Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Challenges with implementing_gi_in_onondaga_county_nycom-pws_oct2011

1,805

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,805
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Challenges Implementing Green I f G Infrastructure S l i Solutions in Onondaga CountyJoanne M. Mahoney, County ExecutiveJoanne M Mahoney County ExecutiveOnondaga Lake Amended Consent Judgment (ACJ) Compliance Program Matthew Millea, Onondaga County Deputy County Executive for Physical Services Matthew Marko, P.E., BCEE, Vice President CH2M HILL
  • 2. 10/25/11Onondaga County, g y, City f Syracuse Cit of S 2 New York Onondaga Lake Onondaga Creek • 7,660 acres • 49 CSOs Harbor Brook • ~1 Billion gallons/year CSO g /y
  • 3. 10/25/11 3 AGENDA• Program History and Consent Order Overview• G Green I f Infrastructure: Wh is it? and Why are we doing it? What i i ? d Wh d i i?• Onondaga County GI Program Compliance Summary• City of Syracuse Civic Strip: Pledge and Action y y p g• 2010 Save the Rain Projects and Case Studies• PROJECT 50! Projects and Green Initiatives• Green Improvement Fund: Nation’s Best Public Private Partnership• Education and Outreach• GI Maintenance• Summary of Challenges Overcome and Looking Forward to 2018 ▫ Questions and Answers
  • 4. 10/25/11 4But First First…..
  • 5. 10/25/11 Informal Survey of NYCOM PWS PWS… 51. Have you ever heard of Green Infrastructure (GI)?2.2 If so, what d h t does it mean t you? to ? (stormwater management? energy savings? other?)3. What are your biggest fears about implementing GI?4. What are your biggest hurdles to implementing GI (regulatory? management? workers/staff on the ground? financial? thats not the way g / ff g f y we do things around here?)5. Will you hear anything today that helps overcome those challenges? Please take a moment to answer any/all of the questions on the forms provided and we’ll collect them after the we ll presentation
  • 6. What We’ve Learned To Address This Truth….
  • 7. 10/25/11 7Addressing Challenges Head On: dd h ll d1.1 Establish a Forum to resolve policy issues issues,2. Demonstrate key technologies early in the program,3. Incentivize GI (e.g. Green Improvement Fund),4. Add Green Infrastructure onto existing capital projects, and5.5 Have a world class website. website www.savetherain.us
  • 8. 10/25/11• 1988 – Atlantic States Legal Foundation History 8 files lawsuit against County• 1989 – Litigation settled through METRO consent judgment Onondaga Lake Facts• 1998 – METRO consent judgment replaced with Amended Consent Watershed: 285 Square Miles Judgment (ACJ) 1 Mile Wide – 4.6 Miles Long• 1st ACJ amendment May 1998• 2006 ACJ Amended to include Average Depth: 35 feet g p consolidation of ammonia and phosphorus treatment and Harbor Max Depth: 63 feet Brook conveyances and RTF y 1940 – Swimming Banned• 3rd Amendment April 2008 (Extension)• 2009 ACJ amended to authorize use of 1970 – Fishing Banned Gray and Green infrastructure
  • 9. ACJ Compliance Projects Completed to Date ( p j p (1998-2008) ) Total Investment: $367 million 1. Aeration System Upgrade y pg 21. Siphon Rehabilitation p 2. Odor Control - residual handling and clarifiers 22. Teall Brook FCF 3. Chemical Storage Building and Feed System 23. West St. Sewer Separation (CSOs 057, 058, 059) 4. Digester and Lagoon Improvements 24. Water St. Sewer Separation (CSO 024) 5. Phase II Plant Improvements 25. Brighton Sewer Separation (CSOs 053, 054) 6. Ammonia Removal Pilot l l 26. 6 Ammonia Source Trackdown Program A i S kd 7. Phosphorus Removal Pilot – Phase I 27. Tallman/Onondaga Sewer Separation (CSOs 038, 040, 8. Digital System Upgrade 046a and 046b) 9. Ammonia Removal – BAF 28. Midland Phase II (includes Regional Storage and Treatment Facility plus 1,000 ft. pipeline) 10. Phosphorus Removal – HRFS 29. Phosphorus Removal Pilot – Phase II 11. CSO Toxicity Evaluation Report 30. Biosolids Handling (mechanical thickeners) 12. Erie Boulevard Storage System Upgrade Improvements – Metro 13. Franklin St. FCF 31. South Ave./Bissell St. Sewer Separation (CSOs 047 and 14. Harbor Brook FCF 048) 4 ) 15. Hiawatha RTF 32. Sewer Separation 050 – Parkway/Rockland 16. Kirkpatrick St. Pump Station Upgrade 33. Clinton Conveyances Phase 1 – pipeline outside the 17. Maltbie St. FCF Trolley Lot & Armory Square 18. Midland Phase I Pipeline 34. Clinton Conveyances Phase 2A – pipeline behind the 19. 19 Newell St. Pilot Disinfection St MOST under RR 20. Onondaga Creek FCF - Boat 35. Sewer Separation 051 – Colvin Avenue
  • 10. 10/25/11 10 Water Quality Improvements W t Q lit I tAmmonia decreased from 8,000 pounds per day (ppd) to less than 50 ppd Phosphorus decreased from 300 ppd to 50 ppd
  • 11. 4th ACJ Amendment Authorized a 11 10/25/11Balanced Approach to CSO Abatement Regulatory Goals Community Impacts/Goals • Capture and Treat 95% of the • Improve quality of life Annual CSO Volume via Gray y • Promote Sustainability & Green Infrastructure • Ensure cost effectiveness in • Achieve water quality compliance with ACJ standards in tributaries and milestones lake Major Milestones • 89.5% capture/elimination by 12/31/2013 • 95% capture/elimination by 12/31/2018 p / y / /
  • 12. Gray Infrastructure Program y g Projects Identified in 4th StipulationGray P jG Projects• Harbor Brook Interceptor (ARRA)• Midland Conveyance (C O 044) C y (CSO• Clinton Storage Facility and Electrical Ductbank• H b B k St Harbor Brook Storage F ilit Facility and Conveyances• Erie Boulevard Storage System (EBSS) Gate Ch b #3 I G Chamber Improvement• Sewer separation projects• Floatables Control Facilities
  • 13. Gray Program Construction Schedule y g 10/25/11 13CSO 022/045 Sewer SeparationConsent Order Milestones: Complete Construction: 12/31/12Construction Period: October 2011 – July 2012Clinton Storage FacilityConsent Order Milestones: Commence Construction: 10/1/11 Complete Construction: 12/31/13Construction Period: September 2011 – December 2013 p 3Lower Harbor Brook Conveyances:Consent Order Milestones: Commence Construction: 12/31/11 Complete Construction: 12/31/13Construction Period: October 2011 – July 2012Lower Harbor Brook Storage:Consent Order Milestones: Commence Construction: 12/31/11 Complete Construction: 12/31/13Construction Period: November 2011 – December 2013Electrical Duct Bank on West Fayette Street (Part of Clinton Storage Project)Consent Order Milestones: d il N/A /Construction Schedule: September 2011 – November 2011
  • 14. Midland Ave RTF
  • 15. Save the Rain Program
  • 16. 10/25/11 16What is Green I f t t ?Wh t i G Infrastructure?Adaptable term used to describe an array ofproducts, technologies, and practices that usenatural systems – or engineered systems, thatmimic natural processes to enhance overallenvironmental quality and provide utility servicesWhat do WE use it for?Primarily, to capture rainwater during storm eventsto reduce the need for more “gray” infrastructure
  • 17. Why ? GreenInfrastructure ast uctu e
  • 18. 10/25/11W y G eeWhy Green Infrastructure ? ast uctu e 18Your Water Quality Suffers• 8 % of pollution t th aquatic environment 80% f ll ti to the ti i t comes from land-based sources, such as runoff pollution• New York has identified nonpoint sources as the i th primary cause of water quality problems f t lit bl in 91% of its priority waterbodies• Once a watershed’s impervious cover exceeds 20%, water quality begins to suffer
  • 19. 10/25/11 19How GI Has Shifted the Paradigm Paradigm… Why are you We want GI in spending all that the suburbs! money in the City? “YIMBY” NIMBY !!! Porous Pavers at Hotel Skyler
  • 20. 10/25/116% Capture Using Green Infrastructure p g 20- Green 470 acres and reduce 247 MG/yr of CSO by 2018
  • 21. 10/25/11Green Infrastructure Programs matched to 21Impervious Area Types Impervious Area Green Infrastructure • Streets Type Technologies • Parks & Open Space Flat Roof Buildings Vegetated Roof • Parking Parking Areas & • Public Facilities Porous Pavements, Bioretention Sidewalks • Roofs Green Streets (Bioretention, Street • Drainage area & Roadways Trees) Model M d l Downspout Disconnection Refinements Pitched Rooftops Rain Barrels & Cisterns • Private Lands ▫ GIF Rain Gardens ▫ Ordinance Combination of the Above ▫ Rate Incentive Facilities & Schools Technologies ▫ Strategic Partners PScattered across Public and Private Properties
  • 22. Implementation Program Development p g p 10/25/11 22Framework Review Evaluate Adapt Program Where What How Who How Much Primary GI Target Impervious Technology Implementation Owner Reduction Area A (e.g. Rain ( g R i Strategy St t g / Status Garden) Public Outreach & Partnering Projects Private Planning & Engineering Resource Management Procurement Field Survey / Environmental y Tracking & Monitoring
  • 23. Project Development Process j p 10/25/11 23Project Concept Development Environmental Assessment Survey ment Infiltration Testing Procurem Design Owner Approval pp Yes Permitting (Y/N) Revise Construction Concept SDCs No Evaluate / Remove Policy Barriers Bi Weekly Bi-Weekly City / County Projects by j y Project Tracking Meeting Others
  • 24. System-wide GI CSO Reduction: 2011 Opportunity 10/25/11 24 CSO Reduction:  Target CSO Volume  CSO Reduction:  Additional CSO  Target CSO Volume  Projects  Reduction 2011 Candidate   Reduction Required  Reduction (gal) (g ) Completed/ Under  p / (% of Total) (% f T t l) Projects (gal) P j t ( l) through 2018 (gal) th h 2018 ( l) Construction (gal) Streets 89,940,000 36% 2,165,000 13,895,000 73,880,000Parks & Open SpaceP k &O S 13,992,000 13 992 000 6% 1,069,000 1 069 000 16,711,000 16 711 000 ‐3,788,000 3 788 000 Parking 12,184,000 5% 2,543,000 2,977,000 6,664,000 Public Facilities 14,003,000 6% 418,000 9,482,000 4,103,000 Roofs 3,201,000 1% 63,000 3,657,000 519,000Impervious Area Data 29,800,000 12% 29,800,000 0 0 Voluntary 11,372,000 5% 520,000 2,750,000 8,102,000Green Improvement Green Improvement 11,372,000 5% 1,132,000 1,318,000 8,922,000 Fund (GIF) Ordinance 46,257,000 19% 3,334,000 0 42,923,000 Impervious Area  Impervious Area 3,452,000 1% 0 0 3,452,000Based Rate Incentive Non GIF Incentive 11,372,000 5% 305,000 1,555,000 9,512,000 TOTAL 247,000,000 100% 41,350,000 52,350,000 153,300,000
  • 25. 10/25/11Annual GI CSO Capture 25
  • 26. Concentrated Green Infrastructure
  • 27. Onondaga County 10/25/11 27Civic StripGreening County Facilities UtilizingMultiple Green Infrastructure pTechnologiesShowed to judge in 2009Completed or in construction
  • 28. OnCenter Convention Center 60,000 Square Foot Green Roof GI Technology: h l Green Rooff Project Owner: Onondaga County Capture Area: 59,000 square feet Runoff Reduction: 1,033,000 gallons/yr Construction Cost:  $1,038,000 (bid) bd $/gallon:  $1.00
  • 29. 10/25/11 29
  • 30. Onondaga County 10/25/11 31Civic StripGreening County Facilities UtilizingMultiple Green Infrastructure pTechnologies
  • 31. War Memorial Water ReuseReusing rainwater appears to allow the ice making to occur one to twodegrees warmer than using potable water resulting in energy savings
  • 32. War Memorial Water Reuse GI Technology: gy Rain cistern Capture Area: 44,000 square feet Runoff Reduction: 400,000 gallons/yr Construction Cost:  $1,229,000 (bid) GI Grant:  $720,000 $/gallon:  $4.33 without grant $1.79 with grant Estimated Annual Potable Water Savings: 127,000‐300,000 gallons
  • 33. 10/25/11Civic Strip: Harrison Street p 34 GI Technology: Bioretention Project Owner: City of Syracuse Capture Area: p 10,000 square feet Runoff Reduction: 180,000 gallons/yrBEFORE: Stormwater enters AFTER: Stormwater is Construction Cost: catch basins and is directly diverted to Green Streetsconnected to sewer and only overflows to sewer $121,200 (bid) when necessary h $/gallon:  $0.67
  • 34. 10/25/11Civic Strip: OnCenter Municipal Parking Garage 36 GI Technology: Roof leaders to rain  R f l d     i   gardens Project Owner: County Capture Area: 7 ,5 72,500 square feet q Runoff Reduction: 1,277,000 gallons/year Construction Cost:  C i  C   $234,000 (bid) $/gallon:  $0.26
  • 35. 10/25/11OnCenter Surface Parking Lot g 37 GI Technology: Perimeter porous  asphalt and tree h l   d  infiltration trench Project Owner: County Capture Area: 134,000 square feet 34, q Runoff Reduction: 2,360,000 gallons/year Construction Cost:  C i  C   $812,000 (bid) $/gallon: $0.48
  • 36. 10/25/11 39Townsend Parking Lot (“Lot B”) & Townsend Median
  • 37. 10/25/11 40Vegetated Infiltration Beds, 90 Trees Planted
  • 38. Volume capture: 975,000 gallons/year
  • 39. County Townsend Lot: y 10/25/11 43Project Completion Report• Lot construction completed on schedule ▫ Binder/base course pavement in 2010 ▫ Top course and some plantings completed in spring 2011• Technical comments ▫ Stormwater details and specifications ▫ Plant species selection (salt tolerance) ▫ Planting locations – offset more properly with parking spaces ▫ Paving P i materials i l• CSO reduction 692,000 gallons/year• Cost impacts ▫ Bid $342,000 (estimated portion) ▫ Change order $0 ▫ Total cost $342,000 ▫ $0.51/gallon ll
  • 40. Townsend Median Rehabilitation 10/25/11 44
  • 41. 10/25/11 45Median Rehabilitation • R Remove i impervious i pavers • Re-grade profile for Re grade stormwater capture • Plant large canopy, salt tolerant trees • Maintain pedestrian crosswalks
  • 42. GI Technology: Pavement removal Project Owner: County Capture Area: 18,000 square feet Runoff Reduction: 317,000 gallons/yr 317 000 gallons/yrMedian vegetation planted in Spring 2011 Construction Cost:  Volume capture: 317,000 gallons/year $86,000 $/gallon: $0.38
  • 43. Everson Plaza Concept
  • 44. Onondaga County 10/25/11 48Civic StripGreening County Facilities UtilizingMultiple Green Infrastructure pTechnologies 5.6 Million Gallons Promised and Delivered
  • 45. Project Case Study
  • 46. Example Demonstration Project: p jCity Parking Lot #21
  • 47. Parking g 10/25/11 51 How Who How Much Where What Target  Target CSO  CSO  Area /  Primary Green  Implementation Strategy   Implementation Strategy Reduction  Volume  Reduction VolumeProgram Impervious  Infrastructure  Owner (5) Volume  Reduction  Source (1) Technology (2)  (gal) (% of  Total) 03‐ Reconstruct City/County  Parking ‐ Public Porous Pavement City/County 6,510,000 3%Parking Lots
  • 48. 10/25/11 52Porous Pavement / Infiltration PracticesDesign Assumptions / Guidelines• S i storage of fi i h of runoff Static f first inch f ff • M i Maximum surface grade change of f d h f• Maximum loading ratio of 10:1 1-2 feet; steeper sloped areas may (impervious area to infiltration warrant a change in bottom area); 5:1 is preferred elevation (via berms or other)• Geotextile liner separating rock • U Upper 3” of th i filt ti b d ” f the infiltration bed from soil (non-woven or woven… or subgrade should be scarified prior sand?) to bed installation (if necessary)• Impervious liner where needed • Total facility depth should between (proximity to utilities, buildings, 24-31 i h (f t consideration) inches (frost id ti ) etc) • Protect existing utilities• Observation well and cleanouts • Setbacks:• Perforated distribution pipe and/or pp / • 10ft to buildings with basements g underdrain • 3ft to buildings without basements• Dewater within 72 hours • 3ft from utility structures, vents,• Level bed/trench bottom poles, etc • Overflows for larger storm volumes
  • 49. 10/25/11 53A Variety of Porous Pavement Systems Can be Used Porous ConcretePorous Pavers Porous Asphalt Porous Resin Bonded Aggregate
  • 50. City Lot #21 – y 10/25/11 Infiltration Trench, Porous Pavers 54 Volume capture: 462,000 gallons/year Before
  • 51. 10/25/11 55Case Study: City Lot #21(formerly the “Farmer’s Market Lot”)• Design Components: • Impervious area managed:• 5,000sf infiltration system 26,250sf• Tree trench (2,000sf) with porous • Infiltration area: 5,000sf (loading pavers and 36” of CU-Structural ratio of 5.3:1) Soil • Runoff capture goal ( ”) 2,190cf ff l (1”): f• Aggregate infiltration bed under • 6 new trees standard asphalt (31” deep) • Total soil: 6,000cf (1,000cf per• Inlet filter inserts tree)• Entire lot repaved (standard • Total static storage capacity: asphalt) and restriped (6 more 4,200cf spaces) (equates to around 2.1” of runoff• T Two outlet control structures with tl t t l t t ith capture) weirs (connection to existing storm sewer)• Infiltration testing yielded a rate of 20 i /h f in/hr
  • 52. 10/25/11 56
  • 53. 10/25/11 57
  • 54. 10/25/11 58
  • 55. 10/25/11 59
  • 56. 10/25/11 60Case Study: City Lot #21C St d Cit L t• Stormwater Details and Specifications •C Concrete structures preferred t t t f d • Overflow weir plates • Concerns over inlet filter inserts (maintenance)
  • 57. 10/25/11 61Case Study: City Lot #21C St d Cit L t• Trees and Plantings • Temporary maintenance: emphasize/enforce temporary irrigation and initial pruning • Species selection and maintenance streamlined in the future with the City/County A b i Ci /C Arborist
  • 58. 10/25/11 62Case Study: City Lot #21C St d Cit L t• Subsurface Materials • Infiltration bed stone availability: NYSDOT #3A is typically the cleanest, most available stone i the size range d i d h l il bl in h i desired • CU-Structural Soil Handling/Acceptance: ensure contractor provides appropriate cover and maintenance and perform maintenance, testing if needed• Porous paver edge termination
  • 59. 10/25/11 63City Parking Lot #21 - Project Completion Report• 1st GI Program Project• C Completed on accelerated schedule l t d l t d h d l• Technical comments ▫ Stormwater details and specifications p ▫ Trees and plantings ▫ Subsurface materials ▫ Paving materials• CSO reduction 328,000 gallons/year• Cost impacts ▫ Bid $179,300 d ▫ Change order $8,746 (4.8%) ▫ Total cost $188,046 ▫ $0.57/gallon
  • 60. Case Study #2
  • 61. 10/25/11 65 Owner: NYS DOT(managed by City of Syracuse)
  • 62. Pearl Street Parking Lot
  • 63. Pearl Street Parking Lot AFTER
  • 64. Manages adjacent impervious areas CSO reduction 915,000 gallons/year
  • 65. 10/25/11DOT owner, City managed, County designed and financed 69 Over Salting Over-Salting in Winter
  • 66. Case Study: Pearl Street Lot 10/25/11 70• Design Components: • 25,300sf infiltration system 5,3 y • Porous asphalt (1.5”) on 3” of asphalt treated permeable base (ATPB) • Aggregate infiltration bed under both standard and porous asphalt (24” deep) • I l t filter inserts and sumps Inlet filt i t d• Entire lot repaved (some standard asphalt), restriped• One outlet control structure with removable weir (connection to existing combined sewer)• Infiltration testing was variable, but yielded an average rate of g , y g 7 in/hr (2 in/hr used for design)
  • 67. 10/25/112-Layer Porous Asphalt Co st uct o aye o ous sp a t Construction 71 Overflow Weir
  • 68. 10/25/11 72Finished Porous vs. Non-Porous Asphalt Surface
  • 69. 10/25/11 73Case Study: Pearl Street Lot St d : • Design Components: i • Impervious area managed: 73,172sf • I filt ti area: 25,300sf (loading ratio of 2.9:1) Infiltration f (l di ti f ) • Runoff capture goal (1”): 6,098cf • Total static storage capacity: 10,120cf (equates to around 10 120cf 1.7” of runoff capture) • Dewatering time: 24 hours ( g 4 (100-year storm) y )
  • 70. 10/25/11 74
  • 71. 10/25/11 75
  • 72. 10/25/11 76Pearl Street Lot • Subsurface Utility Location – coordinate with utilities early; y y; lack of response or delayed response resulted in field directives •U f Unforeseen C diti Conditions • Subsurface structure demolition: multiple building foundations were encountered • Balance research costs with schedule and field directive costs • Ample public notification
  • 73. 10/25/11DOT Pearl Street Lot: 77Project Completion Report• Completed on schedule ▫ Many new catch basins ▫ Repaired deep trunk sewer manhole• T h i l comments Technical t ▫ Subsurface utility location ▫ Unforeseen conditions ▫ P bli Outreach Public O t h• CSO reduction 915,000 gallons/year• Cost impacts ▫ Bid $367,000 ▫ Change order $29,772 ▫ Total cost $396,772 ▫ $0.43/gallon $ / ll
  • 74. Case Study
  • 75. 10/25/11 79City L tCit Lot #3 - B f Before
  • 76. City Parking Lot #3 - Concept
  • 77. City Parking Lot #3 y g After Construction Porous Concrete Captures over 628,000 gallons of stormwater annually
  • 78. 10/25/11 82City LCi Lot #3 – D i C Design Components• 8,380sf infiltration system ,3 y • Impervious area managed:• Tree trench with 36” of CU- 38,507sf Structural Soil • Infiltration area: 8,380sf• 6” porous concrete / aggregate (loading ratio of 4.6:1) infiltration bed (23” deep) (23 • Runoff capture goal (1”): 3,209cf (1 ): 3 209cf• Interior tree plantings • 23 new trees• Inlet filter inserts and sumps • Total soil: 7,650cf (333cf per• Entire lot repaved (standard tree, not including existing soil asphalt) and restriped volume along edge)• One outlet control structure • Total static storage capacity: with removable weir 3,392cf (equates to around 1.1” (connection to existing storm of runoff capture) sewer) • D Dewatering ti t i time: 72 h hours ((100-• Infiltration testing yielded an year storm) average rate of 0.48 in/hr (0.24 in/hr used for design)
  • 79. 10/25/11 83
  • 80. 10/25/11 84
  • 81. 10/25/11 85
  • 82. 10/25/11 86During…
  • 83. 10/25/11 87Porous concrete spec requires NRMCA certified installer
  • 84. 10/25/11City Lot #3 88 • Stormwater Details and Specifications • Inlet restoration – check if necessary • Porous Concrete • Test pad quality control • Letter to contractor noting concerns with aggregate, aggregate water retarder water content retarder, • Site installation permitted as 2nd “test pad” • Cold weather placement: 7 days curing time per specified temperature requirements
  • 85. 10/25/11 City Lot #3 - Project Completion Report 89• Completed on schedule• Technical comments ▫ Subsurface details and specifications ▫ Porous concrete quality control q y• CSO reduction 481,000 gallons/year• Cost impacts ▫ Bid $235 000 $235,000 ▫ Change order $4,100 (1.7%) ▫ Total cost $239,100 ▫ $0.50/gallon $ / ll
  • 86. Project 50
  • 87. 10/25/11Porous Concrete Sidewalk on Grand Avenue 91
  • 88. 10/25/11Porous Concrete Sidewalk Demonstration 92• Surface runoff infiltrates to stone reservoir and soil• Captures sidewalk runoff and adjacent pavement areas• 560 square foot section; volume capture: 10,000 gallons/year
  • 89. 10/25/11Porous Concrete Sidewalk Demonstration 93
  • 90. 10/25/11Spencer Street 94 • Simple solution for p industrial area • Infiltration trench / swale
  • 91. Syracuse, NY – Gorland Ave 10/25/11 95 Road repaving project “Low tech” solution to erosion problem
  • 92. Gorland Avenue AfterBefore
  • 93. Rosamond Gifford ZooPrimate Exhibit and Courtyard Rain Barrels and Cisterns to harvest runoff from rooftops Porous Pavement P P t in Courtyard Rain G d R i Garden along l Primate Exhibit
  • 94. 98 Rosamond Gifford Zoo Elephant Exhibit, 2011 GI Technology: 6,000 sq.ft. Green roof Green Roof Project Owner: Countyy Capture Area:Porous pavement 6,000 square feet and rain barrels for Runoff Reduction: ff d stormwater 114,000 gallons/year reuse Construction Cost:  $183,900 $/gallon: $2.27
  • 95. Creekwalk Project Greening: Jefferson to Walton j g Porous Asphalt Strip in Parking Lot Before Bioretention Bi i Rain Garden Flexi-pave Flexi pave Porous Walkway Porous Asphalt Volume capture: 135,000 gallons/year Parking Lot
  • 96. 10/25/11 100
  • 97. Creekwalk Project Greening: Walton to Fayette j g y Porous Concrete Porous Asphalt Strip in Parking Lot Before Re-established Natural Stream Bank Volume capture: 119,000 gallons/year
  • 98. CSO Treatment Wetland Project CSO 018 Constructed Wetland Harbor Brook
  • 99. Treatment Wetland Eliminates CSO 018 10/25/11 103 (up to design storm)• 144 Acre CSO b i A basin• 40 overflows / year• Significant Nutrient Removal• Partner with SUNY ESF
  • 100. Constructed Wetlands Pilot Treatment System y3 wetland types: 1) floating island; 2) vertical down flow; 3) surface flow GI Technology: Constructed wetland pilot with grit & floatables pre‐treatment Project Owner: County Tributary CSO Area: 145 acres Site Area:  35 acres Wetland Area:  2 acres CSO Event Frequency: 40 CSOs/year Treatment Volume: 13,600,000 gallons/year 3, , g y Construction Cost:  $2,490,000 (estimated) $/Gallon:  $0.17 Pilot Monitoring Period: 2 years
  • 101. 10/25/11 105H-05: Green R f at HH 05 G Roof t Hazard B d Branch Lib h Library • R f Membrane 2010 Roof M b • Green Planting, Spring 2011 •563,000 gallons/year CSO reduction 5 3, g /y
  • 102. 10/25/11Erie Canal Museum and Visitor Center 106 GI Technology: Green roof G   f Project Owner: County Capture Area: 2,000 square feet Runoff Reduction: Runoff Reduction 39,000 gallons/year Construction Cost:  $73,480 (bid) 8  (bid) $/gallon: $2.62
  • 103. 10/25/11City Road Reconstruction: Concord Place107GI Technology: Infiltration BedProject Owner: City of SyracuseCapture Area:C  A 39,000 square feet    fRun‐off Reduction: 955,000 gallons/yearConstruction Cost: $78,970$/gallon: $0.12Status: completed Concord Place (looking south) Conceptual design showing standard asphalt with the subsurface infiltration bed
  • 104. 10/25/11City Road Reconstruction: 108 Geddes StreetGI Technology:GI Technolog BioretentionProject Owner: City of SyracuseCapture Area: 29,700 square feetRun‐off Reduction: 523,000 gallons/yearConstruction Cost: $203,000 (bid)$/gallon: g $0.55Status: completed
  • 105. Water Street Gateway Project y j 10/25/11 109– under construction GI Technology: Infiltration trench  and porous pavers Project Owner: City of Syracuse Capture Area: 53,000 square feet    f t Runoff Reduction: 924,000 gallons/yr Construction Cost:  $920,000 (bid) $/gallon: $1.00 $/gallon: $1 00
  • 106. 10/25/11 Linking with Major Transportation Reconstruction g j p 110 Creates Green Progress (Phase 1 - 10.4 Acres) Phase 1 – 10 4 Acres 10.4Image – Barton & Loguidice
  • 107. 10/25/11Connective Corridor 111 Capture Area: Capture Area: 7.5 acres 7 5 acres Run‐off Reduction: 5,7 MG /year Construction Cost: $ $948,700 (bid) , ( ) $/gallon runoff removed $0.17   $ /gallon CSO removed   $0.26
  • 108. Connective Corridor 10/25/11 112 Image – Barton & Loguidice
  • 109. 10/25/11E 36:E-36: Sunnycrest Park Arena Parking Lot 113 GI Technology: Porous pavement Rain garden Project Owner: Syracuse Parks Dept. S  P k  D t Capture Area: 107,000 square feet Run‐off Reduction: 1,876,000 gallons/year Construction Cost:  $303,000 (bid) $/gallon: $0.22 Map of Proposed Sunnycrest Arena Parking Lot Project
  • 110. E-16: Sunnycrest Park Golf Parking Lot y g 10/25/11 115 •GI Technology: Stream Inflow Removal Rain garden Pavement Removal •Project Owner: City of Syracuse Parks Dept. City of Syracuse Parks Dept •Capture Area: 48,000 square feet •Run‐off Reduction:  843,000 gallons/yr Construction Cost: •Construction Cost: $363,000 (bid) •$/gallon: $0.52
  • 111. 10/25/11Rosamond Gifford Zoo Entrance Enhancement 116 •GI Technology: Rain gardens R i   d •Project Owner: County/City •Capture Area: 39,000 square feet •Run off Reduction   •Run‐off Reduction:  680,000 gallons/year •Construction Cost: $300,000 (bid) •$/gallon: $0.62 Green Infrastructure Concept for the Zoo Entrance  p
  • 112. 10/25/11 117Street Tree Plantings – 8,500 b 2018 l by GI Technology: 600 trees Project Owner: various Capture Area: 53,000 square feet Runoff Reduction: 1,200,000 gallons/year Construction Cost:  $122,350 (bid) $/gallon: $0.10
  • 113. 10/25/11Enhanced Tree Planting: g 118Urban Tree Trenches • Porous Pavers • Structural Soil • Pretreatment • Overflow • Underdrain
  • 114. 10/25/11 Structural Soil Systems Allow 119 119 for Adequate Rooting Volume and Provide Stormwater Management OpportunitiesDeveloped by Cornell’s UrbanHorticulture InstituteMeets engineering requirements forpaved surfaces d fAllows roots to grow freely under andaway from pavementSilva Cell lk h i from t rootsReduces sidewalk heaving fR d id tree tMade of crushed stone, clay loam, andhydrogel stabilizerCan extend tree life from 10 years to 50years StrataCell Modular St M d l Storage U it ? Units? (e.g. StormTank) Photo: Country View, Inc.
  • 115. 10/25/11Goal: Provide 400-1200 cubic feet of soil per120 400 1200 tree (varies depending on size & species) Porous Hardscape or Standard or Porous Groundcover Paving Planting Trench Soil Cells or Structural Soil Soil & Stormwater Infiltration Bed/ Root Zone Rendering by Viridian Landscape Studio
  • 116. Downtown Streetscape Project at p j 10/25/11 121200 Block of Montgomery Street GI Technology: Enhanced street  trees Project Owner: City of Syracuse Cit   f S Capture Area: 17,000 square feet Runoff Reduction: 300,000 gallons/yr Construction Cost:  $209,000 (estimated) $/gallon: $0.70
  • 117. 10/25/11Other GI Project Groups j p 122• Libraries: Five (5) Branches with GI site enhancements• Schools ▫ I tit t of T h l Institute f Technology (JSCB) *green* separation * * ti ▫ Dr. Weeks (JCSB) bioretention (full 1 inch capture over site; roofs, parking lots) ▫ Seymour Playground; Delaware Playground ▫ Central Offices Parking Lot ▫ Hughes Magnet School Parking Lot• Post offices: Salina Station Branch green roof g• Fire houses: Green Roofs not feasible; exploring site opportunities for 2012• Parks and Community Centers: ▫ One (1) green roof ▫ Spray Fountain Volume Reduction Initiative ▫ Many other site improvements• Vacant Lots: One (1) Pilot Project• DPW: Pavement Removal Projects (many)
  • 118. 10/25/11 Program Implementation Status - g p 123 9/26/2011 and Projected CSO Capture 250 Annual Incremental Capture • 15 Projects Completed Annual • 29 Projects Under Construction Incremental… • 03 Projects in Contract Phase 200 • 47 GI Projects Achieved and Counting ! i 150CS Reduction (MG) • 1 Projects in Bid Phase • 6 Projects in 90% Design Phase n 100 • 3 Projects in 50% Design Phase • 3 Projects in Fieldwork Phase 55 • 8 Projects to be Procured by SO 50 37 Others Oth 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 • 19 more projects under contract through GIF 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 • • 100+ Projects in Concept Phase
  • 119. Who is Going to Take Care Of This Stuff Anyway Anyway….
  • 120. 10/25/11Vegetation Management 125 • Conservation Corps (Green Jobs) contract required to maintain newly created green spaces
  • 121. 10/25/11 126City Lot #3: Revisit for Winter 2011
  • 122. 10/25/11 127Winter Revisit Notes: • Pearl Street porous pavement performing well, particularly vs. standard pavement, but is being over-salted over salted • Lot 3 wheel stops vs. curbs with inlets • Lot 3 porous concrete p p performing well g • Snow storage areas
  • 123. Public Private Partnerships
  • 124. Green Improvement Fund (GIF)Program developed to provide financial incentives to privateand non profit property owners for the implementation of greeninfrastructure.i f Program Highlights• Storm water management on private property is vital to success of green • 46 Applications submitted infrastructure program to-date• Grant funding for targeted sewer sheds in • 14 completed projects to the City of Syracuse (Midland, Harbor date Brook, Brook Clinton) ▫ Jim and Juli Boeheim Foundation• GIF Program Committee created to review ▫ King & King Architects funding opportunities for potential ▫ Dunbar Association projects ▫ Near Westside Initiative (2) ▫ St. Lucy’s C y Church• A li i Applications are reviewed b P i d by Program ▫ Jefferson Clinton Commons Committee for final recommendation on ▫ Hotel Skyler funding level • Over 25 Projects slated for 2011
  • 125. Green Improvement Fund (GIF) Green Basketball Courts at Skiddy Park GIF grant award for the construction of basketball courts at Skiddy Park on the Near West Side of Syracuse. The project included the installation of approximately 11,000 sq ft. of porous asphalt. Collaboration between the County, City of Syracuse and the Jim and Juli Boeheim F B h i Foundation. d ti Porous Pavement at Hotel Skyler GIF grant award for the re-development of a parking lot at Hotel Skyler in downtown Syracuse. The construction features the use of porous pavers that collect storm water from approximately 10,000 sq. ft of surface lot.
  • 126. Courts 4 Kids connects 10/25/11 131green to kids and areasports icons• Skiddy Park Porous Basketball Court• P bli P i t P t Public-Private Partnership hi ▫ Jim Boeheim Foundation ▫ Courts4Kids ▫ CCarmelo A th l Anthony Foundation• 11,000 sq ft porous asphalt
  • 127. Save the Rain
  • 128. 10/25/11 Save the Rain Programs 133Workshops▫ Intro to GI for Homeowners and Businesses Intro to GI for Homeowners and Businesses  Topics include basic principles of stormwater hydrology,  examples of simple GI for homes (rain barrels and rain gardens),  and other GI opportunities for the community and businesses pp y▫ GI for New Homeowners  Provides an introduction to green yard care and residential GI to  p participants in Home HeadQuarters’ (HHQ) home ownership  p Q ( Q) p program▫ Community Workshop  Includes hands‐on training for design and implementation of  g g p residential GI. Residential GI projects will be installed or  maintained during each workshop through assistance by  workshop participants
  • 129. 10/25/11 Save the Rain Programs 134Workshops ▫ GI for Youth f h  Participants will use and develop games, skits, role‐plays, and  hands on opportunities to increase awareness about GI and  hands‐on opportunities to increase awareness about GI and instill an appreciation for the role young people play in  reducing pollution.  ▫ GI d A f Child GI and Art for Children  combine crafts and hands‐on activities to teach elementary  and middle school age children about different kinds of GI:  g green roof birdhouse, painting a rain barrel, etc.. 
  • 130. 10/25/11Save the Rain Programs 135Workshops ▫ Rain Barrel   Participants at the workshops will learn proper installation  techniques, maintenance and the role of rain barrels in  reducing combined sewage overflows ▫ Landscape Professionals  includes a refresher on stormwater management principles,  GI options, examples of local projects, and strategies for  marketing GI to landscapers’ customers k l ’ ▫ Pervious Products  series of formal and hands‐on workshops on the various  pervious products available on the market will first provide  d l bl h k ll f d an overview of the products, their uses and specifications,  and installation guidelines
  • 131. 10/25/11Save the Rain Programs 136• Nature in the City Nature in the City • 3rd Grade classes learning about GI throughout SCS. The  lessons will be: Traveling Water Drop, Stream Exploration,  and Clean Water Matters. d Cl W M• ESF in the High School • High school classrooms learning about GI throughout SCSD High school classrooms learning about GI throughout SCSD• Exhibiting at Events • Local events like Blue Rain ECOFest, State Fair, WEP Open  , , p House and more to learn about Saving the Rain!
  • 132. 10/25/11Save the Rain Programs 137• Design Charrettes Design Charrettes ▫ This process will include community members in the  visioning and decision‐making process as plans are  created to implement a neighborhood‐planned and  approved green street• Demonstration Projects Demonstration Projects ▫ Rain gardens, green roofs, etc.
  • 133. 10/25/11 138515 Tully Street ySyracuse, NY
  • 134. 10/25/11 139515 Tully StreetSyracuse, NY
  • 135. 10/25/11Brochures, activity y 140books, bookmarks, andggames
  • 136. 10/25/11 141Print Media, Television, Radio, and Billboards
  • 137. 10/25/11 142And Finally… y
  • 138. 10/25/11Other Program Components 143• GIS and database support• GI Maintenance Standard Operating Procedures• Net Environmental Analysis Benefit• Ordinance updates and permit support• Grant applications• Services during construction g• Public education and outreach• Website support• Presentations P i• SharePoint/FTP Service
  • 139. Thank You! Questions? Please Visit us at www.SaveTheRain.us

×