Download as PDF, PPTX
More Related Content
Similar to Marengo lid symposium_2011-09-25
Marengo lid symposium_2011-09-25
- 1. Onondaga County, NewYork Save the Rain Program - Implementation Lessons Learned from Nations 1st Green CSO Court Order Joanne M. Mahoney, County Executive LID S Symposium - Phil d l hi PA i Philadelphia, September 27th, 2011 Matthew Millea, Deputy County Executive, Onondaga County Brian Marengo, Matthew Marko, Rita Fordiani, Andrew Potts, Dan Wible CH2M HILL
- 2. Onondaga County, g y, City f Syracuse Cit of S New York Onondaga Lake Onondaga Creek • 7,660 acres • 49 CSOs Harbor Brook • ~1 Billion gallons/year CSO g /y 2
- 3. • 1988 –Atlantic States Legal Foundation files lawsuit against County History • 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 3
- 4. ACJ Compliance ProjectsCompleted to Date (1998-2008) (1998- 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 4
- 5. Water Quality Improvements Q y p Phosphorus Phosphorus discharge from METRO to Onondaga Lake has decreased from over 300 pounds per day to approximately 50 pounds per day 5
- 6. 4th ACJ AmendmentAuthorized a Balanced 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 / / 6
- 7. Save the RainProgram 7
- 8. Everyone is forGreen Infrastructure… Until they’re Not - Program Modifications 1. Establish a Forum to resolve policy decisions, remove barriers, modify regulations and standardize design details and maintenance agreements 2. D Demonstrate k t h l i on P bli L d th t can t t key technologies Public Lands that scale up to widespread progress 3 3. Incentivize GI (e.g. Green Improvement Funds) ( g p ) 4. Add Green Infrastructure onto existing capital projects 8
- 9. Project Development Process j p Project 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 9
- 10. 6% Capture UsingGreen Infrastructure p g - Green 470 acres and reduce 247 MG/yr of CSO by 2018 10
- 11. Green Infrastructure Programsmatched to Impervious A I i Area T Types t plan scaling f widespread to l li for id d implementation Impervious Area Green Infrastructure Type Technologies g Flat Roof Buildings Vegetated Roof g Parking Areas & Porous Pavements, Bioretention Sidewalks Green Streets (Bioretention, Street (Bioretention Roadways R d Trees) Downspout Disconnection Residential Rooftops Rain Barrels & Cisterns Rain Gardens County Facilities & Combination of the Above Schools Technologies 11
- 12. GI Program MatrixMaps Implementation g p p Strategies to results • St t Streets • Parks & Open Space • Parking • Public Facilities • Roofs • Drainage area & Model Refinements • Private Lands ▫ GIF ▫ Ordinance ▫ Rate Incentive ▫ Strategic Partners 12
- 13. Implementation Program Development p g p Framework 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 13
- 14. Parking g How Who How Much Where What Target Target CSO CSO Area / Primary Green Implementation Strategy Implementation Strategy Reduction Volume Reduction Volume Program 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 14
- 15. 2010 Projects Parking Lots- City Lot #21 15
- 16. Dept. of TransportationLot –Porous Asphalt p p p Before 16
- 17. Dept. of TransportationLot –Porous Asphalt p p p AFTER 17
- 18. Dept. of TransportationParking Lot 18
- 19. Manages adjacent imperviousareas 19
- 20. DOT owner, Citymanaged, County designed and financed 20
- 21. City L t CitLot #3 - B f Before 21
- 22. City Parking Lot#3 y g After Construction Porous Concrete Captures over 628,000 gallons of stormwater annually 22
- 23. Townsend Parking Lot( Lot B ) & (“Lot B”) Townsend Median 23
- 24. Asphalt Lot withInfiltration Trenches CSO reduction 692,000 gallons/year Bid $342,000 $0.51/gallon 24
- 25. Public Facilities How Who How Much Where What Target CSO Primary Green Primary Green Target CSO Volume Target CSO Volume Area / Impervious Implementation Program Infrastructure Owner Reduction Reduction Source (1) Strategy (5) Technology (2) Volume (gal) (% of Total) School District, School District SCSD Public Schools All Reconstruction program 04‐Public Partner Programs ESF, Other 14,003,000 6% Facilities Owner Redevelopment p Green Roof, Capture G R f C t Facilities F iliti County Facilities Schedule Reuse Libraries Facilities 25
- 26. Onondaga County Civic Strip GreeningCounty Facilities Utilizing Multiple Green Infrastructure p Technologies Showed to judge in 2009 Completed or in construction 26
- 27. Green Infrastructure 2011 Signature Projects OnCenter Convention Center 60,000 sq ft. Green Roof 60 000 ft 27
- 28.
- 29. Onondaga County Civic Strip GreeningCounty Facilities Utilizing Multiple Green Infrastructure p Technologies Showed to judge in 2009 Completed or in construction 29
- 30. OnCenter War Memorial Water Reuse GI Technology: Rain cistern Project Owner: County Capture Area: C t A 44,000 square feet f t Runoff Reduction: 400,000 gallons/yr Estimated Annual Potable Water Savings: 127,000‐300,000 gallons 30
- 31. Streets Where What How Who Area / Impervious Primary Green Program Implementation Strategy Owner Source Infrastructure Technology Residential / Road and Utility City DPW Commercial Roads / Green Streets Improvement/Redevelopment Boulevards Greening the Grey OCWEP Dry Well/Infiltration New York Highways New York DOT Road R&R Program Trenches DOT 01‐ Streets Median & Traffic Road and Utility Bioretention City DPW y Islands Il d Improvement/Redevelopment I t/R d l t Sidewalk Reconstruction with new Sidewalks Porous Pavement City DPW detail Road and Utility Parks Streets/ROW (Ad Hoc) St t /ROW (Ad H ) Enhanced Street Trees E h d St t T Improvement/Redevelopment I t/R d l t Canopy Study Planting Plan Parks 31
- 32. Connective Corridor 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 32
- 33. Linking with MajorTransportation Reconstruction g j p Creates Green Progress (Phase 1 - 10.4 Acres) Phase 1 – 10 4 Acres 10.4 Image – Barton & Loguidice 33
- 34. Connective Corridor Image – Barton & Loguidice 34
- 35. Connective Corridor –Green Balance Sheet B&L Cost ITEM Rationale for requested adjustment Actual Bid (5/12/2011) Estimate ITEMS ADDED DUE TO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE Storage Stone $298,500 $30/CY (Creekwalk bid) ‐ Assume $35 for a 17% contingency $ 200,970 Additional Trees/Shrubs Additional Trees/Shrubs $101 840 Bioretention removed from projects, deduct shrub costs from green. p j , $101,840 Split tree costs of $46,000 between City and County g $ 61,471 $ 61 471 Additional CU Soil $19,000 No Change $ 23,000 Trench Drains $8,610 Trench Drains assumed to be necessary for bike path drainage $ 8,200 6", 10", 24" & 36" Storage/Overflow Pipes (w/ deduction for underdrains) $170,795 No Change $ 74,710 Additional Drainage Structures/Frame & Grates Addi i lD i S /F &G $78,750 $78 750 Reduce to reflect the the smaller inlets for GI $ 117,222 $ 117 222 Adequate root volume for trees was a comment from City on original Silva Cell $97,458 design prior to Silva Cell pilot. Green share of silva cells assumed at 75% $ 106,310 and share of tree costs assumed to be 50%. ITEMS MODIFIED AS A RESULT OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE 8" Asphalt to 8" Porous Concrete (Parking Lane) $63,350 Unit Cost difference too high. Replace with $10/sq. ft. g p q $ 21,240 Green infrastructure does not require grass areas to be converted to porous pavers. Therefore, a 50% cost share ($116,250) would appear Regular Pavers/Top Soil & Seed to Porous Pavers $172,350 more reasonable $ 95,046 Please clarify the assumption for 39% of total traffic control being Work Zone Traffic Control $56,629 allocated to green. The City indicated that as work preceded block to block that traffic could be detoured around the block in progress $ 66,806 Trench & Culvert Excavation $87,200 No Change $ 131,634 Subbase Deduction for Storage Stone Deduction for Storage Stone ‐$53,010 ‐$53 010 No Change $ (91,884) $ (91 884) Construction Subtotal: $1,101,472 N/A $ 814,725 Survey (1%) $11,015 No Change $ 8,147 Mobilization (4%) $44,059 No Change $ 32,589 Field Change Order (5%) $55,074 No Change $ 40,736 Subtotal: $ , $1,211,619 N/A , N/A $ $ 896,198 , PS&E Contingency (5%) $60,581 No Change $ 44,810 Total: $1,272,200 N/A $ 941,007 35
- 36. Parks O P k& Open S Space How Who Where What Area / Primary Green Implementation Strategy Program Impervious Infrastructure Technology Owner (5) Source (1) Source (1) (2) (2) Parks (including Disconnection into Park Develop Park Green Plan Parks adjacent Streets) adjacent Streets) Delineate Drainage Area, Use natural area & Stream Inflow monitor & update model 02‐Parks & drainage to detain/remove Parks Removal (e.g. Thorden Park; Colvin Open Space inflow St. / Oakwood Cementary) Stormwater Constructed Wetland Feasibility Studies OCWEP Areas Vacant Lots Urban Forestry/Gardens Vacant Land Strategy Parks 36
- 37. CSO Treatment WetlandProject CSO 018 Constructed Wetland Harbor Brook 37
- 38. Treatment Wetland EliminatesCSO 018 • 144 Acre CSO b i A basin • 40 overflows / year • Significant Nutrient Removal • Partner with SUNY ESF 38
- 39. Courts 4 Kidsconnects green to kids and area sports icons • Skiddy Park Porous Basketball Court • P bli P i t P t Public-Private Partnership hi ▫ Jim Boheim Foundation ▫ Courts4Kids ▫ CCarmello A th ll Anthony Foundation • 11,000 sq ft porous asphalt 39
- 40. Incentivize GI: Green ImprovementFunds (GIF) stimulates commercial investment in green 46 Applications 32 Approved 19 Projects under contract 7 Projects Completed 2010 King & King, Syracuse, NY 6 Projects Completed 2011 Where Wh What Wh t How Who How Much How Much Area / Primary Green Target CSO Target CSO Volume Implementation Program Impervious Infrastructure Owner Reduction Reduction (% of Strategy Source Technology Volume (gal) Total) 08‐Green 08 Green Review / Review / Improvement All All Administer / OCWEP 11,372,000 5% Fund (GIF) Track Awards 40
- 41. Tracking Database recordskey compliance information and green cost d f d data 41
- 42. Program Implementation Status- g p 9/26/2011 and Projected CSO Capture 250 247 • 13 Projects Completed Cumulative 224 • 23 Projects Under Construction Capture 202 • 8 Projects in Contract Phase 200 180 • 44 GI Projects Achieved and Counting ! i 158 150 136 CS Reduction (MG) • 9 Projects in Bid Phase 114 • 1 Projects in 90% Design Phase n 100 92 • 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 42
- 43.
- 44. Thank You! Questions ? Please Visit us at www.SaveTheRain.us