Laserfiche WebLink
o Cost and Residential Indicator vs. Indiana Recreation Season Water Quality <br />Compliance hours (all sources) <br />o Cost and Residential Indicator vs. Indiana Recreation Season Water Quality <br />Compliance hours (South Bend sources) <br />o Cost and Residential Indicator vs. Michigan Recreation Season Water Quality <br />Compliance as percentage of hours in the season when the WQ criteria is met (all <br />sources) <br />o Cost and Residential Indicator vs. Michigan Recreation Season Water Quality <br />Compliance as percentage of hours in the season when the WQ criteria is met <br />(South Bend Sources) <br />o Cost and Residential Indicator vs. Indiana Recreation Season Water Quality <br />Compliance as percentage of hours in the season when the WQ criteria is met (all <br />sources) <br />o Cost and Residential Indicator vs. Indiana Recreation Season Water Quality <br />Compliance as percentage of hours in the season when the WQ criteria is met <br />(South Bend Sources) <br />o Cost and Residential Indicator vs. 2012 EPA Revised Water Quality Criteria <br />Compliance <br />o Cost vs. Residential Indicator <br />Concept Maps (Updates of previously presented alternative maps) <br />o Existing Long-term Control Plan <br />o Preferred Alternative Plan <br />* Cost Summary Table for Alternatives <br />Task 1.4: Documentation of 5-year LTCP Review A summary document will be prepared for <br />transmittal to IDEM to satisfy the requirements for the 5-year review of the CLIENT's LTCP. The <br />document will include results from the 2016 FCA Update geographical review from Task 1.1, charts, <br />maps, and the cost summary table from Task 1.2 and a narrative summary of the process used by the <br />CLIENT to review the LTCP and formulate a proposed alternative. A key focus of the document will be <br />to explain in clear and compelling fashion why the alternative approach proposed by the CLIENT <br />represents a significantly better strategy than the current LTCP for successfully improving the CLIENT's <br />management of its combined sewer system and achieving improved levels of water quality in the St. <br />Joseph River. A preliminary outline of the proposed document will be prepared upon notice -to -proceed <br />from the CLIENT. Upon receipt of comments on the outline from the CLIENT and its Legal Team, <br />CONSULTANT will prepare a draft of the review document and submit it to the CLIENT and its Legal <br />Team for review. Upon receipt of comments, CONSULTANT will revise and submit a final version of <br />the package to the CLIENT. <br />Task 1.5: Meeting with IDEM/USEPA — Following the CLIENT's review of the outline for the 5-year <br />review document, CONSULTANT will participate in a conference call with City staff and the CLIENT's <br />Legal Team to formulate a strategy for a meeting with IDEM/USEPA. Based on input from the Legal <br />Team, CONSULTANT will prepare presentation materials to accompany the 5 year review document and <br />be used in the meeting with IDEM/USEPA. CONSULTANT will work through two review cycles of the <br />presentation materials with the CLIENT and the Legal Team prior to finalizing the package for <br />presentation and submittal to IDEM/USEPA. Members of the CONSULTANT Team will participate in a <br />meeting with the CLIENT, its Legal Team, IDEM, and USEPA to present the CLIENT's proposal for <br />modification of its LTCP. Following the meeting, the Stantee Team will provide written documentation <br />of the meeting to the CLIENT and its Legal Team. <br />