Env Info Document
1. Proposed action
2. Natural resources
3. Human resources

4. Alternatives
5. Resource commitments
6. Public participation
7. References
Appendices

Facilities plan

Harbor Brook Environmental Information Document (Aug 2005)
by Brown and Caldwell and EcoLogic
for Onondaga County Dept of Water Environment Protection

4. Alternatives considered

Quick reference
— 4.1. Recommended alternative
— 4.2. Alternative siting (Brown and Caldwell 2004)
— 4.4. No action alternative

4.1. Recommended alternative

Click to enlarge

Nine scenarios are summarized in Table 4-1.
They consider a combination of technologies and approaches for the abatement of CSOs in the Harbor Brook project area were evaluated for this project. The final Facilities Plan recommends Scenario 5a as the preferred alternative for achieving required improvements. Summaries of the technologies evaluated are included in Section 4.3 of this EID. Complete descriptions of the scenarios and technologies considered are included in the final Facilities Plan (Brown and Caldwell 2004).

Under the recommended scenario (5a), approximately 50 storm events will result in the release of treated CSOs to Harbor Brook in an average year. The total annual average volume of the treated discharge would be approximately 75 million gallons.

4.2. Alternative siting (Brown and Caldwell 2004)

Fifteen potential sites, as described below, were originally evaluated as part of the CSO abatement project in Harbor Brook. Of these, four sites (#4, 5, 10, and 11) were recommended for further evaluation by project engineers. The final Facilities Plan recommends two of these, sites 4 and 10, for construction of the proposed RTFs.

The following criteria were used to screen the 17 candidate sites:

Relation to residences and businesses: This criterion considers the number of residences and businesses potentially affected by construction activities. The distance between each candidate site and nearby residences and businesses was taken into consideration.

Opportunities for public facilities and community enhancement: Each site was evaluated for opportunities to provide open space, recreational facilities, public parking, public education, and other positive community amenities.

Site Availability and Current Usage: This criterion examined current use, current ownership, and the potential for property acquisition. Whether current residents might be displaced by the project was also considered.

Engineering and operational considerations: This criterion considers compliance with the ACJ, proximity to Metro, subsurface characteristics, proximity to the Brook, distance from a major CSO, capacity of the Harbor Brook Interceptor Sewer (HBIS), flood plain issues, site topography, existing utilities in the area, existing structures on the site, potential for contamination from past uses, accessibility, and opportunities to close or consolidate CSOs.

Based on these screening criteria, the following project engineering team from Brown and Caldwell was able to rank the potential sites and eliminate several from consideration. Major findings of the screening are summarized below:

Site #1 is remote from the CSOs and is only considered suitable for receiving pumped flow from the lower basin.
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 CSO 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 the RTF required to treat CSO 003 and was not considered further.
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 in close proximity to CSs 003 and 004. The site is also adjacent to Harbor Brook and the HBIS. The site is adjacent to commercial properties. The site is easily accessible and is currently undeveloped.
Site #5 is a suitable site due to its relatively large size and commercial setting. The site is privately owned and located in close proximity to the Brook and the HBIS. The site is undeveloped and easily accessible. However, 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.
Sites #7, #8 and #9 are small and are located near smaller CSOs. These sites are considered only suitable for the installation of FCFs.
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 in close proximity to 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 highly suitable location for an Upper Basin RTF.
Site #11 is also a suitable location for an Upper Basin RTF. Although the site is located directly across from existing residences on Grand Avenue, 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, and a main potable water supply line for City of Syracuse runs adjacent to the southerly limit of the site. This site is easily accessible from Delaware Street and Grand Avenue. It could be used to build a new recreational or educational facility for nearby schools. However, 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 #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 CSO 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.

4.3. Alternative technology The Facilities Plan (Brown and Caldwell 2004) includes an extensive review and assessment of available technologies for the abatement of CSOs. These technologies are categorized as follows:

Floatables control
Net bags
Trash racks and bar screens
Weir-mounted screens
Brush screens
Rotary drums and sieves
Storage/treatment
Micro screens
Continuous deflective separation
Vortex separators
Ballasted flocculation
Wetlands treatment
Storage
Overflow retention facilities
Disinfection

In addition, different treatment approaches were evaluated, such as:

Sewer separation
Regional conveyance to Metro
Regional conveyance, and in-line storage and treatment

The Facilities Plan (Brown and Caldwell 2004) includes a detailed description of each technology or approach, including basis for design, perceived advantages and disadvantages, construction sequencing and project scheduling, permitting requirements, and estimated costs.

4.4. No action alternative

Without a CSO abatement project, Harbor Brook will continue contributing to conditions where:

Bacterial levels in Onondaga Lake exceed the coliform standards set in 6 NYCRR Part 703.4
Release of floating solids is in violation of 6 NYCRR Part 703.2.

Onondaga County is required, under the ACJ, to "design, construct, maintain, and modify and/or supplement, as necessary, a CSO control and upgrade program in accordance with NYSDEC CSO guidance". The "no action" alternative would be in violation of the requirements of the ACJ. Without CSO remedial actions in Harbor Brook, Onondaga County will not come into compliance with provisions of the State's Environmental Conservation Law or the federal Clean Water Act.