Frequently Asked Questions on the Lower Mill Creek Partial Remedy (LMCPR)
Get the facts on the Lower Mill Creek Partial Remedy. Learn about project costs, compliance with the Clean Water Act and more in these LMCPR FAQs. (Also available as a PDF.)
1. Have the project costs for the Lick Run Alternative doubled?
No. In August 2010, the construction cost developed for the Lick Run Alternative was estimated to be approximately $130 million. In order to make an apples-to-apples comparison to the default solution (the tunnel), capital costs were added to the $130 million construction cost for a total estimated cost of $195 million (referenced in the study for Lick Run). Capital costs include construction costs plus the costs for engineering, inspection, financing, right-of-way acquisition, and other capital related expenses.
To say that the cost has doubled for the sustainable alternative project proposed for Lick Run is not accurate. The $317 million project estimate not only includes the Lick Run Alternative but also includes projects in the West Fork and Kings Run watersheds, as well as the real-time control facility in the Bloody Run watershed.
2. Why has the cost estimate for the tunnel changed from the original estimate?
At the direction of the USEPA, the default tunnel solution was conceptualized in the final Wet Weather Improvement Plan (WWIP) as a default planning level conceptual solution. All parties (the Regulators, Hamilton County, City of Cincinnati and MSD) knew the default tunnel solution cost was a conceptual planning estimate, and that it was developed without any field engineering or analysis undertaken to inform the conceptual cost. This approach is standard practice on capital improvement projects of this magnitude as it reduces the cost for ratepayers of an initial detailed analysis that may not be relevant as the project advances and the concepts are revised.
3. What if the original project cost exceeds community affordability?
Because of the concern about potential costs, the Regulators, City of Cincinnati and Hamilton County negotiated "triggers" within the Consent Decree that could provide more time or other modifications should the costs exceed the original estimate.
As part of the Lower Mill Creek study outlined in the final WWIP, the Consent Decree allows for an examination of alternatives to the default tunnel through a three-year study which include refinements to the planning level costs. As part of this study, an updated default "grey" solution was developed and designed to nearly 60% level of detail based on detailed field engineering that provided a more accurate assessment of the project realities. The design was developed to achieve a significant volume reduction of the combined sewer overflows (CSOs) within the Lower Mill Creek in order to achieve the goals of the final WWIP. All of these changes resulted in the updated cost estimate.
4. Will this project the Lower Mill Creek Partial Remedy meet the Consent Decree requirements?
Yes, any Lower Mill Creek Partial Remedy (LMCPR) will comply and meet requirements under the final WWIP and Consent Decree.
5. Will the proposed solutions for the project meet water quality standards?
Any LMCPR will comply and meet requirements under the final WWIP and Consent Decree to comply with the Clean Water Act. Under the Clean Water Act, water quality standards apply to streams, not projects. The statement referenced from the presentation to the City of Cincinnati, "Any approach the co-defendants pursue will NOT achieve the fecal coliform standard," refers to the fact that after a ¾-inch rainstorm, the Mill Creek as it enters Hamilton County does not meet the bacteria standard–regardless of any impact or improvement to the MSD combined system. The bottom line? Even if all the CSOs were removed, the Mill Creek would still not meet the bacteria (fecal coliform) standards because the standard is being exceeded at the county line, well upstream of the first overflow.
6. How does MSD determine where to invest resources?
MSD is committed to improving public health and the environment. With compliance with the Consent Decree and final WWIP, MSD is committed to finding the most cost-effective solutions for its ratepayers. MSD conducts detailed engineering and technical analysis, and considers USEPA’s integrated approach to work with partners to identify those cost-effective solutions.
7. How are project costs being covered–who is paying for this?
MSD is committed to ensuring that MSD ratepayers only pay for MSD responsibilities. MSD is collaborating with multiple governmental, nonprofit and other entities to find the best and lowest cost to achieve compliance. The complexity of "integrated" solutions requires continual engagement with multiple agencies across Hamilton County and the City of Cincinnati to ensure parks, roadways, community development, and other issues are integrated properly. MSD has worked diligently to track costs and account for them in good faith.
8. How is MSD addressing historical and cultural issues under the proposed Lick Run Alternative concept?
Historical and cultural issues have been an important area of focus in MSD's efforts to-date on developing the Lick Run Alternative concept. MSD has had discussions with its citizen advisory committee (the Communities of the Future Advisory Committee or CFAC), and federal agencies. Community members have also provided input, as historical and cultural issues were prominently featured in the three community design workshops where input was solicited from the South Fairmount community.
Given the current status of the proposed project, a federal lead agency has not been defined for compliance with Section 106; Section 106 is an obligation of a federal agency to perform. However MSD has taken actions to initiate a process consistent with Section 106 regulatory standards. This assessment of potential project affects on historic properties has been undertaken by MSD out of an abundance of due diligence and commitment to community input.
In light of the fact that this stage of the project will not involve federal agency compliance with Section 106, MSD has decided to take a Best Management Practice (BMP) approach to cultural resource management interests. This approach was developed to consider and address potential historical issues and move forward on decisions under an established BMP process so that a lead agency - should one be defined in the future–can review and understand project related decisions, including community input.