2003) that indicate historic and archeological resources exist in the project area.
- Mitigation measures identified to date [as recommended by Hartgen (2003)] include avoidance of the area and/or a combined Phase II/III archeological investigation.
- The County will continue to consult with OPRHP (in conjunction with Onondaga Nation) to minimize impacts to the historical and archeological resources of the project area.

Visual resources and aesthetics
- No adverse impacts: Separated from downtown businesses and residents by elevated tracks and Creek vegetation.
- Building size, architecture and landscaping will be consistent with existing buildings in the downtown area (see Section 5.5.2)

Environmental justice, Title VI
- It is the County's determination after evaluating the project in accordance with relevant State and Federal guidance that the Clinton Street CSO Abatement Project is subject to the environmental justice policy.
- Although subject to the policy's directives, based upon the information summarized above and described in detail within this document, long-term adverse environmental impacts disproportionately affecting a specific ethnic and/or low-income population were not identified.
- Furthermore, placement of the RTF in Clinton Station has less potential for directly impacting residential and commercial properties than the alternative since no residential structures will be demolished.
- The project will be of benefit to the community as a whole by removing a significant source of odors in Onondaga Creek within the project area as well as improve the water quality of both the Creek and Lake. As such, even if it were ultimately determined that the project does have significant adverse impacts, the public health and environmental benefits that will be derived from the project would justify any resulting adverse impacts.

Engineering and/or construction considerations
- Located on east side of Creek near MIS.
- In order to reach the bearing layer for the RTF, it is estimated that 10 feet of fill material will need to be removed. Detailed construction mitigation measures to avoid settlement will be necessary.
- Will require the replacement of the Fabius Street bridge to access Clinton Station during construction and operation. Careful planning/mitigation would be required to maintain access to and from the Fabius Street Fire Station #6.
- Adequate space for construction staging exists. If entire Clinton Station lot were not acquired, temporary easements from the City would be needed.

Miscellaneous
- No formal objections have been generated.
- Anticipated to provide most expedient design and construction period due to central location and one property owner (EEA 2005)

Dickerson Street

Project area disturbed (estimated)
Dickerson East option:
- 6.0 acres (2 RTF; 4.0 piping)
- Approximately 6,000LF of total piping See Figure 7-2

Dickerson West option:
- 6 .0 acres (2 RTF; 4 piping)
- Approximately 6,500LF of total piping See Figure 7-3

Geology

- Short-term: slightly greater potential for construction-related impacts due to underflow force main proposed outside the conveyance route. Mitigation minimizes risk of significant erosion/sedimentation impacts.
- Potential for settlement of Rescue Mission recreation center (West option) exists. Settlement issues would be addressed prior to construction.
- Site-specific geotechnical engineering evaluation for Dickerson East would likely be needed to assess suitability of site].
- No long-term impacts for either option.

Air resources

- Short-term impacts: temporary increase in dust and traffic emissions. Potential for impacts somewhat greater due to greater area disturbed. Mitigation measures would reduce impacts to temporary disruptions.
- Location of sensitive receptor (Rescue Mission and Church) increases the potential for odor-related impacts.
- Long-term benefit: overall improvement of air quality (i.e., odor from Creek).

Water quality

- Compliance with State and Federal water pollution control laws.
- Short-term: similar to Clinton site as potential exists for short-term impacts at Dickerson East option (two crossings). However, three crossings are necessary for the West option thus increasing the potential for impacts if the open cut technology is used. Similar mitigation measures would be employed to mitigate adverse impacts.
- Long-term benefit: overall improvement of water quality (Creek and Lake).

Flood prone areas

- No negative short-term or long-term impacts. Given that Dickerson West, however, has three creek crossings, additional channel restoration activities would be required.

Storm water

- Short-term: slightly greater potential than Clinton due to greater area disturbed.
- No long-term impacts.

Terrestrial ecology

- Short-term temporary impacts similar to Clinton.
- No long-term impacts.

Aquatic ecology

- Long-term benefits and short-term temporary impacts similar to Clinton. The Dickerson West alternative, however, involves three creek crossings, which increases the potential for impacts.
- No long-term negative operational impacts.

Contaminated materials assessment

- Based on Hartgen (2002), development of the Dickerson Street site began around the second half of the 19th century and was characterized by both industrial and residential use. A review of historic mapping (1882 - 1990) illustrates that the Dickerson West option has been occupied by residential properties, a clothes factory, a railroad spur, a flour/feed operation, a motor freight station, a grocery warehouse, and a steam specialist (and most recently the Ward Supply HVAC business).
- The Dickerson East option has been occupied by a lumber company, a furniture company, railroad spur, a farm implement business (with a laboratory and machine shop), and a parking lot. Given this limited information, and pending a Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessment, the potential for soil contamination at the either Dickerson Street option exists.
- Both options involve building demolition and would require a quantitative assessment for the presence of lead and/or asbestos-containing building materials before the commencement of such activities.
- Federal and State regulations will govern the County's management of contaminated materials if identified during the construction phase of the project regardless of siting (e.g., contaminated soils, asbestos-containing materials, and lead-contaminated building materials).

Traffic patterns

- Short-term temporary impacts: would also require the temporary closure of Granger Street (and possibly a portion of Fabius Street) during pipe installation activities.
- Existing access for construction and operation.
- No long-term negative traffic-related impacts.

Parking areas

- Short-term temporary impact: limited alternative parking required (public and private parking).
- No long-term parking alternatives needed

Land use

- Short-term impacts: similar to Clinton.
- Long-term impacts: similar to Clinton, the installation of the conveyance pipes will restrict building development but will be compatible with area land uses. Siting of RTF would require demolition of commercial structures and offers limited opportunity for community enhancements.

Planned land use
Continued degradation of the Creek and surrounding area could act as an impediment to future growth.
- May impact Hanford's plans for expansion along Fabius Street given that the Dickerson options border Fabius Street.

Noise

- Short-term impacts: similar to Clinton.
- Long-term impacts: proximity of sensitive receptor (Rescue Mission) to RTF building creates a greater potential for noise issues during operation.

Community services

- Short-term impacts: the potential for construction-related impacts to the Rescue Mission and Fire Station #6 increases compared to the Clinton Station site given the proximity of the RTF siting with Dickerson option. Duration of construction activities in the immediate area of the Rescue Mission greater since piping will extend along the length of Dickerson Street (West option).
- Long-term impacts: Located adjacent to Rescue Mission (a sensitive receptor).

Population

- Located adjacent to nearby residences and businesses including the Rescue Mission (a sensitive receptor).

Housing

- Dickerson East option would involve the demolition and relocation of Rescue Mission recreation center. The Ward Supply building (a willing seller) and smaller commercial and residential units would also require demolition.
- Dickerson West option would involve the demolition of the Ward Supply building, smaller commercial and residential units.
- Both options located across from Rescue Mission residential services building (sensitive receptor).

Economics

- The total estimated project cost for in-line storage/vortex separator RTF at Dickerson Street West (including closure of existing CSOs 028 and 029) is $75,780,000. Costs at the Dickerson Street East site are expected to be greater than the Dickerson Street West site due to the required removal and relocation of the existing Rescue Mission recreation center (EEA 2005).

Historical and archeological resources

- Based on a Phase 1A literature review by Hartgen (2002) the areas within Dickerson site not covered by the Ward Supply building or the Rescue Mission recreation center are sensitive for containing pertinent archeological data related to the historic development of Syracuse during the mid-19th century.
- Certain areas near the recreation center are also considered by Hartgen to be "sensitive to precontact resources based on the proximity of Onondaga Creek."
- Based on the Phase 1B study for the Dickerson East site, the site would require the completion of a Phase 1B archeological study. If resources are identified and as necessary, appropriate implementation of mitigation measures prior to construction would be required. Note that a separate Phase 1B for the Dickerson West site would be required.
- The County would continue to consult with OPRHP (in conjunction with Onondaga Nation) to minimize impacts to the historical and archeological resources of the project area.

Visual resources and aesthetics

- Located adjacent to nearby residences and businesses including the Rescue Mission (a sensitive receptor).

Environmental justice/Title VI

- It is the County's determination that the Dickerson Street locations are also located in an environmental justice area. The Dickerson Street alternative has been identified to encompass the same Block and Block Groups as the Clinton Station site and, therefore, is also subject to the environmental justice policy.
- Although subject to the policy's directives, based upon the information summarized above and described in detail within this document, long-term adverse environmental impacts disproportionately affecting a specific ethnic and/or low-income population were not identified.
- Given the setting of mixed commercial/residential buildings, an increase in residential properties impacted occurs when this option is compared to the Clinton alternative. Demolition of structures is required.
- The project will be of benefit to the community as a whole by removing a significant source of odors in Onondaga Creek within the project area as well as improve the water quality of both the Creek and Lake. As such, if the County is required to reconsider the Dickerson Street site (East or West), and it were ultimately determined that constructing the project at this site would result in significant adverse impacts, the public health and environmental benefits that will be derived from the project would justify any resulting adverse impacts.

Engineering and/or construction considerations

- Located on west side of Creek away from MIS thus requiring additional stream crossing (West option).
- In order to reach the bearing layer for the RTF, it is estimated that 16 feet of fill material will need to be removed. Detailed construction mitigation measures to avoid settlement will be necessary.
- Access to and from the site currently exists along West Street (service road) and Granger Street for the West option and from Fabius and Granger Streets for the East option. Careful planning/mitigation would be required to maintain access to and from the Fabius Street Fire Station #6.
- Onsite construction staging is inadequate and temporary easements in the project vicinity would be required. Limited staging could possibly be obtained through temporary easements of adjacent parcel owned by Hanford as well as utilizing the public right-of-way.

Miscellaneous

- Would provide for expedient design and construction (EEA 2005)
- The Rescue Mission Board of Directors has taken a formal position against use of the Dickerson Street site.
Sources: (EEA 2005, OCDDS LIPO 2001b, Clare 2003, H&A 2003)