|
Harbor Brook CSO Abatement Project Facility Plan (Aug 2005)
by Brown and Caldwell
for Onondaga County Dept of Water Environment Protection
4. Siting Analysis
Fifteen potential sites have been identified for
further evaluation for the abatement of CSOs
discharging to Harbor Brook. Fourteen potential sites
have been identified along Harbor Brook for the
location of Regional Treatment Facilities (RTFs) or
Floatables Control Facilities (FCFs), and one site has
been identified for treatment at Metro.
The sites under consideration have been shown on a street map in Figure 4.1.
These sites have been grouped by basin (Upper, Middle, Lower) and are shown as follows:
Figures 4.2, Lower basin map
Figures 4.3, Middle basin map
Figures 4.4, Upper basin map
Floatables Control Facilities (FCFs) will be placed at the site of the CSOs. Where
feasible, the FCFs will be located in existing roads. Where not feasible, the FCF will be
located to minimize traffic and disruption during construction and maintenance.
These sites are also shown in Figures 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8 with base aerial
photographs:
Fig 4.5, Aerial photo
Figures 4.6, Lower basin photo
Figures 4.7, Middle basin photo
Figures 4.8, Upper basin photo
The following criteria have been developed for use in
assessing the sites that have been identified:
Relation to Residences and Businesses
This criterion considers the number of residences and
businesses potentially impacted by new construction on
the site. The distance between the site and nearby
residences and businesses was taken into
consideration.
Opportunities for Public Facilities and Community Enhancement
Considers the opportunities of the site to provide
open space, recreational facilities, public parking,
public education and other possible positive
amenities.
Site Availability and Current Usage
Lists the owner of the property, the potential for
property acquisition (if available) and the current
use of the property, including potential resident
displacement.
Engineering and Operational Considerations
This criterion considers compliance with the ACJ, the
proximity to Metro, subsurface characteristics,
proximity to the Brook, distance from a major CSO,
capacity of the HBIS, floodplain issues, site
topography, existing utilities in the area, existing
structures on the site, potential for contamination
from past usages, accessibility of the site, and
opportunities to close or consolidate CSOs.
A summary of the information currently available on
these sites is provided in Tables 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3.
Table 4.1 describes the sites that could be used in the Lower Basin.
Table 4.1 (continued)
Table 4.2 describes sites in the Middle Basin.
Table 4.3 shows sites in the Upper Basin.
Based on the decision criteria and the site
characteristics listed above, the following
conclusions have been made:
-
Site #1 is remote from the CSOs and is only
considered suitable for receiving pumped flow from all
CSOs or just the lower basin.
Click here for Appendix D. Pump to Metro alternative evaluation.
-
Site #2 appears to be a fill site for an unknown
mix of material. The site will require an extensive
conveyance system to transport the CSOs to the site.
As such, it will not be considered further unless
other more preferable sites are eliminated during the
environmental review process.
-
Site #3 is too small to accommodate an RTF
required to treat CSOs 003 and 004 and will not be
considered further.
-
Site #5 is less desirable than others due to
previous contamination and its location on the
opposite side of the road from a large contributing
CSO.
-
Site #6 is remote from major CSOs. The conveyance
of flows from CSOs 003 and 004 would increase project
costs. Additionally, access to the site is limited due
to the presence of residences immediately adjacent to
property, which also increases potential disruption
and impacts during construction. As such this site
will not be considered further at this time.
-
Site #s 7, 8 and 9 are small and located near
smaller CSOs. These sites are considered only suitable
for the installation of FCFs.
-
Site #12 is bisected by an existing water
transmission main. This site is less desirable than
others because of concerns regarding the disturbance
of this line, which is one of the major connections to
the City water distribution system. In addition, the
site is on the opposite side of the Brook from the
CSOs thereby increasing the costs to convey the CSOs
to the site.
-
Site #13 is remote from major CSOs. The
conveyance of flows from CSOs downstream of 016 would
require pumping, thus increasing project costs. As
such, this site is less desirable than other sites
under consideration.
-
Site #14 is part of a flood control facility, as
such, it is less desirable than other sites and will
not be considered further.
-
Site #15 is suitable for the installation of a FCF.
Of the fifteen sites evaluated, three are considered
to be the best suited for an RTF, namely: #s 4, 10,
and 11.
Site #4
is a suitable site for construction of an RTF for the
abatement of lower basin CSOs. This site is a
relatively large, privately owned property and located
near CSOs 003 and 004. The site is also adjacent to
Harbor Brook and the HBIS. The site is adjacent to
commercial properties, easily accessible and is
currently undeveloped.
Site #10
is located within a city block that is primarily
vacant with some adjacent commercial and limited
residential areas. This site is near the Brook and the
HBIS and is near CSO 014, which is the largest
contributor of CSO in the upper basin. The site is
primarily undeveloped and accessible from Grand
Avenue, Seymour Street, Amy Street, Delaware Street
and Geddes Street. This site could be used to build a
new recreational or educational facility for nearby
schools. These characteristics make this site a most
suitable location for an Upper Basin RTF
Site #11
is also a suitable location for an Upper Basin RTF.
The site is located directly across Grand Avenue from
existing residences; the existing stone wall on the
site could be refurbished and some of the mature trees
could be maintained to provide a buffer. The balance
of the site and the land immediately adjacent to it is
undeveloped. Harbor Brook and the HBIS run along the
northerly limit of the site. This site is easily
accessible from Delaware Street and Grand Avenue. This
site could be used to build a new recreational or
educational facility for nearby schools. This site is
within the 100-year flood plain of Harbor Brook and
would require additional construction to protect the
proposed facilities. Also, construction at this site
would reduce an existing green space.
Site #5
is also a suitable site due to its relatively large
size and commercial setting. The site is privately
owned. The site is located near the Brook and the
HBIS. The site is easily accessible and undeveloped.
|
4. Sites
Susan Miller, Project Deputy Director
Onondaga County Dept of Water Environment Protection