ksu stormwater management design-build project – phase i...

WaterLINK Minigrant: Phase I Report - KSU Stormwater Management Design-Build Project

1

KSU Stormwater Management Design-Build Project – Phase I Report (Dec. 20, 2006 - lrs)

Summary: This collaborative design-build project engaged approximately 125 students, faculty, staff, and professionals in the important task of considering ecologically sound ways to treat stormwater that falls on the KSU campus. In the process, the following goals were achieved:

1. Many ideas for rain-gardens, bio-retention cells, streambank improvements, and other stormwater best management paractices (BMPs) were generated during the one-day design charrette hosted by the Department of Landscape Architecture/Regional & Community Planning at Kansas State University (KSU-LA/RCP) on October 27, 2006. As these ideas are refined and implemented (the goal of Phase II and other future stormwater management efforts within the Campus Creek Watershed) the negative impacts of rapid, pipe-to-stream stormwater run-off can be ameliorated and water quality improved.

2. During pre-charrette presentations, design charrette efforts, and the accompanying end-of-day open house many innovative ways to address urban stormwater runoff were demonstrated to KSU staff, faculty, students, and visitors. Local planners, designers, engineers, and community leaders were informed of the project via e-mail and phone contacts. Several local designers and engineers attended the lectures presented by stormwater management experts on October 26, 2006 and/or participated in the design charrette. KSU administrators will be updated on progress as plans are refined in the coming weeks and months. 1. Project Summary (who & when, what, where, how, and courses involved). Who & When Through three lectures on October 26, 2006 and a full-day charrette on October 27th, this project helped students and other community members recognize the value of water and its role in sustaining landscapes and natural ecosystems by considering ways to capture and re-use stormwater runoff. The project highlighted ways to increase infiltration; reduce the amount of irrigation required to sustain lawns, gardens and other landscapes; and nourish soils, vegetation, streams, and ecological systems. During the October 27, 2006 design charrette, ten 8-12 person student-faculty-and-professional teams identified how stormwater is being currently being transported and treated in the vicinity of Campus Creek, and quickly developed ideas for addressing existing stormwater management concerns. Participants sketched out and then presented potential remedies as concept plans/designs/details. Meetings with campus landscape architects and KSU maintenance staff along with reconnaissance by faculty familiar with stormwater management issues helped identify project goals. The collaborative design charrette raised awareness of best practices and set the stage for more detailed design work. What PROBLEM: Untreated stormwater currently runs directly off of buildings and parking lots, across lawns, and through conveyance structures (primarily stormwater pipes) into Campus Creek. As a result, rapidly flowing and pollutant-tainted stormwater degrades this riparian system. Where LOCATION: Lower Campus Creek corridor and its nearby surroundings – upstream from the Quinlan Natural Area to the Vet-Med Complex at Kansas State University (Manhattan, Kansas).


2

How 1) Members of the Student Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects (SCASLA)

helped LA/RCP faculty plan and prepare for presentations by three stormwater management experts (from Kansas City, Chicago, and Ann Arbor) and the full-day design charrette. Working with staff and students employed at KSU Facilities, study area base maps were prepared, then printed by LA/RCP’s Plotting Club. Faculty, staff, and students made arrangements for two catered receptions and Friday’s lunch to keep students nourished and focused during Thursday’s three stormwater management presentations and Friday’s design charrette and open house. SCASLA members helped prepare an informational binder for each charrette team and these were used to guide and inspire planning/design efforts during the charrette. Students ran basic surface area calculations, estimated drainage basin sizes, and prepared water-sensitive design case studies for the binders. SCASLA members helped set up for the charrette and they prepared name tags for each participant. Faculty and students took site photographs and posted these to a KSOL website so that these and many other resources could be easily accessed by project teams during the charrette.

2) During the October 27th design charrette, members within the ten project teams worked collaboratively to understand the two project study areas and to develop graphic plans and designs for potential parking lot retrofits, bio-retention areas, rain-gardens, streambank improvements, and other stormwater management BMPs.

3) KSU staff, faculty, students, and professionals learned a great deal from the work presented on October 26, 2006 by professionals with expertise in innovative stormwater management. These presenters worked closely with landscape architecture and biological engineering students as they quickly formulated plans and designs for several target areas along Campus Creek (namely the large parking lot north of Weber Hall, and the area surrounding the Derby Dining Complex). KSU faculty and professionals from Manhattan and the Kansas City area also participated in the charrette, facilitating student planning/design efforts and freely sharing ideas about potential stormwater management improvements.

Courses Involved: Several courses in KSU’s Department of Landscape Architecture/Regional & Community Planning were used to support this service-learning project.

Students in Natural Systems & Site Analysis (LAR 420/440) were introduced to water quality issues related to Campus Creek during a lecture by water quality extension-specialist Rhonda Janke on October 25, 2006. During their lab that morning, 2nd and 3rd Year Landscape Architecture students took four water samples along the stretch of Campus Creek between Umberger Hall and Manhattan Avenue. These samples, taken after a period of no or little rain, found higher than expected phosphorus and nitrate levels in the water. After a greater than one-inch storm event another water sample was pulled from Campus Creek (west of Boyd Hall) on the morning of October 26th. This 10/26/06 water sample indicated a very high level of E. coli (estimated at 300 cfu/ml), and is now being followed up by additional investigations as to the potential source(s). LAR 420/440 students also completed a two-week rapid urban site analysis for the area between Clafin Road, Mid-Campus Drive, Old Claflin Road, and Manhattan Avenue – with a primary focus on stormwater management.

The LAR Construction III (LAR 647/765) also focused on water quantity and quality issues during part of the semester and Professor Dennis Day invited Andrea Kevrick to give a special presentation on calculating runoff for stormwater management on the evening of 10/25/06. Additionally, students in LAR 741 (Fluvial Systems) have been focused on research related to streams and rivers.


3

2. Number of students involved. This collaborative design-build project engaged approximately 125 students, faculty, staff, and professionals in the task of considering ecologically sound ways to treat stormwater that falls on the KSU campus. Approximately 110 students participated in presentations on 10/26/06 and/or the full-day charrette on 10/27/06, including five Biological Ag-Engineering (BAE) students. Approximately 55 LAR students took part in water-quality sampling on 10/25/06. A list of charrette participants are provided in Appendix A. BAE students also set up a water monitoring device west of Boyd Hall. 3. Assessment of project success. A total of 57 students recorded their involvement in the project in a short reflection piece. Students presented their planning/design ideas in a public forum and open house which included professionals and KSU staff/administrators from outside of the LA/RCP Department. Service experiences related to this project have enabled students to: 1) deepen their knowledge of both natural and human systems (building on the lessons learned in Natural Systems, Fluvial Systems, and Environmental Issues & Ethics, Construction, and other courses), and 2) work effectively as collaborative, interdisciplinary teams and critically think about ways to address difficult water-quality issues given limited time and money (relating directly to all LAR Construction and Studio courses). Additionally, many LA/RCP students were able to interact with students from Biological Ag-Engineering, an added benefit of the one-day charrette. Most students contributed between 10-12 hours to the project effort over a 2-3 day period. At least five members of SCASLA contributed between 20-30 hours to the project. 64 Natural Systems & Site Analysis students have also spent two weeks preparing a rapid site analysis. As noted in Appendix B: Student Reflections on the 10/27/06 Stormwater Management Charrette, this project helped many students effectively contribute to their team, built self-confidence, citizenship, and collaborative spirit, and enabled them to learn about critical issues related to hydrologic systems in urbanizing areas. 4. Would our project team recommend service-learning to colleagues? Why or why not? Definitely! Service-learning gives students a sense that their education is worthwhile beyond what they themselves obtain from the process. Students, community members, and other participants help project teams see opportunities associated with teaching, research, and outreach in fresh, new ways. Such projects also provide tangible benefits for the communities served. Total Project Expenditures: $4,175.34 ▪ catered receptions and catered lunch on 10/26/06 and 10/27/06 (Bokers II, Inc.) $3,057.50 ▪ drinks and materials (including drinks, base maps, and charrette materials) $367.84 ▪ water quality monitoring equipment (repair, shipping costs, and box) $750 Honoraria and travel costs for Tom Price, P.E. (Conservation Design Forum – Elmhurst, IL), Andrea Kevrick (Insite Design Studio – Ann Arbor, MI) were covered by KSU-LA/RCP. As of 11/15/06 the Mary Jarvis Foundation fund had covered expenses totaling $3,236.44. Time and travel for seven professionals (from Manhattan and Kansas City) were also contributed by individuals and their firms.


4

Appendix A: October 27, 2006 Charrette Teams

GROUP 1: Tim Duggan (professional), Jill Hartzke, Nolan Miller, Pete Simpson, Josh Lamartina, Katie Sobczynski, Andrew Glenski, Lynda Armstrong, Andy Meessmann, XinXin Chai, Kent Burnham, Cary Thomsen

GROUP 2: Leon Brown (professional) & Tony Barnes*, Carrie Kyser, Jay Knopf, Shane Patterson, Jessica Blackwell, Kellen Stewart, Kris Leinschmidt, Shannon Yost, Nate Kersey, John Perry, Jessica Jones, Eric Castle

GROUP 3: Tim Keane*, Mark Ruzicka, Riley Anderson, Tim Merklein, Nick Rogles, Julianne Rader, Amy Shaffer, Ryan Dietrich, Chris Sass, Mitch Wolman, Forrest Smith

GROUP 4: Jade Liska (professional) & Dan Donelin*, John Schnure, Mark Reasoner, Aubrey Hake, Ryan Debold, Cassandra Morris, Cole Giesler, Amanda Ulrich, Kelsey Kern, Chris Morton, Katie Sergent

GROUP 5: Laurie Brown (professional) & Lorn Clement*, Gabe Hogan, Jeremy Merrill, David Vogel, Zac Walrod, Steven Holt, Jessica Spalding, Caleb Strickland, Phiip O’Brate, Jonathan Corbett, Mike Meihaus, Daryn Soldan

GROUP 6: Eric Bernard*, Stephanie Kennedy, Sarah Morrow, Tor Janson, Wendy Wert, Jeremy Anterola, Clarence Oxendine, Nick Johnson, Matthew Dugan, Lindsey Scheuneman, Larry Reynolds

GROUP 7: Jud Gladin (professional) & Lance Kline*, Kevin Kroen, Russell Palmer, Robin Banks, Amanda White, Hillary Kemper, Jeff Zhu, Cody Peratt, Geoffrey Van de Riet, John Schnure, Alicia Green

GROUP 8: Keith Billick (professional) & Melanie Klein*, Celine Anderson, Anthony Fox, Sean Ray, Gemma Gough, Daniel Robben, Jon Champlin, Christine Murman, Brett Tagtmeyer, Matt Sorenson, Trish Culbertson

GROUP 9: Mark Taussig (KSU-Facilities) & Chip Winslow*, Monica Miller, Jayme Jones, Greg Pfau, Dan Kraus, Shandelle Renyeer, Jesse Benedick, Aarthi Padmanabhan, Luke Schooler, Sara Leavitt, Jennifer Fund

GROUP 10: Eric Davis (professional), Benjamin Noyes, Kyle Grist, Ethan Prim, Clay Deschler, Lindsey Richardson, Megan Bryan, Aaron Mitchell, Joe Schneider, Kim Shaffer, Elise Young, Jennifer Hancock

Charrette Advisors and Reviewers - KSU Faculty/Staff and Professionals Tom Price, Andrea Kevrick, and Dennis Haag (professionals/presenters) Lee R. Skabelund*, Dennis Day*, Stephanie Rolley*, Stacy Hutchinson, and Chris Laverne Jackie Toburen (Supervisor, KSU Grounds Maintenance) & Skyler Harper (Asst. Director, KSU Housing & Dining) * KSU-LA/RCP Faculty


5

Appendix B: Student Reflections on the 10/27/06 Stormwater Management Charrette The following project evaluation requests were made of students participating in the charrette: 10/19/06 E-mail: LAR Students: Please refer to the Content folder in the new KSOL SCASLA Design/Build Project website (KSU-LAR-2006-charrette-news-piece.pdf) for details on the two Oct. 26, 2006 guest lectures & Oct. 27, 2006 Design Charrette. Because we are receiving $5,000 from the WaterLINK program (which will help pay for guest travel, two catered receptions, and a catered lunch) all students need to complete a pre-participation survey, conducted by the Office of Educational Innovation and Evaluation. The web address for the student pre-participation survey is: https://surveys.ksu.edu/TS?offeringId=55143 Please complete this online survey by Wed. Oct. 25th!!! Thanks much! Lee R. Skabelund, ASLA 11/2/06 E-mail: Please upload your less-than-one-page Charrette Reflection pieces to KSOL "SCASLA 2006-2007" Stormwater Management Design/Build Project -- go to "Collaboration" and use the file drop box. Please submit these by Nov 8th. Photos may also be submitted similarly. A full reminder is posted under announcements at our KSOL site. FYI -- Our next steps will be to determine at least one site where we can implement some of the ideas generated by Charrette teams. For at least another week, many of the drawings are posted in the hallway outside Seaton 104. Thanks again! Lee 12/8/06 E-mail: LAR & BAE Students: Thank you for your work on the KSU Stormwater Management Project this semester. We are moving forward in our preparations to implement at least one BMP during the Spring 2007 Semester. Expected dates for implementation are as follows: March 9, 2007 (site preparation) and April 6, 2007 (planting). Because we received financial support from the WaterLINK program all students need to complete a post-participation survey, conducted by the Office of Educational Innovation and Evaluation. The web address for the post-participation survey is: https://surveys.ksu.edu/TS?offeringId=59418 Please complete this online survey by Fri. Dec. 15th!!! NOTE: 42 reflection pieces have been received from students participating in the charrette. EXTRA CREDIT will be given in Construction III for those who complete the Design Charrette reflection piece by Dec. 14th. Submission of Reflection Pieces will also be considered in relation to "class participation" for students enrolled in LAR 420, Natural Systems & Site Analysis. Thanks to all who complete the survey and submit reflection pieces. Comments received are very helpful. Lee R. Skabelund, ASLA


6

The following pages include all student reflection pieces received by mid-November 2006. Note: minor editing used to delete names where specific concerns were expressed in relation to these names; some reflection pieces reformatted/shortened to keep responses to less than ten pages. The charrette was an excellent opportunity for all LA students involved. First – the issues and concerns I have. Unfortunately, not enough communication was felt from students. Instructors need to let students know of the event and that if it is required, what is to be expected. Having students leave during the day is unnecessary and actually hinders the design process. However, a long day is very consuming and can become a stress on a student especially when a 3rd year such as myself is stuck with Construction, Studio, and Systems projects due all around the same time (and a day is then set aside just to do a charrette). Yes the charrette was a welcome break but in order to make it more effective, students really need to know about the project inventory, analysis, and various features before hand. Although the charrette was meant as a “learning” experience, more information could have been had if the students could conduct prior work (perhaps research during studio) so that design would be more focused and directed. Aside from the above and also bland food, the charrette was pretty good. I especially enjoyed all three lecturers – probably the first lecturers I have actually attended because they presented material that was relevant to what I wanted to learn about. We really knocked out some great ideas, and what I see being a positive role in the future of this charrette is that the ideas are then taken and furthered by design professionals (perhaps even while in session). This way, students do not feel that they generated ideas that will not be used, or, if they are, that they are simply suggestions rather than actual design implementations. I really enjoyed the process even with the kinks... I was very excited about the topic of the charrette and at the prospect of implementing some of the design solutions from the charrette in the future. One suggestion I have for future charrettes, especially if they relate to a similar subject matter as this year, is to…invite and welcome professionals from related disciplines. Landscape architects do not have a corner on the stormwater market and other disciplines have needed skill sets necessary to answer the right questions. During multiple occasions during the charrette my team would have benefited greatly if there were a civil or biological engineer on the team. It would have saved us time as well as facilitate more informed design decisions. I’m glad that I participated this year and am looking forward to next year! During the course of three days I learned the importance of designing for storm water runoff in environmentally friendly ways. The message of storm water retention and infiltration, explained and displayed by three very different professionals, was interesting and also very informative. I benefited the most from seeing built solutions in the presentations and then trying to apply the same principles and designs to the campus creek corridor. I really hope the follow up ASLA design build project produces some buildable answers for the runoff problems along campus creek. The charrette was very informative and I learned a lot not from just the lectures but also from the mix of students and faculty volunteering as well. Although it was a lot of ground to cover in one day, I feel that it was very well executed. Perhaps if the charrette was split into two days it might have afforded some better results? I am not sure exactly what I would change though. I feel like I learned a lot, and if nothing else, wasn’t that the point? To educate the students and public? Presentations made by the three professionals set a solid foundation of understanding for the charrette’s design activities. After analysis of the site, my group developed multiple schemes using a stormwater collection and cleaning process. Learning about the different stages of cleaning that water must go through was a new principal to me, because I have only seen traditional retention/detention areas. After each team developed their sites in depth, I learned more about the different types of possible solutions for the multiple applications. Reviewing the different types of work of each team helped me continue in the learning process of the charrette.


7

The KSU Stormwater Management Charrette was a fantastic experience for me. I was able to attend all of the speaking engagements prior to the charrette and being able to directly apply information from those lectures during the charrette was a solid learning experience. Hopefully some of our work will be implemented during the Spring semester. The intense activity of the charrette was an interesting and demanding experience that I enjoyed. What I learned: CHARRETTE CONTENT 1. Diversity of guest speakers was beneficial and presentations were extremely good. 2. Contemporary ideologies regarding stormwater are trending toward the management of stormwater in a way that maximizes the time of concentration. Design ideologies that diverge from historically engineered solutions are proving successful and gaining main stream implementation nation wide. 3. I was introduced to several techniques and products that I was previously unaware of (lateral spreaders, rain garden construction and location, using permeable pavements with the sub-base area serving as catchments). 4. Effective design of grade separated areas that mitigate stormwater runoff. 5. Great opportunity to apply contemporary stormwater BMP’s in a way that considers the user while getting feedback from experts practicing today. CHARRETTE PROCESS 1. Our guests seemed to engage participants, validate ideas and push for better solutions 2. Team leaders should be chosen carefully! - My team leader was not available for the entire time - He asked one of the presenters to fill in for him; Great for us to have that connection, but it was midstream and thus took our guest away from others. - Ideas were given to students rather than extracted from them in a logical process. - Participants were not creatively or intellectually engaged to develop a solution…supported by the team leader. 3. Have a clearly understood critical path of progression! - Although one appeared to be in place it really wasn’t followed; This enabled a long mid-crit session that, while beneficial, took time away from further developing individual group project solutions. - There seemed to be no clear end or finale. Our group finished graphic display of our ideas and then stood up to find participants milling about. Then, later groups of stakeholders came by each group when maybe 1 or 2 group members was still around to explain their ideas. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OF TIMELY PROGRESSION FROM ONE MILESTONE TO ANOTHER. The design charrette was valuable to learn more about Best Management Practices in general. The lectures were full of great information and were a great starting point for teaching more about BMP’s at Kansas State. My design and professional ethic is continually evolving more towards environmental ethics. The lecturers invited really complemented each other and my interests in the topic of BMP’s. I felt it was more difficult to apply the lecture material to an actual design in a one day charrette. I do not feel my knowledge base nor that of the charrette participants as a whole in BMP’s was enough to develop something in one day that will be built in the spring. I believe another design charrette in the spring will be necessary. Professors should incorporate BMP strategies into their curriculum and we should have many small lectures all semester before the charrette to educate and prepare everyone in more detail. The charrette should also focus on a single area and a specific BMP that will be possible to build. Many of my team members did not understand the concepts of the BMP’s or how they work. I still do not understand a lot completely so I had difficulty leading some of the younger team members. Our professional team member, while helpful in some areas, did not explain a lot, which made it more difficult to get everyone to focus on BMP’s instead of circulation and other design elements. I feel that the Design Charrette was a beneficial experience. It allowed me to work with others on a possible design project. I feel that the presenters were top quality and helped me to understand how and why things would or would not work. I look forward to the next one while here at K-State.


8

Motivation for participation in the 2006 LAR Design Charrette stemmed from the fact that for a senior design project, two classmates and I are designing sustainable stormwater management solutions for the watershed near Boyd hall. I’m also interested in pursuing a career in such areas after graduation. I was only able to attend Andrea Kevrick’s lecture due to classroom commitments. Her lecture provided me with some insight into how a Landscape Architect approaches problems and also presented some innovative stormwater management solutions. I enjoyed learning about green roofs, permeable pavement, and level spreaders; all things I am not familiar with and am not entirely convinced are effective, but I will research more into. It was also beneficial to hear how landscape architects present their ideas to potential clients. As an engineer, one of the endless battles we face is convincing people that “green” design is effective and is more sustainable than conventional concrete stormwater structures. I would’ve liked to hear more about the education component, both the education of the clientele but also the public. More people need to understand the importance of low-impact stormwater and be accepting of its implementation. The actual design component of the Charrette was possibly the most valuable to me. Working with students with a different background than me really improved my skills as a team member and provided insight into how others approach problems. After being presented the problem, the LAR students immediately broke up into smaller teams and started working in detail on certain aspects of our assigned watershed area. The end result was a huge list of inventive ideas and a whole score of beautiful, colorful drawings. If it had been a team of engineering students, we would have immediately made calculations for water volumes, intensities, watershed area, etc. We wouldn’t have gotten to the actual design stage until much later in the problem process. Both approaches at problems solving are necessary to produce a feasible, functional, and publicly accepted design. Information gathered from the design team I was in proved to be very useful for my senior project. I really appreciate being given the opportunity to participate the LAR Charrette and would participate again if given the chance. The most important thing I learned during the charrette is that water is the best way to dissipate the velocity of water. I know that as I continue in the program I’ll learn how to determine volume and velocity, but if I have this basic idea in mind it will help direct my design decisions from two directions. First, that if I have an area where velocity could be a problem, it’s a good place to put a body of water. Secondly, if I want to figure out how to incorporate a water feature I can let the need for slowing water help direct where the water goes. It’s a really important piece to the puzzle that I’ve been working without. It was Tom Price stopping to talk with our group in the morning who gave me that jewel. Loved the morning, the afternoon was very frustrating. The stormwater management design build project is a great opportunity to further our knowledge about good design. The three presenters were very valuable due to their experience and dedication to landscape architecture. During our group work time, the advice from the presenters guided our design in the right direction. They took time, and patiently helped us understand the proper way to handle stormwater with an added aesthetic. The team arrangement was great because we were vertically integrated and paired with fellow students that we may not have ever interacted with. This diverse group provided many different ideas. It was also a great chance to exercise great team work because each person has his/her own opinion, and we had to quickly [derive] solution[s]. The design charrette was a good brief introduction into the landscape architecture profession. I have only been a landscape architecture student for a couple of months so most of the day I was observing. A lot of the design process is new to me and I heard a lot about storm water management for the very first time during the lectures and the day of the charrette. I think that the charrette could have been a lot more enjoyable if I had already had a little more experience designing in general but it was very beneficial for me to see other students and professionals in action. I didn’t learn of many stormwater management techniques that I wasn’t already aware, but I did learn quite a bit in the way of actual logistics and implementation. It was very interesting to see how each of the presenters had slightly different perspectives on basically same the issues. Sadly I didn’t have a ‘professional’ on my team, but I really enjoyed brainstorming with a varied group. I felt it was a good learning experience to team up with people that had different majors and levels of experience, just as one would in a professional setting.


9

I am very interested in sustainable design, so I tried to take good notes and really get involved with my group. Inefficient circulation (especially vehicular) has become one of my pet peeves since enrolling in the school of architecture. Therefore, my personal goals for the design work of the charrette focused primarily on decreasing stormflow and making transportation more efficient in the process. Also, I feel it is important to create campus projects that students will find both educational and beautiful, and that are relevant to our natural and cultural heritage. Mainly, this coincided with presenters’ ideas. However, it seemed that those with more experience were more focused on the technical aspect, and were less able to “shoot for the moon”. I also noticed that the presenters, with all their expertise, were still not as able to reach effective solutions as those who lived here. Of course, they were only here a short time, and they were able to point out issues that the rest of us were not as aware of. I felt that I learned quite a bit from working with upperclassmen and people from other majors. It seemed like everybody had something to offer, though. I think my experience in the dorms made me better able to design for that area. It was a little bit of a challenge to come to agreement on what particular goals we were trying to meet, and how to incorporate them together. It was also a challenge to create a design that was conducive to student use, maximized positive stormwater management, was easily maintained by facilities, and would be approved by the college. After participating in the Stormwater Management Charrette for the KSU Campus Creek, I felt that I gained some valuable experiment and insight to what working in a design group or firm would be like. Being a second year, I have not had the chance to experience an internship; this charrette, however, made me excited to actually get involved in the career. I found the lectures before the charrette to be immensely helpful, as before I attended them I was completely in the dark in regards to stormwater management. Seeing the different methods and approaches to managing stormwater with bioswales, pervious pavements, etc. gave me some inkling to what I could do design-wise. In the early design phase, I found the informal exchange and collaboration on different design concepts exciting and interesting. Several threw out ideas on how to approach the design of the space behind the International Student Center (this was the area of campus assigned to our group), ideas I would have never even considered in the conservative and pragmatic approach I was thinking about. Working with the people in my group got me to expand my design ideas greatly, and I felt that the group put together some great ideas. I found the storm water charrette a couple weeks ago very interactive and informative. I was especially pleased with the quality of the guest speakers. I feel that they had a lot to offer to both the students and faculty in regards to the most recent bmp of storm water run-off. The professionals that attended the charrette were also very helpful in lending their expertise and knowledge. They acted appropriately by staying in the background and guiding the students in the work, rather than doing it for them. From the designs presented during the charrette, I would recommend that we proceed with the green roof design for the dining hall. This would be a very visible area of campus where the functions of the bmp could be most utilized. The dining hall spans thousands of impenetrable feet in which water is immediately transferred to underground drains. If we were to utilize the green roof system on this building alone, I believe that we would be taking significant steps toward improving the quality of campus creek. The only improvement that I would recommend for the charrette process would be to utilize more time with the guest speakers on Thursday. This would give students a little more of a heads up as to what is expected. I feel that the charrette should not last as long on Friday. I think that most people were pretty much spent by two in the afternoon. Other than that, it was a wonderful learning experience. The Charrette was very informative and beneficial. As a first year grad student, I felt behind and it was difficult to participate due to my lack of experience, but the exposure to the material was good. Our group did not have a professional besides the faculty member; that was disappointing. There were a variety of different levels of students as well as one Bio-ag. Engineering student; the mix was interesting and I enjoyed the group effort.


10

I learned from the charrette that there are quite a few other processes involved in Landscape Architecture that I formerly wasn’t aware of. I also learned quite a bit about balancing natural systems with housing development projects. However, I also learned that I need to become a bit more comfortable talking in front of large groups of people. I guess this would have been made easier if I had been working on this project for a week and if I had been more involved in all the processes which took place in [our] group. I believe my personal values about protecting our ecosystems strongly correlate with the beliefs and landscape architecture methods the presenters exposed us to. I do feel that at around 3:00 the charrette process was becoming a little tedious and tiresome, and overall interest and begun to wane a little. It’s hard to keep a fast moving pace/stress level up for that long of a time frame. Maybe if the charrette process spanned over a weekend it wouldn’t be as rushed or time constraining. The design charrette was very well organized. Little to no time was wasteful. I really appreciated the lectures given prior to the charrette. The issue is quite relevant and growing in the profession. I learned a great deal about the benefits of several methods and approaches to stormwater management, as well as about the cost implications for each. Being able to work in groups (with an experienced leader) is very beneficial to each and every person in the group. It allows people to throw out ideas; even if some ideas are not the best, the idea sparks discussions, which really help people learn about the issue. Having an actual site to work with and apply the stormwater practices is also very beneficial. Although we seemed rushed all day, I believe that was a good thing. There was never down time; moreover, it encouraged people to take lead and generate ideas quickly. Quick ideas seem more helpful than just sitting there deliberating all day. Overall, I was very glad I went into the day enthusiastically and excited. I walked away feeling like I got more out of that day than I have the rest of the semester….or most of my semesters here. Not really. But I also want to say that I am very appreciative of those that came to lecture and help with the charrette. Their time and efforts should be greatly appreciated by all that participated. The Stormwater management Design Charrette taught me a lot. Before going into the lectures and the charrette I knew little to nothing about managing stormwater or even the negative effects of stormwater runoff. The most helpful and most effective of the two days was the lectures and all the information they presented me. I especially learned a lot from the first two presenters. I know that I want my designs to be as sustainable as possible and the lectures taught me more on that subject. My interest was very much sparked in the area of Stormwater management and I could definitely see myself going into a profession of that kind. My team members helped me to further learn how to work in groups, to communicate my ideas in an understandable way, and to compromise. By working in groups I also gained more ideas and broadened my perspective on things in general. In conclusion I learned a great deal and was inspired by the Charrette and all the people involved. I am a second year student in the landscape architecture program. Going into the charrette, I had no idea what to expect and understood that whatever it was, I was the low man on the totem pole with the least experience out of anyone older than me. The lectures previous to the charrette served me very well as I learned a great deal about storm water runoff and the different methods that can help lessen the amount of pollution to streams and other bodies of water. The day of the charrette, I was a little bit unknowing of exactly the procedure that would take place. Being a young student with little background in planting design, I feared that I would have little to contribute to my team. However, as the day progressed, I found myself becoming more active with each new stage in the development process. Learning about bio-swales, rain gardens, and more, I have expanded my knowledge on yet another branch of landscape architecture. Not to put down any of my professors, but the charrette was the greatest learning experience of my semester thus far. In each of my future designs, I can use the information I gained through the charrette to make my designs stronger and more realistic as I continue learning about landscape architecture. Thank you very much for you contributions.


11

The Charrette was an innovative methodology, I thought, to help me learn about techniques and aid in my comprehension of the same techniques in a practical way. The lectures throughout (starting from the evening prior to the actual charrette process) were truly educational and the charrette itself an enjoyable experience. The concentrated activities related to the design process were incredibly informative, especially because of two factors:

1. The site inventory and analysis 2. The actual design methodology

Both of the above had to relate to pragmatic concepts of stormwater design and management, and this did not place constraints on the creative process—only motivated the design teams to better their solutions more effectively. Such efforts would be welcome in the future too, when as students, we would be able to integrate these on-site systems and practices as used by the working professionals into our design methods for studio. I would like to begin by saying that I had a wonderful time during my first charrette experience here at KSU. As this is my first semester in the Masters of Landscape Architecture Program I felt that this was an opportunity for me to experience first hand a design problem that closely simulated a professional situation. I was not disappointed. The speakers gave great insight considering the discipline of Landscape Architecture and its relations with other disciplines. This was secondary to the information presented considering the importance of storm water management as well as practical ways to implement Best Management Practices while keeping the sites beautiful and functional. I had never given water management a place in my thinking or my designs but from now on I will consider Storm Water Management as a crucial component of every design I work or collaborate with. I believe that the charrette setting was a powerful introduction to storm water management practices as well as providing students the opportunity to not only participate but to see how easy and exciting it can be to design spaces with Water Management at the forefront of our priorities. Thanks to all involved in bringing this charrette experience to KSU. I was somewhat an outsider to this charrette process. As a Biological and Agricultural Engineer, I obtained a different perspective from the LAR students, as I tried to explain my opinions. I feel very fortunate to be able to participate in such an event because I was able to learn more about the designing process of sustainable structures than I can in my engineering classes. Considering sustainable structures is in a new school of thought not covered in the engineering discipline, especially in Kansas. In my classroom, we learn that these structures exist and that the current standards were developed in a climate different from the Mid-West’s. We rarely completely a whole design solution to a problem dealing with urban stormwater in Kansas. I believe that engineers and landscape architects will have to work together to design working structures that are appealing enough to keep the public engaged in the project. I think we should be sure the structure works, and is properly located to influence the greatest amount of water quality and quantity. I was a little disappointed on the lack of time on the priority of areas that would have the most effect on stormwater. I also wanted more time with the professionals to size environmental structures. This excellent experience not only gave me information on sustainable designs but also gave me the power to know what kind of questions I should be asking when dealing with sustainable design. If anything, I came out of this with more interest in dealing with stormwater. The professional presenters are important to give information about the limitations and proof that sustainable structures do work. The city engineers better received Tom Price, and I believe it is important to involve both landscape architects and engineers in the discussions before the charrette. Engineers in the community make many of the decisions with small stormwater projects and need to be educated (carefully) about water quality and quantity solutions. Everything the speakers talked about was new to me and was very interesting. The only thing that I had seen of before was the green roofs and pervious material before, but I didn’t know that those were for stormwater management. I thought the design approach was cool because I was paired with an upper classmen who thought me a lot of things. The design approach was a lot different from studio in that there was less time to come up with ideas, but the lack of time made it very interesting and challenging. I would definitely do something like this again.


12

I found the KSU Stormwater Management Design Charrette to be a great experience. It is not often that we are able to hear speakers as notable and as qualified as the guests we had. The opportunity to learn, study, and design first hand innovative stormwater management features will have been extremely helpful, especially in our professional careers. I believe that this experience could help make a significant impact on the vision of the campus and the information obtained will be another aspect that makes landscape architecture students from Kansas Sate University so sought after as employees in the professional world. Experiencing the Charrette really helped me take a grasp on stormwater management. In the past, we have talked about stormwater management, but I never know what we were dealing with. Through the lectures Thursday and Friday, I was able to see how real people are taking stormwater management to new levels. I retained the most information from the lecture by Tom Price. Tom talked about stainable site planning and stormwater management. A few of the techniques that he presented us with to deal with stormwater were naturalized detentions, bioswales, porous pavement, vegetated swales, and rain gardens. These stormwater management practices are not difficult to employ, but they do take some knowledge and experience to get them right. In real world application, I thought that places like Walmart should employ some of these techniques to their massive parking lots to keep more stormwater runoff on-site. These practices that Tom spoke about made me think about previous projects that I have worked on and what I could have changed about them to be more conscientious about stormwater. I also enjoyed the group hands-on projects. My only issue was that my group leader left early in the morning and left us to work out the problem. When [they] got back in the afternoon, the ideas and plans changed and it seemed more like his project than the groups. I didn’t like the fact that so many things changed in the last minutes before time was called for dinner. Through the haphazard times, I still really enjoyed the day overall. I am excited to see how the design-build is going to go in the spring. The charrette that took place last Friday introduced me to storm water management. I had no previous knowledge of the subject at hand; therefore, the charrette was very helpful. It helped me to understand different systems to consider while attacking the problem of storm water management. I feel like the charrette was a success because of how much information it supplied me with. It was also very nice to get the chance to work with others in a large group, especially upper level students who had a stronger grasp on the project than I had. I did not really learn too much from the charrette except a few new ways to manage water on parking lots, bio-swales, rain gardens, rock walls. I already new these things but learned you can incorporate them into parking lots. I thought the charrette was good for the younger students because our professional Tim Duggan taught the younger kids the importance of doing diagrams and how your design should directly relate to the analysis. He did a good job at telling us what to do, but letting us explore and design ourselves, with some constructive advice. The design charrette was a great learning experience. The vertical integration was a great way for the younger classmen to learn a lot about sotrmwater management. I really enjoyed the chance to be a part of this charrette. The Stormwater Management Design Charrette introduced me to the concept of sustainability. I had previously heard of sustainability, but had no knowledge of what it actually entailed. The lectures on Thursday gave me an incredible amount of information on what types of features to incorporate into a design that is suitable for green design. Prior to the lectures I had never heard of a bioswale, nor did I have any idea what it was used for. The information obtained on Thursday provided a sufficient background on sustainability and allowed me to be an asset to my team rather than a liability. Being forced to work in teams with upperclassmen, professors, and professionals was an invaluable experience. They were all welcome to any input from any member of the team, and were also very cooperative as leaders of the groups. I thought that the organization of the event was extremely well done. The Charrette was divided into the correct amount of teams for each area, and provided a very in depth analysis of the Stormwater management problem here on campus.


13

Overall, I found this experience to be a very good one. I learned a lot about green practices and preserving the planet, which I feel is an absolute necessity, especially in the field of design. I also thought that Lee Skabelund did an incredible job in organizing such a big event that encompassed the entire LA program. He must have went to incredible lengths to make this happen, and I am very glad that he did because it was a wonderful experience. I took a lot away from a one day event that was much more fun that going to class all day. The Charrette was a great learning experience for me. Going into the charrette I knew nothing about stormwater management. The first thing I quickly learned was what BMP stood for. All the teams were asked to think about Best Management Practices in there design to alleviate the polluted Campus Creek. As a member of team six we looked at the plaza outside Derby between Ford and West halls. I felt that we spent too much time focusing on how to change the spatial usage of the space than how to fix the stormwater pollution of the creek. [Our team leader had] to leave due to class so I feel we lost our professional guidance in the project. After lunch I joined the newly formed group focusing on campus as a whole. Here I felt like I gained valuable knowledge about the entire watershed and why Campus Creek was so polluted. All the parking lots, animal waste and other pollutants flowing into the stream from throughout the watershed showed me it was a necessity to fix the stormwater problem. The older students in this group taught me a lot about the subject and I felt like I came out of the charrette with a slight understanding of stormwater management. Going into the charrette, I only had a vague idea of what would be going on that day and I had no idea how I could possibly do anything that would be beneficial to a team of upper years and professionals. Coming out of the charrette, I’m so thankful for such a great opportunity. It turned out to definitely be a day of learning, the upper years and professionals had nothing but knowledge and advice to offer. I learned a lot about stormwater management practices and feel that in such a short time we developed a very organized design plan for our designated area of study. It was also informative to hear and see the ideas from the other nine groups. This was a great break from our classes and a good opportunity to get some exposure to “real life” work and problems. I really enjoyed the design charrette and feel that everyone benefited from the experience. I particularly liked the first speaker, Andrea Kevrick from Insite Design Studio. I felt like the second speaker, Tom Price of Conservation Design Forum, was just reiterating the same information from the morning lecture, and even material from a sustainable design lecture from last year. The actual design charrette was a great learning experience. We were able to work with a team of authorities and designers in order to accomplish a project in a very little amount of time. The professionals that were there had so much to offer and teach us, it was almost as though there wasn’t enough time. This experience has really proved that ideas can flow faster, develop more extensively, and then be executed more efficiently while working with teams. I have always been interested in new environmentally friendly stormwater management techniques. But what was lacking from the entire Charrette process was the technical side of creating ordinances and regulations that would actually allow you to implement green swale design. Perhaps our site (K-State) was good in that it was close and possibly more practical to implement green design in the future, but a great deal could be learned regarding the politics of implementing green stormwater management. It’s not all grants and free designs provided by students. Each student, and the entire profession of LA for that matter, can learn a great deal regarding city ordinances (Lenexa, Portland, Eugene, Schaumburg, IL) that provide a necessary link between a far fetched idea (most Charrettes I have participated in) or city government at work. Possibly such examples could have influenced students to learn more. The thing I was most impressed about regarding the Charrette was the overall organization of my team. Our professional leader…obviously had conducted or participated in a Charrette before. We assembled fast and produced quality work within the time parameters. I learned a great deal of leadership techniques in such a short amount of time and how best to split up a team and collaborate individually and combine ideas.


14

The 2006 Stormwater Charrette was an effective learning tool regarding Best Management practices and their implementation. Both the professional presentations as well the implementation was effective and educational.

The professional presentations helped frame the issues at hand as well as provide background information about the subjects. I was surprised to learn about how BMP’s can be so cost effective. The student charrette was well organized and within a short period of time out team produced several design concepts as well as implementation plans. The professional in my group Jade Liska from Kansas City Planning department was extremely helpful in coaching our team’s progress yet still allowing all work to be student driven. The lunch time presentations were effective if a little lengthy. My only criticism would be the distribution of the informational packets. The provided packet was extremely helpful. If that information could be distributed the day earlier or posted online, many students could benefit and the day-long charrette could have been a little more fruitful. The Stormwater Management Design Charrette was valuable in many ways. It was good to see that with the collaboration and ideas of so many individuals much progress can occur within just a single day. Interaction between the different classes was also a benefit. Going into the week, I was aware of some stormwater BMP’s, but I was unaware of the detail and virtually unlimited possibilities. The guest speakers were particularly informative with the discussion of rain gardens, bioswales, and porous paving surfaces. They discussed many real-world situations where BMP were specifically applicable, which helped me to begin to see the design process and possibilities. Friday’s event paralleled my interests in landscape architecture very closely. I have been studying stormwater BMPs for four years now, and I learned more from the Wednesday and Thursday presentations than I have in all those years. They were really informative on all levels, commenting on every issue related to these new alternative methods that I have been aware of. All physical, social, political, environmental, and economic aspects of stormwater BMPs were discussed during those lectures. They were fantastic. The charrette itself was a great way to apply what I learned to a real project. I was a part of [a group that] did not have a professional. In the afternoon I headed the master plan group, a group created during our morning critique session. I understand why this group was created, but I wish that I was not a part of it. I wanted to apply some of my ideas at a detailed scale. I learned how to mobilize people to get things done. It was very useful. The design charrette helped me to develop the ability to look at several design solutions for problems quickly and loosely. Also I became more comfortable working with others. Guest speakers and professionals that attended the design charrette were very knowledgeable in storm water management and were able to communicate ideas about bio-swales, rain gardens, pervious paving materials, and sustainable designs that will be beneficial to me and the rest of the charrette participants in future designs.

My motivation for participating in the design charrette was influenced by two factors: I have a very strong interest in stormwater and want to find a career in this area; and I am working with two classmates to design stormwater treatment into the site located below Boyd Hall, which was one of the locations specific to the charrette. The three presentations I attended provided me with some great information. The overlap between the landscape architecture and civil engineering design approaches definitely complimented each other. Both presentations described tremendous progress toward bringing urban development on board with environmental quality issues. For what I intend to pursue I would have loved some guidance on how to sell those ideas to a city government, but it seems as though that is a trait to be acquired on the job and developed individually. I will continue to work on that! Both presentations talked about green roofs, which is a concept I have not explored and I am not sure I am completely convinced of the technology but I am interested in learning more about it. The permeable pavement design is another avenue I have not spent much time on, but can identify some reasonable applications of this as well. The bioretention cells, rain gardens and grass swales are all things I am familiar with. The level spreaders Tom Price described sound very interesting and would be much less invasive than the terracing I am familiar with. This is an idea I will also look deeper into.


15

Dennis Haag’s presentation on vegetation was also an excellent source of information. This is definitely an area that I lack knowledge but am very interested in. Grasses and forbes are a key component to bio-systems engineering and landscape design. Educated users can make a tremendous impact on the success of any ‘green’ solution to urban stormwater. There was a lot of information presented in all three lectures and I came away from each of those with a lot of ideas – and with the charrette following the next day, I was able to work with my group to fit some of those ideas into our site. Since I have a different background in problem solving and approach, it was incredibly insightful to work with the landscape architecture students in my group. Both methodologies are absolutely necessary in coming up with a feasible and functional design. I probably gained the most from that group experience and feel much more prepared to come up with a good design for my senior project. I appreciate being given the opportunity to participate and would definitely do something like this again in the future. I really enjoyed the charrette. I feel like I learned as much in those two days as I typically do in several weeks. The chance to get to work on something with kids from other levels and majors was also pretty cool. The only thing I would change is to maybe make the charrette three days long instead of just two. That way there could be one day for lectures, one for analysis, and one for design. It seemed like there just wasn’t enough time to…develop our ideas. Charrette Follow Up – Things I Learned From: Andrea Keverick

“Architecture is the Hidden Polluter” How to Calculate Stormwater Runoff Goals For Stormwater Management: Protect, Reduce, Restore How to build a project team, do inventories and analyses and design for stormwater The big points of contention within design are: Regulatory STD’s, Landscape, Surface Drainage, Native

Plantings, Construction, Management, and Education Tom Price

Management Strategies such as: Porous Pavements, Level Spreaders and Bio-swales Dennis Haag

Methods of Native Plantings and Strategies Live Fascines Preatotypes – Plants that can soak up water and purge it into the atmosphere Obtain Plants from Local Source, Plant best available plants adapted to site and use, use diverse mixture of

grasses, grasslike forbes and woody species, use annual wildflowers for a quick splash of colors. Spacing and seed poundage for planting.

Tim Duggan

How to integrate pedestrian, vehicular, and drainage systems into a coherent design Thinking about the ‘bigger picture’ when it comes to designing for a watershed, rather than just a site.


16

E-Mail to Students Prior to the Charrette Oct 27, 2006 Charrette Participants: In preparation for the upcoming charrette you may wish to review some of the following documents -- now available on KSOL (go to Course # "SCASLA 2006-2007" and look under Content). Note that the Chicago BMP Guide provides a nice overview -- as is the Patchett-Wilhelm presentation (a DVD of this presentation is available in the Weigel Library). The Portland, Oregon "Stormwater Management Facility Design" (Chap2) gets into detailed BMP design recommendations. The entire Portland manual is online at -- http://www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm?c=35122 We will be providing materials to each charrette team. We will also give each team base maps, access to CAD files, and your marching orders :-} Additional documents will be added to this site as time allows over the next 5 days. During the charrette we will ask team members to upload digital site photos and shots of their design work to the Archives folder at our SCASLA 2006-2007 website to document our collective results. Cheers, Lee Spring-2006-BMP-BusTour-summary-lrs.pdf Water-SensitiveDesign-2006lrs.pdf Patchett-Wilhelm-KSU-CAPD-presentation-3.13.06.pdf Chicago-GuideToStormwaterBMPs.pdf Portland-OR-Stormwater-Mgmt-Table of Contents-2004.pdf Portland-OR-Chap2-StormwaterMgmtFacility-Design-2004.pdf Urban-Water-Quality-KSU-BAE-2006.pdf >Readings... Ecology_and_Culture_of_Water.pdf Sustainable_Landscape_Cost_Comparison.pdfStormwater-LID-articles.doc LowImpactDevelopment-PanelDiscussion-Oct2004.doc LID_Technical_Bulletin_Version 8_1-6-05.pdf ResResidentialUses-LID-Techniques.pdf Echols-split-flow-article.pdf ILIDMergedFinalReport.pdf >KSU Charrette Documents... KSU-Charrette_Area-A_Area-B_photos-lrs.pdf CampusCreek-Charrette-focus-area.pdf Manhattan-KS-aerial.pdf Manhattan-KS-aerial-central-KSU-campus.pdf KSU-Parking Lot B3.pdf 3.0MB 10/20/2006 KSU-Mid Campus-Creek.pdf KSU-Mid Campus-Creek.pdf (being revised/updated) RainGarden-PlantList.xls (in-process) PlantList-Shrubs-for-Raingardens-andBMPs.doc (in-process)


17

Charrette Preparations (coordinated by Lee Skabelund and SCASLA officers): Invitations to KSU Administrators and Staff – Lee, Mark Taussig & Cheryl Martin Tom Rawson, KSU VP – Lee & Mark discussed the project with Tom on 10/3/06 Tom would like to see a sketch and budget of the proposed design Kelli Cox, KSU Director Planning & Analysis – e-mail sent to Kelli & CDDP members invited

Lee sent e-mail invitations to the following on 10/4/06: Abe Fattaey, Director of KSU Facilities Planning Dr. Ed Rice, Associate VP, KSUFacilities Dr. Chuck Werring & Skyler Harper, Director & Assistant Director, KSU Housing

Ed Heptig & John Woods, KSU Facilities Jacqueline (Jackie) Toburen, KSU Grounds Management Steve Galitzer, KSU Health & Safety Ned Gatewood, Associate University Architect

Todd Gabbard, Barbara Anderson & Ray Yunk Greg Davis, Jim Steichen, Terry King & Larry Erickson

Dick Hayter, Associate Dean of Engineering Prepare PR piece for speakers (send to Diane Potts) – Lee Reserve Pierce Commons, and Seaton 104/105/Hallway for charrette/presentations – done Track In-kind contributions by students, faculty and others – Lee & SCASLA officers Complete Pre-Project Assessment (online before Oct. 27th ) – Each participating LAR student Prepare Charrette Posters / Announcements – Mark, Carrie & other LAR students Prepare Project Handouts and/or 3-Ring Project Information Binder Price of binders or use of binders? – Carrie to check w/Stephanie, and if needed, elsewhere

Project Background & Schedule/Structure – Lee & Dennis Day (DJ) Map showing Target Areas & Site Photo Sheets – Lee & others…

Rain-garden Plant List (plants adapted to Target Area conditions) – Lee, Cary & Greg Pfau

Relevant Stormwater Management Precedents – Jayme Jones; Celine; Riley Stormwater Calculations for Target Area – Dennis Day’s Construction III class and/or students selected by Dennis will accomplish this task (Mark & Riley to coordinate w/DJ)

Base map preparation & coordination/follow-up regarding stormwater calculations for target area - Lee has 1”=50’ hardcopies (1994 Facilities update with one-foot contours; check w/Mark Taussig & Eric Bernard about digital files; could overlay CAD & LIDAR files; need to show existing utilities, trees, planting beds, and sidewalks) – Jonathan Corbett; Phil (Riley discuss w/JC) Establish Charrette Teams (~10-12 people – 9-10 students, 1-2 professionals/faculty) Coordinating with PGASLA – head count of professionals – Celine; Kelsey; Carrie Secure drinks/ice for 10/26 reception (coordinate with Dan Donelin) – Ben Noyes; Gemma Help with set up for 10/26 lunch & reception (recycling & garbage bins) – Bokers to cater Help with set-up for 10/27 reception (recycling & garbage bins) – Bokers to cater Media Outreach (Mercury and Collegian); Invite local planners/designers – Riley, Lee & Dennis Set up computer & projector for 10/26 & 10/27 presentations – Lee Refine Schedule, esp. Open House/Presentations/Panel Discussion/Open Discussion – Lee


18

Selected Photographs of the Project Study Area and the October 27, 2006 Design Charrette:

Existing Conditions along Campus Creek – Photos taken Fall 2005 to Fall 2006

Design Charrette Images