DOCSLIB.ORG

Round 14 WQIP Award List

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Round 14 WQIP Award List Round 14 WQIP Award List Applicant Name Project Name Project Description County Project Type Amount Funded The Albany Water Board will build two Floatables Control Facilities to collect floatable debris and materials associated with several combined sewer City of Albany, Floatables Control outfalls in the City. The project will reduce the fecal coliform levels and floatable materials conveyed to the Hudson River and serve to treat urban Albany Water Board Facilities stormwater runoff, thereby reducing phosphorus, nitrogen, metals and other suspended solids. Albany Wastewater Treatment $5,000,000.00 Allegany County Soil and Allegany County Soil and Water Conservation District will install a hooped‐style salt storage building for the Town of West Almond on property owned Water Conservation Town of West Almond Salt Storage by the Town. This new building will have a paved foundation and concrete walls helping prevent runoff of salt and sand to nearby streams and District Facility prevent leaching of salt into the groundwater. Allegany Salt Storage $109,758.00 Restoring Alewife to the Bronx NYC Parks will construct a fish passage over the dams at the Bronx Zoo to allow upstream access to an additional 1.4 river miles of spawning habitat River: Fish Passage Construction at for anadromous fish in the Bronx River. The project will restore access to freshwater spawning habitat for river herring and foster population growth NYC Parks the Twin Dams Bronx, NY of an ecologically important forage fish and target species for restoration efforts. Bronx Aquatic Habitat Restoration $1,000,000.00 Broome, Chemung, Tioga County Soil and Expanding Wetland Work in the Tioga County Soil and Water Conservation District will construct wetlands on both state and privately‐owned lands throughout the Susquehanna Chenango, Delaware, Non‐agricultural Nonpoint Water Conservation Upper Susquehanna River River Watershed. This project will result in the capture of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment from runoff that would otherwise end up in the Schuyler, Steuben, Tioga, Source Abatement and District Watershed Chesapeake Bay. Tompkins Control $314,425.00 Cattaraugus County Soil Cattaraugus County Soil and Water Conservation District will oversee a road ditch stabilization program throughout the county. Roadside ditches will Non‐agricultural Nonpoint and Water Conservation Cattaraugus County Long‐Term be improved through hydroseeding, rock‐lining, erosion‐control fabric, adding check dams, and other best management practices. The expected Source Abatement and District Ditch Stabilization Program outcome of this program is to control erosion and reduce sediment deposition in the lakes and streams in the county. Cattaraugus Control $330,759.00 Cayuga County Soil and Cayuga County Soil and Water Conservation District will construct toe wood streambank protection structures along streambanks in the Town of Non‐agricultural Nonpoint Water Conservation Owasco Lake Streambank and Locke and Town of Moravia. This will reduce erosion and sedimentation occurring from the streambanks, decreasing excessive nutrient inputs to Source Abatement and District Riparian Buffer Restoration Project Owasco Lake, and improving water quality. Cayuga Control $280,000.00 Cayuga County Soil and Non‐agricultural Nonpoint Water Conservation The Cayuga County Soil and Water Conservation District will construct construct retention basins, rock lined waterways, and road / culvert crossings Source Abatement and District Cayuga County Erosion Control that will handle the intense storms that have affected the villages and towns of Cayuga County, providing relief and stabilization to areas "in need." Cayuga Control $300,000.00 Land Acquisition for Source Water The Village of Union Springs will purchase a property adjacent to Frontenac Park and improve the property by demolishing an existing structure, Village of Union Springs Protection regrading the property and installing a riparian buffer. This project will help remove pollutants which might otherwise enter nearby Cayuga Lake. Cayuga Land Acquisition Projects for S $259,600.00 Owasco Lake Source Water The Nature Conservancy will purchase up to six parcels in the Owasco Lake watershed for protection and potential restoration of riparian buffers and The Nature Conservancy Protection Program wetlands. This project will reduce sediment and nutrient loading to Owasco Lake. Cayuga Land Acquisition Projects for S $1,124,069.00 Cayuga County Soil and Owasco Lake Watershed Cayuga County Soil and Water Conservation District will re‐stabilize a combined length of approximately 3,000 feet of severely eroded Owasco Lake Non‐agricultural Nonpoint Water Conservation Streambank and Shoreline Repair shoreline and streambank segments throughout the watershed in Cayuga, Onondaga, and Tompkins counties. The project will address the influx of Source Abatement and District Project silts, sediments, and nutrients into Owasco Lake and its tributaries. Cayuga, Onondaga Control $467,770.00 Skaneateles Lake Watershed Finger Lakes Land Trust, Inc. will purchse three parcels and place perpetual conservation easements on two parcels in the Towns of Skaneateles, Finger Lakes Land Trust, Conservation Partnership Land Spafford and Niles. This project will result in protection of at least 291 acres of protected lands helping to maintain the high quality of drinking water Inc. Acquisition supplies. Cayuga, Onondaga Land Acquisition Projects for S $1,410,050.00 Chautauqua County Soil Chautauqua Lake Watershed Chautauqua County Soil and Water Conservation District will install grade control structures and structural slope protections along the streambanks Non‐agricultural Nonpoint and Water Conservation Rehabilitation ‐ North Basin and artificial drainage ways of the North Basin of Chautauqua Lake. This project will prevent erosion thereby reducing sediment and nutrient loading Source Abatement and District Periphery to the streams and Chautauqua Lake. Chautauqua Control $33,640.00 Chautauqua County Soil Chautauqua Lake Watershed Non‐agricultural Nonpoint and Water Conservation Rehabilitation ‐ South Basin Chautauqua County Soil and Water Conservation District will install grade control structures and structural slope protections on the South Basin Source Abatement and District Periphery tributaries of Chautauqua Lake. This project will hold coarse sediment back reducing erosion and allowing fish to move within the stream. Chautauqua Control $48,000.00 Chautauqua County Soil Non‐agricultural Nonpoint and Water Conservation Chautauqua Lake Watershed The Chautauqua Soil and Water Conservation District will install multiple streambank stabilization structures along Prendergast Creek. This project is Source Abatement and District Rehabilitation ‐ Prendergast Creek expected to reduce sediment loads to the creek and Chautauqua Lake. Chautauqua Control $78,022.00 Chautauqua County Soil Non‐agricultural Nonpoint and Water Conservation Chadakoin River Watershed ‐ The Chautauqua Soil and Water Conservation District will use multiple management practices to stabilize streambank along the Chadakoin River in Source Abatement and District Jamestown Riverwalk Restoration the City of Jamestown. The project is expected to address urban stormwater runoff concerns at the site. Chautauqua Control $313,890.00 Page 1 of 7 Round 14 WQIP Award List Applicant Name Project Name Project Description County Project Type Amount Funded Decommission Chautauqua The Town of Chautauqua will decommission the existing Chautauqua Heights Sewer District Wastewater Treatment Plant and replace it with a Heights Sewer District Wastewater pumping station. A force main will be installed to convey flows from the pumping station to the North Chautauqua Lake Sewer District Wastewater Treatment Plant to Construct Treatment Plant where the effluent will be treated to remove phosphorus. This will reduce phosphorus entering Chautauqua Lake which will reduce Town of Chautauqua Pumping Station and Force Main eutrophication and make the Lake a better habitat for wildlife. Chautauqua Wastewater Treatment $1,000,000.00 Sewer Extension for West Side Chautauqua County will provide public sewers to a portion of the unsewered west side of Chautauqua Lake in the Town of North Harmony. This Chautauqua County Chautauqua Lake project will reduce the amount of phosphorous entering Chautauqua Lake and improve water quality of the lake. Chautauqua Wastewater Treatment $5,000,000.00 Town of Southport/Chemung The Town of Southport will sewer approximately 381 residential and commercial parcels that are currently unsewered. This project will replace on‐ County ‐ Leland Area Sanitary site sewage disposal systems, most of which do not meet New York State Department of Health minimum standards. This project will help protect the Town of Southport Sewer drinking water quality of the public served by the Elmira Water Board and all other downstream water users. Chemung Wastewater Treatment $2,031,500.00 Franklin County SWCD will implement best management practices (BMPs) at sites in Clinton, Essex, Franklin, Warren and Washington Counties. BMPs Franklin County Soil and Lake Champlain Watershed will include ditch cleaning, hydroseeding, installation of rolled erosion products, toe stabilization, woody plant installation, and check dam/sediment Non‐agricultural Nonpoint Water Conservation Roadside Erosion Plan basin installation. This project will reduce sediment and phosphorous loading in Lake Champlain, decrease habitat for invasive species, and increase
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NENHC 2008 Abstracts
    Abstracts APRIL 17 – APRIL 18, 2008 A FORUM FOR CURRENT RESEARCH The Northeastern Naturalist The New York State Museum is a program of The University of the State of New York/The State Education Department APRIL 17 – APRIL 18, 2008 A FORUM FOR CURRENT RESEARCH SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR CITING ABSTRACTS: Abstracts Northeast Natural History Conference X. N.Y. State Mus. Circ. 71: page number(s). 2008. ISBN: 1-55557-246-4 The University of the State of New York THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT ALBANY, NY 12230 THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Regents of The University ROBERT M. BENNETT, Chancellor, B.A., M.S. ................................................................. Tonawanda MERRYL H. TISCH, Vice Chancellor, B.A., M.A., Ed.D. ................................................. New York SAUL B. COHEN, B.A., M.A., Ph.D.................................................................................. New Rochelle JAMES C. DAWSON, A.A., B.A., M.S., Ph.D. .................................................................. Peru ANTHONY S. BOTTAR, B.A., J.D. ..................................................................................... Syracuse GERALDINE D. CHAPEY, B.A., M.A., Ed.D. ................................................................... Belle Harbor ARNOLD B. GARDNER, B.A., LL.B. .................................................................................. Buffalo HARRY PHILLIPS, 3rd, B.A., M.S.F.S. ............................................................................. Hartsdale JOSEPH E. BOWMAN, JR., B.A.,
    [Show full text]
  • City of Manteca Wastewater Quality Control Facility and Collection System Master Plans Update Project
    Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the City of Manteca Wastewater Quality Control Facility and Collection System Master Plans Update Project Prepared for: City of Manteca Prepared by: EDAW 2022 J Street Sacramento, CA 95811 January 2008 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the City of Manteca Wastewater Quality Control Facility and Collection System Master Plans Update Project Prepared for: City of Manteca 1001 West Center Street Manteca, CA 95337 Attn: Phil Govea Deputy Director of Public Works—Engineering (209) 239-8463 Prepared by: EDAW 2022 J Street Sacramento, CA 95811 Contact: Amanda Olekszulin Senior Project Manager (916) 414-5800 January 2008 P 05110088.01 1.31.08 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................... ii 1 STATEMENT OF FINDINGS .................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Description of the Approved Project .................................................................................................. 1-2 1.3 Alternatives......................................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Findings of Fact .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Waterbody Classifications, Streams Based on Waterbody Classifications
    Waterbody Classifications, Streams Based on Waterbody Classifications Waterbody Type Segment ID Waterbody Index Number (WIN) Streams 0202-0047 Pa-63-30 Streams 0202-0048 Pa-63-33 Streams 0801-0419 Ont 19- 94- 1-P922- Streams 0201-0034 Pa-53-21 Streams 0801-0422 Ont 19- 98 Streams 0801-0423 Ont 19- 99 Streams 0801-0424 Ont 19-103 Streams 0801-0429 Ont 19-104- 3 Streams 0801-0442 Ont 19-105 thru 112 Streams 0801-0445 Ont 19-114 Streams 0801-0447 Ont 19-119 Streams 0801-0452 Ont 19-P1007- Streams 1001-0017 C- 86 Streams 1001-0018 C- 5 thru 13 Streams 1001-0019 C- 14 Streams 1001-0022 C- 57 thru 95 (selected) Streams 1001-0023 C- 73 Streams 1001-0024 C- 80 Streams 1001-0025 C- 86-3 Streams 1001-0026 C- 86-5 Page 1 of 464 09/28/2021 Waterbody Classifications, Streams Based on Waterbody Classifications Name Description Clear Creek and tribs entire stream and tribs Mud Creek and tribs entire stream and tribs Tribs to Long Lake total length of all tribs to lake Little Valley Creek, Upper, and tribs stream and tribs, above Elkdale Kents Creek and tribs entire stream and tribs Crystal Creek, Upper, and tribs stream and tribs, above Forestport Alder Creek and tribs entire stream and tribs Bear Creek and tribs entire stream and tribs Minor Tribs to Kayuta Lake total length of select tribs to the lake Little Black Creek, Upper, and tribs stream and tribs, above Wheelertown Twin Lakes Stream and tribs entire stream and tribs Tribs to North Lake total length of all tribs to lake Mill Brook and minor tribs entire stream and selected tribs Riley Brook
    [Show full text]
  • Complaint Investigation Status Report
    Complaint Investigation Status Summary October 2019 This report is an overview of the complaints and investigation of complaints from citizens about the air quality in Jefferson County. Citizens can submit complaints by calling the APCD complaints line (502-574-6000) or by calling Metro 311. Closed investigations are retained by the APCD and are referenced during future investigations SR # Type Request Date Location Summary of Complaint Summary of Inspection Notes & Current Status NOEM-19- Odor 10/01/19 River Shore Apartments The complainant reported a moderate unusual The CO performed an investigation in the area but was unable to detect any 58652 odor at this location (routed from Smell MyCity). objectionable odors. The complainant has been contacted with an This investigation has been closed. update on this investigation. OBRN-19- Burn 10/02/19 2045 River Rd The complainant reported that "River Metals The CO performed an investigation around the property of River City Metals. 59211 Recycling is causing noise nuisance, air pollution, Some smoke was detected, which can result from a combination of their large water pollution, excess dust and rust clouds, and diesel fueled machinery and/or use of blowtorches. These activities are open burning." allowed by the permit as long as the smoke and odor do not leave the property. The CO observed that the smoke dissipated before leaving the The complainant has been contacted with an property and was not able to detect any objectionable odors. update on this investigation. This investigation has been closed. OBRN-19- Burn 10/02/19 23 Warren Rd The complainant reported that someone at this The CO visited the area on two occasions to perform an investigation, but was 59134 location is burning either trash or leaves.
    [Show full text]
  • Effectiveness of Street Sweeping in Incline Village , NV
    Effectiveness of Street Sweeping in Incline Village, NV Final December 2011 In collaboration with Authors: Scott Brown, NTCD, 775-901-0775, [email protected] Rick Susfalk, DRI Domi Fellers, NTCD Brian Fitzgerald, DRI Funders: USDA Forest Service, Erosion Control Grant NDSL, Lake Tahoe License Plate Grant Washoe County, in-kind labor and equipment Nevada Tahoe Conservation District, December 2011 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A 752 m length of Village Blvd. in Incline Village, NV was divided into two “study areas” and monitored for two years to characterize the benefit of frequent street sweeping using a high efficiency dustless, waterless street sweeper. Although many studies of street sweepers have been generated, this study is different because it specifically investigated the effectiveness of a dustless sweeper to remove sub-16 micro-meter (µm) sediment during winter conditions on an active road where traction control material was frequently applied. To understand the mass balance of sediment in the study areas, samples were collected from the road using a vacuum cleaner, from the material collected by the street sweeper, from material accumulated in drop inlets, and from stormwater discharging from the study areas. This report contributes to understanding the characteristics of sediment on Village Blvd. in Incline Village, NV and the capabilities and limitations of street sweeping. This report also has implications for the rest of the Tahoe Basin because the basic behavior of road sediment and street sweepers are believed to be similar. However, results could vary because the use of different traction control material, different technology street sweepers, and different operational procedures may not produce the same results.
    [Show full text]
  • Occupational Health Hazards of Street Cleaners – A
    REVIEW PAPER International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health 2020;33(6):701 – 732 https://doi.org/10.13075/ijomeh.1896.01576 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH HAZARDS OF STREET CLEANERS – A LITERATURE REVIEW CONSIDERING PREVENTION PRACTICES AT THE WORKPLACE VERA VAN KAMPEN1*, FRANK HOFFMEYER1*, CHRISTOPH SEIFERT1, THOMAS BRÜNING2, and JÜRGEN BÜNGER1 Institute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance, Institute of the Ruhr University Bochum (IPA), Bochum, Germany 1 Medical Department 2 Head of Institute Abstract Street cleaning is an integral part of the solid waste management system. There are different ways to achieve clean streets depending on the availabil- ity of equipment, the type and magnitude of dirt, the surface conditions encountered or traffic conditions. In general, hand sweeping by an individual worker or a group, hose flushing, or machine sweeping or flushing are applied. In order to obtain information about the occurrence and relevance of occupational health hazards of street cleaners, the current international literature, as well as corresponding German regulations, were reviewed and evaluated. Street cleaning includes a variety of health hazards for employees. These can be subdivided into effects of occupational tasks and effects of working conditions such as weather or road traffic. The hazards result from physical, chemical and biological exposures, but may also be due to physiological and psychological burden or inadequate safety aspects. The most commonly reported work-related complaints are musculoskeletal and respiratory disorders, cuts, slips, and road traffic accidents. In developing countries, street cleaners seem to be still heavily exposed to dust and, in most cases, no suitable protective measures are available.
    [Show full text]
  • Request for Proposal for Street Sweeping Services
    REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR STREET SWEEPING SERVICES Public Services Department CITY OF COSTA MESA Released on November 9, 2011 STREET SWEEPING SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) Dear Proposers: The City of Costa Mesa (hereinafter referred to as the “City”) is requesting proposals from a qualified public entity or private firm, to establish a contract for Street Sweeping Services. The term is expected to be for five (5) years with up to three (3) one-year options to renew. Longer initial and extended terms will be considered depending upon the Proposer’s submission regarding use of City facilities and equipment. 1. BACKGROUND On March 1, 2011, the City Council agreed to move forward with a comprehensive review and analysis of outsourcing 18 City services, one of which is Street Sweeping Services, as outlined in the Outsourcing of City Services Council Agenda Report, dated February 24, 2011. The City of Costa Mesa is a general law city, which operates under the council/manager form of government with a General Fund budget of over $94 million and a total of over $107 million of fiscal year 2010-2011. The City of Costa Mesa, incorporated in 1953, has an estimated population of 116,479 and has a land area of 16.8 square miles. It is located in the southern coastal area of Orange County, California, and is bordered by the cities of Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley and Irvine. The City is a “full service city” and provides a wide range of services. These services include: police and fire protection; animal control; emergency medical aid; building safety regulation and inspection; street lighting; land use planning and zoning; housing and community development; maintenance and improvement of streets and related structures; traffic safety maintenance and improvement; and full range of recreational and cultural programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibit 23 Aquatic Resources and Ecology
    NEXTera® ENERGY. RESOURCES EAST POINT ENERGY CENTER Case No. 17-F-0599 1001.23 Exhibit 23 Water Resources and Aquatic Ecology Contents Exhibit 23: Water Resources and Aquatic Ecology ...................................................................... 1 23(a) Groundwater ................................................................................................................1 (1) Hydrologic Character ................................................................................................ 1 (2) Map of Groundwater Aquifers and Groundwater Recharge Areas ............................ 2 (3) Impacts on Groundwater Quality and Quantity ......................................................... 3 (4) Private Well Survey Results ..................................................................................... 5 23(b) Surface Water .............................................................................................................5 (1) Surface Water Map .................................................................................................. 5 (2) Surface Water Characteristics .................................................................................. 5 (3) Downstream Drinking Water Supply Intakes ............................................................. 9 (4) Surface Water Impacts ............................................................................................. 9 (5) Groundwater Mitigation Methods .............................................................................13 (6) Surface
    [Show full text]
  • Resource for Implementing a Street Sweeping Best Practice
    Resource for Implementing a 2008 RIC06 Street Sweeping Best Practice Take the steps... Research ...K no wle dge...Innovativ e S olu ti on s! Transp ortati on Research Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. 3. Recipients Accession No. MN/RC – 2008RIC06 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Resource for Implementing a Street Sweeping Best Practice February 2008 6. 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Renae Kuehl, Michael Marti, Joel Schilling 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. SRF Consulting Group, Inc. One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150 11. Contract (C) or Grant (G) No. Minneapolis, MN 55477-4443 90351 – RIC Task 6 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Minnesota Department of Transportation Final Report Research Services Section 395 John Ireland Boulevard Mail Stop 330 14. Sponsoring Agency Code St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 15. Supplementary Notes http://www.lrrb.org/PDF/2008RIC06.pdf 16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words) This resource was developed to assist agencies in implementing a street sweeping best practice. The Technical Advisory Panel decided these best practices are most useful for application in the State of Minnesota. These information sheets are designed to provide technical staff, policy and decision makers with guidance on a number of topics including: Best Practices Overview, Types of Sweepers, Reasons for Sweeping and Sweeping and Roadway Function. This series of information sheets were put together for agencies to develop criteria to enhance the street sweeping process. The four information sheets are intended to be used as a group, highlighting the different components that should be considered when implementing/enhancing a street sweeping program.
    [Show full text]
  • Expert Panel Report on Street and Storm Drain Cleaning
    Recommendations of the Expert Panel to Define Removal Rates for Street and Storm Drain Cleaning Practices Sebastian Donner, Bill Frost, Norm Goulet, Marty Hurd, Neely Law, Thomas Maguire, Bill Selbig, Justin Shafer, Steve Stewart and Jenny Tribo FINAL REPORT Approved by CBP Management Board May 19, 2016 Prepared by: Tom Schueler, Chesapeake Stormwater Network Emma Giese, Chesapeake Research Consortium Jeremy Hanson, Virginia Tech David Wood, Chesapeake Research Consortium 1 | P a g e Expert Panel Report on Street and Storm Drain Cleaning Table of Contents Page Summary of Panel Recommendations 4 Section 1: Charge and Membership of Expert Panel 8 Section 2: Key Definitions 11 Section 3: Background on Street Cleaning in the Bay Watershed 14 3.1 Prevalence of Street Cleaning in the Chesapeake Bay 14 3.2 Catch Basin Cleanouts 16 3.3 Past CBP Street Cleaning Removal Credits 16 3.4 How the CBWM Simulates Loads from Streets 17 Section 4: Review of the Available Science 18 4.1 Nutrient and Sediment Concentrations in Road Runoff 18 4.2 Characterization of Urban Street Solids 20 4.3 Organic Fraction of Street Solids 22 4.4 Nutrient Enrichment of Street Solids and Sweeper Waste 23 4.5 Trace Metal and Toxics in Street Solids and Sweeper Waste 24 4.6 Summary Review of Recent Street Cleaning Research 25 4.7 Summary of Storm Drain Cleaning Research 28 4.8 Key Panel Conclusions on Recent Street Cleaning Research 30 Section 5: Chesapeake Bay WinSLAMM Analysis 39 5.1 Customizing the WinSLAMM Model for the Chesapeake Bay 39 5.2 Key Findings from the WinSLAMM
    [Show full text]
  • Road Surface Pollution and Street Sweeping. Cheryl
    Cheryl Yee Street Sweeping May 2 2005 Road Surface Pollution and Street Sweeping Cheryl Yee University of California, Berkeley Environmental Sciences Spring 2005 Abstract Street surface pollution is a source of water and air quality degradation in urban areas. Street sweeping is practiced in most urban areas to remove debris and sediments from roads and to reduce pollutant export to the natural environment. The objective of this study was to investigate the environmental effects of not performing street cleaning in the urban environment. The cites of Berkeley and Oakland in California have an “Opt-Out” Program, which has allowed citizens to opt out of having street cleaning services performed on their streets. The composition of road dusts and sediments on opt-out streets were compared to that of those on streets that are swept. For streets that are swept, the before and after effect of street sweeping was also examined. Samples of road sediments were collected from street surfaces and analyzed for metal and polyaromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) pollutant loads. Pollutant levels on road surfaces were found to be site specific. Some opt-out streets have distinctly higher levels of sediments and/or pollutants, while others do not. Discontinuation of the Opt-out Program will likely contribute to some reduction in road surface pollutants, but not to a large extent. Though there does seem to be some environmental concern associated with the Opt-out Program, there is no immediate need to discontinue it. p. 1 Cheryl Yee Street Sweeping May 2 2005 Introduction Street surface pollution is a known contributor to the degradation of water and air quality in urban areas (Christenson et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Street Sweeping: Significant Investment and Re-Tooling Are Needed to Achieve Cleaner Streets
    Office of the City Auditor Report to the City Council City of San José STREET SWEEPING: SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT AND RE-TOOLING ARE NEEDED TO ACHIEVE CLEANER STREETS Report 16-02 February 2016 Office of the City Auditor Sharon W. Erickson, City Auditor February 29, 2016 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council 200 East Santa Clara Street San José, CA 95113 Street Sweeping: Significant Investment and Re-Tooling Are Needed to Achieve Cleaner Streets Street sweeping is helpful in reducing pollution in local waterways, removing potentially harmful debris, preventing clogs in storm drains which can lead to ponding and flooding, and improving street appearance. Currently, street sweeping is funded by rate payer revenue out of the Storm Sewer Operating Fund. Program expenditures totaled $3.8 million in 2014-15. Department of Transportation (DOT) staff and equipment provide street sweeping along the City’s commercial streets, while residential streets are swept by an outside contractor. DOT manages the overall street sweeping program while the Environmental Services Department (ESD) administers the residential street sweeping contract. This hybrid service delivery model has been in place since at least 2001. Street Sweeping Operations Are Under-Resourced DOT’s in-house street sweeping crew is assigned to sweep 32,700 curb miles of commercial streets per year, but it suffers from staffing and equipment shortages that hamper reliability. In 2014-15, the in-house street sweeping crew swept only 20,300 (62 percent) of assigned curb miles. In 2014-15, contractors completed all of the 36,000 residential curb miles assigned. To improve the reliability of in-house street sweeping, DOT would need to address shortages in street sweeper operators and street sweeper vehicles.
    [Show full text]