HomeMy Public PortalAboutGI Pilot Final Report - Appendix P-VAPPENDIX P COMMUNITY ROOTED GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR
URBAN WATER IMPROVEMENTS FINAL REPORT – U.S.
EPA URBAN WATERS GRANT
Community Rooted Green Infrastructure for Urban Water Improvements
Final Report
U.S. EPA Urban Waters Grants Program, UW97735301 (SIUE)
U.S. EPA Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219
Project Officer: Jennifer Ousley, phone: (913) 551-7498, Ousley.Jennifer@epa.gov
Technical Advisor: Leah Medley, Medley.Leah@epa.gov
Submitted by:
Dr. Jianpeng Zhou, P.E., BCEE and Dr. Susan Morgan, P.E.
Department of Civil Engineering
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
Contact: Dr. Zhou, phone: (618) 650-3221, jzhou@siue.edu
July 30, 2015
Zhou and Morgan (2015 v.2) 1
Project Summary
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville partnered with the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer
District (MSD), the City of St. Louis (the City), and Habitat for Humanity Saint Louis (H4H) to
evaluate the effectiveness of site-scale green infrastructure (GI) facilities on reducing flows in
combined sewers and to develop a protocol program of community outreach and public
education on GI. Key project tasks included: (1) conducting flow monitoring in the
JeffVanderLou neighborhood (JVL); (2) evaluating flow reduction in sewers; (3) developing
training materials for outreach and education about planter boxes and rain gardens; (4) delivering
education workshops to local residents; and (5) publicizing the project to achieve broader impact.
Two sites were chosen for the flow monitoring study: a test site with GI installed and a control
site with no GI. Flow and rainfall data were collected to evaluate the effectiveness of the rain
gardens and planter boxes at capturing storm runoff from roofs for reduction of stormwater in the
combined sewers. The volume reduction analysis considered drainage and disconnected areas
and precipitation at each site. Two data analysis methods were considered and evaluated. The
first data method considered flow data from the same 24-hour periods between the test and
control sites. A second treatment of the data analyzed all of the acceptable flow data. The study
reported between 55% and 65% volume reduction, respectively.
There were several key findings from the outreach efforts. Piggybacking on the local
community event was a much more effective and efficient method of outreach than conducing
local workshops. In addition to reaching more residents, the children were able to take part in
hands-on educational activities. A key aspect of the outreach for the residents was the
availability of a gardening expert to talk to them about plants, take them on tours of GI, and
answer their questions. On the other hand, the availability of food and free items, while
appreciated, were much less important than other aspects of the event, indicating that the costs of
these types of events can be kept low. It may also be worthwhile to consider one-on-one
outreach to the homeowners. It will take regular outreach over an extended period of time to
educate the residents about the purpose and maintenance needs of the GI, especially if they are
not involved in the planning and installation, as well as to motivate them to maintain the GI.
Community collaboration and participation at every stage of a project by residents appears to be
a significant factor, yet the need for continued information exchange cannot be overlooked.
However, comments from the residents also provide some insights that could mitigate the need
for extensive outreach efforts. In particular, residents said that they are more likely to maintain
their front yards than their backyards. Therefore, placing the GI in the front yards rather than the
backyards, which is where this community’s GI were placed, would improve their maintenance.
The residents found the planter boxes represented a security concern because someone could step
into them and reach the window. Therefore, planter boxes need to be placed away from windows.
In addition, owner-occupied homes are more likely to be maintained than rental units.
Zhou and Morgan (2015 v.2) 2
Table of Contents
Project Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 1
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ 3
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... 4
Overview of Flow Monitoring and Evaluating Flow Reduction .................................................................. 5
Introduction and Study Objective ................................................................................................. 5
Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 6
Study Sites. ............................................................................................................................... 6
Flow Monitoring ....................................................................................................................... 8
Rainfall Data ........................................................................................................................... 10
Quality Assurance ................................................................................................................... 10
Separating Stormwater from Combined Flows ....................................................................... 11
Flow Data Handling and Analysis .......................................................................................... 12
Results and Discussions .............................................................................................................. 12
Flow Monitoring Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................. 16
Overview of Materials Developed for Community Outreach and Public Education .................................. 17
Overview of Education Workshops Delivered ........................................................................................... 17
Events .......................................................................................................................................... 17
Spring Workshops ................................................................................................................... 17
Fall Block Party ...................................................................................................................... 18
Planting Party .......................................................................................................................... 18
Results from Spring Workshop ................................................................................................... 19
Results from Fall Block Party ..................................................................................................... 20
Results from Inspections ............................................................................................................. 20
Overview of Publicity ................................................................................................................................. 21
Comparison of Actual to Anticipated Outputs and Outcomes in the Work Plan ........................................ 22
Flow Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................................ 22
Workshops .................................................................................................................................. 23
Materials Developed ................................................................................................................... 23
Publicity ...................................................................................................................................... 23
Testimonials from Project Partners ............................................................................................. 24
Reasons Why Anticipated Outputs/Outcomes Were Not Met .................................................................... 24
Other Pertinent Information ........................................................................................................................ 24
Description of How the Project Is a Success Story ..................................................................................... 24
Volume Reduction ...................................................................................................................... 24
Outreach ...................................................................................................................................... 24
Partnership .................................................................................................................................. 25
Overall Best Practices and Lessons Learned .............................................................................................. 25
Flow Monitoring ......................................................................................................................... 25
Outreach ...................................................................................................................................... 25
Helpful Materials Developed ...................................................................................................................... 27
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................... 27
References ................................................................................................................................................... 27
Zhou and Morgan (2015 v.2) 3
List of Tables
Table 1. Stormwater Volume from the Test Site (JVL, Method A) ........................................................... 14
Table 2. Stormwater Volume from the Control Site (Thurman, Method A) .............................................. 14
Table 3. Volume Reduction of Stormwater from both Sites (Method A) ................................................... 15
Table 4. Volume Reduction of Stormwater from Both Sites (Method B) .................................................. 15
Table 5. Seasonal Variation for Stormwater Volume Reduction (Method B) ............................................ 16
Table 6. Pre- and Post-Test Statements that Used a Leichardt Scale .......................................................... 20
Table 7. GI Outreach to JVL Neighborhood. .............................................................................................. 26
Zhou and Morgan (2015 v.2) 4
List of Figures
Figure 1. Typical Cross Section of Rain Garden (ABNA 2009) .................................................................. 5
Figure 2. Typical Cross Section of Planter Box (City of Eugene 2008) ....................................................... 6
Figure 3. Test Site in JeffVanderLou Neighborhood of St. Louis within Highlighted Boundary ................ 6
Figure 4. Houses Built under H4H Program with Installed Rain Garden or Planter Box ............................ 7
Figure 5. Example Planter Box at JVL Area in City of St. Louis ................................................................. 7
Figure 6. Control Site in Thurman Neighborhood of St. Louis (Google Map 2011) .................................... 8
Figure 7. Flowmeter, Installation in Manhole, and Measuring Principles (Teledyne ISCO 2009) .............. 9
Figure 8. Flow Monitoring Manholes at the Test Site .................................................................................. 9
Figure 9. Flow Monitoring Manhole at the Control Site ............................................................................ 10
Figure 10. Rain Gauge Stations for Test and Control Sites ........................................................................ 10
Figure 11. Hydrograph from the Test Site (JVL): 3/19 (Dry) vs. 3/25 (Rainy) in 2013 ............................. 13
Figure 12. Hydrography from the Control Site (Thurman): 3/19 (Dry) vs. 3/25 (Rainy) in 2013 .............. 13
Figure 13. Average Time Residents Spent Working in Their GI............................................................... 19
Zhou and Morgan (2015 v.2) 5
Overview of Flow Monitoring and Evaluating Flow Reduction
Introduction and Study Objective
Many large cities in USA are served by combined sewers where both stormwater and wastewater
are conveyed in single pipeline systems. During heavy rainfall, sewer capacities are often
exceeded, resulting in combined sewer overflows (CSOs) (USEPA 1999, 2011). In recent years,
many American cities are investing billions of dollars in infrastructure to eliminate CSOs (MSD
2011). Green infrastructure (GI) integrates stormwater management with landscaping, offering a
holistic solution to urban water problems. GIs are designed to capture stormwater onsite,
allowing water to infiltrate into soils, evaporate, and be uptaken by plants. Therefore, GIs can
reduce peak flows, volume of storm runoff and CSO; improve water quality; increase green
spaces in urban areas; broaden recreational opportunities; contribute to economic stability; and
enhance the urban environment and community (USEPA 2003, 2011; MSD 2011; MoDNR 2012;
Christianson et al. 2004; Davis et al. 2009; Roy-Poirier et al. 2010). Example GIs include rain
garden, planter box, pervious pavement, and greenroof.
A rain garden is a planted depression area to retain and infiltrate stormwater, reduce nutrients
and water by evapotranspiration and plant uptake, and enhance soil filtration from increased
porosity caused by plant roots (USEPA 2010). Figure 1 illustrates a typical cross section of a rain
garden.
Figure 1. Typical Cross Section of Rain Garden (ABNA 2009)
A planter box is a landscaping container, which is installed next to or near a building to receive
stormwater from the building’s rooftop area. Planter boxes provide temporary ponding and
storage of stormwater in soil and gravel section of the box; therefore, can help reduce peak flow
and volume of the stormwater (City of Portland 2006, LIDC 2005). Figure 2 illustrates a typical
cross section of a planter box.
Zhou and Morgan (2015 v.2) 6
Figure 2. Typical Cross Section of Planter Box (City of Eugene 2008)
The objective of the flow monitoring study was to evaluate the effectiveness on volume
reduction of stormwater from the application of rain gardens and plant boxes.
Methodology
Study Sites. The flow monitoring study was conducted at two sites: a test site where GIs (i.e.
rain gardens and plant boxes) were installed and a control site where no GIs were installed. The
test site is located in the JeffVanderLou (JVL) neighbourhood in the northern area of St. Louis
City. As shown in Figure 3, the test site is one city block with Sheridan Avenue to the North,
Thomas Street to the South, Glasgow Avenue to the East, and Garrison Avenue to the West.
There are 24 houses and 12 vacant lots in the block of the test area. As shown in Figure 4, either
a rain garden or a planter box was installed on the back side of each of the 18 houses built under
a Habitat for Humanity (H4H) program in 2009. The stormwater to the rooftop area are collected
and drained to these GIs, except the stormwater to the porch cover of each house is collected and
drained to 50-gallon rain barrels (ABNA, 2009). Figure 5 illustrates a planter box.
Figure 3. Test Site in JeffVanderLou Neighborhood of St. Louis within Highlighted Boundary
Zhou and Morgan (2015 v.2) 7
Figure 4. Houses Built under H4H Program with Installed Rain Garden or Planter Box
Figure 5. Example Planter Box at JVL Area in City of St. Louis
The control site is located in the Thurman neighbourhood of St. Louis City as shown in Figure 6.
The control site has 34 houses and no GI is installed. The control site is approximately three
miles from the test site.
Zhou and Morgan (2015 v.2) 8
Figure 6. Control Site in Thurman Neighborhood of St. Louis (Google Map 2011)
Flow Monitoring: to evaluate the effectiveness of GI application for volume reduction of
stormwater, flows in combined sewers of both test and control sites were measured. The
flowmeters were Teledyne ISCO 2150 with area velocity (AV) flow module and sensor (Figure
7). The AV sensor contains a pair of ultrasonic transducers. One transducer transmits the
ultrasonic sound wave. As the transmitted wave travels through the stream, particles and bubbles
carried by the stream reflect the sound wave back towards the AV Sensor. The second transducer
receives the reflected wave, compares the frequencies of the sound waves, then calculates the
difference. An increase or decrease in the frequency of the reflected wave indicates forward or
reverse flow. The degree of change is proportional to the velocity of the flow stream (Teledyne,
2009). The flowmeter measured both liquid levels and the approaching velocities of the flows.
Flowrates were calculated by the internal program of the instrument from the measured depths
and velocities.
Zhou and Morgan (2015 v.2) 9
Figure 7. Flowmeter, Installation in Manhole, and Measuring Principles (Teledyne ISCO 2009)
Flowmeters were installed in both manhole 19E1-038C and 19E1- 058C at the test site (Figure
8). For the control site, flowmeter was installed onl y in manhole 21F1-136C (Figure 9), because
there is no sewage or stormwater inflow to the sewer upstream of this manhole.
Figure 8. Flow Monitoring Manholes at the Test Site
19E1- 058C 19E1- 038C
AV Sensor
Zhou and Morgan (2015 v.2) 10
Figure 9. Flow Monitoring Manhole at the Control Site
Rainfall Data: MSD operates a network of rain gauge stations in metropolitan St. Louis area. As
shown in Figure 10, the nearest rain gauge stations were chosen for each study sites: C32 was
selected for the test site in JVL; C24 was selected for the control site in Thurman. The rain gauge
station is approximately 0.5 miles to the study site, respectively. These two rain gauges are
approximately two miles apart.
Quality Assurance: a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was developed and approved by
USEPA. The QAPP described project management including problem definition and background,
project and task description, data quality objectives and criteria for measurement data, special
Figure 10. Rain Gauge Stations for Test and Control Sites
JVL Test Site
Thurman Control Site
21F1-136C
Zhou and Morgan (2015 v.2) 11
training requirements and certification, documentation and records, measurement and data
acquisition that addressed flow monitoring process design, sampling methods requirements, data
handling and custody, quality control, equipment testing inspection and maintenance
requirements, instrument calibration and frequency, and data management. The assessment and
oversight discussed assessments and response action about data quality. The data validation and
usability covered data review, validation, and verification requirements, validation and
verification methods, and reconciliation with data quality objectives. The QAPP was followed
for this study.
SIUE worked with MSD in developing and implementing QAPP. For example, SIUE met with
the Flow Monitoring Work Group of MSD Engineering in February 2014 for the specific
purpose of learning and discussing about MSD’s procedures of flow monitoring practice,
instrumentation calibration and maintenance, preliminary check of data quality, and post-
collection data processing. The SIUE QA officer and MSD QA reviewer attended the meeting
along with other SIUE personnel and MSD staff engineer. Throughout data collection period,
SIUE maintained contacts with MSD about field conditions of the studied sites.
MSD collected the data following its standard operating procedures. MSD staff involved in data
collection are either licensed professional engineers or professionally trained operators. MSD
tested and calibrated flowmeters before their deployment, performed regular (monthly on
average) inspection of the flow monitoring sites and the deployed meters, removed debris built
up by the sensors of the flowmeters during inspection, and adjusted sensors positions as needed.
MSD performed preliminary review of data quality on the depths and velocities of the measured
flows, before sent the data to SIUE for data analysis and performance evaluation.
The check on data quality performed by SIUE was described in the Master degree thesis
“Effectiveness of Green Infrastructure for Volume Reduction in Combined Sewers JeffVanderLou
Neighborhood, St. Louis”, as well as the two proceedings papers published in the 2014 and 2015
national conferences by the Environmental & Water Resources Institute (EWRI) of the American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (documents A104, A107, and A109 of Appendix A,
respectively). The Master thesis was reviewed by a committee of three Civil Engineering faculty
members including the SIUE QA reviewer before the work was accepted.
Separating Stormwater from Combined Flows: The measured flows from combined sewers
can consist of both sewage and stormwater. Flows measured during dry days were taken as the
base flow (i.e., sewage) and flows measured during rainy days were taken as combined flows of
both sewage and stormwater. Therefore, the stormwater flows can be determined by subtracting
the flows measured on dry days from the flows measured on rainy days. Because household
activities during weekends can be very different from the activities during weekdays (affecting
the water consumption and, therefore, sewage quantities), weekends and weekdays are treated
separately for stormwater analysis. If a rainy day occurred on a weekday, the flows measured on
a dry weekday were used to determine stormwater in the combined flow. If a rainy day occurred
on a weekend, the flows measured on a dry weekend were used to determine stormwater in the
combined flow. Flows measured from both test (JVL) and control (Thurman) sites were treated
using this same approach.
Zhou and Morgan (2015 v.2) 12
The difference of stormwater determined between the test and control sites was used to evaluate
the effectiveness of GI application for volume reduction of stormwater. For the test site in JVL
area, the flows measured by the downstream flowmeter minus the flows measured by the
upstream flowmeter determined the flows generated by the houses in the studied block. For the
control site in Thurman area, the flows measured by the downstream flowmeter were used to
determine the flows generated by the houses in the studied block because there was no inflow
from upstream of the studies block.
The drainage areas between the test and control sites are different. There were some differences
in rainfalls between the two sites as well. After stormwater volumes were calculated for both test
and control sites, the stormwater volumes were normalized by the total drainage area and rainfall,
respectively, then were reported as gallons of stormwater per square foot of the drainage area per
inch of the rainfall, so results from the test and the control sites become comparable. Because
stormwater from only the rooftop areas were directed to rain gardens or planter boxes,
stormwater volumes for each site was normalized by the rooftop area and rainfall amount as well
for comparison.
Flow Data Handling and Analysis: Because the site characteristics and flowmeter operation
(e.g., maintenance requirements or occasional malfunctions of flowmeters, sewer lining at the
JVL site) were different between the test and control sites, the time periods covered by measured
flows with acceptable quality are not identical between the test and control sites. Two methods
(A and B) of data handling and analysis were used to evaluate stormwater volume reduction
between the two sites.
Method A included only the data collected from those days when data of acceptable quality were
collected from both sites. For method A, normalized stormwater volumes from the same 24-hour
days were compared to determine volume reduction from GI application. By using data collected
from the same 24-hour days, the effects of weather condition, antecedent soil moisture,
temperature, evaporation, etc. were minimized because the two sites are within three miles.
However, restricting to the same 24-hour days limited the usable data for comparative analysis.
For example, if data from one site were not available due to the flowmeter malfunctioning or
removal for maintenance during some time period but the data from the other site were usable
from the same time period, such data were not included in the analysis. The restriction limited
the information available for this study.
Method B treated the two study sites independently. Even if data collected from one site covered
a longer time period than data collected from the other site, all of the acceptable data were
included in the analysis regardless of when the data were collected (i.e., no need to match the
same 24-hour days). Because all data were included, method B did not differentiate the effects of
weather condition, antecedent soil moisture, temperature, evaporation, etc.
Results and Discussions
Example hydrographs from the two studied sites are illustrated in Figures 11 (test site in JVL)
and Figure 12 (control site in Thurman), respectively. Measured rainfalls were superimposed to
respective hydrograph. In these hydrographs, measured flows on March 19, 2013, a dry day,
were used as the base flows (i.e. sewage); measured flows on March 25, 2013, a rainy day, were
Zhou and Morgan (2015 v.2) 13
used to determine combined flows of stormwater and sewage. Extensive hydrographs and related
information are shown in the materials of Appendix A.
Figure 11 . Hydrograph from the Test Site (JVL): 3/19 (Dry) vs. 3/25 (Rainy) in 2013
Figure 12. Hydrography from the Control Site (Thurman): 3/19 (Dry) vs. 3/25 (Rainy) in 2013
The results analysed by method A are summarized in Table 1 for the test site and Table 2 for the
control site. The volume reductions of stormwater from control site (Thurman) to the test site
(JVL) are summarized in Table 3. The study revealed that GI applications in the JVL study area
resulted in an average of 54.7% reduction of stormwater volume. When the disconnected rooftop
areas were used to normalize reduced stormwater volume, the normalized volume reduction was
7.9 gallon/ft2/in.
Zhou and Morgan (2015 v.2) 14
Table 1. Stormwater Volume from the Test Site (JVL, Method A)
Rainfall
Event
Total
Volume
(gallon)
Total
Rainfall
(inch)
Dry Days
Total
Base
Volume
(gallon)
Storm
Volume
(gallon)
Storm
Volume per
Unit Area
(gal./ft2)
Normalized
Storm
Volume
(gal./ft2/in)
Event 1/
Mon. 51204 0.02 Event
1/Tue. 29284 21919 0.13 2.18
Event 2/
Mon. 35343 0.36 Event
2/Tue. 29284 6059 0.04 0.10
Event 3/
Wed. 7439 0.021 Event
3/Thr. 4019 3420 0.02 0.99
Event 4/
Sat. 19153 0.516 Event
4/Sun. 4133 15019 0.09 0.18
Event5/
Sun. 14608 0.126 Event
5/Sun. 10515 4093 0.02 0.20
Event 6/
Wed. 16843 0.321 Event 6/
Tue. 10771 6072 0.04 0.11
Average 0.63
Table 2. Stormwater Volume from the Control Site (Thurman, Method A)
Rainfall
Event Day
Total
Volume
(gallon)
Total
Rainfall
(inch)
Dry Days
Total Base
Volume
(gallon)
Storm
Volume
(gallon)
Storm
Volume per
Unit Area
(gal./ft2)
Normalized
Storm
Volume
(gal./ft2/in)
Event 1/
Mon. 53196 0.01 Event
1/Tue. 39618 13578 0.06 6.47
Event 2/
Mon. 56906 0.55 Event
2/Tue. 39618 17288 0.08 0.15
Event 3/
Wed. 58373 0.045 Event
3/Thr. 18163 40210 0.19 4.26
Event 4/
Sat. 77203 0.458 Event
4/Sun. 32994 44209 0.21 0.46
Event5/
Sun. 52725 0.06 Event
5/Sun. 50180 2545 0.01 0.20
Event 6/
Wed. 75742 0.138 Event 6/
Tue. 48982 26760 0.13 0.92
Average 2.08
Zhou and Morgan (2015 v.2) 15
Table 3. Volume Reduction of Stormwater from both Sites (Method A)
Days JVL Normalized Storm
Volume (gal./ft2/in)
Thurman
Normalized Storm
Volume (gal./ft2/in)
Stormwater
Volume
Reduction
(gal./ft2/in)
Volume
Reduction
%
Volume
Reduction by
Disconnected
Rooftop Area
(gal./ft2/in)
Event 1/
Mon. 2.18 6.47 4.29 66.31 23.36
Event 2/
Mon. 0.10 0.15 0.05 33.33 0.27
Event 3/
Wed. 0.99 4.26 3.27 76.80 17.80
Event 4/
Sat. 0.18 0.46 0.28 61.62 1.54
Event5/
Sun. 0.20 0.20 0.01 2.52 0.03
Event 6/
Wed. 0.11 0.92 0.81 87.58 4.40
Average 54.7 7.9
The results analysed by method B for both test and control sites are summarized in Table 4.
Because method B included all of acceptable data regardless the time period the data were
collected, 29 rainfall events were included in the analysis for the test site, and 40 rainfall events
were included in the analysis for the control site. As indicated in Table 4, GI application resulted
in 64.8% reduction of stormwater volume. The effectiveness of GI application between the two
data analysis methods (A vs. B) is approximately 10% of difference.
Table 4. Volume Reduction of Stormwater from Both Sites (Method B)
Analyzed
Rainfall
Events
for JVL
Avg. JVL
Normalized
Storm
Volume
(gal./ft2/in)
Analyzed
Rainfall
Events for
Thurman
Avg.
Thurman
Normalized
Storm
Volume
(gal./ft2/in)
Avg. Storm
Volume
Reduction
(gal./ft2/in)
Avg.
Volume
Reduction
(%)
Average for each rain event 29 0.97a 41 3.93b 2.96 64.8
aAverage value of all 29 events for stormwater volume at the test site (JVL)
bAverage value of all 41 events for stormwater volume at control site (Thurman)
In addition, the effectiveness of GI application across the four seasons in 2013 were compared
and summarized in Table 5. For time period of each season, Spring included the months between
of March to May, Summer included June to August, Fall included September to November, and
Winter included December to February.
Zhou and Morgan (2015 v.2) 16
Table 5. Seasonal Variation for Stormwater Volume Reduction (Method B)
Analyzed
Rainfall
Event for
JVL
Avg. JVL
Normalized
Storm Volume
(gal./ft2/in)
Analyzed
Rainfall
Event for
Thurman
Avg. Thurman
Normalized
Storm Volume
(gal./ft2/in)
Avg. Storm
Volume
Reduction
(gal./ft2/in)
Avg.
Volume
Reduction
(%)
Winter
2013 5 1.02 2 3.5 2.48 70.7
Spring
2013 19 0.99 13 0.76 0a 0a
Summer
2013 6 0.53 19 7.49 6.96 92.9
Fall 2013 0b 0b 7 0.31 N/Ab N/Ab
aResults from both test and control sites were close, volume reduction was taken as negligible for
Spring 2013
bNo data of acceptable quality were collected from the test site during Fall 2013, therefore, no
results were reported
It appears GI applications led to most notable stormwater reduction during winter and summer
months. Climate in St. Louis has an average of annual precipitation of approximately 41 inches.
Rainfalls occur throughout the year with relatively higher amount of precipitation between
March to July (Spring to Summer). Climate condition can affect soil conditions and evaporation
rates. Limited time period of data collection may not reveal all needed information. Nevertheless,
study results revealed the effectiveness of GI application can subject to seasonal variations in
term of stormwater volume reduction.
Flow Monitoring Summary and Conclusions
The effectiveness of site-scale green infrastructure (GI) facilities on reducing stormwater
volumes in combined sewers was evaluated. Two sites were chosen for the flow monitoring
study: a test site with GI installed and a control site with no GI. Flow and rainfall data were
collected to evaluate the effectiveness of the rain gardens and planter boxes at capturing storm
runoff from roofs for reduction of stormwater in the combined sewers. The volume reduction
analysis considered drainage and disconnected areas and precipitation at each site. Two data
analysis methods were considered and evaluated. The first data method considered flow data
from the same 24-hour periods between the test and control sites. A second treatment of the data
analyzed all of the acceptable flow data. The study reported between 55% and 65% volume
reduction, respectively. Study results revealed the effectiveness of GI application can be subject
to seasonal variations in term of stormwater volume reduction.
Zhou and Morgan (2015 v.2) 17
Overview of Materials Developed for Community Outreach and Public Education
Because MSD requires homeowners to maintain the planter boxes and bioretention cells, local
residents need information and assistance regarding maintenance needs and methods. Therefore,
community outreach and public education are critical to the long-term success of this project.
MSD took the lead in developing a color brochure about rain gardens and a color brochure about
planter boxes that were distributed to residents during two outreach events (April and September
2013) and mailed in June 2013 to residents whose GI had been identified as needing
maintenance. The planter box brochure explains the purpose and function of the planter box,
lists a typical maintenance schedule, includes maintenance and inspections tips, and provides
photos of common weeds. The rain garden brochure contains similar information and includes
photos of native plants to use when replanting. The brochures were also posted on MSD’s
website. In addition, a video was made from the first outreach event that covered the purpose of
the GI as well as spring and summer maintenance and was posted on MSD’s website. The
website links are included later in the report under the section “Helpful Materials Developed.”
Overview of Education Workshops Delivered
Events
During initial planning for the spring workshop, it was discovered that the U.S. Green Building
Council (GBC) Missouri – Gateway Chapter had provided education and hands-on assistance in
August of 2011 and the spring of 2012. In August volunteers had discussed identifying weeds
versus plants and weeded at eight homes. In spring 2012, volunteers gave two presentations with
an attendance of approximately 20 and spent 3 days replanting 10 rain gardens.
Spring Workshops. Based on discussions with a representative from GBC as well as a
representative from H4H, the spring 2013 workshops for the project were held on a Saturday
morning and Tuesday evening at the William J. Harrison Education Center (3140 Cass Ave., St.
Louis), which is a community college facility within walking distance of the JVL neighborhood.
Because the workshops were held during mealtimes, food was provided to encourage
participation. In addition to presentations about the purpose of GI and spring and summer
maintenance, MSD provided a hands-on demonstration of stormwater runoff using the
Enviroscape model, and coloring books and crayons were provided for children attending.
Representative of the City attended the workshop.
MSD included an invitation to the workshops in letters sent to residents whose rain gardens or
planter boxes were determined to need maintenance based on inspection (Appendix B). In
addition, the SIUE student worker who was assigned to support the City’s participation of this
project, and H4H volunteers went door-to-door in the neighborhood approximately 2 weeks prior
to the workshops. They informed the residents about the workshops, provided a goody bag of
donated items (including garden gloves, seeds, and a metal water bottle provided by the Missouri
Botanical Garden), and administered a pre-test to measure the resident’s attitudes towards the GI.
The majority of the residents (32/37) said someone would attend one of the workshops. However,
only seven residences of 56 invited (12.5%) were represented between the two workshops.
There were 18 individuals who attended, including two Neighborhood Improvement Specialists
(also known as Neighborhood Stabilization Officers, or NSOs) and one resident from a nearby
Zhou and Morgan (2015 v.2) 18
neighborhood attended. NSOs identify and address issues within the City’s neighborhoods; they
work with citizens, elected officials, and government service units.
Fall Block Party. Based on the low turnout, feedback from the spring workshop participants,
and discussions with H4H during May and June 2013, it was decided to integrate the fall
education activities into a H4H-led community event – a block party – rather than to host another
workshop. H4H regularly coordinates block parties for their developments and invited two
residents to participate in a planning meeting in June 2013. The residents suggested activities to
include for increased participation and volunteered to assist with encouraging participation for
the event. The event was held on a Saturday morning in September 2013 on a street in the
neighborhood.
MSD designed and mailed a flyer for the event that included a pre-test to measure the residents’
attitudes towards the GI as well as information about the event and a raffle (Appendix B). The
raffle was organized not only to encourage general participation but to encourage visiting the
education activities. After turning in a completed pre-test, a resident was provided with a form
on which to gather stickers from the three primary education activities – a presentation on the
purpose of GI and fall and winter maintenance, the Enviroscape model, and the Rain Maker
demonstration (which provides a visualization of the effect of surface perviousness on
stormwater runoff). Once a resident turned in a completed sticker form and a completed post-
test, the person was entered in the raffle. Prizes included two $50 gift cards to a local grocery, a
large container of Roundup, and large plants. All prizes were donated. In addition, MSD
provided a plant to each resident who participated.
In addition to the education activities, there were multiple activities targeting children (including
the game Incredible Journey from Project WET, or Water Education for Teachers), a DJ playing
music, and free food. Other community organizations that participated were The Home Depot,
Hartke Nursery (a local nursery), and the Missouri Botanical Garden’s Master Gardener Program
(represented by Ned Siegel). The inclusion of the master gardener was a direct result of feedback
from residents who said they wanted assistance with identifying weeds and understanding how to
take care of the plants. In addition to answering questions, the master gardener led tours of
neighborhood rain gardens and planter boxes. Approximately 175 people, including children,
participated in the community block party.
Planting Party. During planning for the spring workshops, the City wanted to add a hands-on
component to the outreach and decided to organize a “planting party” in the JVL neighborhood.
The event was scheduled for mid-May 2013. MSD sent a notification of the event to residents in
early May. The Missouri Department of Conservation provided 145 plants. However, bad
weather resulted in a low-turnout (nine families) and only distribution of the plants rather than
planting. Fortunately, the participation of a H4H representative facilitated an impromptu
workshop in which the MSD representative present was able to talk about the purpose of the GI
and residents who had successful rain gardens were able to answer questions from those who did
not about how to maintain them.
Zhou and Morgan (2015 v.2) 19
Results from Spring Workshop
Nine attendees evaluated the spring workshops. All respondents strongly agreed that the
workshop was conveniently located and the facilities were conducive to learning. Eight of the
nine respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the workshop was appropriately paced, covered
appropriate topics, and lived up to their expectations. The comments indicated that the attendees
thought they learned about their GI and the sewer system.
During the pre-test, residents were asked how often on average they worked in their GI. Figure
13 shows the results. While three-quarters said they worked on their GI at least weekly, almost
one-quarter indicated that they never work in their GI. Two residents commented on only
trimming or cutting their GI. Two residents indicated that the GI was too large, resulting in it
being hard to maintain. And two residents said they did not like their GI and would like it gone.
Figure 13. Average Time Residents Spent Working in Their GI.
Figures B1 through B4 in Appendix B show results of the pre- and post-tests. Because the post-
test results are based on only seven respondents, they should be used cautiously. The pre-test
results are based on 38 respondents (68% of residences invited to the workshop). The pre-test
indicates that the residents had strong negative opinions regarding the GI’s upkeep – being too
hard and needing to be mowed regularly. They were split regarding the other questions with a
negative connotation (Table 6). The only negative question with a slight majority disagreeing
had to do with the aesthetics of the GI. A majority of the attendees on the post-test still indicated
that the GI’s upkeep was too hard. There was also still confusion regarding how likely the GI
would serve as a breeding ground for mosquitoes.
There were positive responses to the questions with a positive connotation on both the pre- and
post-tests. The respondents on the pre-test were approximately evenly split regarding being able
to and enjoying working in their GI. There were a significant number of residents who did not
know if the GI reduced water to the sewer or reduced sewer backups on the pre-test.
Overall, the results of the pre-test indicated that there was need for education efforts and the
results of the post-test indicated that providing information might have at least an immediate
impact of improving perceptions of the GI.
Zhou and Morgan (2015 v.2) 20
Table 6. Pre- and Post-Test Statements that Used a Leichardt Scale
Statement Connotation
Rain gardens and planter boxes reduce the amount of rain water going into the
sewer system.
Positive
Rain gardens and planter boxes add value to people’s houses. Positive
Rain gardens and planter boxes help to reduce sewer backups and flooding. Positive
Rain gardens and planter boxes can be independently maintained by a
householder.
Positive
People enjoy working in their rain gardens or planter boxes. Positive
Rain gardens and planter boxes are too much work to keep looking nice. Negative
Rain gardens and planter boxes are breeding grounds for mosquitoes. Negative
Rain gardens and planter boxes need to be cut down regularly. Negative
Rain gardens and planter boxes need to be fertilized. Negative
Rain gardens and planter boxes are ugly. Negative
Results from Fall Block Party
The survey and results from the fall outreach event are discussed in a paper submitted for the
Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities Conference and contained in Appendix B. The
same questions were used for the pre- and post-tests as during the spring workshop. Overall, the
residents had strong positive perceptions regarding positive aspects of their GI after the block
party, but there were mixed perceptions regarding negative aspects. The outreach activity
positively impacted nine of 10 perceptions, at least immediately afterwards.
While there were only 19 respondents to the evaluation of the event itself, 18 of the 19 agreed or
strongly agreed that the block party met their expectations. The most common reasons for
participating were (1) the availability of tours of rain gardens and planter boxes, which were led
by a master gardener and (2) the location of the event. The inclusion of the tours were a result of
feedback from the participants at the spring outreach event, who noted their need to know which
plants are weeds and which plants are supposed to be in the GI. The next most common reasons
for participating were an opportunity to interact with friends, family or neighbors; the topic and
information provided; and the availability of kids’ activities. The least common reasons for
participating were the free food and other free items. Another positive aspect resulting from the
event was residents asking if MSD planned to participate in future block parties.
Results from Inspections
MSD rated a similar number of GI installations as needing maintenance or repair prior to the
outreach (in early 2013, 13 installations) as after the outreach (in early 2014, 17 installations).
The issues were also similar between the two inspections. Approximately half these installations
were missing vegetation, had only grass present instead of the original native plantings, or had
no mulch while half were missing the underdrain/cleanout cap. MSD considers all these issues to
be routine maintenance issues.
The missing plants and absence of mulch were in line with concerns expressed at each outreach
event that the residents need to understand weeds vs. plants, that they felt overwhelmed by
gardening tasks (e.g., quickly growing plants), and that they did not know where to buy or obtain
Zhou and Morgan (2015 v.2) 21
mulch and plants. While these maintenance issues could potentially impact the functioning of
the GI, a visual inspection by MSD of the rain gardens in October 2014 after several days of
substantial rain found that only one unit had standing water, indicating that the rain gardens were
functioning correctly. Therefore, MSD that these GI were in moderate condition as opposed to
serious or degraded condition requiring repair. The moderate condition rating does not require
further enforcement by MSD, only continued monitoring.
The planter boxes tended to be better maintained than the rain gardens during both inspections.
Typically, the plants were present and established, and only routine maintenance was needed.
The difference may be attributed to the location of each GI. The planter boxes are next to the
houses while the rain gardens are further in the yards, next to the fences. In addition, the planter
boxes are raised and, thus, are easier to access to maintain while the rain gardens, being at
ground level, are easier to mow while mowing the yard.
A year after the last outreach event, in September 2014, MSD attempted to call the 17 residences
that were found to have maintenance issues in April to follow up about the maintenance needs.
The MSD representative, however, was able to speak only to one. Most of the residences had
unlisted numbers or no voice mail.
Overview of Publicity
SIUE’s press release about the awarding of the project was published in the local newspaper, The
Intelligencer, on July 16, 2012 (Appendix C). The SIUE School of Engineering included a
notice about the award in the August 2012 ennovation (Appendix C). MSD advertised the fall
event to local media the night before and the day of the event and issued a press release
afterwards (http://www.projectclearstl.org/2013/09/project-clear-and-southern-illinois-
university-edwardsville-celebrate-rain-gardens-in-the-jeff-vander-lou-neighborhood/). The press
release was distributed to all the local print, radio, and television media outlets as well as posted
on Facebook, Twitter (Appendix C), and the website. Although one local media outlet (KMOV
News) shot footage at the event, no evidence of it being used was found.
Brochures and a video at the spring workshop that were developed as part of the project
(discussed elsewhere) were posted on MSD’s website. In addition, SIUE and MSD participants
submitted publications and presented at national and local professional conferences and meetings.
The publications and presentations are listed below.
Journals
Morgan, S., Cairo, A., McCrary, S., Zhou, J. (2015) Motivating Homeowners to Maintain
Rain Gardens. Metropolitan Universities Journal. In press.
Proceedings
Akhavan Bloorchians, A., Zhou, J. (2015) Alternative treatment of flow monitoring data to
evaluate the impact of green infrastructure on stormwater volume reduction in combined
sewers. In Proceedings of 2015 ASCE World Environmental & Water Resources Congress,
Austin, TX, May 17-21, 2015 (paper).
Akhavan Bloorchian, A., Zhou, J., McCrary, S., Boly, R., Morgan, S. (2014) Impact of site-
Zhou and Morgan (2015 v.2) 22
scale green infrastructure on volume reduction in combined sewers. In Proceedings of 2014
ASCE World Environmental & Water Resources Congress, Portland, OR, June 1-5, 2014
(paper).
McCrary, S., Morgan, S., Zhou, J., Pavitt, H., Cairo, A. (2014) Inspiring homeowners to
maintain rain gardens. In Proceedings of 2014 ASCE World Environmental & Water
Resources Congress, Portland, OR, June 1-5, 2014 (abstract)
Zhou, J., Morgan, S., Wilson, D., McCrary, S. Diverse measures of green infrastructure for
combined sewer overflow reduction in metropolitan St. Louis. In Proceedings of 2013 ASCE
World Environmental & Water Resources Congress, Cincinnati, OH, May 19-23, 2013
(abstract).
Conference Presentations
Morgan, S., S. McCrary, J. Zhou, and A. Cairo. (2015) Lessons Learned about
Homeowner Maintenance of Rain Gardens. 2015 St. Louis Earth Day Symposium, St.
Louis, MO. June 3, 2015 (platform).
Akhavan Bloorchians, A., Zhou, J. (2015) Alternative treatment of flow monitoring data to
evaluate the impact of green infrastructure on stormwater volume reduction in combined
sewers. 2015 ASCE World Environmental & Water Resources Congress, Austin, TX, May
17-21, 2015 (platform)
Morgan, S., Cairo, A., McCrary, S., Zhou, J. (2014) Motivating Homeowners to Maintain
Rain Gardens. Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities Conference, Syracuse, NY,
October 7, 2014 (platform)
Akhavan Bloorchian, A., Zhou, J., McCrary, S., Boly, R., Morgan, S. (2014) Impact of site-
scale green infrastructure on volume reduction in combined sewers. 2014 ASCE World
Environmental & Water Resources Congress, Portland, OR, June 1-5, 2014 (platform).
McCrary, S., Morgan, S., Zhou, J., Pavitt, H., Cairo, A. (2014) Inspiring homeowners to
maintain rain gardens. 2014 ASCE World Environmental & Water Resources Congress,
Portland, OR, June 1-5, 2014 (poster)
Akhavan Bloorchian, A., Zhou, J., Morgan, S. (2013) Effectiveness of green infrastructure in
runoff volume reduction in JeffVanderLou neighborhood, St. Louis. 2013 Mid-American
Environmental Engineering Conference, Washington University in St. Louis, MO,
September 21, 2013 (platform).
Zhou, J., Morgan, S., Wilson, D., McCrary, S. (2013) Diverse measures of green
infrastructure for combined sewer overflow reduction in metropolitan St. Louis. 2013 ASCE
World Environmental & Water Resources Congress, Cincinnati, OH, May 19-23, 2013
(platform).
Comparison of Actual to Anticipated Outputs and Outcomes in the Work Plan
Flow Monitoring and Evaluation
SIUE proposed to investigate how GI affect flows in the combined sewers, to work with MSD to
review relevant engineering information and conditions for selecting both test and control sites,
to obtain flow and rainfall data from MSD, to develop QAPP and seek the approval of USEPA,
to conduct analysis of the rainfall and flow data, and to evaluate the effectiveness of GI
Zhou and Morgan (2015 v.2) 23
application for volume reduction of stormwater in combined sewers. As described in this final
report and appendices, all of proposed work were completed.
Workshops
The proposal was to hold four workshops, two in the spring of 2013 and two in the fall of 2013,
for the residents of the 20 houses built by H4H in the 2900 block of Thomas Street. Both
workshops in the spring were planned to cover the purpose of the GI and spring and summer
maintenance needs while both workshops in the fall would cover fall and winter maintenance.
Attendance was anticipated at 40 people. MSD and SIUE planned to deliver the workshops with
recruitment assistance from Habitat.
Based on the low turnout at the spring workshops (18 total attendees, only seven JVL residences
represented), feedback from the spring workshop participants, and discussions with H4H during
May and June 2013, it was decided to integrate the fall education activities into a H4H-led
community event – a block party – rather than to host another workshop. The event was held on
a Saturday morning in September 2013 on a street in the neighborhood to encourage maximum
participation. Participation was much better – with approximately 175 attendees.
Materials Developed
SIUE proposed that education materials, which would cover information on both general
maintenance practice and how to support healthy growth of plants, would be developed. MSD
led the development of two brochures, one on rain gardens and one on planter boxes. These
brochures were distributed to the JVL residents as well as posted for the public on MSD’s
website.
Publicity
To reach a broad audience and promote GI practice throughout the St. Louis area, the plan was to
incorporate the publicity into the City’s effort to develop its first comprehensive sustainability
plan, in which public engagement and education is an important component. The City was to
include information about the project on its sustainability web page that is linked to the web page
of the Mayor’s office, support the outreach and education activities through review and
comments on education materials, facilitate links to relevant community organizations, and
consider the possible inclusion of a project related presentation in the City Mayor's Sustainability
Summit in the Fall of 2012. The project information was also going to be posted on SIUE and
MSD’s web pages.
Brochures and a video developed as part of the project (discussed elsewhere) were posted on
MSD’s website. It was decided not to post information on SIUE’s website because it is more
likely that the general public would seek out information and find it on MSD’s website. The
plans to incorporate the project activities into the City’s efforts did not come to fruition by the
end of the project period. Web material reporting project information was drafted in the summer
of 2014, which was after the appointment of the SIUE student worker assigned to support the
City’s work had ended. At that time, the City didn’t have personnel resources to incorporate the
material into their website.
Zhou and Morgan (2015 v.2) 24
Instead, SIUE and MSD participants focused on submitting publications and presenting at
national and local professional conferences and meetings. The publications and presentations are
listed in the section “Publicity.”
Testimonials from Project Partners
The three primary project partners – MSD, the City, and H4H – provided feedback on the project
(Appendix D). Two partners (MSD and H4H) indicated the experience was positive and that
they considered the outreach to be successful They independently suggested pursuing one-on-
one outreach to the residents as being an effective and less expensive alternative to the block
party. Everyone was in agreement that the workshop format was ineffective at reaching an
adequate number of residents to make it worthwhile. It was discovered during planning for the
fall outreach event in the summer of 2013 that the City (i.e. the third partner) had very different
ideas about the scope and aim of the project. Thereafter, the City reduced its participation in the
project. However, the project team continued to inform the City in email correspondence
regarding the project, including preparations for the fall outreach event, and continued to include
the City as a partner on project materials. The City was amenable to incorporating materials on
its website in the summer of 2014 but lacked personnel to do so at that time.
Reasons Why Anticipated Outputs/Outcomes Were Not Met
All anticipated outputs/outcomes were met or were revised to provide similar benefits based on
the reasons outlined previously.
Other Pertinent Information
The project was delivered on budget. Because the time required for completing, review,
approval, and recording of the QAPP was longer than the anticipated time in the proposal,
USEPA approved the request from SIUE for a no-cost extension of the project by nine months
from July 31, 2014 to April 30, 2015. The extension didn’t change the scope and deliverables of
the project.
Description of How the Project Is a Success Story
Volume Reduction
The effectiveness of site-scale GI facilities on reducing stormwater volumes in combined sewers
was evaluated. Two sites, one test and one control, were chosen for the flow monitoring study.
Two alternative data analysis methods were considered and evaluated. The study reported
between 55% and 65% volume reduction, respectively. Findings from this study provided timely
information needed by MSD and other cities in USA for broader application of GI.
Outreach
The education efforts appeared to have at least an immediate impact, so it is likely that those
with a gardening background or proclivity for gardening will respond well to outreach efforts on
the GI’s maintenance needs. Additional follow-up would be needed to determine how long-
lasting the effects of the education efforts at encouraging those who do not enjoy gardening to
maintain their GI.
Zhou and Morgan (2015 v.2) 25
Partnership
As indicated from the testimonials from the project partners, the partnership between a city
utility (MSD), not-for-profit (H4H), and university (SIUE) was successful. However, difference
in perspectives and expectation with the City concerning the goals of the Community Outreach
and Public Education component of this project, and the roles of the various partners play for
project delivery resulted in a less successful partnership with a city government unit (City).
Throughout the project period, SIUE continued to maintain engagement the City. The SIUE’s
project lead made several visits to the City, updated the City in these face-to-face meetings about
the project status, and discussed with the City on perspectives of various partners about the
project. Although these meetings didn’t make major changes about the participation in follow-up
activities by the City, the discussions improved understandings among concerned parties, and
paved the way for future collaboration in other suitable opportunities. The City’s participation
was in the Community Outreach and Public Education component only and in a supporting role.
The City was not involved in the Flow Monitoring and Evaluation component of the project.
Although higher level of City’s involvement was desirable, the level of City’s participation
didn’t create a major impact on completion of key project tasks or on achieving project
objectives, therefore, the issue was not discussed in a progress report to the EPA.
The partnership was key in leveraging funding to allow a successful project. In particular, the in-
kind labor from MSD allowed for the collection of the flow monitoring data, and the
participation of H4H personnel provided an avenue to engage the neighborhood residents. In
addition, both private and public entities stepped forward to provide donations for the outreach
efforts at the requests of MSD, H4H, and the City.
Overall Best Practices and Lessons Learned
Flow Monitoring
Partnership was a key for the collection of flow monitoring and rainfall data. MSD has the
resources including engineering information of the sewer system, experienced engineers and
operation crew, flowmeters and rain gauge stations, access to manholes, engineering and
operation support. Without the support from MSD, this project was unable to achieve as much
results. At the same time, the grant funded activities provided directly relevant and needed
information to MSD to benefit its efforts of GI application for stormwater management. The
flowmeters were placed at appropriate locations and in suitable manholes. Because interference
such as debris and low flow levels on sensors of flowmeters in combined sewers is unavoidable,
data quality assessment is a very important for data analysis.
Outreach
Piggybacking on the local community event was a much more effective and efficient method of
outreach than the local workshops. In addition to reaching more adult residents in a more
engaging manner, the event exposed their children to information about stormwater and the
environment though fun activities.
A key aspect of the outreach for the adult residents was the availability of a gardening expert to
talk to them about plants, take them on tours of GI, and answer their questions. This aspect was
so effective that it may be a better option to use to reach residents. However, if a larger event is
Zhou and Morgan (2015 v.2) 26
planned, it was found that the availability of food and free items, while appreciated, were much
less important than other aspects of the event, indicating that the costs of these types of events
can be kept low.
An important finding was that it will take regular outreach over an extended period of time to
educate the residents about the purpose and maintenance needs of the GI. This need is greater if
they are not involved in the planning and installation of the GI. By the early 2014 maintenance
inspections in the JVL neighborhood, there had been six individual outreach events to the
residents within the previous 2 years (Table 7). It is also important to determine how to motivate
residents who are uninterested in gardening to maintain the GI. For these residents in particular,
it is important to determine the minimum maintenance requirements and design the GI for
minimal maintenance. For example, would a depressed grassed area that has amended soils and,
if needed, would an underdrain suffice?
Table 7. GI Outreach to JVL Neighborhood.
Lead and Time Activity
US GBC MO-Gateway Chapter
Aug. 2011 Education on weeds vs. plants
Weeded at ~8 homes
Spring 2012 2 presentations (~20 total attended)
3 work days to rebuild and replant ~10 rain gardens
(2 needed more help than could give)
SIUE and MSD
April 2013 Notice of maintenance needed & invitation to the
first workshop
Door-to-door invitations to workshop
Workshop
May 2013 Notification of plant giveaway
Plant giveaway and impromptu mini workshop
June 2013 2nd notice with maintenance brochure
Sept. 2013 Invitation to block party
Block party
Sept. 2014 Phone calls
It is important to involve residents in the planning and/or installation of the GI and to explain its
purpose and maintenance at that time. The JVL residents had no involvement during the
planning of their GI and minimal involvement during installation. They assisted with planting the
GI during a general “landscape day,” which resulted in confusion because the plants in the rain
gardens were different than those in the planter box es. In addition, there was minimal education
about the purpose of the GI before residents took ownership of the properties. In contrast,
residents on a neighboring street were involved in the process of planning and installing their
rain gardens, and MSD has found that these residents were more excited about the rain gardens
and were more willing to maintain them. However, they were not necessarily more informed
about how to maintain the rain gardens properly.
Zhou and Morgan (2015 v.2) 27
Placement of the GI can also impact its maintenance. Residents said that they are more likely to
maintain their front yards than their backyards, which is where their GI is placed. In addition,
owner-occupied homes are more likely to be maintained than rental units.
Helpful Materials Developed
Rain garden and planter box brochures and a video of the spring presentation were developed
and are available under “BMP Ownership and Maintenance” at http://www.stlmsd.com/what-we-
do/stormwater-management/bmp-toolbox/maintenance-responsibilities. Direct links to the
materials are available at:
o rain garden brochure –
http://www.stlmsd.com/sites/default/files/engineering/498692.PDF
o planter box brochure –
http://www.stlmsd.com/sites/default/files/engineering/498693.PDF
o video – http://youtu.be/nK4x1rtyMds
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by the USEPA under the Urban Waters Small Grants program and
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District supported
the flow monitoring and data collection program. Susan McCrary, Robert Boly and Michael
Kelly of MSD are acknowledged for their contribution and support to the flow monitoring tasks.
Susan McCrary, Melantha Norton, and Dona Schuh-Anderson from MSD played key roles in the
outreach portion of the project. Catherine Werner, City of St. Louis, and Avis McHugh, Habitat
for Humanity St. Louis, also assisted with the outreach portion of the project. Additional
assistance was provided by the following SIUE personnel, including students: Dr. Aminata Cairo,
Hugh Pavitt, Azadeh Akhavan Bloorchian, Shane Spellmeyer, and Javon Washington.
References
ABNA (2009). Habitat for Humanity 2009 Build JeffVanderLou Neighborhood Site Plans.
ABNA Engineering, St. Louis, Missouri.
Christianson, R., Brown, G., Barfield, B., and Hayes, J. (2004). Bioretention and Infiltration
Devices for Stormwater Control. Advances in Hydroscience and Engineering, V.6.
Davis, A.P., Hunt, W.F., Traver, R.G., Clar, M. (2009). Bioretention Technology: Overview of
Current Practice and Future Needs. ASCE Journal of Environmental Engineering, 135 (3),
109.
City of Portland (2006). Flow-Through Planters., Environmental Services, City of Portland:
http://www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm?c=31870&a=127475 (Accessed July 25,
2013)
LIDC (2005). LID BMP Fact Sheet – Planter Boxes, Fairfax County: Low Impact Development
Center (LIDC).
MSD (2011). Combined Sewer Overflow Long-Term Control Plan Update Report. Metropolitan
St. Louis Sewer District (MSD), St. Louis, Missouri
MoDNR (2012). Missouri Guide to Green Infrastructure, Missouri Department of Natural
Resources.
Zhou and Morgan (2015 v.2) 28
Roy-Poirier, A., Champagne, P., Filion, Y. (2010). Review of Bioretention System Research and
Design: Past, Present, and Future. ASCE Journal of Environmental Engineering, 136 (9),
878–889.
USEPA (1999). Preliminary Data Summary of Urban Storm Water Best Management Practices,
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Office of Water,Washington DC.
USEPA (2003). Protecting Water Quality from Urban Runoff. EPA 841-F-03-003. Washington,
DC.
USEPA (2010). Managing Stormwater Runoff to Prevent Contamination of Drinking Water,
USEPA Office of Water,Washington DC.
USEPA (2011). Keeping Raw Sewage and Contaminated Stormwater out of the Public’s Water,
USEPA Region 2, New York.
City of Eugene (2008). Stormwater Management Manual.Water Quality, Natural Resource and
Flood Control, City of Eugene, Oregon.
APPENDIX Q 2015 RAINSCAPING SURVEY ANALYSIS AND 2015
RAINSCAPING SURVEY FORM
1,', �� I 1
r
Jject
•
METROPOLITAN ST LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT J 2350 MARKET STREET 1 ST. LOUIS. MO 83103-2555 i (314j 768-6280 WWW.STiMSD.COM I W WW.PROJECTCLEARSTL ORG
2015 Rainscaping Survey Analysis
To gauge community knowledge and support of Rainscaping within MSD's service
area, the MSD Project Clear team created an online survey in July 2015. The survey was
distributed to approximately 575 individuals within MSD's service area, ranging from
MSD Project Clear Stakeholders and municipal leaders and key staff to individuals who
opted to receive MSD Project Clear updates via the projectclearst.org website.
The survey's main objectives were to gain community feedback on:
• Perceived benefits of green infrastructure
• Perceived obstacles to green infrastructure
• Community reaction to Rainscaping
The survey was sent via email to —575 individuals on Tuesday, July 21, 2015. A
reminder email was sent on Tuesday, July 28, 2015. The survey closed at 11:59pm on
Wednesday, July 28.
Between July 21 and July 28, the survey recorded 88 responses. A typical 5-10 minute
survey sent via email, which requires respondents to click through to complete the
survey, will generate a 2-3% response rate. At 88 responses of 575 emails sent, this
survey's response rate is 15.3%. For this type of survey, a response rate of 2-3% is
typical so this 15.3% rate is exceptional and indicates a strongly interested audience.
Methodology
To control for duplication, respondents were only permitted to complete the survey one
time. In addition, to prevent feedback bias in the multi -choice questions, the survey
instrument randomized the responses for each respondent: meaning that the answers
appeared in a different order for each person. In this way, we can be more confident
that our responses are a true test of individual opinion.
Where an individual indicated a response to a multi -choice question, and then also
indicated "None of these," the "None of these" response was excluded as a mistake to
prevent skew in the data. (i.e. "Rain Barrels and None of these" is recorded just as "Rain
Barrels.")
The attached graphs plot the responses to each question on the survey, and pull high-
level information about the Zip codes responding. In each graph, the numbers indicate
percentages of respondents, rounded to the nearest tenth.
By the Numbers
Distribution:
• July 21, 2015
- Total Emails Sent: 576
- Opens: 182 (31.60%)
- Clicks: 54 (9.38%)
- Bounces: 3 (0.52%)
• July 28, 2015
- Total Emails Sent: 573
Opens: 180 (31.41%)
- Clicks: 48 (8.38%)
- Bounces: 0 (0.00%)
Responses:
• July 21-27:
- 44 completed surveys
- 35 would you like to learn more about Rainscaping projects in their
community
• July 28-29:
- 44 completed surveys
- 38 would you like to learn more about Rainscaping projects in their
community
Analysis
All of the survey responses are included for reference. Below are some high-level take
aways.
A strong majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they were familiar with
the term Rainscaping, that Rainscaping benefited their neighborhood, and that if it were
installed, Rainscaping would benefit their neighborhood. There was less familiarity,
however, with the existence of actual Rainscaping in their neighborhood. [Graphs
4,5,6,7]
Overwhelmingly, those surveyed are both familiar with and support Rainscaping
projects. The types of projects that individuals expressed familiarity with were more
likely to be those kinds of projects they supported in their own neighborhoods, with the
exception of Wetlands. Respondent familiarity with Wetlands exceeded support for
installation of Wetlands in their neighborhood by the greatest margin (52 familiar vs. 43
support). Familiarity also exceeded support for Permeable Pavements (70 familiar vs.
69 support) and Rain Barrels (77 familiar vs. 75 support), though only slightly. [Graphs
9,11].
2
80
w • 70
H 60
cij ▪ 50
1 ' 40
m
30
E 20
10
0
90
87:5-
-' 84.1
75 76.179'6 8.5,422
79. r
71.5
60.25g
51.1j I 53,
111
be. .0 e � scz fey ,fie`' �42 �e
Cap e�ae t$ o`' eta `to �'�.( a'�
4, (1e,ci 90 a� � �o
9e a ��*
,fit
e
��e
5
vtb
Familiar with
Support installing
Graph 14: Comparison — Familiarity with Rainscaping project type vs. Support for installation of that Rainscaping
Despite the high familiarity with and support of Rainscaping projects, respondents did
not believe many of these project types were in their neighborhoods - "Street Trees and
Curb Plantings" were identified most as in their neighborhood (40/88), though still less
than half indicated they were present. 26 of the respondents indicated that no
Rainscaping was present in their neighborhood at all (30%). [Graph 10, 11]
The single greatest obstacle that respondents identified to Rainscaping in their area was
"Lack of information/awareness" - though it seems to be the awareness available to
others that was their main concern. This is indicated by the overwhelming number of
individuals that indicated familiarity with the term "Raincaping" (72/88), and by the
very small number of individuals who were unfamiliar with any type of Rainscaping
project (4/88). [Graph 13]
One quarter of survey respondents live within the Rainscaping Focus area (22/88), and
of those respondents only one was unfamiliar with Rainscaping and did not believe it
could provide any benefits to their neighborhood. Only one of these respondents
indicated they would not support the installation of Rainscaping in their neighborhood.
There was no significant difference in the percentage of Rainscaping-Focus-Area
3
respondents who thought there was no Rainscaping in their neighborhood, or did not
know whether or not there was Rainscaping, than the overall percentage.
Strongly
Neither Agree Nor Disagree/Strongly Don't Know
Agree/Agree Disagree
Disagree
Total
(88)
Rainscaping
Focus Area
(22)
36.4% 10.2%
41% 4.5%
+4.6% -5.7%
16% 37.5%
18% 36.5%
+2% -1%
Of those respondents in the Rainscaping Focus Area, only two were not familiar with
the term Rainscaping - much less than the total group (9% vs. 18%). This is an
encouraging statistic in familiarity with the project types. However, individuals were
more likely to indicate that No Rainscaping projects were present in their neighborhood
(37% vs. 30%). This may be explained by the fact that there are relatively few installed
Rainscaping projects in the focus area, and few are in high -traffic areas. Still, this
represents an opportunity for public engagement and education on the existence of
projects within neighborhoods.
Conclusion
This survey represents a brief snapshot into community perception of and support for
Rainscaping, and is universally positive. Areas for growth include community
awareness of Rainscaping projects' presence in their neighborhood, and availability of
information on Rainscaping to the community in general.
4
bA
cu
cu
cr)
c/3
emi
(X
,Iiii:' 1 —....
Ir /FI r ... {� to i i["r• /, 1 iJi1
... r *. i ° .i.} :;,,,r,,j
s . ' r % w { *R:. [ ' 1 4 ] r'./' �wrg' f1 . ,.+ ... } i •
! -r ICI � A If 1 li, s/+, �i +
+r s �# ,
1
T d
s
•
•
+•
•
I
Methodology
0 Needed feedback:
— Perceived benefits of green
infrastructure
— Perceived obstacles to
green infrastructure
— Community reaction to
Rainscaping
6 Audience:
— —575 members of external
newsletter distribution list
Includes municipal
contacts, Stakeholders, and
individuals who have
opted in to receive updates.
0 Technology
— Google Form created and
embedded on
www.projectclearstl.org
— Responses to multi -choice
questions randomized for
each respondent
— Responses captured in
spreadsheet and analyzed
here
0 In the field: July 21-29
2
By the Numbers
Distribution
chi July 21, 2015
— Total Emails Sent: 576
— Opens: 182 (31.60%)
— Clicks: 54 (9.38%)
— Bounces: 3 (0.52%)
0 July 28, 2015
— Total Emails Sent: 573
— Opens: 180 (31.41 %)
— Clicks: 48 (8.38%)
— Bounces: 0 (0.00%)
Responses
0 July 21-27:
— 44 completed surveys
— 35 would you like to learn
more about Rainscaping
projects in their community
0 July 28-29:
— 44 completed surveys
— 38 would you like to learn
more about Rainscaping
projects in their community
60
50
w
0
a 40
H
c,
ix
0 30
aJ
ttO
u
°;20
1
w
a
10
Strongly
Agree
I am familiar with the term "Rainscaping"
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly I Don't
Disagree Know
60
50
0 40
a
w
O 30 .j,,
bO
Ela
U 20
a
10
Rainscaping benefits my neighborhood
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Strongly I Don't
Disagree Know
5
70
60
in
l; 50
0
a
in
o�c 40
•
0
d
ebe 30
ai
u
L
a 20
10
0
If it were installed, Rainscaping would benefit my
neighborhood.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Strongly I Don't
Disagree Know
ao 1
35
v) 30
N25
c,
0 20
bO
ea
w15
V
L
w
a 10
There are Rainscaping projects in my neighborhood.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
I Don't
Know
7
I support the Rainscaping projects in my neighborhood.
60 -1"--
52.3
50
10
0
Strongly
Agree
Agree
12.513.6
11'
JINDL
0.0
Neither
Agree nor
Ilicnrrracs
Disagree
Strongly I Don't
Disagree Know 8
90
80
1 70
0
1 60
Lg 50
0
W 40
co
c 30
w
�- 20
a
10
0
Are you familiar with any of the following Rainscaping project
types?
—87:5
4.6 3.4
�� �5 5 \ti e, 5 5 5 esae mooe� te �� �,� ode ��0 �
C�'� e� Je'� .• I • `o`'� e�� t� �,�� o�1
,a`� eQ� 3' •tee pQe�- �e �` Q\a•
OJT #o1
fib'
ee5a
,t
Gel
Get
50
45
S' 40
°Q 35
12 30
0 25
au
an: 20
ate, 15
a 10
5
0
Are any of the following Rainscaping project types in your
neighborhood?
45.5
29.6
-�--4° —3 4
51/4C2
sSL
ae °o �� ��e �\��a 0���
see ea
Re
Qua �:Co �y0�•
�a
��t
e
0
90
VI
80
w c 70
0
y 60
a)
4!50
0
co
c 30
a
u
1 20
0
a
10
0
Would you support the installation of any of the following
Rainscaping projects in your neighborhood?
sky <5 \c, o0
ey 5 ? e.
�� JZ�e ‹k la t�' `o`'
a to
4 r, Cl eta
Re'
1�'� �° a•0 �r
,� 0
eye
eeic
11
Percentage of Responses
What additional benefits do you believe Rainscaping can
provide to your neighborhood?
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
or yea re <6 ':'
,,a� 6_\'• ek\ . 0) • e
•
�a ��f0 �`oKS e �
s��' �� �\�d. �a be,eye �e� a� a,�et
cp
"6 4 4 \k` 4 c,ei
`, .9 ,§J ,�l
e ire ea
5� ve �
�,�e ��� teal
Qeo o4\ `&
"t
2
Percentage of Responses
What obstacles are there to installing Rainscaping in your
neighborhood?
a
160 `��¢o
eG 000` c'a
90
80
°�70
0. 60
cu
-1:4 50
0
tow
40
a 30
L
a 20
10
0
Comparison: Familiarity vs. Support
87.5
—7671
85 .
79.6
41-.
A
, % 'b' Q�
ea
'Re
79.6
,,,
ofoi-eeta \ea °;
Q\a Get°t�
is'k
e46-
Familiar with
Support installing
14
Zip Codes of Respondents
Most Responses from:
0 63130: 18
0 63121: 8
0 63131: 6
U 63119: 5
v 63109: 5
U 63123: 4
0 63117: 3
U 63116: 3
U 63114: 3
Responses from Focus Area
0 22 of 88 live in Zip Codes
in the Focus Area
0 Zip Codes responding:
- 63121: 8
- 63116: 3
- 63104: 2
- 63137: 2
- 63102: 1
- 63103: 1
- 63110: 1
- 63111: 1
- 63112: 1
- 63118: 1
- ti21 A 7• 1
15
APPENDIX R COMMUNITY BENEFITS OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
LITERATURE REVIEW
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure
Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Prepared By
Ranish Shakya
Laurent Ahiablame
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
Project Officers
Robert Boly
Susan McCrary
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Project Period
13 February - 12 December 2014
Acknowledgments
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
Jianpeng Zhou
Susan Morgan
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Steve Trenz
Michael Buechter
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
ii
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ___________________________________________________________ 1
Introduction ______________________________________________________________ 3
Study area _______________________________________________________________ 5
MSD’s wastewater and stormwater management areas _________________________ 5
Pilot project sites ______________________________________________________ 7
Methodology _________________________________________________________ 9
Green infrastructure programs reviewed _______________________________________ 11
Description of green infrastructure programs reviewed ________________________ 11
Methods used to evaluate social and economic benefits of green infrastructure programs
___________________________________________________________________ 15
Social benefits of green infrastructure _____________________________________ 16
3.3.1 Reduction of urban heat island effect and heat stress ________________________ 16
3.3.2 Enhancement of aesthetics and increase in recreational opportunities ___________ 17
3.3.3 Equitable access to healthy neighborhoods _______________________________ 18
3.3.4 Creation of green jobs________________________________________________ 18
3.3.5 Improvement of air quality and human health _____________________________ 18
3.3.6 Reduction of flooding and Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) _______________ 19
3.3.7 Reduction of domestic violence and crime rate ____________________________ 19
3.3.8 Other social benefits _________________________________________________ 19
Economic benefits of green infrastructure __________________________________ 21
3.4.1 Creation of green jobs________________________________________________ 21
3.4.2 Reduction of energy bills _____________________________________________ 21
3.4.3 Increase in property values ____________________________________________ 21
3.4.4 Reduction of infrastructure cost and treatment cost _________________________ 22
3.4.5 Reduction of flood and associated costs __________________________________ 22
3.4.6 Other economic benefits ______________________________________________ 22
Potential social and economic benefits of green infrastructure implementation in St. Louis 24
Social benefits: _______________________________________________________ 24
Economic benefits: ____________________________________________________ 26
Socio-economic conditions of pre- and post-GI implementation ____________________ 29
Socio-economic conditions prior to GI implementation _______________________ 29
5.1.1 Population _________________________________________________________ 29
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
iii
5.1.2 Race _____________________________________________________________ 29
5.1.3 Age ______________________________________________________________ 29
5.1.4 Education level _____________________________________________________ 29
5.1.5 Education/knowledge about Green Infrastructure __________________________ 29
5.1.6 Flood and CSO reduction _____________________________________________ 29
5.1.7 Average housing value _______________________________________________ 30
5.1.8 Income level _______________________________________________________ 30
5.1.9 Employment status __________________________________________________ 30
5.1.10 Poverty status ____________________________________________________ 30
Socio-economic conditions of post-GI implementation ________________________ 33
Crime rate and domestic violence ________________________________________ 33
Conclusion ______________________________________________________________ 35
References __________________________________________________________________ 37
Appendix A: Summary of GI Programs within United States __________________________ 44
Appendix B: Summary of GI Programs outside United States __________________________ 51
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
iv
List of Tables
Table 1: Green infrastructure pilot project sites in the Bissell Point in the Metropolitan
St. Louis Sewer District service area _______________________________________ 8
Table 2: Summary of metropolitan areas reviewed and their green infrastructure
programs ___________________________________________________________ 12
Table 3: Analyses conducted for measuring socio-economic benefits of green
infrastructure for cities reviewed in this study _______________________________ 16
Table 4: Social benefits associated with green infrastructure in metropolitan areas
reviewed in this study _________________________________________________ 20
Table 5: Economic benefits associated with green infrastructure in metropolitan areas
reviewed in this study _________________________________________________ 23
Table 6: Potential benefits of green infrastructure practices applicable to the Metropolitan
St. Louis area ________________________________________________________ 28
Table 7: Survey conducted during 2006-2010 period by the Missouri Census Data
Center’s (MCDC) American Community for pre-GI implementation in 20 census
tracts around pilot project locations _______________________________________ 31
Table 8: Socio-economic conditions in the neighborhoods prior to GI projects ____________ 32
Table 9: Socio-economic conditions of post-GI implementation from Fall 2013 block
party in JeffVanderLou neighborhood, St. Louis, MO ________________________ 33
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
v
List of Figures
Figure 1: MSD’s combined sewer area ____________________________________________ 5
Figure 2: MSD’s Bissell Point service area _________________________________________ 6
Figure 3: Pilot project sites in the Bissell Point service area ____________________________ 9
Figure 4: The twenty census tracts selected around the pilot project implementation sites ____ 11
Figure 5: Location of cities adopting green infrastructure programs that were reviewed
in United States ______________________________________________________ 13
Figure 6: Location of cities adopting green infrastructure programs that were reviewed
in various parts of the world ____________________________________________ 13
Figure 7: Average crime rate for pre- and post- GI implementation periods for the City
of St. Louis __________________________________________________________ 34
Figure 8: Average offence against family member (domestic violence) for pre- and
post- GI implementation periods for City of St. Louis ________________________ 34
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
1
Executive Summary
This report explores and compiles potential community benefits of green infrastructure (GI)
implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD) service area. The method of
analysis consists of reviews of social and economic benefits of GI programs reported by
numerous sewer districts and municipalities in technical and non-technical reports, including
reports from GI pilot projects in the MSD service area. The analytical methods used by the GI
programs reviewed to evaluate socio-economic benefits of GI implementation were also
summarized. Findings show that social benefits of GI include mitigation of urban heat island,
reduction of emotional and heat stress, aesthetical enhancement of urban landscape, increase of
recreational opportunities, reduction of flood and combined sewer overflow (CSO), creation of
green jobs, reduction of domestic violence and crime rate, improvement of air quality,
improvement of quality of life, enhancement of physical and mental health, and promotion of
urban agriculture and community gardens. The economic benefits consist of increase in property
value, creation of green jobs, reduction in energy bills, reduction of flood and associated costs,
reduction of stormwater management costs, increase in stormwater infrastructure life span, and
reduction of stormwater pumping costs. The different analytical methods utilized to evaluate GI
socio-economic benefits include triple-bottom-line (TBL), benefit-cost analysis, life cycle
assessment, cost effectiveness, business case analysis, literature review, and computer modeling.
Based on the reviews, implementation of GI in the MSD service area would provide many social
benefits such as heat island and heat stress reduction, enhancement of urban landscape aesthetics
for recreational opportunities, creation of equitable access to healthy neighborhoods,
improvement of quality of life, reduction of domestic violence and crime rate, abatement of noise
abatement, improvement of community livability, and increase in community cohesion. The
economic benefits in MSD service area could be observable in increase of employment
opportunities, reduction of energy bills, increase in property values, reduction on deep tunnel
pumping costs, reduction of flooding and CSOs associated costs, increase in tourism, and
increase opportunity for business. Survey results of MSD’s community block party and reports
based on the GI pilot sites highlight reduction of sewer backups and flooding (80% of
respondents agree or strongly agree), reduction of stress and increase of community cohesion as
72% of respondents “agree or strongly agree” that “people enjoy working in” communities with
GI practices, and increase of property value (60% of respondents agree or strongly agree). Using
survey results from the block party conducted by MSD, GI implementation appear to have some
benefits in the neighborhoods surrounding the pilot projects. Crime and domestic violence did
not change with the implementation of GI projects.
This study focuses only on social and economic benefits of GI which are suitable for the MSD
service area. These benefits were not explicitly quantified in this study. The information used to
evaluate post-GI implementation conditions in MSD pilot project neighborhoods are very limited
and may not accurately illustrate the benefits that can be derived from GI implementation in St.
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
2
Louis. Crime and domestic violence data used in this study were available only for the entire
City of St. Louis. This may not necessarily represent the conditions in MSD service area. To
quantify community benefits of GI implementation MSD service area, TBL, literature reviews or
questionnaire survey can be used as most of the GI programs reviewed utilized these benefit
quantification methods.
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
3
Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defines green infrastructure as “an approach that
communities can choose to maintain healthy waters, provide multiple environmental benefits and
support sustainable communities” (USEPA n.d., para. 1). Green infrastructure (GI) helps in
stormwater management, flood mitigation, air quality management, and has many more
advantages for urban communities (USEPA n.d., para. 1; USEPA 2000). The majority of the
United States’ population lives in urban and suburban areas and the trend of U.S. population
moving to urban settings is likely to continue (Kharel 2010; Short 2012).
The urban population increased from 56% in 1950 to 84% in 2010 of the total population living
in United States (Short 2012), resulting in large conversion of forest or agricultural land uses to
suburban and urban areas (NRC 2008). Land surface of urban and semi-urban areas is generally
covered with buildings and non-pervious pavements (USEPA 2003a). Storm runoff from these
impervious surfaces may affect the physical, chemical, and biological conditions of downstream
water bodies (NRC 2008; Leopold et al. 1968; Bhaduri et al. 2000; Mejía and Moglen 2010).
The impacts of urbanization on natural hydrologic regime can be broadly translated into reduced
infiltration and increased runoff that could result in excessive amount of stormwater into storm
drainage systems and ultimately into downstream water bodies (Peters and Rose 2001; Tang et
al. 2005; Erickson and Stefan 2009; Torrey 2013), contributing to combined sewer overflows
(CSOs), and causing stream bank erosion, flooding, and water quality problems (Leopold et al.
1968; Bhaduri et al. 2000; Mejía and Moglen 2010; CH2MHILL 2011). Combined sewer
overflows discharge millions of gallons of untreated wastewater into creeks, lakes and rivers that
adds to water pollution and health risk of living organisms (Phillips et al. 2012; Odefey et. al.
2012). Urban expansion also causes, among others, air pollution, decrease in open space,
decrease in biodiversity, and heat island effect as built surfaces absorb significant amount of
solar radiation (Hunt and Szpir 2006; Arrau and Peña 2011; Kharel 2010).
Stormwater management in urban settings has traditionally been handled with the use of end-of-
pipe techniques that carry runoff away from buildings and communities as fast as possible
through networks of pipes, tunnels, and ditches (PGCo 1999a, b; DoD 2004; Davis 2005; CEI
2008). Unlike green infrastructures, these practices, known as traditional or conventional or grey
infrastructure conveyances systems, do not support infiltration, and groundwater recharge
(USEPA 2000; CEI 2008). Green infrastructure practices are generally implemented to mimic
natural hydrologic functions (e.g. infiltration, evaporation) to control stormwater runoff at source
by reducing runoff peak, volume, and pollutant transport (Davis 2005; Davis et al. 2009). Green
infrastructure is increasingly being used to minimize the discharge of stormwater runoff into
combined sewer systems and receiving waters, reduce costs for the construction of traditional
stormwater management infrastructures, and help restore natural landscape hydrologic functions
(Davis 2005; Lloyd 2001; Scholz and Grabowiecki 2007; Pezzaniti et al. 2009; Coffman 2002;
Odefey et. al. 2012). Practices frequently used for onsite storm runoff management include rain
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
4
gardens, green roofs, porous pavement, tree plantation, vegetated curb, bioswale, cistern, pocket
wetland, planter box, among others. Shifting from grey to green infrastructure can provide
noticeable social and economic benefits, creating considerable cost savings and making
communities more healthier and livable (Hunt and Szpir 2006; Hunt et al. 2010; ENTRIX,
2010). Many GI pilot programs have been adopted worldwide to reduce CSOs, and improve both
water quality and the sustainability of metropolitan neighborhoods.
The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD) in Missouri is the fourth largest sewer system
in the United States. It serves 1.4 million people with wastewater and stormwater management in
the St. Louis metropolitan area, which covers 535 square miles with 9,600 miles of stormwater,
sanitary, and combined sewers (MSD 2011). Combined sewer overflows have been identified as
a major challenge for MSD (MSD 2011). During rainfall events, especially medium and heavy
storms, the capacity of many sewers in the area is exceeded, leading to CSOs, which in turn
result in quality deterioration in the receiving water bodies. As a remedy to this concern, the
State of Missouri approved in June 2011, a comprehensive Long-Term Control Plan (LTCP) of
CSOs proposed by MSD, including implementation of GI in the combined sewer areas (MSD
2011). The tributaries to CSOs are along the Mississippi River. A total of $100 million was
allocated by MSD for the GI program over 23 years (MSD 2011). The implementation of GIs in
the area of concern would help control and capture storm runoff through processes such as
infiltration, evaporation, adsorption, and plant water use (Davis 2005; Lloyd 2001; Scholz and
Grabowiecki 2007; Pezzaniti et al. 2009; Coffman 2002; Ahiablame et al. 2012), leading to a
significant reduction of CSOs (Bloorchian 2013). The MSD’s GI program is located within some
of the most economically-distressed portions of the St. Louis community, and is starting with a
5-year pilot phase using $3 million to implement a variety of GI practices.
The objectives of this report were to (1) complete a literature review to summarize key
community benefits associated with the implementation of pilot GI programs, with focus on
social and economic benefits; (2) determine evaluation methods and metrics used in the global
literature to evaluate these benefits; and (3) document potential benefits of GI implementation
relevant to the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Districts’ (MSD’s) GI program. This report is
intended to provide benchmark information on the performance of these GI practices at pilot
sites (with respect to GI social and economic benefits) to assist MSD in the development of a full
scale GI program in St. Louis.
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
5
Study area
MSD’s wastewater and stormwater management areas
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD) provides wastewater and stormwater service to five
major areas - Bissell Point, Coldwater Creek, Lemay, Lower Meramec, and Missouri River –
covering an area of 1,386 km2 (535 sq. miles) and serving approximately 1.4 million people
(MSD 2011). About 14% of the total service area is served by combined sewer system, which is
located within the Bissell Point and Lemay service areas (Figure 1). The remaining 86% of the
total service area is covered by separate sewer system (Figure 1). During heavy rainfall, the
capacity of combined sewer systems is often exceeded, leading to sewer overflow, which directly
discharges into downstream creeks and the Mississippi River.
Figure 1: MSD’s combined sewer area (Source: MSD 2011)
The Bissell Point service area covers 228 km2 (88 sq. miles) of land (about 17% of MSD’s total
service area), of which 104 km2 (40 sq. miles) is covered with combined sewers (Figure 2). This
combined sewer area is the focus area targeted for the implementation of a variety of GI
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
6
practices (Figure 2). The Bissell Point service area has 55 permitted combined sewer outfalls that
discharge into the Maline Creek and Mississippi River during wet weather seasons. The Lemay
service area covers 311 km2 (120 sq. miles) (23% of MSD’s total service area), and 91 km2 (35
sq. miles) of Lemay is under combined sewer systems. This area also has permitted combined
sewer outfalls (total 144) that discharge into Des Peres River and its tributaries before entering
the Mississippi River. The Lemay service area CSO control focuses on grey infrastructure
solutions.
Figure 2: MSD’s Bissell Point service area (Source: MSD 2011)
A study was conducted by Limno-Tech (2009) for MSD to evaluate the potential of GI in
reducing CSOs. The GI techniques applicable in the MSD’s Combined Sewer System (CSS) area
include green roof, bioretention, green street, and rain barrel, among others, at site and
neighborhood scales. Rapid infiltration techniques were not included in the plan due to the
existing soil type in the CSS area.
MSD’s GI program has a budget of $100 million for 23 years (2011-2034) in site-scale and
neighborhood-scale GI implementation projects to complement grey infrastructure for improving
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
7
water quality and reducing CSOs. With an initial investment of $3 million, a 5-year pilot
program commits to perform stormwater retrofits with GI on properties owned by Land
Reutilization Authority. Different GI practices will be implemented and their performance will
be evaluated through monitoring efforts at selected sites. The pilot projects will provide
information for full-scale implementation of the GI program.
Pilot project sites
The northern part of the City of St. Louis that is tributary to the Bissell Point Treatment Plant is
the target area for the GI pilot program. The sites for pilot GI implementation projects were
selected through a well-defined process developed by MSD. The potential candidate sites were
investigated to identify streets, alleys, or properties with impervious area draining to MSD
funded demolition properties or other Land Reutilization Authority (LRA) owned properties.
Factors such as slope of the site, development around the site, parking lots draining to the site,
and nearby location of churches and schools were also considered for selecting the pilot project
locations. After this preliminarily study, the design and cost of the GI to be implemented at those
sites were analyzed and final pilot sites were selected.
MSD initiated the GI program with 27 pilot sites, of which 6 are neighborhood-scale projects and
21 are site-scale implementations (13 planter boxes, 3 rain gardens, 5 amended soil sites) (Table
1 ; Figure 3).
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
8
Table 1: Green infrastructure pilot project sites in the Bissell Point in the Metropolitan St. Louis
Sewer District service area
Project Name Public Name Planted Ward Alderman City
Block(s) Address Zip
code Neighborhood
Lot Scale Projects:
C.B. 1003, 1004, 1005, 1030
(Habitat for Humanity
Redevelopment - multi
addresses)
Habitat for
Humanity
Planter Boxes in
JeffVanderLou
Fall,
2011 3/19 Bosley/
Davis
1004,
1005,
1030
2940, 2942, 2944,
2946, 2954, 2956
Thomas St.; 2945,
2951, 2953, 2957
Thomas St.; 2942,
2944 Sheridan Av.;
1341 N. Garrison Av.
63106 JeffVanderLou
40' E OF NE CORNER OF
N. FLORISSANT &
MONROE (1451 & 1455
MONROE)
Monroe St. Lot-
scale Rain
Gardens in Old
North
Spring,
2012 5 Hubbard 1111 1451 & 1455 Monroe
St. 63106 Old North
Harlan #835 (CDA Rehab)
Harlan Av. Lot-
scale Rain
Garden in Baden
Spring,
2013 2 Flowers 6348 835 Harlan Av. 63147 Baden
Amended Soil Package #1
(4228-4240 Warne Avenue,
4133-4135 Lea Place)
Amended Soil
Package #1
Fall,
2011
4228-4240 Warne Avenue 3 Bosley 3396 4228-4240 Warne Av. 63107 Fairground
4133-4135 Lea Place 21 French 4429 4133-4135 Lea Pl. 63115 O'Fallon
Amended Soil Package #2
(4021-4023 Glasgow, 3139-
3143 N Sarah, 3832-3834
Labadie)
Amended Soil
Package #2
Spring,
2012
3832-3834 Labadie 3 Bosley 3627 3832-3834 Labadie 63107 JeffVanderLou
3139-3143 N Sarah 4 Moore 3624 3139-3143 N Sarah 63115 The Greater
Ville
4021-4023 Glasgow 3 Bosley 1939 4021-4023 Glasgow 63107 Fairground
Neighborhood Scale Projects
CLINTON ST. #1323
BIORETENTION (CB632) -
CSO VR GIPLT
Clinton St. Rain
Garden in Old
North
Fall,
2012 5 Hubbard 632 1323 Clinton St. 63106 Old North
NORTH VANDEVENTER
#2812 BIORETENTION
CELL (CB 3628) CSO VR
GIPLT
N. Vandeventer
Ave. Rain
Garden in
JeffVanderLou
Spring,
2013 3 Bosley 3628 2812 N. Vandeventer
Av. 63107 JeffVanderLou
NORTH SARAH #1801-
1803 BIORETENTION (CB
3662) CSO VR GIPLT
N. Sarah St.
Rain Garden in
The Ville
Spring,
2013 4 Moore 3662 1801 N. Sarah St. 63113 The Ville
GERALDINE #5099
BIORETENTION (CB5087)
CSO VR GIPLT
Geraldine Ave.
Rain Garden in
Mark Twain
Spring,
2013 1 Tyus 5087 5099 Geraldine Av. 63115 Mark Twain
BEACON #5479
BIORETENTION (CB5528)
CSO VR GIPLT
Beacon Ave.
Rain Garden in
Walnut Park
East
Spring,
2013 27 Carter 5528 5479 Beacon Av. 63120 Walnut Park
East
WARNE #4241 ROW
BIORETENTION (CB4899)
CSO VR GIPLT
Warne Ave.
Rain Garden in
O'Fallon
Fall,
2013 21 French 4899 4241 Warne Av. 63107 O'Fallon
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
9
Figure 3: Pilot project sites in the Bissell Point service area (Courtesy of Greg Snelling, MSD)
Methodology
To identify the socio-economic benefits and the analysis conducted to quantify these benefits, 11
metropolitan areas and their principal cities within the United States, and 5 metropolitan areas
outside the United States were selected using the size of St. Louis metropolitan area as a
criterion. In other words, the city reviewed must approximately have the same population size or
more of St. Louis. This criterion was driven by the stakeholder (in this study) who was interested
in exploring what GI programs other municipalities and districts about the same size as St. Louis
are establishing in order to make informed decisions in implementing the St. Louis metropolitan
GI program. The cities selected in this study were identified through a literature review of
numerous GI case study reports, web search, and expert opinion of the research team. The
required information for the selected cities were collected from technical reports, project
summaries, fact sheets, government publications, books, conference proceedings, unpublished
reports, by visiting cities’ official websites, and personal correspondence with resourceful
persons to obtain needed reports and information. Key information collected for each
metropolitan area include stormwater billing system, incentives provided for implementing GIs,
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
10
stormwater rules and regulations, policy or programs for protecting green spaces, name of long-
term GI plan or program, organization responsible for implementing the GI projects, analyses
conducted to estimate economic and social benefits of GI programs, and the actual social and
economic benefits gained from implementation of GIs.
The potential benefits of GI practices in St. Louis area were identified using expert opinion of
the research team based on the information obtained from the literature of the GI programs
reviewed and inputs from MSD staff. This report does not include design specifications of GI
practices and this study strictly focused on social and economic benefits of GI in urban
environments.
The information on socio-economic conditions in the neighborhoods of the pilot project sites
prior to implementation of GI practices were compiled and summarized from the MSD’s
Combined Sewer Overflow Long-Term Control Plan (CSO LTCP), Missouri Census Data Center
(MCDC), and St Louis Metropolitan Police Department (SLMPD). ArcGIS shapefile of census
tracts within the City of St. Louis was obtained from the USDA-Geospatial Gateway website
(http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/). Twenty (20) census tracts were then selected around the
pilot project sites (Figure 4) and these census tracts were used as masks to extract the socio-
economic conditions of the neighborhoods surrounding the sites. The socio-economic data of the
selected census tracts were obtained from Missouri Census Data Center website
(http://census.missouri.edu/acs/profiles/) for a period of 2006-2010. This period represents the
pre- implementation period of the GI pilot projects. Data for crime and domestic violence of the
City of St. Louis were obtained from St Louis Metropolitan Police Department
(http://www.slmpd.org/Crimereports.shtml). In addition, MSD conducted two telephone surveys
with 904 and 835 participants in the neighborhoods surrounding the pilot projects in their CSO
LTCP report (MSD 2011). The socio-economic conditions prior to GI implementation such as
income level, knowledge about GI, and flood & CSO reduction, were compiled from this survey.
Post-implementation condition data were not available because census tracts can only cover at
least 5-year period to generate enough surveys for reliable estimates based on the sampling sizes
used in the one-year survey. In other words, the census bureau waits until 5 years of survey data
to produce census tract estimates. In order to compare the post-implementation of GI pilot
projects, socio-economic data from 2012 to 2016 were needed. Thus, the post implementation
information was obtained from a survey conducted during a workshop (block party) at
JeffVanderLou in Fall 2013 (Morgan et al. personal communication). JeffVanderLou is a
neighborhood within the 3rd and 19th Wards of the City, and Habitat for Humanity Saint Louis
installed 24 rain gardens and 13 planter boxes in the properties within JeffVanderLou (Morgan et
al. personal communication) (Figure 3). During this survey, the impacts of GI implementation in
the neighborhood was assessed with 175 respondents. It should be noted that only questions
pertaining directly to this study was used in the present report.
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
11
Figure 4: The twenty census tracts selected around the pilot project implementation sites
Green infrastructure programs reviewed
Description of green infrastructure programs reviewed
Existing or planned GI programs/plans in 11 metropolitan areas in the United States and 5 in
various parts of the world were reviewed (Table 2; Figures 5 and 6). The metropolitan areas
selected for the review were of the size (i.e. population) of St. Louis metropolitan area or larger.
The population of these metro areas range from 1.5 million (Milwaukee Metropolitan Area) to
35 million (Greater Tokyo Area) with areas covering from 3,028 km2 (1,169 sq. mi.)
(Metropolitan Area of Copenhagen) to 1,043,514 km2 (402,903 sq. mi.) (South Australia; Table
2, Figures 5 and 6).
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District 12 Table 2: Summary of metropolitan areas reviewed and their green infrastructure programs No Metro Area Country Population Size* Area*km2 (sq. mi.) Municipality rank1 City of Interest Population of City* Name of GI program Period Within United States 1 Chicago metropolitan area Illinois, USA 9,461,105 28,160 (10,874) 3 City of Chicago 2,695,598 Green Stormwater Infrastructure Strategy 2013 - 2018 2 Cleveland metropolitan area Ohio, USA 2,068,283 5,173 (1,997) 28 City of Cleveland 396,815 Project Clean Lake Green Infrastructure Plan 2012 - 2023 3 Greater Austin Texas, USA 1,716,289 11,100 (4,286) 35 City of Austin 790,390 Green Roof Program Green Alley Initiative 2010 - 2015 - 4 Kansas City metropolitan area Missouri, USA 2,009,342 20,596 (7,952) 30 Kansas City, Missouri 459,787 Middle Blue River Basin Green Solutions Pilot Project 2011 - 2017 5 Los Angeles metropolitan area California, USA 12,828,837 12,520 (4,850) 2 City of Los Angeles 3,792,621 Green Streets LA program Los Angeles Downspout Disconnection Program City of Los Angeles Stormwater Program Million Trees LA Initiative - Initiated in 2008 - Started in 2007 6 Milwaukee metropolitan area Wisconsin, USA 1,555,908 3,781 (1,460) 33 City of Milwaukee 594,833 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan 2013 - 2035 7 Nashville metropolitan area Tennessee, USA 1,670,890 16,520 (7,484) 35 Nashville 601,222 Green Infrastructure Master Plan Approved in 2009 8 New York metropolitan area New York, USA 19,567,410 34,490 (13,318) 1 New York City 8,175,133 NYC Green Infrastructure Plan 2010 - 2030 9 Philadelphia metropolitan area Pennsylvania, USA 5,965,343 11,989 (4,629) 7 City of Philadelphia 1,526,006 Green City, Clean Waters Program 2011 - 2036 10 Portland metropolitan area Oregon, USA 2,226,009 17,310 (6,684) 19 City of Portland 583,776 Grey to Green (G2G) Initiative 2008 - 2013 11 Seattle metropolitan area Washington, USA 3,439,809 21,202 (8,186) 13 City of Seattle 608,660 Comprehensive Drainage Plan Started in 1999 Outside United States 12 Birmingham metropolitan area United Kingdom 3,701,107 - - Birmingham 1,085,400 Green Living Spaces Plan Approved in 2013 13 Copenhagen metropolitan area Denmark 1,969,941 3,028 (1,169) - Copenhagen 569,557 Five Finger Plan Copenhagen Climate Change Adaptation Plan Eco-metropolis Pocket Parks, Trees and Other Green Areas - - 2007 - 2015 2009 - 2015 14 Greater Tokyo area Japan 34,607,069 13,754 (5,310) - City of Yokohama 3,697,894 Yokohama Green-Up Plan Climate Change Initiative Eco-city Initiative 2009 - 2018 - - 15 Greater Toronto Canada 5,583,064 7,125 (2,751) - City of Toronto 2,615,060 Wet Weather Flow Master Plan 2003 - 2028 16 South Australia (Note: South Australia is a state in the southern central part of Australia) Australia 1,650,600 1,043,514 (402,903) - Adelaide 1,291,666 Sustainable Landscapes Project 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide Green Infrastructure Project at the Botanic Gardens of Adelaide 202020 vision - 2010 - 2040 - 2013 - 2020 1 Based on population (for US Municipalities only) * Source: United States Census Bureau, Office for National Statistics (UK), Statistics Denmark, Statistics Canada, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Wikipedia
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
13
Figure 5: Location of cities adopting green infrastructure programs that were reviewed in United
States
Figure 6: Location of cities adopting green infrastructure programs that were reviewed in various
parts of the world
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
14
Among the cities reviewed within the United States, Chicago, Austin, Kansas City (Missouri),
Los Angeles, and Seattle did not have long-term GI programs but have various plans/programs
that support implementation of GI. In October 2013, the Mayor of Chicago, Mayor Rahm
Emanuel, declared “Green Stormwater Infrastructure Strategy” with the goal of reducing
basement flooding and CSO in the city (Garrison and Hobbs 2011). Austin has adopted a number
of initiatives such as “The Green Alley Initiative”, and “Green Roof Program” that support green
practices. The goal of GI implementation in Austin is to improve water quality, reduce flooding
and erosion, and decrease potable water usage for landscape irrigation (USEPA 2011). Similarly,
Los Angeles (LA) has number of pilot programs like “Green Streets LA program”, “Los Angeles
Downspout Disconnection Program”, “City of Los Angeles Stormwater Program”, and “Million
Trees LA Initiative” that support GI implementation in LA. The main purpose of implementing
GI in LA is to capture precipitation and urban runoff in order to increase groundwater recharge
and water reuse (Chau 2009). Kansas City (Missouri) plans to reduce discharge from CSOs using
both green and grey infrastructure by 5 billion gallons per year by 2025 with an estimated cost of
$2.5 billion as part of 2010 consent decree with the USEPA (Garrison and Hobbs 2011). The city
is currently implementing a pilot project named “Middle Blue River Basin Green Solutions Pilot
Project” that includes installation of 130 individual GI units in a 100-acre portion of the
Marlborough neighborhood (KCWater Services 2013). Seattle’s “Comprehensive Drainage
Plan”, implemented by Seattle Public Utilities (SPU), has been supporting GI with a primary
purpose of protecting aquatic biota and creek channels, improving water quality, and reducing
the stormwater runoff volume (Garrison and Hobbs 2011).
Cities within the United States such as Cleveland, Milwaukee, Nashville, New York,
Philadelphia, and Portland have long-term GI programs that are currently being implemented.
Cleveland is currently implementing a GI program named “Project Clean Lake Green
Infrastructure Plan”, which is a long-term (2012-2023) GI plan implemented by Northeast Ohio
Regional Sewer District (NEORSD) with an estimated cost of $42 million to reduce combined
sewer overflow. The city of Milwaukee, known for its brewing traditions, has a GI program
named “Regional Green Infrastructure Plan” with a 2035 Vision of having zero basement
backups, zero combined sewer overflows, and improved water quality. The time frame of the
program is 22 years (2013 - 2035) with an estimated cost of $1.3 billion for full implementation.
Milwaukee launched also “H2OCapture.com” website to educate and engage the public about GI
implementation in a cost-effective way (CH2MHILL 2013; The Civic Federation 2007).
Nashville has “Green Infrastructure Master Plan” that was finalized and approved in fall 2009 to
install GIs within the 32 km2 (12.3 sq. mi.) of combined sewer system (CSS) area for reducing
stormwater inflows to the CSS (MWS 2009). New York, the most densely populated city in the
United States, has “NYC Green Infrastructure Plan” with a timeframe of 20 year (2010 – 2030)
and an estimated cost of $1.6 billion to use decentralized stormwater retention and detention
measures for managing runoff from 10% of impervious surfaces in combined sewer watersheds
(DEP 2010). Philadelphia is currently implementing a GI program named “Green City, Clean
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
15
Waters Program” with a time frame of 25 years (June 2011 - June 2036) and an estimated cost of
$1.67 billion. The main goal of this program is to improve the quality of life for residents and
visitors (PWD 2009). Portland, known as the City of Roses, launched a five year program called
"Grey to Green (G2G) Initiative" in 2008 to encourage implementation of GI with an estimated
cost of $50 million. The purpose of this program is to reduce CSO, basement flooding, peak
flow, and protect downstream water bodies (ENTRIX, Inc. 2010).
In the City of Toronto, Water Infrastructure Management section of Toronto Water Division
launched a 25-year (2003-2028) stormwater plan at $1 billion called “Wet Weather Flow Master
Plan”, which is a comprehensive strategy to deal with surface water quantity and quality, sewage
overflows, habitat protection, and stormwater management at the source using both traditional
and green stormwater management methods (Bowering and Li 2006; Garrison and Hobbs 2011).
Birmingham established “Parks and Open Space Strategy” for protecting parks and open spaces
through guiding planning, design, management, and maintenance of parks and open spaces in the
city from 2006 until 2021 (BCC 2006). The city also has the “Nature Conservation Strategy” to
ensure that nature conservation resources are protected and accessible to future generations
(BCC 1997). The “Green Living Spaces Plan” of Birmingham is intended to help preserve and
enhance green spaces and networks across the city. The plan supports the existing “Parks and
Open Space Strategy” and “Nature Conservation Strategy” and aims to help make the city
healthy by ensuring effective long-term maintenance of natural green spaces and water bodies
(BCC 2013). The city of Copenhagen has various policy and programs that promote green space
in the city. These plans, which include “Five Finger Plan”, “Copenhagen Climate Change
Adaptation Plan”, “Eco-metropolis”, and “Pocket Parks, Trees and Other Green Areas” ensure
that people living in the city of Copenhagen have access to open space, parks and natural areas.
Similarly, the City of Yokohama has “Yokohama Green-Up Plan”, “Climate Change Initiative”,
and “Eco-City Initiative” for protecting green spaces. “Yokohama Green-Up Plan” is a multi-
year plan initiated by the city in 2009 to preserve green spaces in the city for future generations.
The “Climate Change Initiative” aids in conservation and creation of natural environment and
green space, while the “Eco-City Initiative” helps to rehabilitate green network along the coast,
enhance ecological sustainability of the city, and provide recreational opportunities to citizens. In
Adelaide, the capital city of South Australia, “Sustainable Landscapes Project”, “30 Year Plan
for Greater Adelaide”, “Green Infrastructure Project at the Botanic Gardens of Adelaide”, and
“202020 Vision” were adopted for promoting GI practices in the city of Adelaide so that people
can live in healthy and beautiful landscapes.
Methods used to evaluate social and economic benefits of green infrastructure programs
Various analyses were conducted to evaluate social and economic benefits associated with GIs
for cities reviewed in this study (Table 2). These include triple-bottom-line (TBL), benefit-cost,
life cycle assessment, cost effectiveness, business case analysis, literature review, benefit or
value transfer approach, questionnaire survey, and use of computer models (Table 3).
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
16
Table 3: Analyses conducted for measuring socio-economic benefits of green infrastructure for
cities reviewed in this study
Metro Area City
Triple
Bottom
Line
Benefit-
Cost
Life Cycle
Assessment
Cost
Effectiveness
Business
Case
Analysis
Simulation
Modeling
Literature
Review
Benefit or
Value
Transfer
Approach
Questionnaire
(Survey)
Within United States
Chicago metropolitan area Chicago √ 1
Cleveland metropolitan area Cleveland √ 2 √
Greater Austin Austin √
Kansas City metropolitan area Kansas City, Missouri √
Los Angeles metropolitan area Los Angeles √
Milwaukee metropolitan area Milwaukee √ √ 3
Nashville metropolitan area Nashville √
New York metropolitan area New York √ √
Philadelphia metropolitan area Philadelphia √
Portland metropolitan area Portland √ √ √ 4 √
Seattle metropolitan area Seattle √ √ √
Outside United States
Birmingham metropolitan area Birmingham √
Copenhagen metropolitan area Copenhagen √
Greater Tokyo area Yokohama √
Greater Toronto Toronto √
South Australia Adelaide √ √
1 Bin-method energy model developed by American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) was used by City Hall, Chicago to estimate energy cost savings due to
cooling effect of green roof.
2 IMPLAN (IMpact Analysis for PLANning) model was used to determine the economic impact due to maintenance spending on GIs.
3 Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) applied the System for Urban Stormwater Treatment and Analysis Integration (SUSTAIN) model to identify the most cost-effective set of LID/GI
practices in terms of runoff volume reduction.
4UFORE (Urban Forest Effects) model from US Forest Service (USFS) was used to estimate air pollution removed in terms of particulate matter by trees and shrubs for improving air quality and health.
Social benefits of green infrastructure
Green infrastructure provides many social benefits. Implementation of GI practices helps to
improve existing built areas by converting them into greener environments, improving quality of
life and the aesthetics of these locations, reducing crime rate and stress, and creating recreational
opportunities (CH2MHILL 2013). Increased physical activities are associated with access to safe
and good quality green space (Forest Research 2010). Physical activities help people to reduce
obesity, enhance mental well-being, and increase social interaction and integration (HHS 2008;
National Prevention Council 2011). Green spaces are particularly beneficial to people who are
vulnerable to social exclusion, especially older and younger people (Forest Research 2010). The
social benefits associated with the 16 GI programs reviewed are summarized below.
3.3.1 Reduction of urban heat island effect and heat stress
Built surfaces such as buildings and pavements tend to absorb substantial proportion of incident
radiation and release as heat, causing rise in temperature in urban area (Arrau and Peña 2011;
Killingsworth et al. 2011). Urban heat islands create health problems for local residents as heat
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
17
waves might lead to heat stroke and even death (USEPA 2003b). Due to heat island effect,
central Los Angeles is typically 5°F warmer than surrounding suburban and rural areas during
summer (Chau 2009). Implementation of GI practices (green roof, trees, green walls, and rain
gardens) provide shade that lowers temperature within the building as well as cool the
surrounding air through evapotranspiration (Killingsworth et al. 2011). Green spaces help to
mitigate the urban heat island effect reducing heat stress and eventually improving public health.
Philadelphia stated that GI implementation would create shade and reduce the amount of heat
gain that occurs in urban areas, reducing urban heat island (UHI) effect. The TBL analysis
conducted in Philadelphia predicted reduction of approximately 140 fatalities caused by
excessive heat and heat stress over the next 40 years (PWD 2009). A study on benefits and costs
of green roof conducted by Ryerson University (Toronto) revealed that the wide spread
implementation of green roof in Toronto would help to reduce the local ambient air temperature
between 0.5 oC (33°F) and 2oC (35.5°F) (Doshi et al. 2005). A comprehensive review of
literature on GI benefits for the City of Adelaide (Australia) reported that GI could help lower
heat stress, heatstroke or death of residents (Ely and Pitman 2012). Other cities such as Chicago,
Los Angeles, Austin, Milwaukee, Seattle, etc. also reported about the reduction of urban heat
island (UHI) effect due to implementation of GIs (Table 4; USEPA 2010; Garrison and Hobbs
2011).
3.3.2 Enhancement of aesthetics and increase in recreational opportunities
The lack of access to green space has been a major problem that communities in urban areas are
currently facing. This could lead to poor public health (Wolch et al. 2014). Vegetation and
natural landscape features help to improve the surrounding environment enhancing its aesthetics
and increasing recreational opportunities. If GI is incorporated in buildings or open spaces, it
helps to improve community livability and provide opportunities to stay healthy through
recreational activities. The TBL analysis conducted by Philadelphia estimated that over 40-years
the monetized present value of recreational benefits amounts to $520 million (Stratus Consulting
Inc. 2009). Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewer District (MMSD) predicted that the implementation
of GIs (green alley and bioretention areas) in its combined sewer service area could increase
recreational areas by 275-acres, thus increasing recreational opportunities (MMSD 2011).
Predictions through benefit or value transfer approach conducted by Birmingham estimated the
annual value of recreational benefits for £7.4 million ($12.6 million) for woodland and £0.17
million ($0.3 million) for wetland, and the aesthetic appreciation of woodland was valued at £8.6
million ($14.7 million) (Hölzinger 2011). A questionnaire survey conducted in the City of
Adelaide based on the feedback of 76 participants allowed to conclude that 47% of the
respondents strongly agreed that GI provides attractive living space and increases the aesthetics
of the surrounding environment (Sustainable Focus 2013), while 42% strongly agreed that GI
provides recreational opportunities (Sustainable Focus 2013).
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
18
3.3.3 Equitable access to healthy neighborhoods
Implementing GI in minority and low income neighborhoods could enhance greenness, create
hope, and improve community livability in these neighborhoods (ENTRIX, Inc. 2010). For
example, Portland reported that implementing GI practices in communities provide equitable
access to healthy environment to minority and low-income neighborhoods (ENTRIX, Inc. 2010).
Philadelphia and Cleveland also reported that GI provides “more equitable access” to clean and
healthy neighborhoods (Table 4; Garrison and Hobbs 2011; NEORSD 2012).
3.3.4 Creation of green jobs
The construction and maintenance of any infrastructure, workforce is required. Green
infrastructure also requires construction and maintenance, necessitating both skilled and
unskilled labors. Need of permanent workforce in GI project helps to create green jobs,
ultimately reducing poverty. Based on the TBL analysis conducted by the City of Philadelphia,
nearly 250 people could be employed in green jobs annually (PWD 2009) and the estimated
present value of benefits based on saved social costs of poverty, such as food stamps and
homeless expenditure, by added green jobs is estimated to be $125 million over 40-year period
(Stratus Consulting Inc. 2009). Milwaukee predicted an annual reduction of $5.5 million in
social costs with a present worth of $68 million over 20 years period with the creation of green
jobs (MMSD 2011).
3.3.5 Improvement of air quality and human health
Vegetation helps to improve air quality by filtering airborne pollutants such as ozone (O3) and
particulate matter (PM10). Also, reduction of energy consumption decrease emission of sulfur
dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) improving quality of air (Stratus Consulting Inc.
2009). Improvement of air quality is directly associated with public health improvement
(American Rivers 2012). The City of Philadelphia estimated that air quality improvement due to
full implementation of GI projects in the city would reduce the frequency and severity of
respiratory illness and the present value of benefits of improved air quality on health was
estimated $130 million over 40-year period (Stratus Consulting Inc. 2009). According to a study
conducted for Portland, 1 acre of ecoroof removes approximately 7.7 pounds of particulate
matter (PM10) per year, 1 square meter of green street facility removes 0.04 pounds of PM10
annually, and each tree removes approximately 0.2 pounds of PM10 per year (ENTRIX, Inc.
2010). According to the Municipal Forest Resource Analysis (MFRA) prepared for the City of
New York by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, trees in New York City are estimated to
remove or reduce 129 tons of ozone, 63 tons of PM10, and 193 tons of NO2 year (DEP 2010).
Similarly, a study conducted by Ryerson University reported that the economic value of reducing
carbon monoxide (CO), NO2, O3, PM10, SO2 using green roof in Toronto would be about $2
million per year (Doshi et al. 2005).
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
19
3.3.6 Reduction of flooding and Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)
In recent years, the number of flood events that occurred increased a wide range of concerns
regarding flooding, leading to increased attention on management and reduction of flood risk.
Urbanization intensifies flood risks as it increases runoff rate and volume, decreases time of
concentration, reduces soil-water infiltration, and alters natural shape of river (Erickson and
Stefan 2009). In area with combined sewer systems, the number of CSO events has increased,
resulting in impairment of water bodies and threatening aquatic life and habitat (Odefey et al.
2012). Vegetation helps to delay the downstream passage of runoff, reduce the volume of runoff
through precipitation interception by plants, and promote infiltration into the soil (Podolsky and
MacDonald 2008). Implementation of GI practice may reduce flooding and CSO events as GIs
would decrease the quantity of runoff. By reducing the volume of stormwater seeping into the
sewer system GI reduces pressure on sewer system during rain events. A study from the Center
for Urban Forest Research in Los Angeles found that one million trees can capture 1.9 billion
gallons of stormwater per year in Los Angeles area (Chau 2009). Other cities such as Chicago,
Kansas City, Milwaukee, Nashville, New York, Philadelphia, Portland and Seattle also reported
that GI practices could help address flooding and CSOs issues (Table 4; The Civic Federation
2007; KCWater Services 2013; USEPA 2013; MWS 2009).
3.3.7 Reduction of domestic violence and crime rate
Creation of green jobs and increase in job availability could decrease the rate of domestic
violence and crime. Green infrastructure practices also help to reduce mental fatigue and stress,
which may be linked to reduction in domestic violence. The reduction of crime rate associated
with GI could be explained by the fact in greener environments people spend more time
outdoors, thus discouraging crimes. Milwaukee, Nashville, and Copenhagen reported that
implementation of GIs could lower crime rates and strengthen local communities through
increased social interactions (Table 4; MMSD 2011; MWS 2009; Surma 2013). The cities of
Portland and Adelaide reported that that well-maintained green areas help reduce mental fatigue,
aggression in individual, and decreases domestic violence and crime rate in the community
(ENTRIX, Inc. 2010; Ely and Pitman 2012).
3.3.8 Other social benefits
Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland reported that implementing GI practices play a major role in
creating attractive streetscapes to enhance pedestrian environment (USEPA 2010; Chau 2009)
(Table 4). Cleveland, Austin, Kansas City, Milwaukee, New York, Portland, Birmingham,
Copenhagen and Adelaide reported on the importance of green spaces for improving quality of
life through stress reduction, and enhancement of physical and mental health (Table 4). Cities of
Austin, Toronto and Adelaide specified that GI practices provide space for urban agriculture and
community gardens (Table 4; Doshi et al. 2005; Ely and Pitman 2012). Perceptions in Adelaide,
Australia, indicated that trees and plants help to create vegetation buffer that helps reduce traffic
noise to adjacent residential area abating noise pollution (Table 4; Ely and Pitman 2012).
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District 20 Table 4: Social benefits associated with green infrastructure in metropolitan areas reviewed in this study Metro Area Reduction of urban heat island effect and heat stress Enhancement of aesthetics and increase in recreational opportunities Creation of attractive streetscapes enhancing pedestrian environment Equitable access to healthy neighborhoods Improvement of quality of life (enhancement of physical and mental health, and reduction of stress) Creation of green job* Improvement of air quality and human health Reduction of flooding and Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Reduction of domestic violence and crime rate Providing space for urban agriculture and community gardens Noise abatement Within United States Chicago metropolitan area √ √ √ √ Cleveland metropolitan area √ √ √ √ √ Greater Austin √ √ √ √ √ Kansas City metropolitan area √ √ √ √ √ √ Los Angeles metropolitan area √ √ √ √ √ Milwaukee metropolitan area √ √ √ √ √ √ Nashville metropolitan area √ √ √ √ √ New York metropolitan area √ √ √ √ √ Philadelphia metropolitan area √ √ √ √ √ √ Portland metropolitan area √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Seattle metropolitan area √ √ √ √ Outside United States Birmingham metropolitan area √ √ √ √ √ Copenhagen metropolitan area √ √ √ √ Greater Tokyo Area (City of Yokohama) √ √ √ Greater Toronto √ √ √ √ √ Adelaide (South Australia) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ * May also contribute to economic benefits
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
21
Economic benefits of green infrastructure
Green infrastructure practices provide multiple economic advantages such as money saving for
developers, property owners and the community, among others. The 16 metropolitan areas
reviewed, allowed to identify the following economic benefits associated with GI practices.
3.4.1 Creation of green jobs
Philadelphia’s TBL analysis reported that GI projects help to create nearly 250 green jobs
annually (PWD 2009), and the creation of these green jobs would provide an estimated present
value benefit of $125 million of saving on social costs over 40-year period (Stratus Consulting
Inc. 2009). Similar predictions were made in Milwaukee, where the creation of green jobs would
help reduce of social costs estimated at of $5.5 million with a present worth of $68 million over
20-year period (Table 5; MMSD 2011).
3.4.2 Reduction of energy bills
Green infrastructure practices provide shade to buildings and help to reduce energy needed for
heating and cooling. Implementing GI practices may reduce runoff volume, leading to decrease
in energy costs for pumping and treating water (Odefey et al. 2012). Philadelphia’s TBL analysis
indicated that a net energy saving over 40-year period in the city approximates 370 million kWh
(kilowatt hours) or $34 million (Stratus Consulting Inc. 2009). The City Hall in Chicago used
“bin method” (Table 3) energy model developed by the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) to estimate energy cost savings due to
cooling effect of green roof. The model predicted an annual total energy cost saving of $3,600
(Peck 2001). Average annual energy saving for the city of Portland was estimated to be more
than 8,270 kWh per acre of ecoroofs, 155 kWh per green street facility, and more than 11 kWh
per tree (ENTRIX, Inc. 2010). Using the TBL analysis, Milwaukee estimated a reduction of 1.8
million kWh of energy use over 20-year period in the combined sewer service area saving
$98,000 - $143,000 (MMSD 2011). According to the MFRA (Municipal Forest Resource
Analysis), shading and climate effects of New York City’s street trees provide approximately
$27.8 million in energy saving per year (Table 5; DEP 2010). The Cost-benefit analysis
conducted by Ryerson University indicated that implementing green roof in Toronto would result
in savings of $21 million per year (Table 5; Doshi et al. 2005). The Benefit or value transfer
approach revealed that Birmingham could save annually £0.39 million ($0.7 million) in energy
costs for heathland (Heathland refers to shrubland habitat, which usually grows on freely-drained
infertile soils), and £0.48 million ($0.8 million) for grassland (Table 5; Hölzinger 2011).
3.4.3 Increase in property values
Vegetation improves urban aesthetics and community livability, which lead to increase in
property value. Studies showed that property values are higher in areas with trees and vegetation
compared to similar area without vegetation (Hastie 2003). Philadelphia Water Department
(PWD) estimated property and home values would increase by 2 to 5% in greened
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
22
neighborhoods, near parks, and green areas by $390 million (total in the city) over next 40 years
(Table 5; PWD 2009). Seattle also estimated an increase (5%) in property values of property
located in close proximity to green areas (Table 5; USEPA 2013). Projections in Portland
indicated 3 to 5% would increase value in homes located near green streets, swales and other GI
practices (Table 5; ENTRIX, Inc. 2010). The TBL analysis conducted by Milwaukee, showed an
increase of $68 million in property values in the combined sewer service area (MMSD 2011). A
study conducted in New York City showed that a garden can raise neighboring property value by
9.4% within five year of opening of the garden (DEP 2010). Green Infrastructure practices were
shown to help increase property values in Adelaide through a survey instrument with 33% of
respondents who agreed with "very agree" (Table 5; Sustainable Focus 2013).
3.4.4 Reduction of infrastructure cost and treatment cost
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewer District (MMSD) predicted that implementing porous pavements
and green alleys in the combined sewer service area would help reduce 66% to 77% in per unit
storage cost of stormwater, which would reduce the infrastructure costs of stormwater (Table 5;
MMSD 2011). In Toronto, downspout disconnection saved about $140 million in stormwater
infrastructure costs from 1998 to 2011 (Table 5; Garrison and Hobbs 2011). An estimate of $279
million in municipal capital costs would also be saved annually with the implementing green
roofs in Toronto (Garrison and Hobbs 2011).
3.4.5 Reduction of flood and associated costs
Nashville was hit by devastating flood in early May 2010 and the event resulted in an estimated
$2 billion in damage to private properties (Garrison and Hobbs 2011). Green Infrastructure
practices could help reduce flood risk, property damage, and associated costs as shown by the
benefit or value transfer approach conducted in Birmingham to predict annual reduction of £0.37
million ($0.6 million) in damage caused by flooding with the implementation of 426 ha of
wetland (Table 5; Hölzinger 2011).
3.4.6 Other economic benefits
Milwaukee and New York reported that GI implementation helps in the reduction of stormwater
pumping costs from deep tunnels (Table 5), while Austin, Portland and Adelaide listed increase
of infrastructure life span with the implementation of GI practices (Table 5). Cities of Nashville,
Philadelphia and Portland reported that implementing GI practices would minimize stormwater
fees (Table 5). Birmingham and Copenhagen pointed out that implementation of GI practices
would increase tourism and opportunities for business activities (Table 5). In Copenhagen and
Adelaide GI is thought help reduce food bills by providing space for urban agriculture (Table 5).
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
23
Table 5: Economic benefits associated with green infrastructure in metropolitan areas reviewed
in this study
Metro Area Creation of green job* Reduction of energy bills Increase in property values Reduction of infrastructure cost and treatment cost Reduction of flood and associated cost Reduction of pumping costs Increase in life span of infrastructure Reduction of stormwater fees Increase in tourism Increase in business activity Reduction of food bills due to urban agriculture production Within United States
Chicago metropolitan area √ √
Cleveland Metropolitan Area √ √ √ √
Greater Austin √ √ √
Kansas City Metropolitan Area √ √ √ √
Los Angeles metropolitan area √ √ √ √
Milwaukee metropolitan area √ √ √ √ √
Nashville metropolitan area √ √ √ √ √
New York metropolitan area √ √ √ √
Philadelphia metropolitan area √ √ √ √ √
Portland metropolitan area √ √ √ √ √
Seattle metropolitan area √ √ √
Outside United States
Birmingham Metropolitan Area √ √ √ √ √ √
Copenhagen Metropolitan Area √ √ √ √ √
Greater Tokyo Area (City of Yokohama) √
Greater Toronto √ √ √ √ √
South Australia (Adelaide) √ √ √ √ √
* May also contribute to social benefits
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
24
Potential social and economic benefits of green infrastructure implementation in St.
Louis
Social and economic benefits of GI practices that are suitable for the St. Louis area were
identified based on the information obtained from the reviews of 16 GI programs of
geographically diverse metropolitan areas. Further information on how these benefits were
determined for the St. Louis area is detailed in the Methodology. All identified social benefits
during literature review were selected as potential social benefits of GI in St. Louis. In addition,
benefits identified from the survey conducted by MSD in its CSO LTCP and a surveys and
reports from MSD service area (MSD 2011; Morgan et al. personal communication) were also
selected. Except stormwater fees which are not applicable in the St. Louis area (Keller 2014)), all
economic benefits were deemed relevant.
Social benefits:
Urban heat island effect /heat stress reduction
In urban area, temperature is higher than the surrounding area due to heat absorbed by
buildings and pavements creating urban heat islands. This urban heat island can cause
health problems for local residents as heat waves may lead to heat stroke and even death. In
a study conducted by Chau (2009), central Los Angeles is typically 5°F warmer than
surrounding suburban and rural areas during summer due to the heat island effect.
Implementation of green infrastructure, such as green roofs, green walls, trees and rain
gardens, provide shade and cool the surrounding air through evapotranspiration. Green
spaces help mitigate the urban heat island effect, reducing heat stress and eventually
improving public health.
Enhancement of urban natural aesthetics for recreational opportunities
Vegetation and natural features help improve the surrounding environment, enhancing the
urban aesthetics and increasing recreational opportunities. Green infrastructures
incorporated in buildings and open spaces provide recreational opportunities to stay
healthier and improve community livability.
Creation of attractive streetscapes to enhance walkable streets for pedestrians (business and
pleasure)
Green Infrastructures are aesthetically pleasant. They help beautify communities and make
the city more pedestrian-friendly. For instance, tree-lined streets are more walkable as they
provide shade and safe zone of separation between cars and pedestrians.
Creation of equitable access to healthy neighborhoods
Green space helps to improve water and air quality of the area surrounding it, creating
healthy neighborhoods. Irrespective of the socio-economic status of people, well
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
25
maintained green infrastructure in local proximity helps create equitable access to healthy
neighborhoods.
Improvement of quality of life (enhancement of physical and mental health, and reduction
of stress)
Green spaces promote physical activity and enhance the health profile of users. Higher
physical activities are directly associated with access to safe and good quality green space.
A study by Kaczynski and Henderson (2007) found that living closer to parks or
recreational/leisure facilities is associated with increased physical activity. Green spaces
provide peaceful environment which help alleviate stress and mental fatigue. Green spaces
also help improve mental well-being by encouraging social activity and interaction,
improving the quality of life of people surrounded by green spaces.
Creation of green job
Construction and maintenance of green infrastructures create job opportunities for skilled
and unskilled labors. Permanent need of workforce may also be required, which helps
create green job and decrease poverty.
Improvement of air quality, leading to promotion of good health
Vegetation helps filter airborne pollutants such as particulate matter and ozone. Reduction
of energy consumption also decreases emission of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide
(NOx). Air quality improvement leads to reduction of respiratory illness in people,
improving their health.
Reduction of domestic violence and crime rate
Green infrastructure helps reduce mental fatigue and stress that could help in reducing
domestic violence. In addition, job availability due to green infrastructure project is also a
condition for decreasing domestic violence. Green neighborhoods help reduce crime rates
as green surrounding encourages people to spend time outdoors.
Provision of space for urban agriculture and community gardens
Turning impervious surfaces compacted soils in vacant lots into urban farms or community
gardens provide opportunity for urban agriculture as well as help increase green spaces.
Noise abatement
Trees and vegetation provide noise buffer between residential accommodation and
roadways, reducing sound transmission through sound absorption which results in noise
abatement.
Development of opportunities for education
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
26
Green infrastructure provides an opportunity of educating citizens by training them to be
well informed about environmental issues and serve as advocates of GIs in the community.
Improve community livability
Green infrastructure helps to improve local aesthetics of a community, increase recreational
opportunities for people, and reduce noise pollution levels, improving the community
livability.
Increase public safety
Green infrastructure helps to increase public safety through reduction of flood risk,
demolition of old/worn-out buildings, and crime reduction through promotion of outdoor
activities.
Increase community cohesion
Green infrastructures encourage social activities and interactions through a shared vision of
beautiful and safe community, which would help to improve the network and relationship
among neighborhood residents, increasing community cohesion.
Economic benefits:
Green job creation
Green infrastructure provides green job opportunity for skilled as well as local unskilled
person for landscaping and green infrastructure operation and maintenance. Design,
construction, operation, and maintenance of green infrastructures result in increased
employment opportunities reducing urban unemployment rate.
Reduction on energy bills
Green infrastructure such as trees, green roofs and green walls provide shade and
insulation, decreasing energy needed for heating and cooling. Implementation of GI also
helps to reduce stormwater collection, conveyance, and treatment costs, leading to decrease
of energy used and reduced energy bills.
Increase in property value
Enhancement of urban natural aesthetics by developing green spaces and demolition of
old/worn-out buildings in the community helps to improve the image of an area, increasing
property and land values. Property value increase may benefit local economy by
encouraging further property development and increase in tax revenues.
Reduction of grey infrastructure costs and treatment cost
Green infrastructure helps decrease stormwater runoff volume that reduces the need to
build new grey infrastructure such as pipes and tanks for stormwater conveyance and
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
27
storage. Additional savings could also be expected from reduced maintenance and
operation costs for pipe network and reduced treatment costs.
Increase life span of infrastructure
Vegetation placed on top of roof helps to prolong the life span of the roof by protecting it
from extreme temperatures and ultra-violet rays that wear-off the roofing material.
Reduction on deep tunnel pumping costs
Green infrastructure reduces the need for deep tunnel pumping as it captures stormwater
that would otherwise enter the deep tunnel. Milwaukee’s green infrastructure plan
estimated an annual flow reduction to deep tunnels from areas with green infrastructure
implementation to be about 66% (CH2MHILL 2013).
Reduction on flood associated costs
In urban areas, lesser amount of stormwater runoff infiltrates into the ground causing
ponding, sewer backups and flood events. Green infrastructure practices help in the
reduction of localized flooding by capturing stormwater where it falls, decreasing runoff
volume and relieving pressure on stormwater infrastructure systems. Green infrastructure
also helps to reduce flooding impact by decreasing damage and associated repair costs to
private to public infrastructures/properties.
Increase of tourism
Areas with green spaces have a better image and attract more visitors, increasing tourism.
Increase opportunities for business and increase in business activities
Investment in green spaces helps improve a region’s image, attracting people and creating
opportunities for business activities.
Reduce food bills due to urban agriculture production
Urban agriculture helps in the production of food for personal use, leading to a significant
reduction in food bills.
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
28
Table 6: Potential benefits of green infrastructure practices applicable to the Metropolitan St.
Louis area
* Contributes also to economic benefit
** Contributes also to social benefit
Social Benefits Economic Benefits
Urban heat island effect /heat stress
reduction
Green job creation**
Enhancement of urban natural aesthetics
for recreational opportunities
Reduction on energy bills
Creation of attractive streetscapes to
enhance walkable streets for pedestrians
(business and pleasure)
Increase property values through enhancement
of urban natural aesthetics and demolition of
old/worn-out buildings in the community
Creation of equitable access to healthy
neighborhoods
Reduction of stormwater infrastructure (grey)
and treatment costs
Improvement of quality of life
(enhancement of physical and mental
health, and reduction of stress)
Increase life span of infrastructure (e.g.
buildings)
Creation of green job* Reduction on deep tunnel pumping costs
Improvement of air quality, leading to
promotion of good health
Reduction on flood associated costs
Reduction of domestic violence and crime
rate
Increase of tourism
Provision of space for urban agriculture
and community gardens
Increase opportunities for business and
increase in business activities
Noise abatement Reduce food bills due to urban agriculture
production
Development of opportunities for
education
Improve community livability
Increase public safety through reduction of
flood risk and demolition of old/worn-out
buildings
Increase community cohesion
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
29
Socio-economic conditions of pre- and post-GI implementation
Socio-economic conditions prior to GI implementation
5.1.1 Population
The total population of the selected census tracts around the MSD pilot project site was 51,875
inhabitants, with 23,785 male and 28,090 female. The area covered by the selected 20 census
tracts was 33 km2 (12.77 sq. mi.) and the population density was 1572 person per km2 (4062
person per sq. mi.) (Table7).
5.1.2 Race
The majority of the population living in the neighborhoods of the pilot project areas are Black or
African American descents. The MCDC’s data showed that 94% of the population are Black or
African American, 5% are White, 0.6% are Hispanic or Latino, and 1.4% are other races (Table
7).
5.1.3 Age
The median age of the people living around the pilot neighborhoods was 34 years (Table 7).
5.1.4 Education level
Among people living in the selected census tracts area, 44% (22,769 people) have high school or
higher education level (Table 7).
5.1.5 Education/knowledge about Green Infrastructure
The first telephone survey conducted by MSD with 904 respondents showed that 21% were very
willing to disconnect downspouts from the home’s sewer line while 9% were not willing at all,
11.7% were willing to replace their concrete or asphalt driveway/paths with pervious materials
while 29.2% were not willing at all, 11% of the interviewees’ home had rain garden, 89.4% did
not have any rain garden, 11% of the interviewees’ home had rain barrel connected to the gutter
downspout, 90% did not have rain barrel (Table 8).
Likewise, for the second telephone interview that surveyed 835 people, 25% were strongly
willing to disconnect downspouts from the home’s sewer line while 9% were not willing to do
so, 13.5% were willing to replace their concrete or asphalt driveway/paths with pervious
materials, 40.2% were not willing, 9% of the interviewees’ home had rain garden, 91% did not
have any rain garden, 8% of the interviewees’ home had rain barrel connected to downspout
gutter, and 92% did not have rain barrel (Table 8).
5.1.6 Flood and CSO reduction
The first telephone survey conducted by MSD (CSO LTCP) with 904 people showed that 25%
strongly agreed that MSD is able to address flooding while 4% strongly disagreed. Also, 23%
strongly agreed that MSD is able to address CSO while 4.5% strongly disagreed (Table 8). In the
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
30
second survey conducted with 835 people, similar results were obtained for both flood
addressing and CSO reduction ability of MSD. 31% strongly agreed that MSD is able to address
flooding while 6% strongly disagreed, and 31% strongly agree that MSD is able to address CSO
while 6% strongly disagree (Table 8). The reduction in flood and CSO will result in less
basement flooding and reduced property and infrastructure damage costs, improving thus
community livability and money saving on property maintenance.
5.1.7 Average housing value
The average housing value during 2006-2010 was $86,000 in the neighborhoods surrounding the
pilot project sites (Table 7).
5.1.8 Income level
In the first telephone survey conducted with 904 participants by MSD, 29.5% responded that
their total household income was < $35000, 21% responded reported that their income was
between $35000 and $59999, 18% had between $60000-$99999, 7% reported an income for
$100000 to $150000, 0.7% had > $150000, and 24% did not provide any information (Table 8).
The second telephone survey involved 835 people with 28% who had a total household income <
$35,000, 19.4% had $35,000-$59,999, 20.4% had $60,000-$99,999, 7.4% had $100,000-
$150,000, 4.8% had more than $150,000 and 19.6% did not provide any information about their
household income level (Table 8).
The MCDC’s data on the selected census tracts showed that the median household income in the
neighborhoods of the pilot project areas was $34,000 and the mean family income was $40,000
(Table 7).
5.1.9 Employment status
The total unemployed people in the area was 4955 persons, with an unemployment rate of 22%
(Table 7).
5.1.10 Poverty status
The data from MCDC showed that there were 17,155 persons living below poverty, accounting
for 34% of the people in the neighborhoods of the pilot projects (Table 7).
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
31
Table 7: Survey conducted during 2006-2010 period by the Missouri Census Data Center’s
(MCDC) American Community for pre-GI implementation in 20 census tracts around pilot
project locations
Socio-Economic Condition Unit Value
Population
Total
(Person)
51875
Male 23785
Female 28090
Total Area sq. km (sq. mi.) 33 (12.77)
Population Density Person per sq. km
(Person per sq. mi.)
1572
(4062)
Race
White
(Person)
2346
Black or African American 48530
Hispanic or Latino 299
Other 700
Age Median age (Years) 33.8
Education High school graduate or higher (Person) 22769
Average Housing Value ($) 86040.17
Income Level Mean household income ($) 34007.50
Mean family income ($) 40373.05
Employment Status Unemployed persons (Person) 4955
Unemployed percentage (%) 22
Poverty Status Total persons below poverty (Person) 17155
% of person below poverty (%) 34.22
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
32
Table 8: Socio-economic conditions in the neighborhoods prior to GI projects
Socio-Economic
Benefits
Conditions in the neighborhoods prior to GI implementation
Income level (percent) First survey
< $35,000 (29.5%)
$35,000-$59,999 (20.5%)
$60,000-$99,999 (17.8%)
$100,000-$150,000 (7.2%)
> $150,000 (0.7%)
No data (24.3%)
Second survey
< $35,000 (28.4%)
$35,000-$59,999 (19.4%)
$60,000-$99,999 (20.4%)
$100,000-$150,000 (7.4%)
> $150,000 (4.8%)
No data (19.6%)
Education/Knowledge
about Green
Infrastructure
First survey
21% are very willing to
disconnect downspouts from
the home’s sewer line while
9.2% are not willing at all.
11.7% are willing to replace
their concrete or asphalt
driveway/paths with pervious
materials while 29.2% are not
willing at all.
10.6% of the interviewees’
home had rain garden while
89.4% did not have any rain
garden.
10.5% of the interviewees’
home had rain barrel
connection to the gutter
downspout while 89.5% did
not have rain barrel.
Second survey
25.4% are very willing to
disconnect downspouts from
the home’s sewer line while
8.6% are not willing at all.
13.5% are willing to replace
their concrete or asphalt
driveway/paths with pervious
materials while 40.2% are not
willing at all.
8.9% of the interviewees’
home had rain garden while
91.1% did not have any rain
garden.
8.1% of the interviewees’
home had rain barrel
connection to the gutter
downspout while 92% did not
have rain barrel.
Flood and CSO
reduction
First survey
25.2% strongly agree that MSD
is able to address flooding
while 4.3% strongly disagree.
23.2% strongly agree that MSD
is able to address CSO while
4.5% strongly disagree.
Second survey
31.3% strongly agree that MSD
is able to address flooding
while 5.7% strongly disagree.
31.1% strongly agree that MSD
is able to address CSO while
6.1% strongly disagree.
Source: MSD 2011
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
33
Socio-economic conditions of post-GI implementation
A survey was conducted at a community event – a block party- with 30 respondents during Fall
2013. The survey showed that 60% ‘Agree or Strongly Agree’, 18% ‘Disagree or Strongly
Disagree’ and 22% replied ‘I Don’t Know’ when the respondents were asked whether GI adds
value to a house. Similarly, the majority of respondents (80%) ‘Agree or Strongly Agree’ that GI
could help to reduce sewer backups and flooding, while 10% ‘Disagree or Strongly Disagree’
and 10% mentioned ‘I Don’t Know.’ Among the respondents, 72% ‘Agree or Strongly Agree’,
18% ‘Disagree or Strongly Disagree’ and 10% said ‘I Don’t Know’ when asked if GI could
prompt interest in inhabitants to maintain GI practices (surveyed as “people enjoy working in”;
Table 9).
Table 9: Socio-economic conditions of post-GI implementation from Fall 2013 block party in
JeffVanderLou neighborhood, St. Louis, MO
Socio-economic benefit
Percentage of Respondents
Agree or
Strongly Agree
Disagree or
Strongly Disagree
I Don't
Know
Add value to house 60% 18% 22%
Reduce sewer backups & flooding 80% 10% 10%
People enjoy working in 72% 18% 10%
Source: Morgan et al. personal communication
Crime rate and domestic violence
Crime rate and domestic violence for the City of St. Louis for pre and post implementation was
compared. The number of average crime rate in the city of St. Louis decreased from over 60,000
to 51,300 from pre-implementation period to post-implementation period (Figure 7), while the
average domestic violence (crime against a family member) increased from 30 to 50 (Figure 8).
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
34
Figure 7: Average crime rate for pre- and post- GI implementation periods for the City of St.
Louis
Figure 8: Average offence against family member (domestic violence) for pre- and post- GI
implementation periods for City of St. Louis
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
35
Conclusion
Green infrastructure is a cost effective stormwater management approach with many social and
economic advantages. In this study, 16 GI programs in various cities were reviewed for
determination of socio-economic benefits of GI practices and the analyses conducted to identify
these socio-economic benefits. The literature review conducted relied on web search for
published reports, expert opinion of the research team, and personal correspondence of
resourceful parties. The 16 cities reviewed consist of Chicago, Cleveland, Austin, Kansas City,
Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Nashville, New York, Philadelphia, Portland, Seattle (United States),
Birmingham (United Kingdom), Copenhagen (Denmark), Yokohama (Japan), Toronto (Canada),
and Adelaide (Australia). Analyses such as TBL, benefit-cost analysis, cost-effectiveness,
computer modeling, value transfer approach, and survey instruments were conducted in the
studies reviewed to quantify the socio-economic benefits due to implementation of GI projects.
The social benefits include reduction of urban heat island effect and heat stress, enhancement of
urban nature aesthetics, increasing recreational opportunities, equitable access to healthy
neighborhoods, improvement of quality of life, enhancement of physical and mental health,
creating green job, improvement of air quality, reduction of flood events and CSOs; reduction of
domestic violence and crime rate, and improvement of community livability. The economic
benefits include creation of green jobs, reduction of energy bills, increase in property values,
reduction of costs for stormwater conveyance and treatment infrastructure, reduction of flood
and associated costs, reduction of costs for pumping stormwater runoff from tunnels, increase in
tourism and opportunities for business activities, and reduction of food bills by providing space
for urban agriculture.
The implementation of GI in the City of St. Louis would provide many potential social benefits
such as heat island and heat stress reduction, enhancement of urban landscape aesthetics,
creation of equitable access to healthy neighborhoods, improvement of quality of life, reduction
of domestic violence and crime rate, noise abatement, educational opportunities in the science of
GI, improvement of community livability, and increase in community cohesion; and economic
benefits such as employment opportunities due to green jobs creation, reduction of energy bills,
increase in property values, reduction on deep tunnel pumping costs, reduction of flooding and
CSOs associated costs, increase in tourism, and increase opportunity for business. Results from
telephone surveys conducted in MSD service area and government resources were used to
identify socio-economic conditions before and after GI implementation of the pilot project sites
in St. Louis. Before GI implementation, about 44% of the total population have high school or
higher education level, unemployment rate in the pilot project area was 22%, total population
living below poverty was 34%, average housing value was $86,000, median household income
was $34,000, and the mean family income was $40,000. Before GI implementation, 60% people
agreed that GI helps to add value to house, 80% agreed that it reduce sewer backups and
flooding, and 72% agreed that people enjoy working in maintaining GI practices. From pre to
post implementation period, crime was reduced by 14.5% but the domestic violence increased by
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
36
66.67%. Based on the findings from the GI program reviewed, TBL, literature reviews or
questionnaire survey can be used to quantify community benefits of GI implementation in St.
Louis.
The study focused only on identifying socio-economic benefits of GI in large metropolitan areas,
including St. Louis. There was no quantification of these benefits. The information used to
evaluate post-GI implementation condition in the pilot project area was not extensive and may
not accurately portray the extent of GI community benefits of the pilot projects. The crime and
domestic violence data reported were for the entire City of St. Louis and may not represent the
conditions pertaining to the pilot projects.
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
37
References
Ahiablame, L., Engel, B., Chaubey, I. (2012). “Effectiveness of Low Impact Development
Practices: Literature Review and Suggestions for Future Research.” Water, Air, & Soil Pollution,
223(7), 4253-4273.
American Rivers (2012). “Growing Green: How Green Infrastructure Can Improve Community
Livability and Public Health.” Available at: <http://www.americanrivers.org/assets/pdfs/green-
infrastructure-docs/growing-green-how-green-infrastructure-can-improve-community-
livability.pdf> (Accessed July 5, 2014).
Arrau, C.P., and Peña, M.A. (2011). “The Urban Heat Island (UHI) Effect.” Available at:
<http://www.urbanheatislands.com/> (Accessed April 20, 2014).
BCC (Birmingham City Council). (1997). “Nature Conservation Strategy for Birmingham.”
Birmingham City Council, Birmingham, UK.
BCC (Birmingham City Council). (2006). “The Birmingham Plan: The Future of Birmingham’s
Parks and Open Spaces.” Birmingham City Council, Birmingham, UK.
BCC (Birmingham City Council). (2013). “Making Birmingham Green: Green Living Spaces
Plan.” Development Directorate, Birmingham City Council, Birmingham, UK.
Bhaduri, B., Harbor, J., Engel, B., and Grove, M. (2000). “Assessing Watershed-Scale, Long-
Term Hydrologic Impacts of Land-Use Change Using a GIS-NPS Model.” Environmental
Management, 26(6), 643-658.
Bloorchian, A.A. (2013). “Effectiveness of Green Infrastructure for Volume Reduction in
Combined Sewers JeffVanderLou Neighborhood, St. Louis”, M.S. Thesis, Southern Illinois
University Edwardsville, Edwardsville, IL.
Bowering, T. and Li, A. (2006). “Wet Weather Flow Management: Guidelines.” Toronto Water.
Water Infrastructure Management, Toronto, Ontario.
CEI (Comprehensive Environmental Inc.) (2008). “New Hampshire Stormwater Manual.
Volume 1: Stormwater and Antidegradation.” Concord: NH. Comprehensive Environmental Inc.
& New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. WD-08-20A.
CH2MHILL (2011). “City of Lancaster Green Infrastructure Plan.” CH2M Hill Inc., City of
Lancaster, PA.
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
38
CH2MHILL (2013). “Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewer District Regional Green Infrastructure
Plan.” Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewer District, Milwaukee, WI.
Chau, H.F. (2009). “Green Infrastructure for Los Angeles: Addressing Urban Runoff and Water
Supply through Low Impact Development.” City of Los Angeles, LA.
Coffman, L. S. (2002). “Low-Impact Development: An Alternative Stormwater Management
Technology.” In R. L. France (Ed.), Handbook of Water Sensitive Planning and Design (pp. 97–
124). Washington, D.C.: Lewis.
Davis, A. L. (2005). “Green Engineering Principles Promote Low Impact Development.”
Environmental Science and Technology, 39, 338A–344A.
Davis, A. P., Hunt, W. F., Traver, R. G., and Clar, M. (2009). “Bioretention Technology:
Overview of Current Practice and Future Needs.” Journal of Environmental Engineering, 135,
109–117.
DEP (Department of Environmental Protection) (2010). “NYC Green Infrastructure Plan: A
Sustainable Strategy for Clean Waterways.” Department of Environmental Protection, New
York, NY.
DoD (Department of Defense) (2004). “The Low Impact Development Manual.” UFC-3-210-10.
Doshi, H., Banting, D., Li, J., Missios, P., Au, A., Currie, B.A., and Verrati, M. (2005). “Report
on the Environmental Benefits and Costs of Green Roof Technology for the City of Toronto.”
Dept. of Architectural Science, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada.
Ely, M., Pitman, S. (2012). “Green Infrastructure: Life Support for Human Habitats - The
Compelling Evidence for Incorporating Nature into Urban Environments.” Botanic Gardens of
Adelaide, SA.
ENTRIX, Inc. (2010). “Portland’s Green Infrastructure: Quantifying the Health, Energy, and
Community Livability Benefits.” City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services, Portland,
OR.
Erickson, T.O. and Stefan, H.G., (2009). “Groundwater Recharge in a Coldwater Stream
Watershed during Urbanization.” Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Project Report No. 524.
St. Paul, Minnesota: University of Minnesota.
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
39
Forest Research (2010). “Benefits of Green Infrastructure.” Report to Defra and CLG. Forest
Research, Farnham.
Garrison, N. and Hobbs, K. (2011). “Rooftops to Rivers II: Green Strategies for Controlling
Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflows.” Natural Resources Defense Council, New York,
NY.
Hastie, C. (2003). “The Benefits of Urban Trees: A Summary of the Benefits of Urban Trees
Accompanied by a Selection of Research Papers and Pamphlets.” Warwick District Council, UK.
HHS (Health and Human Services). (2008). “2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans.”
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC. Available at:
<http://www.health.gov/paguidelines/pdf/paguide.pdf> (Accessed July 22, 2014).
Hölzinger, O. (2011). “The Value of Green Infrastructure in Birmingham and the Black Country
– The Total Economic Value of Ecosystem Services provided by the Urban Green
Infrastructure.” Wildlife Trust for Birmingham and the Black Country, Birmingham, UK.
Hunt, W. F. and Szpir, L. L. (2006). “Permeable Pavements, Greenroofs, and Cisterns:
Stormwater Treatment Practices for Low-Impact Development.” Raleigh: N.C. State University.
Urban Waterways, N.C. Cooperative Extension Publication No. AGW-588-06.
Hunt, W. F., Traver, R. G., Davis, A. P., Emerson, C. H., Collins,K. A., and Stagge, J. H. (2010).
“Low Impact Development Practices: Designing to Infiltrate in Urban Environments.” In N.
Chang (Ed.), Effects of Urbanization on Groundwater (pp. 308–343). Reston: ASCE,
Environmental Water Resources Institute.
Kaczynski, A. and Henderson, K. (2007). “Environmental Correlates of Physical Activity: A
Review of Evidence about Parks and Recreation.” Leisure Sciences, 29 (4), 315–354.
KCWater Services (2013). “Kansas City’s Overflow Control Program: Middle Blue River Basin
Green Solutions Pilot Project Final Report.” Kansas City Water Services, Kansas City, MO.
Keller, J.R. (2014). “MSD’s Stormwater Charge Violates State Tax Law.” St. Louis Construction
News and Review, p. 20-21. Available at:
<http://www.herzogcrebs.com/News-Information/MSD-s-Stormwater-Charge-Violates-State-
Tax-Law.pdf> (Accessed December 11, 2014).
Kharel, G. (2010). “Impacts of Urbanization of Environmental Resources: A Land Use Planning
Perspective.” M.S. Thesis, The University of Texas at Arlington, TX.
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
40
Killingsworth, B., Lemay, L., and Peng, T. (2011). “The Urban Heat Island Effect and
Concrete’s Role in Mitigation.” Available at:
<http://www.nrmca.org/members/ConcreteInFocus/Enviro%20Library/NRC-S0511_urban.pdf>
(Accessed July 20, 2014).
Leopold, L.B. (1968). “Hydrology for Urban Land Planning - A Guidebook on the Hydrologic
Effects of Urban Land Use.” Geological Survey Circular 554. Washington, DC: United States
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey.
Limno-Tech. (2009). “Evaluation of Potential Effectiveness and Feasibility of Green
Infrastructure for Combined Sewer Overflow Control in the Bissell Point Service Area, St.
Louis, MO.”
Lloyd, S. D. (2001). “Water Sensitive Urban Design in the Australian Context.” Synthesis of a
Conference held 30–31 August 2000, Melbourne, Australia.
Mejía, A.I. and Moglen, G.E., (2010). “Impact of the Spatial Distribution of Imperviousness on
the Hydrologic Response of an Urbanizing Basin.” Hydrological Processes, 24, 3359–3373.
MMSD (Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewer District). (2011). “Determining the Potential of Green
Infrastructure to Reduce Overflows in Milwaukee.” Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewer District,
Milwaukee, WI.
MSD (Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District). (2011). “Combined Sewer Overflow Long-Term
Control Plan Update Report.” Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, MO. Update Report.
Available at:
http://www.stlmsd.com/educationoutreach/bestpractices/combinedseweroverflow/MSD%20Final
%20LTCP.pdf (Accessed July 27, 2014).
MWS (Metro Water Services). (2009). “Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson
County Green Infrastructure Master Plan.” Metro Water Services, Nashville, TN.
National Prevention Council (2011). “National Prevention Strategy: America’s Plan for Better
Health and Wellness.” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon
General, Washington, DC.
NEORSD (Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District). (2012). “Project Clean Lake Green
Infrastructure Plan.” Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, Cleveland, OH.
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
41
NRC (National Research Council). (2008). “Urban Stormwater Management in the United
States.” The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
Odefey, J., Detwiler, S., Rousseau, K., Trice, A., Blackwell, R., O’Hara, K., Buckley, M.,
Souhlas, T., Brown, S., and Raviprakash, P. (2012). “Banking on Green: A Look at How Green
Infrastructure Can Save Municipalities Money and Provide Economic Benefits Community-
wide.” Joint Report by American Rivers, the Water Environment Federation, the American
Society of Landscape Architects and ECONorthwest.
Peck, S.W. (2001). “Green Roofs: Infrastructure for the 21st Century Exploiting the Last Urban
Frontier.” Available at: < http://www.rci-online.org/interface/2001-11-peck.pdf> (Accessed July
20, 2014).
Peters, N.E. and Rose, S., (2001). “Urbanization Effects on the Hydrology of the Atlanta Area,
Georgia (USA).” International Association of Hydrology Science Publication, 269, 109–115.
Pezzaniti, D., Beecham, S., and Kandasamy, J. (2009). “Influence of Clogging on the Effective
Life of Permeable Pavements.” Water Management, 162(3), 211–220.
PGCo (Prince George’s County, Maryland). (1999a). “Low-Impact Development Hydrologic
Analysis.” Maryland: Department of Environmental Resources, Prince George’s County.
PGCo (Prince George’s County, Maryland). (1999b). “Low-Impact Development Design
Manual.” Maryland: Department of Environmental Resources, Prince George’s County.
Phillips, P.J., Chalmers, A.T., Gray, J.L., Kolpin, D.W., Foreman, W.T., and Wall, G.R. (2012).
“Combined Sewer Overflows: An Environmental Source of Hormones and Wastewater
Micropollutants.” Environmental Science and Technology, 46, 5336−5343.
Podolsky, L. and MacDonald, E. (2008). “Green Cities, Great Lakes: Using Green Infrastructure
to Reduce Combined Sewer Overflows.” Ecojustice, Canada. Available at:
<http://www.blue-economy.ca/sites/default/files/reports/green%20cities.pdf> (Accessed March
12, 2014).
PWD (Philadelphia Water Department). (2009). “Green City Clean Waters: The City of
Philadelphia’s Program for Combined Sewer Overflow Control - A Long Term Control Plan
Update, Summary Report.” Philadelphia Water Department, Philadelphia, PA.
Scholz, M.and Grabowiecki, P. (2007). “Review of Permeable Pavement Systems.” Building and
Environment, 42, 3830– 3836.
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
42
Short, J.R. (2012). “Metropolitan USA: Evidence from the 2010 Census.” International Journal
of Population Research, Volume 2012, 1-6, doi:10.1155/2012/207532.
Stormtech, Inc. (2007). “Application of Stormwater Runoff Reduction Best Management
Practices in Metropolitan Milwaukee,” Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewer District, Milwaukee, WI.
Stratus Consulting Inc. (2009). “A Triple Bottom Line Assessment of Traditional and Green
Infrastructure Options for Controlling CSO Events in Philadelphia's Watersheds.” City of
Philadelphia Water Department, Philadelphia, PA.
Surma, M. (2013). “Green Infrastructure Planning as a Part of Sustainable Urban Development –
Case Studies of Copenhagen and Wroclaw.” Landscape Architecture and Art, 3 (3), 22-32.
Sustainable Focus (2013). “Green Infrastructure Survey Prepared for the Botanic Gardens of
Adelaide.” Sustainable Focus Pty Ltd., Adelaide, SA.
Tang, Z., Engel, B.A., Pijanowski, B.C., and Lim, K.J. (2005). “Forecasting Land Use Change
and its Environmental Impact at a Watershed Scale.” Journal of Environmental Management, 76,
35–45.
The Civic Federation (2007). “Managing Urban Stormwater with Green Infrastructure: Case
Studies of Five U.S. Local Governments.” The Center for Neighborhood Technology, Chicago,
IL.
Torrey, B.B. (2013). “Urbanization: An Environmental Force to Be Reckoned With.” Population
Reference Bureau. Available at:
<http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2004/UrbanizationAnEnvironmentalForcetoBeRecko
nedWith.aspx> (Accessed April 20, 2014).
USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). (2000). “Low Impact Development (LID). A
Literature Review.” Washington, D.C: Office of Water. EPA-841-B-00-005.
USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). (2003a). “Protecting Water Quality from Urban
Runoff.” Nonpoint Source Control Branch. Available at:
<http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/nps_urban-facts_final.pdf> (Accessed April 24, 2014).
USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). (2003b). “Cooling Summertime Temperatures:
Strategies to Reduce Urban Heat Islands.” United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Publication Number: 430-F-03-014, Washington, DC.
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
43
USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). (2010). “Green Infrastructure Case Studies:
Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with Green Infrastructure.” Office of Wetlands,
Oceans and Watersheds, EPA-841-F-10-004.
USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). (2011). “Green Infrastructure Program
Community Partner Profiles - Region 6: Austin, Texas”, US Environmental Protection Agency.
Available at: <http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/upload/Region-6.pdf>
(Accessed April 28, 2014).
USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). (2013). “Case Studies Analyzing the Economic
Benefits of Low Impact Development and Green Infrastructure Programs.” US Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). (n.d.). “Water: Green Infrastructure.” US
Environmental Protection Agency. Available at:
<http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/index.cfm> (Accessed April 28, 2014).
Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., and Newell, J. P. (2014). “Urban Green Space, Public Health, and
Environmental Justice: The Challenge of Making Cities ‘Just Green Enough’.” Landscape and
Urban Planning, 125, 234–244.
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
44
Appendix A: Summary of GI Programs within United States
Chicago Metropolitan Area:
Being the third largest metropolitan area in the United States, Chicago is inhabited by 9.5 million
inhabitants. The City of Chicago operates a combined sewer system. Chicago lacks long term
green infrastructure plan but City's Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced $50 million Green
Stormwater Infrastructure Strategy in October 2013. The GI initiatives of Chicago has been
embedded across a number of departments (such as the Department of Environment (DOE),
Department of Planning and Development (DPD), Department of Water Management, Chicago
Department of Transportation (CDOT), Department of Streets and Sanitation’s Bureau of
Forestry, Department of General Services), each with its own finance stream. Green roofs, rain
barrels/cisterns, permeable pavement, rain gardens, infiltration trenches or vaults, vegetated
swales, street trees, and planter boxes are the GI installed through various projects. Computer
models were used in some study to predict the potential effectiveness of green infrastructure to
determine the reduction in volume and frequency of CSO. Socio-economic benefits include
increased property values for Chicago homeowners, help residents save money on energy costs,
make the City a great place to live, reduce the urban heat island effect, etc.
Cleveland Metropolitan Area:
Cleveland metropolitan area is the 28th most populous metropolitan area in the United States,
with nearly 2 million people inhabiting in 5,173 km2 (2000 sq. miles). The city of Cleveland
covers an area of 213.6 km2 (83 sq. miles), with population of 396,815. Other cities in the
Cleveland metropolitan area include Parma, Lorain, Elyria, Lakewood, Euclid, Mentor,
Cleveland Heights. The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD) and Division of
Water Pollution Control (WPC) are the two responsible agencies for 2310 km (1,436 miles) of
sewer and drainage lines in the city. NEORSD’s service area includes 207 km2 (80 sq. miles) of
combined sewer area, most of which fall within the city. Stormwater fees are charged based on
square footage of house for homeowners. For commercial and industrial buildings, the fees are
charged based on the impervious area. Homeowners pay a charge of $5.05 per residential unit
while residents pay $9 to $27 every three months, depending on the amount of impervious
surface on the property (Currently, the collection of stormwater fees is suspended due to court's
ruling). Property owners implementing stormwater control measures that reduce stormwater
quantity or improve stormwater quality are eligible for a 75% and 25% reduction of stormwater
fee, respectively. The city of Cleveland has a Complete and Green Streets Ordinance that was
passed in September 2011. The ordinance requires all construction projects within the public
right of way to incorporate design elements for stormwater management through GI. Programs
that support green space in the city include Summer Rain Barrel Program (provide rain barrels to
residents free of charge), and Only Rain Down the Storm Drain Campaign (educate Cleveland
residents on lowering the contaminated stormwater runoff on waterways). Project Clean Lake
Green Infrastructure Plan is a long term control plan (2012 - 2023) that is being implemented by
NEORSD with an estimated cost of $42 million for GI implementation (Dry and wet detention
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
45
ponds, Constructed Wetlands, Infiltration Basin, Bioretention Swales or Cells, Pervious/Porous
Pavements, Green Roof). The plan includes both traditional grey infrastructure (pipes) and green
infrastructure to address the District's stormwater and CSO issues. The GI practices would help
increase infiltration, evapotranspiration, and storage capacity of the landscape, and retain runoff.
The city plans to develop hydraulic and hydrologic (H&H) models for each GI project using
USEPA SWMM, MIKE Urban, and InfoWorks to calculate reduction of stormwater runoff (rate
and volume). IMPLAN (IMpact analysis for PLANning) model, an input-output model that
captures the buy-sell relationships among all industries, government and the household sector,
was used to determine the economic impact due to maintenance spending on GI. It is expected
that the maintenance cost of GI from 2020 to 2024 will be approximately $11 million. The
IMPLAN model predicts that this spending will create a total economic impact of 219 jobs,
$11.0 million in labor income, $13.8 million in value added impact (“value added measures the
value of goods and services less the intermediary goods, such as utilities, and represents a
portion of output”), $23.9 million in output impact (measures spending of NEORSD on the GI
maintenance projects), and generate $2.8 million in taxes. The jobs include landscaping, caring
for plantings, vacuuming pervious pavement, annual cleaning of cisterns, spot weeding, pruning,
trash removal, mulch raking of rain gardens, cleaning of inlets, treating or replacing diseased
trees and shrubs in vegetated swales. Social benefits include aesthetics improvement (by
improving the look and feel of neighborhoods), recreational opportunities, improvement of
quality of life especially for low-income or minority populations, improved access to safe and
maintained green spaces, improved public health, increase of property values as a result of
improved neighborhoods and energy savings.
Greater Austin:
Greater Austin, the 35th largest metropolitan area of the United States, is home to approximately
1.7 million people. The City of Austin charges drainage fee of $9.20 per month on utility bills for
residential customers. For commercial areas the fees are based on the amount of impervious
cover on the land parcel with a rate of $227.33 per impervious acre per month. The City of
Austin provide 20% reduction in drainage charge if the property (commercial) has well
maintained infrastructure to reduce runoff volume and pollution. The Watershed Protection
Department (WPD) and Office of Sustainability implement green infrastructure in the city.
Although the city does not have long term green infrastructure plan/program, they do implement
green infrastructure through The Green Alley Initiative implemented by the Office of
Sustainability. Green roofs are also implemented on residential and commercial buildings in
various parts of the city and the Green Roof Advisory Group (GRAG) developed a Five-Year
(2010 – 2015) Policy Implementation Plan to support increase use of green roofs in Austin.
GRAG also established a database of green roofs implemented in Austin. The WPD created
Green Infrastructure team in 2011consisting of members from each of the WPD’s functional
units: water quality, stream restoration, flood mitigation, education, maintenance, policy, and
planning. The city has also developed various manuals, such as Green Stormwater Infrastructure
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
46
Maintenance Manual, Environmental Criteria Manual, and Drainage Criteria Manual that
promote green infrastructure. The WPD collects and analyzes runoff samples from two green
roof demonstration sites. The City of Austin has developed flyers of green infrastructures (green
roofs, green walls, trees, and porous/permeable pavements) to promote the benefits of
implementing such green infrastructures. Social benefits listed in the flyers include enhanced
buildings’ aesthetics, creation of green space for social and recreational use, improved quality of
life, urban heat island mitigation, and space for urban agriculture and community gardens.
Economic benefits include reduced energy demand, increased life expectancy of roof with green
roof, and increased property value.
Kansas City Metropolitan Area:
Kansas City Metropolitan Area is the 30th largest metropolitan area in the United States, with 2
million people. Kansas City, Missouri encompasses an area of about 320 sq. mi. with combined
sewer system covering nearly 20% (60 sq. mi.) and separate sewer covering 80% (260 sq. mi.) of
the area. Stormwater fees are based on the impervious area of the property determined by aerial
photographs and customers pay $0.50 per month for each 500 square feet of impervious surface
on the property (residential and commercial). Kansas City does not have long term green
infrastructure plan but as part of 2010 consent decree with the USEPA, the city plans to reduce
overflow using both green and grey infrastructures from combined sewers by 5.4 billion gallons
per year by 2025 at an estimated cost of $2.5 billion. Kansas City Water Services Department is
the responsible organization for implementing green infrastructure in the city. Some of the green
infrastructure programs and policies implemented in the City include Wet Weather Solutions
Program that include development of Overflow Control Plan, 10,000 Rain Gardens Initiative,
MetroGreen Initiative, Stream Buffer Ordinance, Green Solutions Policy, Economic
Development and Incentives Policy. Missouri EPA and University of Missouri Kansas City
monitor the green infrastructure for flow, infiltration and water quality. The city also used
XPSWMM model to calculate the peak flow and volume reduced from the Middle Blue River
Basin Green Solutions Pilot Project. The data collected to develop the model include
precipitation and flow data. Triple bottom line analysis was conducted by Kansas City Water
Services Department for Middle Blue River Basin Green Solutions Pilot Project to identify the
social and economic benefits. The social benefits include reduction of floodrisk, improvement of
air quality and health, creation of green job, recreation opportunities, enhanced aesthetic value of
developed areas, reduced urban heat island effect, and improved quality of life. The economic
benefits include reduced infrastructure cost and increased property value.
Los Angeles Metropolitan Area:
Being the second-largest metropolitan area in the United States, Los Angeles is inhabited by 16
million people. The City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works is the responsible agency
for sewer systems in the city, and the Bureau of Sanitation's Watershed Protection Division
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
47
(WPD) is responsible for the development and implementation of stormwater pollution
abatement projects in the city. Stormwater Pollution Abatement Charge (SPAC) is a charge
applicable to residents of Los Angeles County in their tax bills and is used to develop and
implement stormwater pollution abatement projects. Los Angeles County’s Standard Urban
Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), which applied to the City, recommends that best
management practices should be installed on-site for new and redevelopement projects and
should be able to infiltrate, capture and reuse, or treat all of the runoff from 85th percentile storm
(equivalent to a 3/4” storm). The City did not have a long term green infrastructure plan but had
a number of pilot programs like Green Streets LA program, Los Angeles Downspout
Disconnection Program, City of Los Angeles Stormwater Program, Million Trees LA Initiative,
etc. Data (e.g., air pollutant removal, storm runoff capture, groundwater recharge) from studies
specific to the Los Angeles area was used to calculate the benefits of LID projects. For instance,
the Center for Urban Forest Research reported that 2.24 million pounds of air pollutants can be
removed and 1.9 billion gallons of stormwater can be captured per year by one million trees in
Los Angeles, based on these specific datasets. Social-economic benefits include reduction of
urban heat island effect, creation of aesthetically pleasant and beautiful communities, increased
the availability of green jobs, increased property value, reduced infrastructure cost, and reduced
energy consumption.
Milwaukee Metropolitan Area:
Milwaukee metropolitan area is home to approximately 1.5 million people, making it the 39th
largest metropolitan area in the United States. Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
(MMSD) is responsible for managing sewer systems in the City of Milwaukee. Stormwater
runoff management in the city was required for development or redevelopment projects that
increased one-half acre or more of impervious area, or disturbed an area larger than 2 acres. The
city had various initiatives to promote green infrastructure such as the green roof initiative,
public education and outreach program through “H2OCapture.com” website, downspout
disconnection program, and “Greenseams” (which started in 2002 to provide nonstructural flood
and stormwater management protection by acquiring and restoring land along riparian corridors,
wetlands, and floodplains to protect their natural functions). MMSD’s Regional Green
Infrastructure Plan is the green infrastructure program of the city with a 2035 Vision to have
“zero basement backups, zero overflows, and improved water quality.” The time frame of the
program was 22 years (2013 to 2035) with an estimated cost of $1.3 billion for full
implementation. The plan specifies the quantities of green infrastructures that need to be
implemented region wide to achieve the 2035 Vision (Green Roofs - 1,490 acres;
Bioretention/Bioswales/Greenways/Rain Gardens - 650 acres; Stormwater Trees -738,000;
Porous Paving - 1,190 acres; Rain Barrels - 152,000; Cistern - 2,020). MMSD conducted cost-
effectiveness analysis and TBL (Triple-Bottom-Line) analysis to evaluate the range of economic,
environmental, and social benefits associated with various LID/GI practices. MMSD applied the
System for Urban Stormwater Treatment and Analysis Integration (SUSTAIN) model to pilot
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
48
areas (three sewersheds south of Capitol Drive and one west of the Milwaukee River in the City
of Milwaukee) within the Combined Sewer Service Area (CSSA) to identify the most cost-
effective set of LID/GI practices in terms of runoff volume reduction. To evaluate the TBL
benefits for the entire CSSA, the pilot area benefits were linearly extrapolated. The socio-
economic benefits include improved quality of life and environmental aesthetics, increased
recreational opportunities, reduction of stress, reduction in crime rates, reduced infrastructure
costs, increased job opportunities, increased property values, etc.
Nashville Metropolitan Area:
Nashville metropolitan area is the 36th largest metropolitan area in the United State with a
population estimate of 1.7 million. Nashville’s sewer system and green infrastructure program is
led by the Metropolitan Department of Water and Sewerage Services of Nashville and Davidson
County (MWS). Nashville has not established a stormwater retention standard. However,
stormwater fees are charged based on property’s total impervious surface area with monthly rate
ranging from $0 to $4.50 for residential properties and from $0 to $400 for non-residential
properties (industrial area, commercial area, parking lots, etc.). Five incentives for implementing
green infrastructure were developed, and they include stormwater fee discounts, rebates and
installation financing of green infrastructure, development incentives, grants, and awards and
recognition programs. Nashville has Green Infrastructure Master Plan that was finalized and
approved in fall 2009 to install green infrastructure within the 12.3 sq. mi. of combined sewer
system (CSS) area. Some green infrastructure projects selected for pilot implementation include
the Metro Public Works Facility (rainwater harvesting and infiltration trench; $88,000),
Nashville Farmer’s Market (rainwater harvesting, permeable pavement and tree planting; $1.2
million), West Eastland Ave(constructed wetland and water quality swales; $933,000), etc.
Green infrastructures were evaluated for runoff volume reduction potential using the EPA-
SWMM model. The data collected for developing the model include land use, soil data, rainfall
data, etc. Fact sheets were developed for twelve most common green infrastructures practices
(such as downspout disconnection, filter strips, infiltration practices, pocket wetlands, permeable
pavement, rain barrels/cisterns, rain gardens/bioretention, soil amendments, street trees and
afforestation, tree box filters, vegetated roofs, and vegetated swales) to provide a brief
introduction to the practice, benefits, details on performance, suitability, limitations, cost, and
maintenance requirements. Technical analysis of green infrastructures was also conducted in the
CSS area with respect to green roofs, bioinfiltration areas, permeable surfaces, tree planter
boxes, urban tree, and rain water harvesting (cisterns and rain barrels). This analysis resulted in
identification of social, economic, and environmental benefits due to green infrastructure
implementation. The socio-economic benefits include reduced flood effect, reduced energy cost,
provide “Green Job” opportunities (e.g., construction and maintenance of green infrastructure),
reduced stormwater management fees, enhanced property value, reduced crime rate, improved
health through improved air quality, and reduced heat island effect.
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
49
New York Metropolitan Area:
New York Metropolitan Area is the largest metropolitan area in the United States inhabited by
$9.5 million people. New York City covers an area of 468.5 sq. mi. and nearly 50% of the area
of city is covered by combined sewer system and the other half by municipal separate sewers.
Stormwater rates in the New York City is based on potable water usage and the city provides
property tax credit of $4.50 per square foot (up to a maximum of $100,000) for commercial and
residential properties installing green roof. The city has several plans and programs that support
green infrastructure implementation, such as PlaNYC 2030, Sustainable Stormwater
Management Plan, City’s parks and open space initiatives, and Greenstreets. In 2010, the
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in collaboration with Green Infrastructure Task
Force (Mayor’s Office of Long-term Planning and Sustainability, Departments of Design and
Construction, Parks and Recreation, Sanitation, Transportation, Buildings, City Planning)
launched a 20 years (2010 -2030) green infrastructure program named “NYC Green
Infrastructure Plan” to manage runoff from 10% of the impervious surfaces in the combined
sewer watersheds with an estimated cost of $1.6 billion. More than 20 demonstration projects
were constructed by DEP in collaboration with other city agencies and local authorities. The
green infrastructure implemented in the demonstration projects include Blue roofs ("Blue roofs
are non-vegetated source controls that detain stormwater"), green roofs, porous pavement, tree
pits, streetside swales, porous pavement, and rain barrels. DEP used "InfoWorks" model to
simulate sanitary and stormwater flow through the City’s sewer system and the modeling shows
that the green strategy reduces more CSO volumes at less cost than grey strategies. The city
conducted cost-effectiveness analysis comparing various green infrastructure runoff control
options with traditional grey infrastructure options. As per the cost-effectiveness analysis, cost
per gallon of stormwater runoff that can be retained or detained in grey infrastructure is $1.03
while for Green-streets is $0.23. The city also developed life-cycle cost estimates for a number
of different measures, including the present value costs of installation, operation, and
maintenance over the expected lifespan of the practices. Social benefits of implementing green
infrastructure include reduced urban heat island effect, enhanced recreation, and improved
quality of life. The economic benefits include energy conservation and climate change offsets,
increased property values, operational benefits of reduced flow (reduced chemical costs in
wastewater treatment plants, and reduced energy costs for pumping and treating flow). The city
estimates that over a 20-year period, green infrastructure implementation would generate benefits
between $139 million and $418 million.
Philadelphia Metropolitan Area:
Philadelphia metropolitan area is home to approximately 6 million people and is the sixth largest
metropolitan area of the United States. Philadelphia Water Department (PWD) is responsible for
managing sewer and drainage systems, and implementing green infrastructure program in the
city. The program is named “Green City, Clean Waters Program”. The time frame of this GI
program is 25 years from June 2011 to June 2036, with an estimated cost of $1.67 billion, and
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
50
was approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) in June
2011. PWD has implemented various demonstration projects that used GI such as green roofs,
rain gardens, porous pavers, tree trenches, stormwater wetlands, rain barrels, etc. Triple Bottom
Line (TBL) analysis is conducted to understand the socio-economic benefits from the GI
implementation. Example benefits include heat stress reduction, “equitable access to healthy
neighborhoods”, additional recreational opportunities, higher property value, poverty reduction
from local green jobs, etc.
Portland Metropolitan Area:
Portland Metropolitan Area is the twenty-fourth largest municipality of the United States, with
2.2 million people. The Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) is the responsible agency for
the City of Portland’s sewer system and green infrastructure implementation. The city charges
stormwater management utility fees based on impervious area. The monthly rate for residents is
$53. In 2008, the BES launched a five year program called "Grey to Green (G2G) Initiative" to
encourage implementation of green infrastructure with an estimated cost of $50 million. This
initiative is expected to add 43 acres of ecoroofs, build 920 “green street" components (vegetated
curb, street side planters, trees plantation, pervious pavements), plant over 80,000 trees in yards
and along streets, and buy 419 acres of high priority natural areas (forest, wetlands, riparian, or
prairie habitats). Various pilot projects related to ecoroofs and green streets like N.E. Siskiyou
Street were implemented. The BES conducted benefit-cost analysis including TBL (Triple-
Bottom-Line) analysis and performed extensive literature review to identify and quantify the
performance, cost and benefits of ecoroofs. The BES also used its own monitoring data and
infrastructure cost data, where possible, to develop costs and benefits. Social benefits include
reduced urban heat island effect, enhanced aesthetics which increases recreational opportunities,
reduced basement flooding, enhanced physical and mental health, reduced domestic violence,
and reduced crime rate. Economic benefits include reduced heating and insulating cost (in
buildings), leading to reduced energy costs, increased property values, reduced stormwater fees,
and reduced infrastructure costs.
Seattle Metropolitan Area:
Seattle metropolitan area is the fifteenth largest metropolitan area in the United States, with 3.5
million people. Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) is the responsible agency for their sewer systems.
Seattle does not have a comprehensive citywide green infrastructure plan but its Comprehensive
Drainage Plan, implemented by SPU, has been supporting green infrastructure. Life-cycle and
Triple Bottom Line (TBL) cost-benefit analyses are conducted by SPU for green stormwater
infrastructure projects and Business Case Analysis is also conducted for green infrastructure
projects greater than $250,000. Socio-economic benefits identified are alleviated urban heat
island effect, increased neighborhood aesthetics, improved air quality and health, increased
property values, etc.
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
51
Appendix B: Summary of GI Programs outside United States
Birmingham Metropolitan Area:
Birmingham Metropolitan Area is the second most populated metropolitan area in the United
Kingdom with population of 3,701,107 (2012 estimates). The City of Birmingham is inhabited
by nearly 1 million people and covers 267.77 km2 (103.39 sq. mi.). Severn Trent Water and
Birmingham City Council are the responsible agencies for managing sewer and drainage systems
in Birmingham. Birmingham has Parks and Open Space Strategy that is intended to protect parks
and open spaces, by guiding the planning, design, management and maintenance of parks and
open spaces in the city from 2006 until 2021. The city also has the Nature Conservation Strategy
to ensure that nature conservation resources are there for future generations. Birmingham City
Council is the responsible agency for implementing green infrastructure in the city. It has the
Green Living Spaces Plan to help preserve and enhance green spaces and networks across the
city. The plan supports the existing Parks and Open Space Strategy and Nature Conservation
Strategy. The plan also aims to make the city healthy by ensuring the effective long term
maintenance of natural green and water bodies. Some of GI demonstration projects in
Birmingham include Kingfisher Country Park, Balsall Heath Tree Planting, Park Hall Wetlands,
New Hall Valley Country Park, The University of Birmingham green roof, Alexander Stadium’s
new Gymnastics and Martial Arts Centre (GMAC) green roof, and Birmingham Children’s
Hospital green roof. Benefit or value transfer approach was conducted to quantify benefits
provided by green infrastructures (Woodland, Heathland, Wetland, Grassland) in monetary
terms. This approach transfers values from other valuation studies to the context of
Birmingham’s GI with adjustments in site-specific circumstances and socio-economic variables,
such as population density and wild species diversity, to reduce transfer-error. Social benefits
include recreation benefits (that was valued at £7.4 million for woodland and £0.17 million for
wetland annually); aesthetic benefits (that was valued at £8.6 million for woodland annually),
improvement of physical and mental health of people, reduction in Urban Heat Island Effect
(UHIE), and creation of employment opportunities. Economic benefits of GI include annual
energy cost saving of £0.39 million by heathland and £0.48 million by grassland through avoided
energy cost through evapotranspiration; flood risk reduction with annual value of damage and
other cost reduction of £0.37 million by wetland; and 7% increase in property value in the area
with trees. GI also helps to improve the perception of an area by attracting more people to the
city and its surroundings, increasing tourism industry which brings in £4.4 billion to
Birmingham's economy each year, and increasing business activities. In summary, the benefits
provided by 2,422 ha of GI (woodland, heathland and wetland) in Birmingham approximates an
annual value of at least £20.8 million.
Copenhagen Metropolitan Area:
Copenhagen is the capital and most populated city of Denmark with a population and an area of
569,557 and 86.20 km2 (33.28 sq. mi.), respectively. The total sewer area in Copenhagen is
approximately 6,800 hectares, out of which 90% is covered by a combined sewer system and the
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
52
rest is covered by a separate system. Copenhagen Energy Sewerage Department is the agency
that looks after the sewer and drainage systems in the city. Copenhagen has a total of 1,100 km
of main sewers and approximately 300 km of service pipes. As per the Sustainability in
Constructions and Civil Works, green roof is mandatory for all the municipal buildings in
Copenhagen. Some policy/programs that support green spaces in the city include Five Finger
Plan (The plan’s principle is to develop urban area in the city fingers and maintain areas between
the fingers as green wedges - open, relatively undeveloped areas of land that provide recreational
opportunity). The plan ensures that people living in the city of Copenhagen have access to open
space, parks, and natural areas), Copenhagen Climate Change Adaptation Plan (The plan
recommends implementing green roofs, and tree planting), Park Policy (The policy emphasizes
the importance of maintenance and development of blue and green infrastructure), and Eco-
metropolis (In 2007, City of Copenhagen adopted "Eco-metropolis - Our vision for Copenhagen
2015” that sets goals for development of the city's blue and green areas, and reduces the average
distance to a green area, providing Copenhageners with easy access to the green spaces of the
city). Parks & Nature in Copenhagen is responsible for planning, management and maintenance
of GI in the city. The benefits of GI are listed (based on literature review) in Green Roofs
Copenhagen and Copenhagen – Beyond Green: The socioeconomic benefits of being a green city
reports. Social benefits identified in Copenhagen are positive impact of GI on people’s physical
and mental health, reduction of city temperature in by transforming black heat-absorbing
surfaces of the city to vegetated surfaces, reduction of urban heat island effect in built-up areas,
strengthening local communities, reducing crime rates, and improving urban image and quality
of life. Economic benefits identified in Copenhagen include providing space for urban
agriculture, increasing value of real estate due to attractive environments, revitalizing local
business life, increasing tourism, and saving energy costs.
Greater Toronto:
Toronto is the most populous city in Canada inhabited by 2.6 million people and covers an area
of 630 km2 (240 sq. mi.) Toronto Water Division is the responsible agency for sewer and
drainage system in the city with 4506 km (2,800 miles) of storm sewers and 1300 km (807 miles)
of combined sewers. The City of Toronto does not have separate stormwater fees but is currently
studying the possibilities of charging customer with stormwater fees on top of their water bill. At
present, the average household in 2013 pays $814 per year for all water services that includes
drinking water, wastewater and stormwater treatment. In 1998, the City Council provided
property owners that have downspouts connected to combined or separate sewer system with
downspout disconnections, free of cost. In 2006, the city formed two-year Green Roof Incentive
Pilot Program with a budget of $200,000 in order to provide incentive to property owners of up
to $20,000 per project. The aim of this program was to encourage construction of highly visible
green roofs by December 2007. The city also launched the Eco-Roof Incentive Program in 2009
that funds for green roof projects on new and existing residential, industrial, commercial, and
institutional buildings. This initiative provides eligible green roof CAN$75/sq. meter up to a
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
53
maximum of CAN$100,000 for the installation of green roof on new and existing buildings. In
May 2009, Toronto City Council adopted construction standards requiring all new buildings and
retrofits with more than 2,000 square meters of floor area to include green roof. The policy and
programs that support green space in the city include Downspout Disconnections Program,
Toronto’s Green Roofs and Green Standard, Rainwater Harvesting and Rain Barrel, and Tree
Plantation. These programs are administered by the Toronto City Council. Water Infrastructure
Management section of Toronto Water Division launched a 25-year (2003-2028) stormwater
plan at $1.03 billion called the Wet Weather Flow Master Plan (WWFMP), which is a
comprehensive strategy to deal with surface water quantity and quality, sewage overflows,
habitat protection, and managing stormwater at source using both traditional and green
stormwater management methods. The city implemented Retention Standard (put forth by
WWFMP) that includes a minimum on-site runoff retention of 5 millimeters per event through
infiltration, evapotranspiration and rainwater reuse. Some green infrastructure demonstration
projects in Toronto include green roof at Toronto's City Hall Building and Eastview
Neighborhood Community Center, and rainwater harvesting projects at the Exhibition Place of
the Automotive Building and the Metro Zoo. The WWFMP encourages the use of GIS and
computer models such as HSPF (Hydrologic Simulation Program – FORTRAN) to simulate the
hydrologic and water quality processes in order to examine the characteristics, distributions, and
impacts of actual rooftops across Toronto. Cost-Benefit Analysis was conducted to analyze the
social and economic benefits of green infrastructures in the city. The social benefits include
urban heat island effect mitigation, improvement of air quality and health, improvement of the
aesthetics of urban landscape, and job creation. The economic benefits include reduction of
energy consumption (cost-benefit analysis conducted by Ryerson University in Toronto indicated
that the city wide implementation of green roof would result in annual energy saving of 4.15
kWh per sq. meter, resulting in savings of $21 million per year), infrastructure cost saving
(Toronto Water estimated that downspout disconnections has saved about $140 million in
stormwater infrastructure cost from 1998 to 2011. Ryerson University estimated that
implementing green roof in every flat roof would save city nearly $270 million in municipal
capital cost and more than $30 million annually), and increase in property values.
Greater Tokyo Area (City of Yokohama):
Greater Tokyo is a large metropolitan area, which covers an area of 13,754 km2 with a
population of 34,607,069 (2000 Census). Yokohama is a major city in the Greater Tokyo area
and it is the second largest city in Japan, covering an area of 437.38 km2 with 3,697,894
inhabitants. The Environmental Planning Bureau is the responsible agency for sewer/drainage
systems in Yokohama. The city has a total sewer length of about 11,600 km. In Yokohama,
combined sewers serve about one-fourth of the city area. Residents of the city pay Yokohama
Green Tax, introduced in 2009, with individual residents paying 900 yen (about $9) per year in
addition to residential tax. Commercial buildings pay 9% of the annual corporate inhabitant tax,
which is the tax levied on income generated by the corporation activities. The Yokohama Green
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
54
Tax provides approximately 2.4 billion Japanese Yen (about $ US 23,658,900) of average annual
tax revenue, which is gathered in the Yokohama Green Fund, and spent for conservation of
designated forest areas and farmlands, implementation of greening projects, and maintenance of
green spaces. For protecting green spaces, the city has Yokohama Green-Up Plan, Climate
Change Initiative, and Eco-city Initiative. Yokohama Green-Up Plan is a multi-year plan
initiated by the city in 2009 and the initial five year started in FY2009 and was completed in
FY2013. The second phase is scheduled to be completed between FY2014 and 2018. The
purpose of the plan is to preserve green spaces in the city for future generations. The plan is
composed of three main policy pillars: a) Forest Conservation; b) Farmland Conservation; and c)
Greenery Promotion. The plan is carried out by the city government in collaboration with the
citizens and various organizations. Climate Change Initiative aids in conservation and creation of
natural environment and green space. Eco-City Initiative helps to rehabilitate green network
along the coast, enhance ecological sustainability of the city, and provide recreational
opportunities for citizens. The Greenery Promotion Division of the Environmental Planning
Bureau is the leading organization that implements green infrastructure in the city. Social and
economic benefits, as mentioned in various reports and presentations, include recreational
opportunities, flood risk reduction, prevention of heat island effect, and energy saving.
South Australia (Adelaide):
Adelaide is the capital city of South Australia, a state in the southern central part of Australia,
and is the fifth largest city in Australia with estimated population of 1.2 million and covering an
area of 1,826.9 km2 (705.4 sq. mi.). South Australia Water (SA Water) is the agency that looks
after the sewer and drainage systems in Adelaide with 26,500 km of water mains and 8,700 km
of sewer mains. Adelaide has the following policy/programs for protecting green spaces in the
city: (a) Sustainable Landscapes Project that promotes sustainable design of urban landscape,
public and private parks and gardens in South Australia; (b) 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide
that was launched on 17 February 2010. This plan is to create a network of greenways and open-
space precincts, including designated green buffers; (c) - Green Infrastructure Project at the
Botanic Gardens of Adelaide has developed an evidence base for GI in South Australia, which
aims to demonstrate multiple benefits of GI, and ‘makes the case’ for investment in GI; (d)
202020 vision is a national campaign to increasing urban green space by 20% by 2020 in
Australia. The 202020 Vision was launched in 7 November 2013, and was initiated and funded
by the Australian Nursery Industry. To identify the social and economic benefits of green
infrastructure in Adelaide, questionnaire survey and literature review were completed by Botanic
Gardens of Adelaide - Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources. The survey
was carried out with 76 respondents in the fields of planning, policy, design, water management
and horticulture. A comprehensive review of literature on GI benefits was also completed using
‘Snowball Method’ of literature review (the original source of information from the reference
lists of key articles and documents were acquired and reviewed). Social benefits include
reduction of stress, improvement of physical health and well–being, reduction of aggression and
Social and Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation in the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
55
crime in the community, increment in social interactions, improvement of aesthetics and quality
of place, reduction of urban heat island effect and heat stress, noise abatement by creating
vegetation buffers, provision of space for urban agriculture and community gardens, and
psychological well-being. Economic benefits include increase in property value, increase in
tourism, and increase in roof’s life expectancy with green roof implementation, reduction in
heating/cooling cost, and reduction of food bills by carrying out urban agriculture for food
production for personal use.
APPENDIX S PILOT MONITORING PROTOCOL
CSO Volume Reduction
Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
October 18, 2012
This document was produced by LimnoTech, Inc., on behalf of the Metropolitan St. Louis
Sewer District.
St. Louis MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol October 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Page iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
1.1 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ............................................................................ 1
1.1.1 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM ......................................................... 1
1.1.2 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PILOT PROGRAM .............................................. 1
1.2 MONITORING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................ 5
1.3 MONITORING PROTOCOL STRUCTURE .................................................. 5
2. MONITORING AND DATA COLLECTION ......................................................... 7
2.1 PROJECTS TO BE MONITORED .................................................................. 7
2.2 CONCEPTUAL MONITORING APPROACH ............................................... 8
2.3 BIORETENTION CELLS .............................................................................. 11
2.3.1 MONITORING APPROACH ........................................................................ 11
2.3.2 PILOT PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS ................................................................ 11
2.3.3 METHODS AND EQUIPMENT .................................................................... 13
2.4 POROUS ALLEY ........................................................................................... 14
2.4.1 MONITORING APPROACH ........................................................................ 14
2.4.2 LOCATION ............................................................................................... 14
2.4.3 METHODS AND EQUIPMENT .................................................................... 15
2.5 RAIN GARDEN ............................................................................................. 15
2.5.1 MONITORING APPROACH ........................................................................ 15
2.5.2 LOCATIONS ............................................................................................. 16
2.5.3 METHODS AND EQUIPMENT .................................................................... 16
2.6 PLANTER BOX ............................................................................................. 16
2.6.1 MONITORING APPROACH ........................................................................ 16
2.6.2 LOCATIONS ............................................................................................. 16
2.6.3 METHODS AND EQUIPMENT .................................................................... 17
2.7 SOIL AMENDMENT MONITORING .......................................................... 17
2.7.1 MONITORING APPROACH ........................................................................ 17
2.7.2 LOCATIONS ............................................................................................. 17
2.7.3 METHODS AND EQUIPMENT .................................................................... 17
2.8 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE .......................................................... 18
2.9 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL ....................................... 18
2.10 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ..................................................................... 19
2.11 TRAINING OF MONITORING PERSONNEL .......................................... 19
3. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT ........................................................................ 21
3.1 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT METHOD .............................................. 21
3.1.1 DISCHARGE VOLUME METRICS ............................................................... 21
3.1.2 CONTROL/EXPERIMENTAL COMPARISON ................................................ 24
3.1.3 INFILTRATION EVALUATION .................................................................... 25
St. Louis MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol October 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Page iv
3.2 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF NON-MSD GREEN
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS ................................................................. 25
3.2.1 DEER CREEK WATERSHED ALLIANCE PROJECTS .................................... 26
3.2.2 SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY EDWARDSVILLE RESEARCH ................ 26
3.3 EXTRAPOLATION TO FULL GI PROGRAM ............................................ 26
3.4 EXTRAPOLATION OF STORM WATER RUNOFF REDUCTION TO CSO
VOLUME REDUCTION ............................................................................... 29
4. DATA MANAGEMENT........................................................................................ 31
4.1 DATA HANDLING ....................................................................................... 31
4.2 FIELD FORMS ............................................................................................... 31
4.3 DATA REVIEW/VALIDATION ................................................................... 32
5. PROGRESS REPORTING ..................................................................................... 35
6. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 37
St. Louis MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol October 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Page v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Project Locations .....................................4
Figure 2-1. MSD Rain Gages Near Green Infrastructure Pilot Projects ......................10
Figure 2-2. Plan View of North Vandeventer Avenue Bioretention Cell ....................12
Figure 2-3: Plan view of Geraldine Avenue bioretention cell .....................................12
Figure 2-4. Profile View of Typical Bioretention Cell (Monitoring Layout also
Applies to All Bioretention Cells) .......................................................13
Figure 2-5. Plan view of Clinton Street porous alley...................................................14
Figure 2-6. Double ring infiltrometer used on porous pavement (Fassman and
Blackbourn 2010).................................................................................15
Figure 2-7. Plan and section views of Monroe Street rain garden ...............................16
Figure 3-1. Hypothetical plot of volume reduction versus inflow volume ..................23
Figure 3-2. Hypothetical plot of discharge volume per total drainage area versus
precipitation depth ...............................................................................23
Figure 3-3. Conceptual hydrographs for the control and experimental watersheds ....24
Figure 3-4. Hypothetical plot of 15-minute rainfall intensities versus total storm
precipitation amount for a BMP with an infiltration capacity of 2.5
inches per hour. ....................................................................................25
Figure 3-5. Process for Development of Equation to Calculate Runoff Volume
Reduction per Unit Area as a Function of Precipitation Event
Characteristics ......................................................................................28
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1. MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Projects .....................................................3
Table 2-1. Monitoring Rationale for MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Projects ............7
Table 3-1. Discharge Metrics to be Determined for Green Infrastructure Pilot Projects
with Outflow Monitoring .....................................................................22
St. Louis MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol October 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Page vi
This page is blank to facilitate double sided printing.
St. Louis MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol October 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Page 1
1. INTRODUCTION
This document contains a description of planned monitoring activities for the green
infrastructure pilot program currently being conducted by the Metropolitan St. Louis
Sewer District (MSD). The green infrastructure pilot program is a Combined Sewer
Overflow (CSO) control measure identified in Appendix D of the Consent Decree
between the United States of America, the Missouri Coalition for the Environment
Foundation and MSD with an effective date of April 27, 2012. The monitoring
protocol discussed here includes information on projects anticipated to be monitored,
monitoring methods, data management, and methods of synthesis (i.e., how MSD will
use the data to demonstrate effectiveness of projects).
MSD anticipates refinement of the monitoring locations and techniques depending
upon which projects are ultimately built and feasibility of retrofitting monitoring
equipment where facilities are already built. MSD will have documentation on the
most current monitoring locations readily available and material changes will be
identified in the annual reports submitted pursuant to the Consent Decree.
1.1 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Both the Green Infrastructure Program and the Green Infrastructure Pilot Program are
CSO control measures defined in Appendix D of MSD’s Consent Decree. A summary
of each of these programs is provided below.
1.1.1 Green Infrastructure Program
The overall objective for MSD’s green infrastructure program is to identify and
implement projects and programs that will significantly reduce CSOs. Specifically,
Appendix Q of MSD’s Long Term Control plan (LTCP) states that:
The overall goals of the green infrastructure program, as stated in the LTCP, are
to “identify and implement projects and programs that will significantly reduce
CSOs and provide additional environmental benefit,” as well as reduce CSO
overflow volumes to the Mississippi River by 10 percent. Green infrastructure
projects will redirect stormwater from reaching the combined sewer system by
capturing and diverting it to locations where it is detained, infiltrated into the
ground, evaporated, taken up by plants and transpired, or reused.
To inform the green infrastructure program, MSD will implement a five-year pilot
program that, in addition to testing regulatory, logistical and financial aspects of the
projects, will provide data on green infrastructure performance and implementability,
as described below.
1.1.2 Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
The scope of the green infrastructure pilot program is defined in Appendix Q of
MSD’s approved June, 2011, LTCP as performing “…stormwater retrofitting
utilizing green infrastructure on properties in the Bissell Point service area that are
St. Louis MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol October 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Page 2
currently owned by the Land Reutilization Authority (LRA).” The pilot program
classifies pilot projects in three categories, based on scale:
Site-scale development (single lot/habitable structures) – These projects will
involve construction of green infrastructure to capture runoff from the lot’s
impervious area. The green infrastructure techniques may include
bioretention, green streets, curb extensions, pervious paving, or other controls.
Site-scale development (uninhabitable structures, either single lot or multiple
lot) – These projects will involve demolition of existing structures and
construction of green infrastructure to capture runoff from the future
redeveloped impervious footprint. The source control facilities may include
bioretention, green streets, curb extensions, pervious paving, and other similar
controls as deemed appropriate.
Neighborhood-scale development (multiple lots) – These projects will include
acquisition of property by MSD for construction of green infrastructure to
capture runoff from the future redeveloped impervious footprints and the
adjacent roadways and alleyways.
The projects planned to be included in MSD’s green infrastructure pilot program are
listed in Table 1-1. These projects include the range of green infrastructure techniques
that are likely to be most feasible in the Bissell Point service area, including:
Bioretention
Rain gardens
Porous pavement
Curb bump-out
Soil amendment
Planter boxes (for rooftop runoff capture)
MSD has selected these techniques based on the land use characteristics of the Bissell
Point service area, the presence of vacant and otherwise underutilized properties, the
likely nature of future land development in the area, and coordination efforts with
City of St. Louis agencies and departments in order to find locations to retrofit with
green infrastructure practices. The locations of the planned pilot projects are
identified in Figure 1-1. MSD anticipates refinement of the project list as the Pilot
Program is implemented depending upon issues found in final design, funding
availability as actual costs are incurred, or other unforeseen circumstance.
St. Louis MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol October 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Page 3
Table 1-1. MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Projects1
Project Type Project
Number Location Scale
Approx.
Drainage
Area (ft2)
Porous Alley 11787 Clinton St / N
13th St Neighborhood 68,400
Bioretention 11778 2818 N
Vandeventer Neighborhood 148,408
Bioretention &
Detention 11778 1801 N Sarah St Neighborhood 59,523
Bioretention 11802 5099 Geraldine
Ave Neighborhood 17,612
Bioretention &
Detention 11802 5479 Beacon
Ave Neighborhood 75,015
Curb Bump Out &
Porous Sidewalk 11804 4241 Warne
Ave Neighborhood 29,460
Bioretention 11803 3691 Blair Ave Neighborhood 38,491
Bioretention 11803 3301 19th Ave Neighborhood 13,025
Amended Soil Package
#1
4228-4240
Warne Ave
Compost (1);
Aerate (2)
Site-Scale
Multiple Lots
5,250 to
(1); 5,320
to (2)
Amended Soil Package
#1
4133-4135 Lea
Place
Site-Scale
Multiple Lots 2,560
Amended Soil Package
#2
4021-4023
Glasgow Ave
Site-Scale
Multiple Lots 2,330
Amended Soil Package
#2
3139-3143 N
Sarah St
Site-Scale
Multiple Lots 4,234
Amended Soil Package
#2
3832-3834
Labadie Ave
Compost (1);
Aerate (2)
Site-Scale
Multiple Lots
2,160 to
(1); 5,100
to (2)
Rain Garden P-29210
1451 Monroe St
(RG1); 1455
Monroe St
(RG2)
Site-Scale
Multiple Lots
2272 to
RG1; 1560
to RG2
Rain Garden P-29340 835 Harlan Ave Site-Scale
Single Lot 1800
Planter P-28660
Habitat for
Humanity: 2940-
2957 Thomas
St; 2942-2944
Sheridan Ave;
1341 Garrison
Ave
Site-Scale
Multiple Lots
1274 per
box
1 Planned projects may be revised or dropped depending upon funding availability as actual costs are
incurred or other issues encountered during final design.
St. Louis MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol October 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Page 4
Figure 1-1. MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Project Locations
St. Louis MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol October 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Page 5
1.2 MONITORING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Appendix Q of MSD’s LTCP states that “monitoring of selected green infrastructure
projects will be conducted to determine project effectiveness”. In terms of MSD’s
green infrastructure program, this means that the monitoring will be used to measure
the reduction of stormwater runoff volumes and/or peak flows from the monitored
project sites. Based on this intent, the goal of monitoring in the green infrastructure
pilot program is to collect data that can be used to calculate the expected storm water
runoff volume reduction value of future green infrastructure projects similar to those
in the pilot program. The focus of this monitoring protocol is solely on hydrologic
benefit, specifically runoff volume reduction of the green infrastructure element2.
1.3 MONITORING PROTOCOL STRUCTURE
This monitoring protocol is organized by the following major sections:
Monitoring and Data Collection – This section identifies which pilot projects
will be monitored and describes the specific plans for monitoring of each
project.
Performance Assessment – This section of the protocol describes the methods
that will be used to synthesize monitoring data and evaluate project
performance, as well as how that information will be extrapolated to estimate
performance of future projects.
Data Management – The management of monitoring data is discussed in this
section.
Progress Reporting – This section describes the nature and frequency of
progress updates.
2 Runoff volume reduction will be determined by comparing the runoff volume entering the green
infrastructure element with the volume leaving the green infrastructure element.
St. Louis MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol October 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Page 6
This page is blank to facilitate double sided printing.
St. Louis MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol October 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Page 7
2. MONITORING AND DATA COLLECTION
This section of the monitoring protocol identifies the specific pilot projects to be
monitored and describes the monitoring methods to be used for each project.
2.1 PROJECTS TO BE MONITORED
MSD’s green infrastructure program, as defined in Appendix Q of MSD’s LTCP,
clearly states that “MSD will not monitor every project, but rather MSD will monitor
project types to support performance evaluation.” To this end, the planned pilot
projects were reviewed to identify which projects should be monitored. The factors
considered in selecting projects for monitoring included:
Total number of projects identified of each project type: If only one project
for a particular project type (e.g., porous pavement) was identified, that
project would be monitored.
Size of the project drainage area: If multiple projects of a particular project
type were identified (e.g., bioretention), then projects were selected for
monitoring to represent the range of project sizes, as indicated by their
drainage areas.
Unique aspects of projects: The pilot projects were reviewed for unique
aspects or qualities that warranted including them in the monitoring program.
Based on the review of identified pilot projects, the projects identified in Table 2-1
were chosen for monitoring. This list may be revised based upon which projects are
constructed.
Table 2-1. Monitoring Rationale for MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Projects
Project Type Project
Number Location Scale Rationale for
Monitoring
Porous Alley 11787 Clinton St / N 13th St Neighborhood Sole porous alley pilot
project
Bioretention 11778 2818 N Vandeventer Neighborhood Largest bioretention
project
Bioretention 11802 5099 Geraldine Ave Neighborhood Small bioretention
project
Amended Soil Package #1 4228-4240 Warne
Ave
Site-Scale
Multiple Lots
Represents soil
package #1
Amended Soil Package #2 3832-3834 Labadie
Ave
Site-Scale
Multiple Lots
Represents soil
package #2
Rain Garden P-29210 1451 Monroe St Site-Scale
Multiple Lots
Most accessible rain
garden pilot project
Planter P-28660
Habitat for Humanity:
2940-2957 Thomas
St; 2942-2944
Sheridan Ave; 1341
Garrison Ave
Site-Scale
Multiple Lots
MSD is already
monitoring, represents
basic planter design
The incorporation of green infrastructure as a significant component of CSO long-
term control plans is a relatively recent development, so the available standard
guidance documents typically used for development of wet weather monitoring
St. Louis MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol October 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Page 8
programs (USEPA, 1999; NRC, 2008; Geosyntec Consultants and Wright Water
Engineers, Inc. 2009; USEPA, 2011) do not provide specific guidance on determining
representative numbers of hydrologic monitoring locations for green infrastructure or
monitoring duration. In the absence of relevant guidance, best professional judgment
must guide the determination of the sufficiency of hydrologic monitoring programs
for green infrastructure. MSD believes that monitoring these projects will provide
representative data, as the projects themselves are representative of the types of green
infrastructure projects likely to be included in the overall green infrastructure
program:
Bioretention – Monitoring is planned at three of the five pilot bioretention
projects and these three include a small project, a large project, and a mid-size
project, in terms of drainage area captured.
Porous alley – The only porous alley project planned for the pilot program
will be monitored. It is expected that there will be relatively little variation in
the design of porous alleys in the overall green infrastructure program, so the
data from this pilot project will be sufficient.
Rain garden – One of the two rain gardens for the only rain garden project
planned for the pilot program will be monitored. It is not expected that there
will be much variation in rain garden design, so the data from this single
project will be sufficient.
Soil amendment – Monitoring is planned at two of the five soil amendment
projects, which are representative of the two soil amendment packages
designed by MSD.
Planters – MSD is already monitoring the Habitat for Humanity project and
will continue to do so.
In addition to the MSD pilot projects, other green infrastructure projects in the St.
Louis area have been built and monitored or are planned, as discussed in Section 3.3
of this document. It should also be noted that there is a relatively large and growing
volume of technical literature on the hydrologic performance of green infrastructure
that will also be used to supplement MSD’s pilot program data, to provide the best
possible estimate of overall program performance.
2.2 CONCEPTUAL MONITORING APPROACH
MSD’s basic monitoring approach is to collect sufficient data for calculation of runoff
volume reduction or peak rate reduction. This is in keeping with what is stated in the
green infrastructure program description submitted as Appendix Q of MSD’s LTCP,
which says:
Performance monitoring will be designed to evaluate the reduction of stormwater
runoff volumes and/or peak flows from the project site. Therefore, in general,
pilot project monitoring will include sufficient monitoring to describe the
hydrologic performance of the project. This will include rainfall monitoring in
St. Louis MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol October 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Page 9
conjunction with monitoring of either local (on-project) stormwater storage or
runoff outflow from the project.
The key elements of the monitoring approach include:
Rainfall monitoring – MSD currently has a robust array of rain gages
deployed throughout their service area, many of which are in proximity to the
planned green infrastructure pilot projects. In addition, radar rainfall data are
available and can be adjusted using existing rain gages to provide spatially
continuous rainfall coverage. The rainfall data from the radar and/or gages
will be used in the pilot program to characterize rainfall events associated with
measured flows at each green infrastructure project and to calculate runoff to
the green infrastructure project. In cases where both storage and outflow
(determined from depth/velocity measurements) are measured, such as in
bioretention pilot projects, the rainfall-derived runoff volume can be
compared to runoff volume calculated from monitored outflow and storage
volumes. For projects where only outflow is monitored, such as with rain
gardens, the rainfall will be used to calculate runoff flows to the pilot projects.
MSD’s existing rain gages and the locations of pilot projects are depicted in
Figure 2-1.
Storage monitoring – For some types of projects, understanding of the change
in storage over time within the project is useful and will be monitored,
generally by monitoring of water level.
Outflow monitoring – Where possible, outflow monitoring will be conducted
as described in this document. Outflow monitoring is important as it is
necessary for determining the reduction in peak flows and volumes from the
green infrastructure project.
Infiltration testing – Infiltration testing will be used to determine infiltration
rates on pilot projects, where feasible.
These three basic components of project hydrology will be monitored and will allow
application of the basic hydrologic model to each project:
I – O = S
Where:
I = Sum of inflows
O = Sum of outflows
S = Change in storage
Continuous monitoring will be used for monitoring velocity and water level,
wherever feasible. The collection of continuous data has several advantages over
discrete event sampling, including:
The range of storm events captured will be maximized.
St. Louis MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol October 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Page 10
The data will allow more robust calculation of annualized project
performance.
The effects of antecedent moisture on project performance will be more easily
evaluated.
Figure 2-1. MSD Rain Gages Near Green Infrastructure Pilot Projects
St. Louis MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol October 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Page 11
The monitoring specifics for each pilot project are described in the following section,
organized by project type.
2.3 BIORETENTION CELLS
MSD anticipates that bioretention cells will be a large component of the overall green
infrastructure program, because they can be designed at a wide range of scales and
can be adapted to a wide range of sites. Furthermore, they can be designed to provide
temporary storage (detention), thereby reducing peak flow rates and maximizing time
for infiltration within the project. The latter is especially important in St. Louis where
native soils typically have low hydraulic conductivities.
2.3.1 Monitoring Approach
Hydrologic monitoring of bioretention cells will include measurement of the change
in water level in the device cell and measurement of velocity and stage in the outlet
structure to allow calculation of outflows. Measurements of these parameters will be
continuous for the duration of the pilot program monitoring period, or until sufficient
monitoring has been conducted as determined by the adaptive management approach
described in Section 2.11 of this document. Outflow and storage data will be used to
calculate runoff influent to each bioretention cell, which can then be compared to
rainfall and rainfall-derived runoff calculations. The performance of each bioretention
cell can then be evaluated for a range of rainfall events, both in terms of magnitude
and duration.
2.3.2 Pilot Project Descriptions
Two bioretention pilot projects will be monitored: North Vandeventer Avenue and
Geraldine Avenue. Each of these is described below.
2.3.2.a North Vandeventer Avenue
A bioretention cell will be constructed at 1801 North Vandeventer Avenue (Figure 2-
3). The cell will have a drainage area of approximately 148,400 square feet and a
surface area of 2,286 square feet. The bioretention capacity will be approximately
5,925 cubic feet. This project has the largest contributing drainage area of all projects
in the pilot program. The cell will have one inlet that directs flow from the alley
between North Vandeventer Avenue and Belle Glade Avenue through a river cobble
spillway. A flagstone forebay will be constructed to pond inflow and trap debris
before it flows to the lowest point of the bioretention cell. The cell will be equipped
with an underdrain made from 6 inch diameter PVC pipe. Underdrain flow will
combine with overflow in a separate structure and discharge through a 12 inch pipe
into a combined sewer street inlet.
St
M
M
2
A
A
sq
b
cu
in
P
th
se
t. Louis MSD Gr
Monitoring Protoc
Metropolitan S
Figure
2.3.2.b Gera
A bioretentio
Avenue (Figu
quare feet, a
ioretention c
urb extensio
nto the cell. T
VC pipe. Un
hrough a che
ewer storm i
Fi
reen Infrastructu
col
St. Louis Sew
2-2. Plan V
aldine Ave
n cell will b
ure 2-4). The
nd the entire
capacity will
on on Thekla
The cell will
nderdrain flo
eckmate valv
inlet.
igure 2-3: P
re Pilot Program
wer District
View of Nort
enue
e constructe
e cell will ha
e surface are
l be approxim
a Avenue tha
l be equippe
ow will comb
ve, and disch
Plan view of
m
th Vandeven
d at the corn
ave a drainag
ea of the cell
mately 1,205
at directs flow
ed with an un
bine with ov
harge throug
f Geraldine A
nter Avenue
ner of Gerald
ge area of ap
l will be 335
5 cubic feet.
w through a
nderdrain ma
verflow in a
gh the outlet
Avenue bio
e Bioretenti
dine Avenue
pproximately
square feet.
The cell wi
storm drain
ade from 6 in
separate stru
pipe into a c
retention ce
October 201
Page 1
ion Cell
e and Thekla
y 17,600
. The
ll have a
n inlet and
nch diamete
ucture, pass
combined
ell
12
12
a
er
St
M
M
2
T
u
In
in
sh
m
in
in
D
ca
b
in
m
d
w
th
w
in
sp
t. Louis MSD Gr
Monitoring Protoc
Metropolitan S
.3.3 Metho
The drainage
se types, per
nfiltration te
nfiltrometer
hortly after c
monitor the in
nitial data th
nfiltration te
Drainage area
alculate the
ioretention c
n its own pie
measure the c
ata will be u
with a flume
he combined
water level da
ntervals. Wa
pecific to the
Figure 2-4.
reen Infrastructu
col
St. Louis Sew
ods and Eq
areas for ea
rcent imperv
sts will be c
tests in acco
construction
nfiltration ca
at infiltration
sting may be
a characteris
inflow volum
cell, a water
ezometer wit
change in wa
used to determ
and a stilling
d sewer manh
ata logger th
ater level dat
e flume used
. Profile Vie
re Pilot Program
wer District
quipment
ach bioretent
viousness, so
onducted wi
ordance with
and annuall
apacity of th
n is not a sig
e eliminated
stics will be u
me to the bio
level logger
thin the biore
ater level in
mine change
g well will b
hole (Figure
hat will recor
ta will be co
d at each inst
ew of Typica
Applies to A
Monitor
with flume
m
tion cell will
oil types and
ithin each bi
h standard me
ly thereafter
he bioretentio
gnificant com
.
used in conj
oretention ce
r will be inst
etention med
the cell at 5-
e in storage.
be installed b
e 2-5). The s
rd depths of
onverted to a
tallation.
al Bioretent
All Bioreten
ing manhole
e/stilling we
l be characte
d average slo
ioretention c
ethodologies
(if monitori
on media. If
mponent of t
unction with
ell for select
talled either
dia. This dev
-minute inte
A monitori
between the
stilling well
flow throug
a flowrate us
tion Cell (M
ntion Cells)
e
ll
erized by tota
ope, using av
cells using do
s (ASTM D3
ing exceeds
f it is determi
the project, a
h the precipi
ted storm eve
in one of the
vice will be u
rvals. The w
ing manhole
overflow str
will be equip
gh the flume
sing a rating
Monitoring L
October 201
Page 1
al area, land
vailable data.
ouble ring
3385-09)
one year) to
ined from
additional
itation data t
ent. For each
e cleanouts o
used to
water level
e equipped
ructure and
pped with a
at 5-minute
curve
Layout also
12
13
.
to
h
or
St
M
M
2
P
pr
th
b
st
ag
2
T
in
un
ev
2
If
N
u
S
T
pr
w
h
8
co
t. Louis MSD Gr
Monitoring Protoc
Metropolitan S
.4 POROU
orous alley p
rogram beca
hey may pres
locks are red
treets and all
greement wi
.4.1 Monito
The monitorin
nflow to the
nderdrain flo
vent.
.4.2 Locati
f allowed, a p
North 13th, M
sing permea
treet. The po
The subgrade
romote infilt
water stored i
orizontally t
inch underd
ontrol the 2-
reen Infrastructu
col
St. Louis Sew
S ALLEY
projects cou
ause mid-blo
sent a good o
developed. H
leys, so this
ith the City o
oring Appr
ng approach
alley from p
ow. These w
ion
porous alley
Monroe, and
able interlock
orous surfac
e of the alley
tration and s
in the subsur
through the g
drain pipes. A
-year, 24-hou
Figure 2-
re Pilot Program
wer District
uld be import
ock alleys are
opportunity
However, MS
project is co
of St. Louis.
roach
h for the poro
precipitation
will be used t
y will be con
Hadley Stre
king concret
e area of the
y will be laye
storage of sto
rface will ex
gravel matrix
An additiona
ur storm.
-5. Plan view
m
tant in MSD
e common in
to capture ru
SD does not
ontingent upo
ous pavemen
data and to
to compute a
nstructed in t
eets (Figure 2
te pavement
e alley will b
ered with a v
ormwater. A
xfiltrate into
x to a concre
al capacity o
w of Clinton
D’s overall gr
n the Bissell
unoff from e
t have direct
on developm
nt alley will
measure com
a volume red
the city block
2-6). The all
and will run
be approxima
variety of co
Approximatel
the surround
ete weir with
of 925 cubic
n Street por
reen infrastru
l Point servic
entire blocks
t control ove
ment of a ma
be to calcula
mbined runo
duction for e
k enclosed b
ley will be c
n parallel to C
ately 2,934 s
oarse materia
ly 2,527 cub
ding soil or m
h weep holes
feet is avail
rous alley
October 201
Page 1
ucture
ce area and
s as the
r public
aintenance
ate estimated
off and
each storm
by Clinton,
constructed
Clinton
square feet.
als to
bic feet of
move
s, to a set of
able to
12
14
d
f
St
M
M
2
D
ca
b
th
bu
ra
In
op
in
in
M
an
dr
a
ri
in
F
2
R
es
2
T
g
fl
co
t. Louis MSD Gr
Monitoring Protoc
Metropolitan S
.4.3 Metho
Drainage area
alculate the
e installed in
he combined
ubbler flow
ate using a st
nfiltration te
perational. T
n infiltration
nfiltrometer
Multiple trial
nd ensure th
riven into th
watertight b
ing (Figure 2
nfiltration ra
assman and
Figure 2-6.
.5 RAIN GA
Rain gardens
specially for
.5.1 Monito
The rain gard
arden from p
lows. Volum
omponents.
reen Infrastructu
col
St. Louis Sew
ods and Eq
a characteris
inflow runof
n the pipe wh
d sewer manh
meter will b
tandard weir
sting will be
Testing will
capacity ov
(ASTM D33
s may be use
hat the tests w
he surface of
barrier betwe
2-7). This tec
tes at porous
Blackbourn
. Double rin
ARDEN
present a po
r residential
oring Appr
den monitorin
precipitation
me reduction
re Pilot Program
wer District
quipment
stics will be u
ff volume to
here the com
hole. Depth
be used to co
r equation or
e conducted
also occur a
ver time. Tes
385-09) and
ed at each lo
were perform
f the porous a
een the pave
chnique has
s pavement s
n 2010).
ng infiltrome
Bla
otentially val
properties.
roach
ng approach
n data and to
will be calcu
m
used in conj
o the porous
mbined unde
measuremen
onvert depth
r rating curv
shortly after
t least annua
sts will be co
at least two
ocation to ad
med correctly
alley, a wate
ment and th
been used in
sites (Bean,
eter used on
ackbourn 20
luable techn
h will be to c
measure co
ulated for ea
unction with
alley for sto
rdrain flow
nts at 5-minu
of flow ove
ve provided b
r the porous
ally thereafte
onducted usin
locations w
dd replication
y. Because th
erproof seala
e inside and
n other studi
Hunt, and B
n porous pa
010)
nique for site
calculate esti
ombined over
ach storm ev
h the precipi
orm events. A
and surface
ute intervals
r the weir in
by the weir m
alley is cons
er to measur
ng a double
will be measu
n to the mea
he device ca
ant will be u
d outside of e
ies when me
Bidelspach 20
avement (Fa
e-scale runof
imated inflow
rflow and un
vent from the
October 201
Page 1
itation data t
A weir will
runoff enter
s from a
nto a flow
manufacture
structed and
re any trends
ring
ured.
asurements
annot be
sed to create
each metal
easuring
007;
assman and
ff control,
w to the
nderdrain
ese
12
15
to
r
er.
s
e
St
M
M
2
A
ra
o
cu
in
ra
un
sp
2
A
d
lo
m
2
T
P
pr
2
A
th
2
T
2
ap
ar
t. Louis MSD Gr
Monitoring Protoc
Metropolitan S
.5.2 Locati
A rain garden
ain garden h
f approxima
ubic feet. Th
ncluding bot
ain garden to
nderdrain w
pillway befo
Figu
.5.3 Metho
A v-notch we
ischarges to
ogger to reco
measurement
.6 PLANTE
There is good
oint service
rojects prese
.6.1 Monito
An upstream-
he benefit of
.6.2 Locati
The Habitat f
944 Sherida
pproximately
re lined by a
reen Infrastructu
col
St. Louis Sew
ions
n has already
as a drainag
ately 72 squa
he garden ca
h roof and y
o the alley be
as installed t
ore dischargi
ure 2-7. Plan
ods and Eq
eir will be in
the alley. Th
ord the depth
ts will be con
ER BOX
d potential fo
area through
ent an oppor
oring Appr
-downstream
f the Habitat
ions
for Humanity
n Ave and 1
y 66 square
a 6 inch thick
re Pilot Program
wer District
y been constr
e area of app
are feet. The
aptures runof
yard drainage
etween Mon
to aid in wat
ing into the a
n and sectio
quipment
nstalled to me
he weir will
h of flow ove
nverted to a
or single-fam
h organizatio
rtunity to cap
roach
m sewer flow
for Humani
y planter box
341 Garriso
feet and a so
k concrete w
m
ructed at 145
proximately
capacity of
ff from a priv
e. A cobble s
nroe and Nor
ter drawdow
alley (Figure
on views of M
easure overf
have a stilli
er the weir a
flow rate us
mily resident
ons such as H
pture run-off
w monitoring
ity planter bo
xes are locat
on Ave. Each
oil planting d
wall on all sid
51 Monroe S
2,272 squar
the rain gard
vate residen
spillway rou
rth Market S
wn and comb
e 2-8).
Monroe Str
flow and und
ing well equ
at 5-minute i
ing a rating
tial redevelo
Habitat for H
f from roofs
g approach w
oxes.
ted at 2940-2
h planter bo
depth of 2.5
des. Approxi
Street (Figur
re feet and a
den is appro
ce at 1453 M
utes overflow
Streets. A san
bines with th
reet rain gar
derdrain flow
uipped with a
intervals. De
curve.
pment in the
Humanity an
using plante
will be used t
2957 Thoma
x has a surfa
feet. The p
imately one-
October 201
Page 1
re 2-8). The
surface area
oximately 91
Monroe Stree
w from the
nd and grave
e overflow
rden
w before it
a water level
epth
e Bissell
nd these
er boxes.
to quantify
as St, 2942-
ace area of
lanter boxes
-half of the
12
16
a
et
el
l
s
St. Louis MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol October 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Page 17
planters are below the ground surface. Stormwater runoff from the rooftops enters
the planters directly from the downspout onto a cobble spillway. A 4 inch diameter
PVC pipe serves as an overflow when ponding exceeds a 3 inch depth. Two 2 inch
diameter weep holes drain the planter and route water through below grade plastic
pipes which eventually join with the overflow pipe.
2.6.3 Methods and Equipment
For the Habitat for Humanity planter boxes, area-velocity flow meters will be
deployed in the combined sewer at two locations; upstream and downstream of the
city block. Area-velocity flow meters will also be deployed in the combined sewers
servicing a similarly sized city block with directly connected downspouts and no
green infrastructure practices. The intent of this control/experimental watershed
approach to flow monitoring will be to demonstrate the effectiveness of the planters
and disconnected downspouts at reducing stormwater runoff volume and peak flows.
2.7 SOIL AMENDMENT MONITORING
Natural soils in the St. Louis area have limited infiltration potential and those soils
have further been impacted by urban development. Amendment of soils increases
infiltration and presents opportunities for capture of runoff. Therefore, MSD is testing
two soil amendment techniques to help promote infiltration, limit runoff and estimate
the volume reduction potential of each.
2.7.1 Monitoring Approach
Hydrologic performance will be evaluated at the soil amendment projects by
conducting infiltration tests and measuring the perched water table to demonstrate
soil water storage.
2.7.2 Locations
Amended soil techniques have been installed at 4228-4240 Warne Avenue and 3832-
3834 Labadie Avenue. Along one side of the properties, the in situ soil was tilled to a
depth of one foot, covered with compost, then tilled again before being graded and
planted with grass. Along the opposite side of the properties, the area was core
aerated, top dressed with nutrients, then planted with grass. The middle portions of
the properties were left as-is.
2.7.3 Methods and Equipment
Infiltration testing will be conducted at the amended soil sites upon implementation of
the monitoring program and annually thereafter to measure any trends in infiltration
capacity over time. Testing will occur on each side of the property as well as the
middle to compare the infiltration capacity of the in situ soil to the amended soil
techniques. Infiltration testing will be conducted using a double ring infiltrometer
(ASTM D3385-09) and at least two locations will be measured at each control site
and amended soil site for replication purposes. Multiple trials may be used at each
St. Louis MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol October 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Page 18
location to add replication to the measurements and ensure that the tests were
performed correctly.
Two water level wells will be installed at each of the two soil amendment project
locations mentioned above. One well will be installed on each side of the property.
Each 2 foot long well will be constructed of 2 inch diameter PVC pipe, screened in
the lower 1 foot, and will extend about 6 inches above the soil surface. A water level
data logger suspended from a cable will extend to the bottom of each well. The
loggers will record the depth of the perched water in the amended soil at 15 minute
intervals. This information will be used to obtain a better understanding of the
subsurface hydrology of the soil amendment techniques.
2.8 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
All logging devices will be installed and maintained by MSD field personnel per the
devices SOPs. Routine/preventative maintenance will be performed on a monthly
basis. During preventative maintenance visits field personnel will clean the logging
sensor or tube. Personnel will connect a laptop computer to the logging device’s
meter to access the most recent data. Level logging devices will be verified/calibrated
by taking a manual measurement with a ruler adjacent to the measuring device.
Area/Velocity (A/V) meters’ velocity readings will be verified by taking a velocity
measurement, or series of measurements where enough flow warrants, with an
independent velocity meter. The level reading of the A/V sensor will be set to the
level of flow found a distance in front of the sensor that equals the depth of the flow
(i.e. a flow of approximately 6” depth will be measured 6” in front of the A/V
sensor). This is done to obtain the level of flow in approximately the same plane as
the velocity reading is being obtained. Standing debris that affects the cross sectional
area of the pipe will be manually measured with a ruler. Field personnel will also
check battery life, desiccant color for moisture level, and communication operation
on all maintenance visits. Data from all logging devices will be retrieved via remote
telemetry. A data push schedule of every 12 hours will be followed for each
monitoring device. Data will be reviewed from a quality assurance perspective on a
weekly basis by a field manager/data analyst. Problems detected during this review
process will prompt corrective maintenance field visits to address those specific
problems. All field visits will be documented using an electronic field log accessed by
laptop computers. The field logs will be downloaded to an administrative computer
where the records will be stored and accessed until transferred to the final project file.
2.9 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
The purpose of any quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program is to ensure
that all data collection procedures are followed such that the data are representative of
system operation. The QA/QC program for MSD’s green infrastructure pilot
monitoring program will be documented and will likely include the following
elements:
Data quality objectives;
St. Louis MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol October 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Page 19
Calibration of monitoring equipment; all equipment will be calibrated under
controlled conditions prior to being installed in the field
Testing, inspection and maintenance of monitoring equipment;
Standard operating procedures;
Field verification (if needed);
Documentation and record-keeping;
For the hydrologic data collection planned in the pilot program, this level of QA/QC
will be sufficient.
2.10 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
MSD will conduct a monitoring review every six months during the pilot program to
evaluate the pilot program performance including:
Pilot project implementation;
Data collection success;
Pilot project performance; and
The need for drought contingency implementation.
Depending on the outcome of these semi-annual reviews, MSD may make
modifications to the pilot project monitoring program, potentially including:
Performing appropriate hydrologic engineering calculations
Deployment of different monitoring equipment;
Decommissioning of monitoring equipment from projects where sufficient
data have been obtained;
Modification of monitoring techniques; or
Implementation of hydrologic simulation.
This adaptive management approach will allow MSD to optimize the utility of data
collected during the pilot monitoring program. As indicated in Appendix Q of the
LTCP, MSD will notify Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) if MSD preliminarily
determines sufficient monitoring has been conducted at any project site/project type
prior to stopping monitoring or removing the monitoring equipment.
2.11 TRAINING OF MONITORING PERSONNEL
Field crews will also receive training involving the operation, maintenance and
calibration of monitoring equipment used throughout the field program. MSD crews
are already trained on A/V meters, level sensors and rain gages. Training for bubblers
and other new equipment will be provided to crews as needed. Standard Operating
St. Louis MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol October 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Page 20
Procedures (SOPs) for program elements will be distributed to staff, as needed. The
training will also cover project-specific health and safety issues and procedures.
St. Louis MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol October 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Page 21
3. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
MSD’s planned approach to synthesizing pilot program monitoring data into useful
performance metrics to inform the full-scale green infrastructure is described in this
section of the protocol.
3.1 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT METHOD
Three performance assessment methods will be used in the pilot program, depending
on the nature of the pilot projects, including:
Discharge Volume Metrics – This method will use calculated runoff and
measured outflow from pilot projects to determine runoff volume reduction on
an event basis.
Control/Experimental Comparison – Appropriate for block-scale projects or
blocks with a high percentage of site scale projects, this method will compare
runoff from a pilot project drainage area to a comparable control drainage area
to determine runoff volume reduction on an event basis.
Infiltration Evaluation – Infiltration evaluation will be used to determine the
effectiveness of soil amendment projects.
Each of these methods is described in greater detail below. These methods will yield
performance metrics for the pilot projects themselves and extrapolation to typical
year performance and full-scale program implementation are discussed in Section 3.2.
Although direct measurement of CSO overflow volumes will not be evaluated in the
pilot program, the pilot program will provide a robust way to predict the reduction of
stormwater volume from individual facilities, which can then be related to equivalent
reductions in directly-connected impervious area in MSD’s collection system model.
3.1.1 Discharge Volume Metrics
This assessment method will be used for the following projects that have continuous
outflow monitoring:
North Vandeventer Avenue bioretention;
Geraldine Avenue bioretention;
Clinton Street porous alley; and
Monroe Street rain garden.
As described in Section 2, runoff will be calculated for each project, rather than
measured. Outflow volumes will be calculated from numeric integration of flow
measurements over time. Several metrics will be calculated to assess hydrologic
performance of each project, as summarized in Table 3-1.
St. Louis MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol October 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Page 22
Table 3-1. Discharge Metrics to be Determined for Green Infrastructure Pilot
Projects with Outflow Monitoring
Discharge Metric3 Equation
Presence/Absence of Discharge
(Yes or No)
Absolute Volume Reduction
Runoff Volume – Discharge Volume
Relative Volume Reduction
(Runoff Volume – Discharge Volume)
/ Runoff Volume
Discharge (outflow) Volume per Drainage Area
Discharge Volume/ Total Area
Discharge Volume per Impervious Area
Discharge Volume / Impervious Area
Runoff Volume Reduction per Unit Area
Absolute Volume
Reduction/Drainage Area
Runoff Volume Reduction per Unit Impervious Area
Absolute Volume
Reduction/Impervious Area
These metrics will be used to evaluate performance of each project and to compare
performance among projects:
The presence or absence of discharge will be used to quantify the runoff
threshold below which no runoff to the pilot project occurs.
Absolute volume reduction is an important metric for determining which types
of green infrastructure projects are most effective. In addition, stormwater
volume reduction can be related to equivalent reduction in impervious area in
MSD’s collection system model, which can then be used to calculate CSO
volume reductions in the typical year. An example of an absolute volume
reduction plot is shown in Figure 3-1.
3 In this table, “discharge” refers to the flow leaving the green infrastructure project; “runoff” refers to
the flow entering the green infrastructure project, as calculated from rainfall data.
St
M
M
t. Louis MSD Gr
Monitoring Protoc
Metropolitan S
Figure 3
Relati
differe
consis
reduct
Disch
imper
Expre
compa
may h
not be
volum
Figure 3-
reen Infrastructu
col
St. Louis Sew
3-1. Hypoth
ive volume r
ent projects.
stent over tim
tions will be
harge volume
rvious area a
essed as a de
arisons can b
have substan
e done using
me per total d
-2. Hypothe
re Pilot Program
wer District
hetical plot o
reduction wi
It will also
me for simila
e computed a
e per total dr
are two metri
pth of water
be made amo
ntially differe
absolute vo
drainage area
etical plot of
versus p
m
of volume re
ll be used to
be used to d
ar sized storm
annually and
rainage area
ics that do n
r, these metri
ongst the dif
ent sized dra
olume reduct
a plot may lo
f discharge
precipitatio
eduction ve
o compare th
determine if p
ms. Absolut
d for individu
and discharg
ot require an
ics are norm
fferent proje
ainage areas.
tion. An exam
ook like is sh
volume per
n depth
ersus inflow
he performan
performance
te and relativ
ual storms.
ge volume p
n inflow mea
malized so th
ects even tho
. Such comp
mple of wha
hown in Fig
r total drain
October 201
Page 2
volume
nce among
e is
ve volume
per
asurement.
at
ough they
parisons coul
at a discharg
gure 3-2.
nage area
12
23
ld
ge
St
M
M
3
A
d
H
si
st
b
an
ex
sh
to
re
T
ex
(e
re
w
th
A
w
ru
fu
d
t. Louis MSD Gr
Monitoring Protoc
Metropolitan S
Runof
per un
for ex
year. T
.1.2 Contro
A control-exp
ownspout di
Habitat for H
imilar block
torm event, t
e determined
nd this volum
xample of w
hown in Figu
o normalize t
esult will be
These calcula
xperimental
experimenta
elative to the
watersheds w
he timing of
As with the d
will also allow
unoff volum
ull-scale imp
iscussed in S
reen Infrastructu
col
St. Louis Sew
ff volume re
nit imperviou
xtrapolation t
The approac
ol/Experim
perimental ap
isconnects an
Humanity city
without gre
the stormwa
d in the com
me will be c
what the dow
ure 3-3. The
the results an
expressed a
ations of inch
watersheds
l) watershed
e control wat
will also be ob
the peak flo
Figure 3-3.
discharge vol
w calculation
e reduction p
plementation
Section 3.3.
re Pilot Program
wer District
duction per
us area are k
to full-scale
ch to doing s
mental Com
pproach will
nd planter bo
y block repre
en infrastruc
ater runoff vo
mbined sewer
ompared to
wnstream hyd
e calculated r
nd remove th
as inches of r
hes of runoff
for each stor
d is having a
tershed. Ups
bserved to d
ow in the exp
Conceptua
experim
lume metric
n of runoff v
per unit imp
n and to the t
m
unit drainag
key metrics i
implementa
so is discusse
mparison
l be used to
oxes at the H
esents the “e
cture represe
olume for th
r upstream o
the downstre
drographs fro
runoff volum
he effect of
runoff.
ff will be com
rm to determ
meaningful
stream and d
determine if t
perimental w
l hydrograp
mental wate
approach de
volume redu
pervious area
typical hydro
ge area and ru
in normalizin
ation and to t
ed in Section
evaluate the
Habitat for H
experimental
ents the “con
he control an
of the blocks
eam hydrogr
om the two b
me will be di
different dra
mpared betw
mine if the gr
impact on r
downstream
there is a ch
watershed.
phs for the c
ersheds
escribed in S
uction per un
a. The appro
ologic year f
runoff volum
ng the monit
the typical h
n 3.2.
e effectivene
Humanity cit
l” monitorin
ntrol” site. F
d experimen
from monit
raphs. A con
blocks may l
ivided by wa
ainage area s
ween the cont
reen infrastr
reduction of
hydrographs
hange in the p
control and
Section 3.2.1
nit drainage a
ach for extra
from these m
October 201
Page 2
me reduction
toring result
hydrologic
ess of the
ty block. The
ng site and th
or each
ntal sites wil
oring data
nceptual
look like is
atershed area
size. The
trol and
ructure
runoff
s for both
peak flow or
d
1, this metho
area and
apolation to
metrics is
12
24
ts
e
he
l
a
r
od
St
M
M
3
M
an
du
as
b
T
id
su
pr
li
hy
A
ov
m
F
ca
u
ru
3
In
se
ar
t. Louis MSD Gr
Monitoring Protoc
Metropolitan S
.1.3 Infiltra
Measurement
nd soil amen
uring storm
s the key ind
enefit from f
The field-mea
dentify whic
urplus runof
rogram to th
ikelihood of
ypothetical i
Figure
tota
Annual infiltr
ver time. It w
may be done
or the amen
apacities of t
sed to quant
unoff from b
.2 PERFOR
INFRA
n addition to
everal other
rea, that are
reen Infrastructu
col
St. Louis Sew
ation Evalu
ts of infiltrat
ndment proje
events of va
dicator of hy
full-scale im
asured infiltr
h rainfall ev
ff. By compa
he infiltration
this occurrin
infiltration c
e 3-4. Hypot
al storm pre
ration testing
will also be u
on the proje
ded soil site
the control s
tify the numb
both the ame
RMANCE E
ASTRUCTU
o the pilot pro
green infras
being condu
re Pilot Program
wer District
uation
tion capacity
ects will be u
arious intens
ydrologic ben
mplementatio
ration rate w
vents are like
aring rainfall
n rate, a prob
ng. An exam
capacity of 2
thetical plot
cipitation a
capacity o
g will be use
used to evalu
ect sites, such
s, compariso
sites and the
ber of storm
ended soil sit
EVALUATIO
URE PROJE
ojects descri
structure proj
ucted by enti
m
y for the perv
used as an in
ities. For soi
nefit and wil
on.
will be plotte
ely to exceed
l from many
bability plot
mple of a stor
.5 inches pe
t of 15-minu
amount for a
of 2.5 inches
ed to determi
uate the effe
h as vacuum
ons will be m
amended so
events that
tes and the c
ON OF NO
ECTS
ibed in Secti
jects underw
ities other th
vious pavem
ndicator of h
il amendmen
ll be used to
d against av
d infiltration
y events over
can be gene
rm intensity
er hour is sho
ute rainfall
a BMP with
s per hour.
ine how the
ectiveness of
m sweeping th
made betwee
oil sites. The
are expected
control sites.
ON-MSD GR
ion 2 of this
way in the St
han MSD. Be
ment alley, bi
hydrologic p
nt projects, i
forecast the
verage rainfa
capacity an
r the course o
erated to des
plot for a B
own in Figur
intensities v
h an infiltra
projects are
f any mainte
he porous al
en the infiltra
e comparison
d to produce
REEN
document, t
t. Louis metr
ecause these
October 201
Page 2
ioretention,
erformance
it will serve
e overall
all intensity t
nd generate
of the pilot
scribe the
MP with a
re 3-4.
versus
ation
performing
enance that
lley.
ation
ns will be
e no surface
there are
ropolitan
e other
12
25
to
St. Louis MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol October 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Page 26
projects are not in MSD’s direct control, the utility of the data from them cannot be
assured at this time. However, MSD intends to track these projects, concurrently with
their pilot program, and use data from them to supplement the pilot program where
feasible. These other green infrastructure projects are described below.
3.2.1 Deer Creek Watershed Alliance Projects
Several green infrastructure projects have been implemented in the Deer Creek
Watershed in a collaborative effort with the Deer Creek Watershed Alliance. The
projects are privately owned and not part of the Pilot Program. A large bioretention
facility was constructed in Brentwood, Missouri on the property of the Mount
Calvary Lutheran Church. This project was installed in 2011 and covers
approximately 3,000 square feet. Seven rain gardens were constructed in 2010 to
capture runoff from a neighborhood on Cornell Avenue in University City, Missouri.
Another rain garden project was implemented in 2011 on Chalet Court in Creve
Coeur, Missouri.
Hydrologic and water quality monitoring for these three projects was initially
conducted by researchers at Washington University in St. Louis in collaboration with
the Missouri Botanical Garden. At the end of the grant period supporting the work by
Washington University, management of the monitoring equipment was transferred to
the Missouri Botanical Garden.
3.2.2 Southern Illinois University Edwardsville Research
Researchers at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville (SIUE) will conduct
research to evaluate flow reduction from the Habitat for Humanity planter boxes
described in Section 2.6 above. The work will be supported by the U.S. EPA Urban
Waters Small Grants Program.
SIUE will also work with MSD and the City of St. Louis to evaluate flow reduction
and water quality improvement from a bioretention facility as part of the South Grand
Boulevard Great Streets Bioretention program. Other partners include the East West
Gateway Council of Governments, Missouri Department of Conservation, and South
Grand Community Improvement District.
3.3 EXTRAPOLATION TO FULL GI PROGRAM
As described in Section 3.1 above, monitoring of MSD’s green infrastructure pilot
projects, with the exception of the soil amendment projects, is anticipated to yield
sufficient data to calculate several hydrologic metrics. These metrics will all provide
useful information about project performance and variability, but for purposes of
extrapolation to the full-scale green infrastructure program, the most important will
be runoff volume reduction per unit area (calculated using either total drainage area
or total impervious area captured). The value of this metric is that total drainage area
and impervious area captured are both easily determined quantities for future
planning. If runoff volume reduction per unit area (total or impervious) is quantified
as a function of precipitation characteristics, the relationship can be used to calculate
the benefit of other future projects, based on the quantity of area they treat. The result
St. Louis MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol October 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Page 27
can also be extrapolated to other storm events, such as the series of events that make
up the typical year.
There are two main methods of describing the relationship of runoff volume reduction
from a green infrastructure project to precipitation. One is through the use of a
deterministic model in which the functional attributes of the green infrastructure
project are described in process terms (infiltration, storage routing, etc.). This can be
complicated by the variety of project sizes and designs. The second method of
relating green infrastructure runoff volume reduction to precipitation is empirically,
using actual data to develop correlations between performance and precipitation.
MSD proposes to use the latter approach for their green infrastructure pilot program.
The planned approach for extrapolating pilot program data to full-scale involves
using the data with multiple linear regression to develop a relationship that describes
runoff volume reduction per unit area as a function of precipitation event
characteristics. One key advantage of the continuous monitoring planned by MSD is
that data for all precipitation events occurring during the monitoring period will be
collected. For each event, the runoff volume reduction can be calculated as described
in Section 3.1. Precipitation data can also be used to determine several rainfall
metrics including, but not necessarily limited to:
Rainfall depth
Average rainfall intensity
Peak rainfall intensity
Event duration
Time since last rainfall
Antecedent rainfall (for a given period)
These metrics will be calculated for each rainfall event and they will be “paired” with
the calculated runoff volume reduction per unit area for each event. Using multiple
linear regression with data from many events, an equation will be developed that
allows calculation of runoff volume reduction per unit area as a function of key
precipitation variables, on an event basis. The relationship can be applied to events in
the typical year to calculate the total runoff volume reduction benefit for the typical
year, for any combination of future green infrastructure projects. This process is
illustrated in Figure 3-5.
It is not known in advance which precipitation variables will be included in the final
regression. All variables must first be screened using the data collected to determine
whether the basic assumptions of multiple linear regression are met. These include:
Variables are normally distributed;
Dependent and independent variables are linearly related;
Assumption of homoscedasticity (i.e., the variance of errors is the same across
all levels of the independent variable)
St
M
M
D
an
as
re
T
w
A
sc
b
If
fo
t. Louis MSD Gr
Monitoring Protoc
Metropolitan S
Determination
nd may not b
s classificati
elating runof
The exact app
will occur dur
At a minimum
cale green in
e compared
f they are co
or runoff vol
Figure 3-5.
Reduction
reen Infrastructu
col
St. Louis Sew
n of the degr
be possible.
ion of rainfal
ff volume re
proach canno
ring the pilo
m, this appro
nfrastructure
to each othe
mparable, th
lume reducti
. Process for
per Unit Ar
re Pilot Program
wer District
ree to which
If this is the
ll events by
duction to th
ot be predete
ot program ar
oach will be
e, etc.). The r
er to determi
he data may
ion, as oppos
r Developm
rea as a Fun
m
h these assum
e case, an alt
magnitude,
he events on
ermined, as t
re not known
applied by p
results of the
ine whether p
be aggregate
sed to a proj
ment of Equa
nction of Pr
mptions are m
ternate appro
duration and
n the basis of
the nature of
n.
project type
e regression
performance
ed to develo
ject type-spe
ation to Cal
recipitation
met can be s
oach will be
d/or intensity
f those classi
f the rainfall
(bioretention
for each pro
e results are
op a general r
ecific relation
lculate Runo
Event Char
October 201
Page 2
subjective
taken, such
y and then
ifications.
l events that
n, block-
oject type wi
comparable
relationship
nship.
off Volume
racteristics
12
28
ill
.
St. Louis MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol October 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Page 29
Once these regression function(s) are defined, the relevant rainfall metrics for each
event in the typical year will be determined (i.e., the rainfall metrics that are used in
the regression). The regression function(s) can then be used to calculate runoff
volume reduction for each event as a function of impervious area controlled. This will
provide the planning basis for MSD to determine the number, type, and size of green
infrastructure projects in their full-scale program.
3.4 EXTRAPOLATION OF STORM WATER RUNOFF REDUCTION TO CSO
VOLUME REDUCTION
The green infrastructure pilot program is not designed to measures CSO volume
reductions directly; the findings will only allow prediction of runoff volume reduction
resulting from planned green infrastructure. This information must be extrapolated in
some way to predict CSO volume reduction.
MSD’s collection system model can be adjusted to reduce directly connected
impervious area which, in turn, will cause a reduction in predicted runoff volume.
The results of the green infrastructure pilot program will provide a relationship
between green infrastructure implementation and runoff reduction, so this information
can then be converted to an equivalent reduction in impervious area for a given green
infrastructure implementation scenario. The collection system model can then be used
to predict the CSO volume reduction resulting from the full-scale green infrastructure
program, in a typical year. The general steps in the process will be:
1. Use green infrastructure pilot program data to determine relationship between
rainfall and runoff volume reduction.
2. Use the collection system model to relate impervious area reduction to runoff
volume reduction.
3. Define full green infrastructure program (project types and locations).
4. Calculate runoff volume reduction from full green infrastructure program
(using relationship from Step 1).
5. Determine impervious area reduction equivalent to full green infrastructure
program (using relationship from Step 2).
6. Model full green infrastructure program using equivalent impervious area
reduction (determined in Step 5) to predict CSO volume reduction in typical
year.
St. Louis MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol October 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Page 30
This page is blank to facilitate double sided printing.
St. Louis MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol October 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Page 31
4. DATA MANAGEMENT
Data generated during the green infrastructure pilot program will be used to
determine the performance of the pilot program green infrastructure projects. This
information will inform the design of the full-scale green infrastructure program.
MSD will be responsible for organization and oversight of data collection, processing
and storage so that the data will be documented, accessible and secure for the
foreseeable time period of its use.
4.1 DATA HANDLING
MSD will maintain a project file for the green infrastructure pilot program monitoring
data. This will serve as a repository for all field logs, data and any additional
information used in completion of the monitoring program. All project files will be
properly identified by site name, description, and project number for all appropriate
correspondence, memoranda, calculations, technical work products, and other project-
related data. In addition, a quality assurance file will be maintained containing all
QA/QC related information. Electronic project files will be maintained on network
computers and backed up periodically. Raw data will be stored in a sequel database.
Processed data will be stored in the project file.
The following information will be included in the hard copy or electronic project files
in the central file:
Field logs
Any reports and documents prepared
Contract information
Results of data quality assessments and audits
Communications (memoranda; internal notes; letters; key meeting minutes;
and written correspondence among the project team personnel, subcontractors,
suppliers, or others)
Maps, photographs, and drawings
Studies, reports, documents, and newspaper articles pertaining to project
monitoring
CVS data files of the raw data
Geographic coordinates locating the specific green infrastructure installations
that were monitored
4.2 FIELD FORMS
A Field Log Database will serve as a daily record of events, observations and
measurements during all field activities. All information pertinent to sampling
activities will be recorded in Field Log Work Orders. The Field Log Work Orders
will be completed by field staff for every visit documenting activities and conditions.
The Field Log Work Orders will be downloaded to the administrative computer
St. Louis MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol October 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Page 32
following the sampling event, and placed in a notebook. A sample Field Log Work
Order is pictured below.
4.3 DATA REVIEW/VALIDATION
All measurement data collected by project staff will be subjected to quality control
checks before being utilized in performance evaluations. The objective of the data
review is to evaluate the data within the context of the project goals. These goals
include providing datasets that can be used to evaluate performance. Comparability
with other sources of data will be evaluated by comparing and, if necessary, plotting
the data with previously collected data to identify outliers or anomalous values.
The MSD Field Manager4 will be responsible for ensuring data is collected according
to the SOPs. Data verification will include confirming that flow measurements were
collected with the proper equipment at the appropriate locations with the appropriate
frequency. The data review will also include screening the field work orders
4 Oversight of field operations will be performed by Michael Kelly and Kyle Winkelman of MSD.
St. Louis MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol October 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Page 33
according to established criteria. If the established screening criteria are violated the
investigation of the issue will be documented and the data will be discarded or
flagged appropriately, identifying the limitations of the data. This information will
also be used to perform additional equipment inspections, maintenance and
recalibrations.
St. Louis MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol October 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Page 34
This page is blank to facilitate double sided printing.
St. Louis MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol October 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Page 35
5. PROGRESS REPORTING
As described in Section 2.10, MSD will conduct a monitoring review every six
months during the pilot program to assess data collection success and perform interim
data evaluation. The six-month review will include the following elements:
Data inventory – How much data was collected? How many precipitation
events were captured? Were there data gaps (why)? Are any course
corrections needed? Is it necessary to implement a contingency plan such as
hydrologic simulation?
Equipment security – Were there issues with tampering, vandalism, or theft?
Are additional security measures needed?
Data quality – Are the data providing the expected information? Is recording
frequency sufficient or excessive? Are any monitoring design modifications
needed?
Interim data evaluation – What does processing of the interim data show?
Does it appear that the monitoring program will be sufficient to inform the
full-scale green infrastructure program?
In addition to these elements, reviews will also discuss the following, as applicable:
New projects – Any new green infrastructure projects supported by MSD will
be described. These may be projects that presented themselves as part of the
action of third parties such as private land developers. The feasibility of
monitoring will be assessed.
Hydrologic simulations – Any hydrologic simulations conducted on MSD
pilot projects will be reported: Where were they performed? What was
simulated? What data were collected? What do the data show?
Non-pilot green infrastructure projects – The status of other, non-pilot
program green infrastructure projects in St. Louis, of which MSD is aware,
will be discussed: What are the projects? What data are being collected from
them? What does the data show? Will the data be useful for planning MSD’s
full-scale green infrastructure program?
Monitoring program adjustments – The adaptive management approach
described in Section 2.10 supports course corrections, as needed. These may
include modification of monitoring approach, additional monitoring where
needed, or discontinuation of monitoring where sufficient data have been
collected.
Brief, written progress reports will be prepared to document each six-month review in
summary fashion. The goal here is to provide a summary of essential information, not
an exhaustive report. Each six-month progress report will include contact information
for key points of contact for the pilot program.
St. Louis MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol October 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Page 36
These summary reports will form the basis for an annual report on monitoring
activities, which MSD will submit to MDNR/EPA along with other annual Consent
Decree reporting.
The pilot program final report will include a summary of monitoring activities and the
results from the performance assessment described in Section 3. The report will be
accompanied by a copy of the electronic spreadsheet or database of monitoring data
from all activities at all locations that were monitored, along with geographic
coordinates locating the specific green infrastructure installations that were
monitored. This final report will be submitted to MDNR/EPA, with a copy to the
Missouri Coalition of the Environment Foundation, by December 31, 2015.
St. Louis MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol October 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Page 37
6. REFERENCES
American Standard for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2003. Standard test method
for infiltration rate of soils in field using double-ring infiltrometer. ASTM
D3385-09, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA.
Bean, E, W. Hunt, and D. Bidelspach. 2007. “Field survey of permeable pavement
surface infiltration rates.” Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering.
133(3) 249-255.
Fassman, E. and S. Blackbourn. 2010. “Urban runoff mitigation by a permeable
pavement system over impermeable soils.” Journal of Hydrologic Engineering.
15(6) 475-485.
Geosyntec Consultants and Wright Water Engineers, Inc. 2009. Urban Stormwater
BMP Performance Monitoring Manual. Manual prepared under contract to
USEPA and Water Environment Federation.
NRC (National Research Council). 2008. Urban Stormwater Management in the
United States. National Research Council of the National Academies, National
Academies Press, Washington, DC.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. Combined Sewer
Overflows: Guidance for Monitoring and Modeling (EPA-832-B-99-002).
Washington, DC: Office of Water.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2011. CSO Post-
Construction Compliance Monitoring Guidance (EPA-833-K-11-001).
Washington, DC: Office of Wastewater Management.
St. Louis MSD Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Monitoring Protocol October 2012
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Page 38
This page is blank to facilitate double sided printing.
APPENDIX T WORK PLAN FOR DOUBLE RING INFILTROMETER TESTING
CSO Volume Reduction – Green
Infrastructure (Pilot Program)
Work Plan for
Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
July 29, 2013
Revised October 30, 2013
Prepared by
CSO Volume Reduction – Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program) July 2013
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Work Plan for Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Green Infrastructure Program .....................................................................................................1
1.2 Pilot Program ...............................................................................................................................1
1.3 Infiltrometer Testing Scope .........................................................................................................2
1.4 Schedule .......................................................................................................................................2
1.5 Testing Locations .........................................................................................................................3
2.0 TESTING METHOD
2.1 Equipment to be Used .................................................................................................................6
2.2 Testing Procedures ......................................................................................................................6
2.2.1 Summary of Testing ..................................................................................................................6
2.2.2 Environmental Conditions Affecting Testing ............................................................................8
Interference
Evaporation
Temperature/Time of Day
Antecedent moisture conditions
2.2.3 Test Preparations ......................................................................................................................8
Access
Calibration
Ring Installation in Soil
Ring Installation on Pavement
Soil Conditions
2.2.4 Testing .......................................................................................................................................9
Pre-Soaking
Maintaining Liquid Level
Infiltration Readings
2.2.6 Special Considerations for Each Type of Site ............................................................................10
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Reporting......................................................................................................................................10
3.2 Calculations ..................................................................................................................................14
3.3 QA/QC Procedures .......................................................................................................................14
3.4 Interpreting Results .....................................................................................................................14
4.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................15
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 - Proposed Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing Locations .................................................4
Figure 1-2 Photographs of Testing Site ..............................................................................................5
Figure 2-1 - Double Ring Infiltrometer Configuration and Dimensions .............................................7
Figure 2-2 - Double Ring Infiltrometer used on
Porous Pavement (Fassman and Blackbourn 2010) ..........................................................................9
Figure 3-1 - Sample Data Collection Form for Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing ............................12
Figure 3-2 – Sample Report/Graph for Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing Results ...........................13
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Testing Locations and Description .....................................................................................3
CSO Volume Reduction – Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program) July 2013
1
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Work Plan for Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As part of MSD’s Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Pilot
Program, infiltrometer testing will be performed at various designated locations to capture a
representative cross section of different types of soil conditions and constructed green infrastructure.
After initial testing at each site, additional testing will take place at regularly scheduled intervals in
order to document any changes in infiltration characteristics. A double-ring infiltrometer, which will be
used to accomplish this, estimates the vertical movement (infiltration rate) of water through the
bottom of the test area. Testing will be performed according to ASTM (American Society for Testing
and Materials) D3385-09. Testing is scheduled to begin in the month of July 2013, and will occur
annually in 2014 and 2015, however results of the final test will need to be received by the end of June,
2015.
There are five different types of green infrastructure techniques that will be tested:
Compost Amended Soil
Aerated Amended Soil
Unamended Soil
Bioretention
Pervious Pavement
A total of 15 tests will be taken at five pre-selected sites throughout the District. The results of the
testing will be recorded in a format described within this report. Calculations will be made according
to ASTM D3385-09 to determine the vertical infiltration rate in cm/hr (in/hr).
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Green Infrastructure Program
The overall goals of the Green Infrastructure Program, as stated in the Long Term Control Plan (LTCP),
are to “identify and implement projects and programs that will significantly reduce CSOs and provide
additional environmental benefit,” as well as reduce CSO overflow volumes to the Mississippi R iver by
10 percent. Green infrastructure projects will redirect stormwater from reaching the combined sewer
system by capturing and diverting it to locations where it is detained, infiltrated into the ground,
evaporated, taken up by plants and transpired, or reused.
1.2 Pilot Program
The Pilot Program is intended to test and resolve the numerous anticipated regulatory, logistical, and
financial aspects of the projects among the multiple stakeholders. Based on the results of the Pilot
Program, MSD may update the goal for the full-scale green infrastructure program for discharge
volume reduction from the CSOs in the MSD service area tributary to the Mississippi River. The Pilot
Program involves an initial 5-year $3 million pilot program. The scope of the Pilot Program includes
performing stormwater retrofitting utilizing green infrastructure on properties in the Bissell Point
service area that are currently owned by the Land Reutilization Authority (LRA).
Figure XXXXX
REDRAW TABLE WITHOUT
VALUES INSERTED
CSO Volume Reduction – Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program) July 2013
2
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Work Plan for Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing
As part of the Pilot Program, Infiltrometer testing will be performed at various designated locations to
capture a representative cross section of different types of soil conditions and constructed green
infrastructure. After initial testing at each site, additional testing will take place at regularly scheduled
intervals in order to document any changes in infiltration characteristics. A double-ring infiltrometer,
which will be used to accomplish this, estimates the vertical movement (infiltration rate) of water
through the bottom of the test area. The outer ring helps to reduce the lateral movement of water in
the soil. Infiltration rate should not be confused with hydraulic conductivity, which includes lateral
flow through the soil.
1.3 Infiltrometer Testing Scope
The purpose of the Double Ring Infiltrometer testing at various sites is to determine whether the
infiltration rate of various types of green infrastructure techniques changes over time, and to evaluate
the effectiveness of any maintenance that may be done on the project sites. For the amended soil
sites, comparisons will be made between the infiltration capacities of the control sites and the
amended soil sites. The comparisons will be used to quantify the number of storm events that are
expected to produce no surface runoff from both the amended soil sites and the control sites.
Highlights of the scope of the testing project include:
a. Testing is scheduled to begin in the month of July 2013, and will occur annually in 2014 and
2015, however results of the final test will need to be received by the end of June, 2015.
b. Infiltrometer testing will be conducted using a double ring infiltrometer (ASTM D3385-09)
c. Testing will take place according to this Work Plan.
1.4 Schedule
Testing is scheduled to begin in the month of July 2013, and will occur annually in 2014 and 2015.
However results of the final test will need to be received by the end of June, 2015.
CSO Volume Reduction – Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program) July 2013
3
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Work Plan for Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing
1.5 Testing Locations
Site Address Green Infrastructure Technique Number
of Test
Locations
Owner
4228-4240 Warne Ave Compost Amended Soil (street side-front 20’)
Aerated Amended Soil (alley side-back 20’)
Unamended Soil (center)
2
2
2
LRA
3832-3834 Labadie
Ave
Compost Amended Soil (street side-front 20’)
Aerated Amended Soil (alley side-back 20’)
Unamended Soil (center)
2
2
2
LRA
2818 N Vandeventer
Ave
Bioretention 1 MSD
5099 Geraldine Ave Bioretention 1 MSD
Alley N. of Utah Pl, W
of Grand Blvd
Pervious Pavement 1 City Streets
Total Number of Tests Per Cycle 15
CSO Volume Reduction – Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program) July 2013
4
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Work Plan for Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing
A
B
C
D
F
G
A
B
C
D
F
G
A
B
C
D
E
F
Table 1-1 Testing Locations and Description
CSO Volume Reduction – Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program) July 2013
5
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Work Plan for Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing
4228-4240 Warne Ave 3832-3834 Labadie Ave
5099 Geraldine Ave 2818 N Vandeventer Ave
Figure 1-2 Photographs of Testing Sites
Alley N. of Utah Pl, W of Grand Blvd
CSO Volume Reduction – Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program) July 2013
6
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Work Plan for Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing
2.0 TESTING METHOD
2.1 Equipment to be Used
Following is a list of standard apparatus, as described in Section 6 of ASTM D3385-9, required to
perform double ring infiltrometer testing:
a. Infiltrometer Rings (internal and
external, stainless steel preferred)
b. Driving Cap
c. Driving Equipment
d. Depth Gage
e. Splash Guard
f. Rule or Tape
g. Tamp
h. Shovels
i. Liquid Containers, One 200-L (55-gal)
barrel for the main liquid supply, 13-L
(12-qt) pail for initial filling of the
infiltrometers, and two calibrated head
tanks for measurement of liquid flow
during the test.
j. Liquid Supply
k. Watch or Stopwatch
l. Level
m. Thermometer
n. Rubber Hammer (mallet)
o. pH Paper
p. Recording Materials
q. Hand Auger
r. Float Valves
s. Covers and Dummy Tests Set-Up
2.2 Testing Procedures
Standard testing procedures, including requirements outlined in ASTM D3385 – 09, are described in
the following paragraphs:
2.2.1 Summary of Testing
The double-ring infiltrometer method consists of driving two open cylinders, one inside the other, into
the ground, partially filling the rings with water or other liquid, and then maintaining the liquid at a
constant level. The purpose of the outer ring is to promote one dimensional, vertical flow beneath the
inner ring. The volume of liquid added to the inner ring, to maintain the liquid level constant, is the
measure of the volume of liquid that infiltrates the soil. The volume infiltrated during timed intervals is
converted to an incremental infiltration velocity, usually expressed in centimeter per hour or inch per
hour and plotted versus elapsed time. The maximum-steady state or average incremental infiltration
velocity, depending on the purpose/application of the test, is equivalent to the infiltration rate.
CSO Volume Reduction – Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program) July 2013
7
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Work Plan for Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing
Figure 2-1 - Double Ring Infiltrometer Configuration and Dimensions
Hook Gage
Point Gage
Inner Ring
Water Level
Support Stake
Valve Mariotté Tube10,000 mLThreaded
Hose
Connector
25-15 mm
(1-6”) water3,000 mLGraduated CylinderFlow-control ValveNote: Constant-level float valves have been eliminated for simplification of the illustration.
A
B
Graduated Tube
Test Supply, also
Filler Valve
Vent
Filter and/or
Bleed Valve
Marriotté Tube
Useful Capacity 3,000 mL 10,000 ml
A mm (in) 400 (4) 150 (6)
B mm (in) 450 (18) 600 (24)Outer Ring
Double Ring Infiltrometerwith MarriotteTube
30 cm (12 in) Inner
60 cm (24 in) Outer
50 cm.
(20 in.)
Inner and
Outer
Welded butt
joint
Aluminum alloy reinforced bond-
minimum dimensions of 19 mm (3/4 in.)
height by 3 mm (1/8 in.) thick.
Welded
Double Ring InfiltrometerInner and Outer Ring Dimensions
Note: These are approximate recommended
ring diameters. The inner ring should be
between 50% and 70% of the outer ring.
CSO Volume Reduction – Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program) July 2013
8
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Work Plan for Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing
2.2.2 Environmental Conditions Affecting Testing
Many factors affect the infiltration rate, for example the soil structure, soil layering, condition of the
soil surface, degree of saturation of the soil, chemical and physical nature of the soil and of the applied
liquid, head of the applied liquid, temperature of the liquid, and diameter and depth of embedment of
rings. Thus, tests made at the same site are not likely to give identical results and the rate measured
by the test method described in this standard is primarily for comparative use.
Interference - For long-term tests, avoid unattended sites where interference with test equipment is
possible, such as sites near children or in pastures with livestock. For shorter tests, minimize the time
the equipment is left unattended.
Evaporation - evaporation of fluid from the rings and unsealed reservoirs can lead to errors in the
measured infiltration rate. Therefore, in such tests, completely cover the top of the rings and unsealed
reservoirs with a relatively airtight material, but vented to the atmosphere through a small hole or
tube. Make provisions to protect the test apparatus and fluid from direct sunlight and temperature
variations that are large enough to affect the slow measurements significantly, especially for test
durations greater than a few hours or those using a Mariotte tube. The expansion or contraction of the
air in the Mariotte tube above the water due to temperature changes may cause changes in the rate of
flow of the liquid from the tube which will result in a fluctuating water level in the infiltrometer rings.
Temperature/Time of Day - Steady-state infiltration rates have been shown to correlate with
temperature and the time of day that testing takes place. (Katherine Clancy and Veronica M. Alba
2011). If possible, subsequent testing at each site should take place at the same time of day and under
similar atmospheric conditions. If not possible, then the difference in conditions should be considered
as an influencing factor for varied results.
Antecedent moisture conditions - While double ring infiltrometer testing is often used to determine
design parameters for green infrastructure, for this testing project it is being used to determine
whether there is a change in infiltration capacity over time. As such, a fully saturated subgrade would
provide a consistent condition for each test. This has the added benefit of making ring insertion easier
and with less soil disturbance. There were early discussions with MSD regarding testing under non-
saturated conditions in order to record the infiltration rate at various stages of soil saturation. Due to
the added cost, the unreliability of weather conditions, and the risk of equipment damage left
overnight, this option was dismissed.
2.2.3 Test Preparations
Access - The testing contractor is responsible for all access, permits and restoration costs. When
testing a site owned by MSD, contact Jim Derby, MSD – Sulphur Yard, 1900 Sulphur Avenue Saint Louis,
MO 63110, (314) 768-2789. When testing a site owned by LRA, contact Laura Costello, St. Louis
Development Corporation, 1520 Market Street, Ste 2000, St. Louis, MO 63103, (314) 657-3725. When
testing a site owned by the City of St. Louis, contact Todd Waelterman, City of St. Louis Street
Department, 1900 Hampton Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63139, (314) 647-3111. Notify Missouri One-Call
and other non-participating utility companies for clearance of underground utilities, as necessary.
CSO Volume Reduction – Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program) July 2013
9
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Work Plan for Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing
Documenting Test Locations – To the greatest extent possible, tests should be conducted at the same
location at each testing site from year to year in order to maximize the comparability of the test results
over time. The testing location(s) at each site will be thoroughly documented at the time of initial
testing using measurements, notes, sketches and photographs to ensure that the same location is used
for testing in subsequent years.
Soil Samples – Using a hand auger, soil samples should be taken at each testing site for the first round
of testing only. The Soil Sample Profile should be recorded on the Report for Infiltration Testing
(Figure 3-2). The characterization of soil conditions will be valuable in understanding the soil
conditions and their on-site variability at each site.
The sample should be taken as close as possible to the infiltration testing location. Soil sample
information will include the depth of characterization for the first foot below existing grade.
Calibration - A double-ring infiltrometer consists of two concentric metal rings. The diameter of the
inner ring should be approximately 50-70 percent of the diameter of the outer ring, with a minimum
inner ring size of four inches. Measurements and calibration of the infiltrometer rings should be
performed, as described in ASTM D-3385-9, prior to installation into the soil. Establish the change in
elevation versus change in volume to within 1% accuracy. Measure the rings following testing to
determine changes that may affect results.
Ring Installation in Soil –Specific recommendations for driving the rings into the soil should be followed
as detailed in ASTM D3385-9 Section 8.3. Choose a level location and use a wood block to minimize
damage to the rings. The goal of the outer ring is to prevent the test fluid from leaking to the ground
surface surrounding the ring, and to be deeper than the depth to which the inner ring will be driven.
Minimize disturbance to the surrounding soil, tamping disturbed soil after driving, or relocating the
rings if there is excessive disturbance. Drive the outer ring to approximately 6”and the inner ring to a
depth of 2” to 4”.
Ring Installation on Pavement - For testing on pervious
pavement, driving the rings will obviously not be possible.
As described in Field Survey of Permeable Pavement
Surface Infiltration Rates (Bean, Hunt, and Bidelspach
2007), plumbers putty (or another watertight material)
should be used on both rings as a seal between the rings
and the pavement. The adjacent figure demonstrates this
method (Fassman and Blackbourn in 2010). (Note: when
referring to pavement, the terms “pervious”, “permeable”
and “porous” are interchangeable within this report .)
2.2.4 Testing
Pre-Soaking - The test area (for soil only, not pavement)
Figure 2-2 - Double Ring Infiltrometer
used on Porous Pavement (Fassman
and Blackbourn 2010)
CSO Volume Reduction – Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program) July 2013
10
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Work Plan for Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing
should be presoaked beginning the night before testing using a perforated 55 gallon drum.
Prior to beginning the test, fill both rings with at least four inches of water and observe the drop in the
water level for 30 minutes (Southeast Michigan Council of Governments). If water level drop is two
inches or more, use shorter measurement intervals during testing. If water level drop is less than two
inches, use longer measurement intervals.
Maintaining Liquid Level - There are basically three ways to maintain a constant head (liquid level)
within the inner ring and annular space between the two rings: manually controlling the flow of liquid,
the use of constant-level float valves, or the use of a Mariotte tube. Between 1” and 6” of head should
be maintained in the rings above the ground surface, higher head for lower permeable soils. There
should not be than ¼” variance between the levels in the inner and outer rings. Minimize soil
disturbance by covering the soil inside the rings with burlap or rubber when first pouring the fluid ,
removing as testing begins.
Infiltration Readings - Record the volume of liquid that is
added to maintain a constant head in the inner ring and
annular space. For average soils, record the volume of
liquid used at intervals of 15 min for the first hour, 30 min
for the second hour, and 60 min during the remainder of a
period of at least 6 h, or until after a relatively constant rate
is obtained. The volume of liquid used in any one reading
interval should not be less than approximately 25 cm3 or 1.5
in3.
After each reading, refill both rings to water level indicator
mark or rim. Measurement to the water level in the center
ring should be made from a fixed reference point and
should continue at the interval determined until a minimum
of eight readings are completed or until a stabilized rate of drop is obtained, whichever occurs first. A
stabilized rate of drop means a difference of ¼ inch or less of drop between the highest and lowest
readings of four consecutive readings. The drop that occurs in the center ring during the final period or
the average stabilized rate, expressed as inches per hour, should represent the infiltration rate for that
test location.
2.2.5 Special Considerations for Each Type of Site
There are five different types of green infrastructure techniques that will be tested:
Compost Amended Soil
Aerated Amended Soil
Unamended Soil
Bioretention
Pervious Pavement
Figure 2-3 - Double Ring Infiltrometer
Testing (HILBEC Engineering &
Geosciences, LLC)
CSO Volume Reduction – Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program) July 2013
11
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Work Plan for Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing
There will be variability at each site and with each technique that needs to be considered during
testing. Adjustments should be made accordingly. These may include adjusting the depth of head in
the rings, the reading interval and whether to strip away any soil layer prior to testing. Testing of the
pervious pavement (Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavers) may result in a condition where the
infiltration rate far exceeds the fill rate. This condition is described by Bean, Hunt, and Bidelspach.
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Reporting
Report the following information using table a format similar to Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2:
Location of test site (including three point ties or coordinates for each test).
Dates of tests, start and finish.
Weather conditions, start to finish.
Name(s) of technician(s).
Description of test site, including boring profile.
Type of liquid used in the test, along with the liquid’s pH. If available, a full analysis of the liquid
also should be recorded.
Areas of rings and the annular space between rings to the nearest 1 cm2 (0.16 in2) or better.
Volume constants for graduated cylinders or Mariotte tubes to the nearest 0.01 cm3 (0.06 in3)
or better.
Depth of liquid in inner ring and annular space to the nearest 2 mm (0.079 in) or better.
Record of ground and liquid temperatures to the nearest 0.5°C (0.9° F), incremental volume
measurements to the nearest 0.01 cm3 (0.06 in3) or better, and elapsed time to the nearest 1
min. or better.
Incremental infiltration velocities (use 3 significant digits) for inner ring and annular space. The
rate of the inner ring should be the value used if the rates for inner ring and annular space
differ. The difference in rates is due to divergent flow.
If available, depth to the water table and a description of the soils found between the rings and
the water table, or to a depth of about 1 m (3.3 ft).
Soil sample profiles for each testing site for the first round of testing only.
A plot of the incremental infiltration rate versus total elapsed time.
In addition to tables similar to Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2, the testing location(s) at each site will be
thoroughly documented at the time of initial testing using measurements, notes, sketches and
photographs to ensure that the same location is used for testing in subsequent years.
CSO Volume Reduction – Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program) July 2013
12
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Work Plan for Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing
Figure 3-1 - Sample Data Collection Form for Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing
Liquid Containers
Project Identification _______________________________________Constants Area (cm2 or in2)
Depth Of
Liquid (cm)No.
Test Location __________________________________________Inner Ring:__________ ___________ ___________ ___________
Liquid Used:___________________________pH:_____Annular Space: ________________________ ___________ ___________
Tested By:___________________________Liquid Level Maintained Using: Flow Valve ; Float Valve ; Mariotte Tube (circle one)
Depth to Water Table:_________(m or ft) Penetration of Rings: (Inner):______________________(cm or in); (Outer):__________(cm or in)
Inner Ring Annular Space Incremental Infilt. Rate
Trial No.Start/
End Date Time
hr:mm
Elasped
Time
D/(total)
(min)
Reading
(cm or in)
Flow
(cm3 or
in3)
Reading
(cm or in)
Flow
(cm3 or in3)
Liquid
Temp Inner Annular
Ground Temp: ________ @ Depth
of:_______ (cm or in)
Remarks: Weather Conditions, etc.
Start
End
Start
End
Start
End
Start
End
Start
End
Start
End
Start
End
Start
End
Start
End
Start
End
SAMPLE FIELD DATA COLLECTION FORM
VoA/DH
(cm2/cm) or
(in2/in)
6
7
8
Flow Readings
1
2
9
10
3
4
5
CSO Volume Reduction – Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program) July 2013
13
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Work Plan for Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing
Project Identification_________________________Prepared By________________Date of Test: Start______;Finish
Project Location______________________________Remarks______________________________________________
Liquid used__________________________________pH=_____;Avg. Temp=_______±________(C˚ or F˚)
Horizontal Distance in
Elapsed Time in
Report for Infiltration Testing
Soil Profile
Description
IncrementalInfiltration Rate in Distance in Depth in Figure 3-2 – Sample Report/Graph for Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing Results
CSO Volume Reduction – Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program) July 2013
14
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Work Plan for Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing
3.2 Calculations
Convert the volume of liquid used during each measured time interval into an incremental infiltration
velocity for both the inner ring and annular space with the unit of cm/hr (in/hr). The results should be
plotted in a format similar to Figure 3-2.
For the inner ring calculate as follows:
VIR = ∆VIR/(AIR*∆t) (1)
where:
VIR = inner ring incremental infiltration velocity, cm/hr (in/hr)
∆VIR = volume of liquid used during time interval to maintain constant head in the inner ring, cm3 (in3)
AIR = internal area of inner ring, cm2 (in2)
and ∆t = time interval, h.
For the annular space between rings calculate as follows:
VA = ∆VA/(AA*∆t) (2)
where:
VA = annular space incremental infiltration velocity, cm/hr (in/hr)
∆VA = volume of liquid used during time interval to maintain constant head in the annular space
between the rings, cm3 (in3)
and AA = area of annular space between the rings, cm2 (in2).
3.3 QA/QC Procedures
The contractor performing the Infiltration testing should employ standard soils investigation QA/QC
protocol when taking and handling samples (such as Soil Sampling Quality Assurance User’s Guide,
USEPA 1989), as well as when performing infiltration testing.
The quality of the result produced by this standard is dependent on the competence of the personnel
performing it, and the suitability of the equipment and facilities used. Agencies that meet the criteria
of ASTM D5093 Test Method for Field Measurement of Infiltration Rate Using Double-Ring Infiltrometer
with Sealed-InnerRing are generally considered capable of competent and objective
testing/sampling/inspection/etc. Users of this standard are cautioned that compliance with Practice
D5093 does not in itself assure reliable results. Reliable results depend on many factors; Practice
D5093 provides a means of evaluating some of those factors.
Other standards which should be followed include ASTM D3740 Practice for Minimum Requirements
for Agencies Engaged in Testing and/or Inspection of Soil and Rock as Used in Engineering Design and
Construction.
3.4 Interpreting Results
The test results and reports will be submitted to MSD within 15 working days following completion of
the first year’s tests. MSD, and its Pilot Program Monitoring Consultant, will review the results and
determine whether a subsequent round of testing will take place at some, all, or none of the sites.
CSO Volume Reduction – Green Infrastructure (Pilot Program) July 2013
15
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Work Plan for Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing
4.0 REFERENCES
Bean, E, W. Hunt, and D. Bidelspach. 2007. “Field survey of permeable pavement surface infiltration
rates.” Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. 133(3) 249 -255.
Fassman, E. and S. Blackbourn. 2010. “Urban runoff mitigation by a permeable pavement system over
impermeable soils.” Journal of Hydrologic Engineering. 15(6) 475-485.
Katherine Clancy and Veronica M. Alba 2011. “Temperature and Time of Day Influence on Double-Ring
Infiltrometer Steady-State Infiltration Rates.”
Southeast Michigan Council of Governments 2008. “Low Impact Development Manual for Michigan: A
Design Guide for Implementors and Reviewers.”
HILBEC Engineering & Geosciences, LLC, http://www.hilbec.com/STORMWATER.htm
Figure XXXXX
REDRAW TABLE WITHOUT
VALUES INSERTED
APPENDIX U DOUBLE RING INFILTROMETER TESTING RESULTS 2015
Geotechnical Engineering • Water Resources • Construction Engineering & Quality Control • Environmental Restoration & Permitting
AASHTO National Laboratory Accreditation M3-MSD Green Infrastructure Task 12 Infiltration Testing 2015
1055 corporate square drive
st. louis, mo 63132
phone: 314.993.4132
fax: 314.993.4177
www.reitzjens.com
May 22 , 2015
Ms. Susan McCrary, PE
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
2350 Market Street
St. Louis, MO 63103
Re: Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
GSA - Green Infrastructure Pilot Program (11048)
Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing Results 2015
Dear Ms. McCrary,
The following presents the results of the infiltration testing at 5 locations as part of the Green
Infrastructure Pilot Program. The field testing included 14 infiltrometer tests. Three (3)
infiltration tests were completed at the 4228-4240 Warne Ave. site, three (3) at the 3832-3834
Labadie Ave. site, three (3) at 2818 N. Vandeventer Ave, three (3) at 5099 Geraldine Ave., and
two (2) in the alley north of Utah Place and west of Grand Ave. The Double Ring Infiltrometer
tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D3385, and the MSD “CSO Volume
Reduction Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Work Plan for Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing”
dated October 30, 2013.
Infiltration Testing Procedure
Prior to performing the tests at the Warne and Labadie sites, the soil at each test location was first
saturated overnight. This was accomplished with a 55-gallon drum with a perforated bottom. The
drum was installed at the test location and the perimeter edge of the drum was sealed with
Bentonite crumbles to direct the majority of the water vertically into the immediate test area. The
drum was then filled with water and allowed to percolate water into the test soil overnight.
The next day double ring infiltrometers were installed at the Warne and Labadie Sites. The Utah,
Geraldine and N. Vandeventer sites were not pre-saturated before testing. The infiltrometers
consist of two steel pipes with a cutting edge on one side of each pipe, which are placed so that
they form an annular area and a central testing area. The inner rings are about 8 inch diameter,
and the outer rings are about 16 inch diameter. The pipes were installed by hammering them into
the ground with a sledge hammer. Our target depths for the outer and inner rings were 4-inch and
1-inch deep respectively. The suggested depths from ASTM are 6-inch and 2-inch respectively,
but no minimum depths are specified-only that they should be deep enough to create a seal to
reduce water flow between the two rings and from the outer ring to the exposed ground. These
depths were achieved only in rare cases due to underground obstructions such as gravel, bricks
and miscellaneous debris which made driving to the specified depths impractical.
MSD GSA Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Page 2
2015 Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing
May 22, 2015
REITZ & JENS, INC.
These tests were run at the deepest possible depths, using the equipment described in the work
plan, and were monitored for water leakage under the rings. Tests that were noticeably leaking
were discontinued and noted; all other tests were completed and calculated in general accordance
with the ASTM specification. At the Utah and Grand permeable alley, the edges of the
infiltrometer pipes were beaded with plumber’s putty, and set on the pavement. Leaks were
repaired with additional putty.
After the infiltrometers were installed, they were filled with 2 to 7 inches of water, and the water
level was monitored for up to 4 hrs. During monitoring, the infiltrometers were refilled either
manually or using a vacuum marionette system to maintain a constant water level within the rings.
See Photo 1 for a fully setup and running pair of infiltrometers.
Photo 1: Two double ring infiltrometers running at Labadie Ave in 2013.
Infiltration tests with high infiltration rates ran for a shorter length of time, with more frequent
readings. The length of time for the tests was partially limited by the time of day that the tests
were started. No infiltrometer equipment was to be left onsite overnight, and all materials were
removed by 3:00 PM. It is our opinion that the testing performed accurately represents the site
MSD GSA Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Page 3
2015 Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing
May 22, 2015
REITZ & JENS, INC.
conditions.
The soil material and condition in the top 1 foot at the Warne and Labadie sites and in the top 3
feet at the N. Vandeventer and Geraldine bioretention sites were determined in 2013, and are
reproduced on our data sheets for 2015 with minor changes. The weather and water temperatures
were also noted. This information is recorded on the data sheets. The locations of the tests were
measured relative to existing structures. We have revised our testing location nomenclature, so
that it is consistent from year to year, to provide summary tables for each site tested. The sketches
of the testing locations are presented in Figures 15-0 through 19-1 and the summary tables are
presented below.
Results
The results of the double ring infiltration tests are presented in Figures 1 to 14. These include
plots of the incremental flow. These plots are somewhat misleading as many of the flows are so
small that they are lower than the error created by temperature variations, the system’s ability to
respond, evaporation, and reading error. We recommend that the total volume of water for the
total test time be used to determine the average infiltration rate. Below are summary tables for
each site noting the average infiltration rates for testing during the years of 2013, 2014 and 2015.
Table 1: Summary of Infiltration Results
2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015
Pervious Pavement A 5.4 23.0 70.8 9.6 25.9 27.0
Pervious Pavement B *4.3 105.6 *20.3 33.6
Utah Pervious Alleyway
Inner Ring Infiltration Rate
(cm/hr)
Outer Ring Infiltration Rate
(cm/hr)Soil Preparation Location
2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015
Bioretention A 43.64 746.00 210.69 28.77 na na
Bioretention B *556.00 199.98 *na na
Bioretention C *907.00 572.75 *na na
Geraldine Avenue
Soil Preparation Location
Inner Ring Infiltration Rate
(cm/hr)
Outer Ring Infiltration Rate
(cm/hr)
2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015
Bioretention A *0.72 1.50 *0.17 2.19
Bioretention B 0.04 0.78 0.23 0.02 1.45 0.05
Bioretention C *16.45 38.24 *11.20 38.07
N. Vandeventer Avenue
Soil Preparation Location
Inner Ring Infiltration Rate
(cm/hr)
Outer Ring Infiltration Rate
(cm/hr)
* Denotes tests that were not requested in the proposal for that year.
“na” denotes test data that is not available.
MSD GSA Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Page 4
2015 Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing
May 22, 2015
REITZ & JENS, INC.
2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015
Compost Amended A 0.07 0.16 0.01 0.16 0.06 0.04
Compost Amended B leaking * *0.02 * *
Unamended C 2.11 0.70 1.54 1.71 0.16 0.46
Unamended D 0.82 * *leaking * *
Aerated E 0.06 0.07 0.02 0.44 0.10 0.02
Aerated F 0.04 * *leaking * *
Labadie Avenue
Soil Preparation Location
Inner Ring Infiltration Rate
(cm/hr)
Outer Ring Infiltration Rate
(cm/hr)
2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015
Compost Amended A 0.02 0.02 0.15 0.02 0.01 2.91
Compost Amended B 0.04 * *0.16 * *
Unamended C 0.05 0.79 0.20 0.01 0.03 0.23
Unamended D 1.56 * *0.11 * *
Aerated E leaking 0.05 0.29 leaking 0.06 0.92
Aerated F 0.43 * *0.23 * *
Soil Preparation Location
Inner Ring Infiltration Rate
(cm/hr)
Outer Ring Infiltration Rate
(cm/hr)
Warne Avenue
* Denotes tests that were not requested in the proposal for that year.
Large variations are seen between tests and over time at the Labadie and Warne Avenue Sites.
We believe that this is due to the heterogeneous nature of the miscellaneous fill that underlies
these sites, even at shallow depths (see the Photo 2). ASTM D3385 states:
1.3 This test method is particularly applicable to relatively uniform fine-grain soils, with
an absence of very plastic (fat) clays and gravel-size particles and with moderate to low
resistance to ring penetration.
Gravel-sized material, including crushed limestone and bricks, were found at these two sites,
which made driving of the rings very difficult, even after saturation. We also noted that the
aerated sections of both sites encountered significant quantities of gravel and cinders in the testing
area. These conditions were not found at the other test areas on the sites, and may lead to a false
comparison to the other testing locations.
While we believe that this is a rigorous way to perform a scaled test on soils for the determination
of infiltration rate, it may not be well suited for soils containing gravel or rubble fill. The
heterogeneous nature of the rubble fill adds significant variability and inaccuracy for this small
scale test.
MSD GSA Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Page 5
2015 Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing
May 22, 2015
REITZ & JENS, INC.
Photo 2: Soil excavated from unamended area of Warne Avenue site in 2013.
The pervious pavement site, at Utah and Grand Ave., displayed much less choking between the
bricks with weeds and organics than in 2013 or 2014 (see Photos 3 and 4). We are unsure
whether recent maintenance has been performed on this alley. Some compaction and settlement
due to wheel rutting had occurred along the length of the alley. We believe that this had a
significant impact on the alley’s infiltration. The area of the test was chosen so that it was outside
of the wheel rutting and was located where less weeds and organics were present. The infiltration
rates appear to be significantly faster than the 2013 and 2014 rates.
At the 5099 Geraldine site, the infiltration rate was much faster than our marionette system could
provide water. In order to approximate the infiltration rate, we gravity fed water from our water
tank into the infiltration rings. The flow rate from the tank was varied by using the valve on the
tank to maintain a steady water head in the rings. When a steady state flow rate was found, we
measured the flow rate out of the tank using a 5-gallon bucket and a stopwatch.
At the 2818 N. Vandeventer Avenue site, we found the bioretention soil at testing locations A and
B to be hard, but not as hard as in 2013 or 2014. These two locations had infiltration rates that
were comparable to the 2014 results. The bioretention soil at test location C was significantly
softer, although the soil material appeared to be the same. The infiltration rate was significantly
faster at location C compared to the other two locations.
MSD GSA Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Page 6
2015 Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing
May 22, 2015
REITZ & JENS, INC.
Photo 3: Interior view of double ring infiltrometer at Utah and Grand site in 2013. Note weeds and black
organics in cracks between bricks (chat gravel is light gray).
MSD GSA Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Page 7
2015 Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing
May 22, 2015
REITZ & JENS, INC.
Photo 4: Double ring infiltrometer site at Utah and Grand site in 2015. Note less organics and very few weeds
(chat gravel is light gray).
If you have any questions regarding the infiltration testing please contact us at 314-993-4132, ext.
239 or ccook@reitzjens.com. We appreciate the opportunity to continue our working relationship
with MSD.
Sincerely,
REITZ & JENS, Inc..
Christopher W. Cook, P.E.
Project Engineer
MSD GSA Green Infrastructure Pilot Program Page 8
2015 Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing
May 22, 2015
REITZ & JENS, INC.
The following figures are attached and complete this memorandum:
Figures 1 and 2 Infiltration Data and Plot for Utah and Grand Pervious Pavement
Figures 3 to 5 Infiltration Data and Plot for Geraldine Bioretention
Figures 6 to 8 Infiltration Data and Plot for N. Vandeventer Bioretention
Figures 9 to 11 Infiltration Data and Plots for 4228-4240 Warne Avenue Site
Figures 12 to 14 Infiltration Data and Plots for 3832-3834 Labadie Avenue Site
Figures 15-0 to 15-1 Sketch and Photograph of Infiltration Testing Location at Geraldine Site
Figures 16-0 to 16-1 Sketch and Photograph of Infiltration Testing Location at N. Vandeventer
Avenue Site
Figures 17-0 to 17-1 Sketch and Photograph of Infiltration Testing Locations at Warne Site
Figures 18-0 to 18-3 Sketch and Photographs of Infiltration Testing Locations at Labadie Site
Figures 19-0 to 19-1 Sketch and Photograph of Infiltration Testing Locations at Utah Pervious
Alleyway Site
p:\mthree\2011101301\task 12 - infiltration testing 2015\doc\report\m3-msd green infrastructure task 12 infiltration testing 2015.doc
Project Name:
Site Name:Soil type/ Preperation:Pervious Pavement: Bricks with chat gravel
Test Location:2015-A (1)Liquid Used: Water
Tested by:Reading Constant 79.4 cm3/cm
Area Inner Ring 304 cm2
side (mark dir.) inner (in) outer (in) inner (in) outer (in)Annular area 851 cm2
1: south 14.28 18.24 9.6 13.8
2: north 14.28 18.36 9.84 14.04 Inner Outer
avg depth (in) 14.3 18.3 9.7 13.9 Length Ring (in):14.3 18.3
avg head (in)4.6 4.4 Length Penetration (in):0.0 0.0
Reading
cm
Flow
cm3 Reading cm Flow cm3 Incremental
Time (min)
Inner
cm/h
Annular
cm/h
1 1 5/6/2015 9:49 AM 0 1.5 0.0 3.7 0.0 50 0.0
1 2 5/6/2015 9:51 AM 2 12.7 889.3 8.2 357.3 2.0 87.76 12.60
1 3 5/6/2015 9:52 AM 3 19 500.2 15 539.9 1.0 98.73 38.07
1 4 5/6/2015 9:53 AM 4 25 476.4 21.3 500.2 1.0 94.03 35.27
1 5 5/6/2015 9:54 AM 5 30.7 452.6 26.7 428.8 1.0 89.33 30.23
1 6 5/6/2015 9:55 AM 6 36.5 460.5 32.8 484.3 1.0 90.89 34.15
2 1 5/6/2015 10:10 AM 0 1.3 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0
2 2 5/6/2015 10:11 AM 1 5.2 309.7 6.6 182.6 1.0 61.12 12.88
2 3 5/6/2015 10:12 AM 2 9 301.7 12 428.8 1.0 59.55 30.23
2 4 5/6/2015 10:13 AM 3 12.5 277.9 16.8 381.1 1.0 54.85 26.87
2 5 5/6/2015 10:14 AM 4 16 277.9 21.7 389.1 1.0 54.85 27.43
2 6 5/6/2015 10:15 AM 5 20 317.6 28.8 563.7 1.0 62.68 39.75
2 7 5/6/2015 10:16 AM 6 22.3 182.6 32.7 309.7 1.0 36.04 21.83
2 8 5/6/2015 10:17 AM 7 25 214.4 38 420.8 1.0 42.31 29.67
70.76 27.04Average Infiltration Rate
Outer marionette empty, restart test
70 degrees, Partly cloudy
CWC/ JJP
Liquid Temp Remarks: Weather Conditions, etc.
MSD/M3: 2015 Infiltration Testing
Alley North of Utah and Grand
Date
Incremental
Infiltration RateInner Ring Annular SpaceTimeTest
Depth of ring top to waterDepth of ring top to soil
Reading
Flow Readings
Elapsed Time Δ
(total) min
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Incrimental Infiltration Rate (cm/hr)Elapsed Time (min)
Test 1 Inner Test 1 Annular Test 2 Inner Test 2 Annular
REITZ & JENS, INC.Figure 1
Project Name:
Site Name:Soil type/ Preperation:Pervious Pavement: Bricks with chat gravel
Test Location:2015-B (2)Liquid Used: Water
Tested by:Reading Constant 79.4 cm3/cm
Area Inner Ring 304 cm2
side (mark dir.) inner (in) outer (in) inner (in) outer (in)Annular area 851 cm2
1: south 14.28 18.24 12.24 16.2
2: north 14.28 18.48 12.24 16.2 Inner Outer
avg depth (in) 14.3 18.4 12.2 16.2 Length Ring (in):14.3 18.3
avg head (in)2.0 2.2 Length Penetration (in):0.0 0.0
Reading
cm
Flow
cm3 Reading cm Flow cm3 Incremental
Time (min)
Inner
cm/h
Annular
cm/h
1 1 5/6/2015 10:42 AM 0 15.5 0.0 8.1 0.0 50 0.0
1 2 5/6/2015 10:43 AM 1 22 516.1 13.9 460.5 1.0 101.86 32.47
1 3 5/6/2015 10:44 AM 2 29 555.8 20.4 516.1 1.0 109.70 36.39
1 4 5/6/2015 10:45 AM 3 34.7 452.6 26.4 476.4 1.0 89.32 33.59
2 1 5/6/2015 10:10 AM 0 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0
2 2 5/6/2015 10:11 AM 1 8 595.5 6.3 428.8 1.0 117.53 30.23
2 3 5/6/2015 10:12 AM 2 15.5 595.5 12.8 516.1 1.0 117.53 36.39
2 4 5/6/2015 10:13 AM 3 22.5 555.8 18.8 476.4 1.0 109.70 33.59
2 5 5/6/2015 10:14 AM 4 29 516.1 25 492.3 1.0 101.86 34.71
2 6 5/6/2015 10:15 AM 5 35.2 492.3 30.6 444.6 1.0 97.16 31.35
105.58 33.59Average Infiltration Rate
Alley North of Utah and Grand
MSD/M3: 2015 Infiltration Testing
Test Reading Date Time
Elapsed Time Δ
(total) min
Inner Ring Annular Space
CWC/ JJP
Depth of ring top to soil Depth of ring top to water
Flow Readings
70 degrees, Partly cloudy
Liquid Temp
Incremental
Infiltration Rate Remarks: Weather Conditions, etc.
Inner marionette empty, restart test
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6Incrimental Infiltration Rate (cm/hr)Elapsed Time (min)
Test 1 Inner Test 1 Annular Test 2 Inner Test 2 Annular
REITZ & JENS, INC.Figure 2
Project Name:
Site Name:Soil type/ Preperation:Bioretention Depths
Test Location:Liquid Used: Water 0'-0.5'
Tested by:Reading Constant 79.4 cm3/cm 0.5'-2.0'
Area Inner Ring 304 cm2 2.0'-2.5'
side (mark dir.) inner (in) outer (in) inner (in) outer (in) Annular area 851 cm2 2.5'-3.0'
1: south 15.96 12 Total Area 1155 cm^2
2: north 15.96 12 Inner Outer
avg depth (in) 16.0 12.0 Length Ring (in): 18.36
avg head (in)4.0 Length Penetration (in):2.4
Reading
cm
Flow
cm3
Incremental
Time (min)
Inner
cm/h
Annular
cm/h
1 1 5/7/2015 9:30 AM 0 0.0 65 0.0
1 2 4.92 18927.0 4.9 199.98
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
199.98Average Infiltration Rate
Soil Description
Pea Gravel
Brown Sand, some silt
Dark brown Silty Clay
Brown Silty Sand
Geraldine
MSD/M3: 2015 Infiltration Testing
Test Reading Date Time
Elapsed Time Δ
(total) min
2015-B (1)
CWC/JJP
Depth of ring top to soil Depth of ring top to water
Flow Readings
Liquid Temp
Incremental
Infiltration RateInner Ring
70 degrees, cloudy
5 gallons in 4min : 55 sec
Permeability too fast for marionette system
Ground Temp: 65 degrees
Remarks: Weather Conditions, etc.
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Incrimental Infiltration Rate (cm/hr)Elapsed Time (min)
Test 1 Inner Test 1 Annular
REITZ & JENS, INC.Figure 3
Project Name:
Site Name:Soil type/ Preperation:Bioretention Depths
Test Location:Liquid Used: Water 0'-0.5'
Tested by:Reading Constant 79.4 cm3/cm 0.5'-2.0'
Area Inner Ring 304 cm2 2.0'-2.5'
side (mark dir.) inner (in) outer (in) inner (in) outer (in) Annular area 851 cm2 2.5'-3.0'
1: south 15 12 Total Area 1155 cm^2
2: north 15 12 Inner Outer
avg depth (in) 15.0 12.0 Length Ring (in): 18.36
avg head (in)3.0 Length Penetration (in):3.4
Reading
cm
Flow
cm3
Incremental
Time (min)
Inner
cm/h
Annular
cm/h
1 1 5/7/2015 9:30 AM 0 0.0 65 0.0
1 2 4.67 18927.0 4.7 210.69
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
210.69Average Infiltration Rate
Soil Description
Pea Gravel
Brown Sand, some silt
Dark brown Silty Clay
Brown Silty Sand
Permeability too fast for marionette system
Ground Temp: 65 degrees
Test Reading Date Time
Elapsed Time Δ
(total) min
Depth of ring top to soil Depth of ring top to water
5 gallons in 4min : 40 sec
Flow Readings
Liquid Temp
Incremental
Infiltration Rate Remarks: Weather Conditions, etc.Inner Ring
70 degrees, cloudy
MSD/M3: 2015 Infiltration Testing
2015-A (2)
CWC/JJP
Geraldine
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Incrimental Infiltration Rate (cm/hr)Elapsed Time (min)
Test 1 Inner Test 1 Annular
REITZ & JENS, INC.Figure 4
Project Name:
Site Name:Soil type/ Preperation:Bioretention Depths
Test Location:Liquid Used: Water 0'-0.5'
Tested by:Reading Constant 79.4 cm3/cm 0.5'-2.0'
Area Inner Ring 304 cm2 2.0'-2.5'
side (mark dir.) inner (in) outer (in) inner (in) outer (in) Annular area 851 cm2 2.5'-3.0'
1: south 13.92 10.8 Total Area 1155 cm^2
2: north 13.92 10.8 Inner Outer
avg depth (in) 13.9 10.8 Length Ring (in): 18.36
avg head (in)3.1 Length Penetration (in):4.4
Reading
cm
Flow
cm3
Incremental
Time (min)
Inner
cm/h
Annular
cm/h
1 1 5/7/2015 9:30 AM 0 0.0 65 0.0
1 2 1.72 18927.0 1.7 572.75
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
572.75Average Infiltration Rate
Soil Description
Pea Gravel
Brown Sand, some silt
Dark brown Silty Clay
Brown Silty Sand
Permeability too fast for marionette system
Ground Temp: 65 degrees
Test Reading Date Time
Elapsed Time Δ
(total) min
Depth of ring top to soil Depth of ring top to water
5 gallons in 4min : 55 sec
Flow Readings
Liquid Temp
Incremental
Infiltration Rate Remarks: Weather Conditions, etc.Inner Ring
70 degrees, cloudy
MSD/M3: 2015 Infiltration Testing
2015-C (3)
CWC/JJP
Geraldine
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Incrimental Infiltration Rate (cm/hr)Elapsed Time (min)
Test 1 Inner Test 1 Annular
REITZ & JENS, INC.Figure 5
Project Name:
Site Name:Soil type/ Preperation:Bioretention Depths
Test Location:Liquid Used: Water 0'-0.2'
Tested by:Reading Constant 79.4 cm3/cm 0.2'-2.5'
Area Inner Ring 304 cm2 2.5'-3.0'
side (mark dir.) inner (in) outer (in) inner (in) outer (in)Annular area 851 cm2
1: south 11.4 13.44 8.64 10.8
2: north 10.8 14.16 7.8 10.92 Inner Outer
avg depth (in) 11.1 13.8 8.2 10.9 Length Ring (in):14.76 18.48
avg head (in)2.9 2.9 Length Penetration (in):3.7 4.7
Reading
cm
Flow
cm3 Reading cm Flow cm3 Incremental
Time (min)
Inner
cm/h
Annular
cm/h
1 1 5/11/2015 10:51 AM 0 9.7 0.0 4.8 0.0 65 0.0
1 2 11:06 AM 15 11.3 127.0 10.6 460.5 15.0 1.67 2.16
1 3 11:14 AM 23 11.8 39.7 14.8 333.5 8.0 0.98 2.94
1 4 11:42 AM 51 14.1 182.6 26.4 921.0 28.0 1.29 2.32
1 5 12:05 PM 74 16.5 190.6 36.3 786.1 23.0 1.64 2.41
2 1 5/11/2015 12:19 PM 0 17.6 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0
2 2 12:30 PM 11 18.6 79.4 7.6 341.4 11.0 1.42 2.19
2 3 12:39 PM 20 19.2 47.6 11.1 277.9 9.0 1.04 2.18
2 4 12:54 PM 35 21 142.9 17.3 492.3 15.0 1.88 2.31
2 5 1:04 PM 45 22.1 87.3 19.6 182.6 10.0 1.72 1.29
2 6 1:14 PM 55 23.2 87.3 24 349.4 10.0 1.72 2.46
2 7 1:24 PM 65 24.4 95.3 27.7 293.8 10.0 1.88 2.07
2 8 1:34 PM 75 25.1 55.6 30.1 190.6 10.0 1.10 1.34
1.50 2.19Average Infiltration Rate
Soil Description
Pea Gravel
Very dense compost with sand and silt
Brown fine to medium grain sand
N. Vandeventer
MSD/M3: 2015 Infiltration Testing
Test Reading Date Time
Elapsed Time Δ
(total) min
2015-A (1)
CWC/JJP
Depth of ring top to soil Depth of ring top to water
Flow Readings
Liquid Temp
Incremental
Infiltration RateInner Ring Annular Space
57 degrees, sunny
60-70 degrees, cloudy
Ground Temp: 70 degrees
Remarks: Weather Conditions, etc.
Outer marionette empty, restart test
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Incrimental Infiltration Rate (cm/hr)Elapsed Time (min)
Test 1 Inner Test 1 Annular Test 2 Inner Test 2 Annular
REITZ & JENS, INC.Figure 6
Project Name:
Site Name:Soil type/ Preperation:Bioretention DepthsSoil Description
Test Location:Liquid Used: Water 0'-0.2'
Tested by:Reading Constant 79.4 cm3/cm 0.2'-2.5'
Area Inner Ring 304 cm2 2.5'-3.0'
side (mark dir.) inner (in) outer (in) inner (in) outer (in)Annular area 851 cm2
1: south 11.76 11.52 8.4 7.56
2: north 12.24 13.2 9.36 8.64 Inner Outer
avg depth (in) 12.0 12.4 8.9 8.1 Length Ring (in):14.28 18.24
avg head (in)3.1 4.3 Length Penetration (in):2.3 5.9
Reading
cm
Flow
cm3 Reading cm Flow cm3 Incremental
Time (min)
Inner
cm/h
Annular
cm/h
1 1 5/11/2015 11:35 AM 0 7.6 0.0 17.2 0.0 65 0.0
1 2 11:36 AM 1 9.7 166.7 24.9 611.4 1.0 32.91 43.11
1 3 11:37 AM 2 12 182.6 31 484.3 1.0 36.04 34.15
1 4 11:38 AM 3 14.6 206.4 37.6 524.0 1.0 40.74 36.95
1 5 11:39 AM 4 17 190.6 1.0 37.61
2 1 5/11/2015 11:57 AM 0 14.8 0.0 4 0.0 0.0
2 2 11:58 AM 1 18 254.1 12.7 690.8 1.0 50.15 48.70
2 3 11:59 AM 2 20.3 182.6 18.7 476.4 1.0 36.04 33.59
2 4 12:00 PM 3 22.7 190.6 25.2 516.1 1.0 37.61 36.39
2 5 12:01 PM 4 25.2 198.5 31.2 476.4 1.0 39.18 33.59
2 6 12:02 PM 5 27.7 198.5 38 539.9 1.0 39.18 38.07
2 7 12:03 PM 6 29.8 166.7 1.0 32.91
38.24 38.07Average Infiltration Rate
Pea Gravel
Loose compost with sand and silt
Brown fine to medium grain sand
MSD/M3: 2015 Infiltration Testing
2015-C (2)
CWC/JJP
N. Vandeventer
Depth of ring top to soil Depth of ring top to water
Test Reading Date Time
Elapsed Time Δ
(total) min Remarks: Weather Conditions, etc.
Outer marionette below reading level
Outer marionette empty, restart test
Inner Ring Annular Space
60-70 degrees, cloudy
Ground Temp: 70 degrees
Flow Readings
Liquid Temp
Incremental
Infiltration Rate
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
50.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6Incrimental Infiltration Rate (cm/hr)Elapsed Time (min)
Test 1 Inner Test 1 Annular Test 2 Inner Test 2 Annular
REITZ & JENS, INC.Figure 7
Project Name:
Site Name:Soil type/ Preperation:Bioretention Depths
Test Location:Liquid Used: Water 0'-0.2'
Tested by:Reading Constant 79.4 cm3/cm 0.2'-2.5'
Area Inner Ring 304 cm2 2.5'-3.0'
side (mark dir.) inner (in) outer (in) inner (in) outer (in) Annular area 851 cm2
1: south 11.4 13.08 9 10.2
2: north 11.28 12.84 8.64 10.08 Inner Outer
avg depth (in) 11.3 13.0 8.8 10.1 Length Ring (in):14.28 18.48
avg head (in)2.5 2.8 Length Penetration (in):2.9 5.5
Reading
cm
Flow
cm3 Reading cm Flow cm3 Incremental
Time (min)
Inner
cm/h
Annular
cm/h
1 1 10/29/2014 11:04 AM 0 1.5 0.0 9.5 0.0 65 0.0
1 2 11:19 AM 15 1.6 7.9 9.9 31.8 15.0 0.10 0.15
1 3 11:41 AM 37 1.6 0.0 10 7.9 22.0 0.00 0.03
1 4 12:20 PM 76 2.1 39.7 10.1 7.9 39.0 0.20 0.01
1 5 12:40 PM 96 2.5 31.8 10.1 0.0 20.0 0.31 0.00
1 6 1:28 PM 144 3.5 79.4 10.3 15.9 48.0 0.33 0.02
1 7 1:53 PM 169 3.6 7.9 10.7 31.8 25.0 0.06 0.09
1 8 2:04 PM 180 4 39.7 10.7 31.8 11.0 0.71 0.20
0.21 0.05Average Infiltration Rate
Soil Description
Pea Gravel
Very dense compost with sand and silt
Brown fine to medium grain sand
Test Reading Date Time
Elapsed Time Δ
(total) min
Depth of ring top to soil Depth of ring top to water
Ground Temp: 70 degrees
Flow Readings
Liquid Temp
Incremental
Infiltration Rate Remarks: Weather Conditions, etc.Inner Ring Annular Space
60-70 degrees, cloudy
MSD/M3: 2015 Infiltration Testing
2015-B (3)
CWC/JJP
N. Vandeventer
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180Incrimental Infiltration Rate (cm/hr)Elapsed Time (min)
Test 1 Inner Test 1 Annular
REITZ & JENS, INC.Figure 8
Project Name:
Site Name:Soil type/ Preperation:Aerated, brown silty clay rubble fill
Test Location:Liquid Used: Water
Tested by:Reading Constant 79.4 cm3/cm
Area Inner Ring 304 cm2
side (mark dir.) inner (in) outer (in) inner (in) outer (in)Annular area 851 cm2
1: east 12.12 15.72 8.76 12.36
2: west 12 15.24 9 12.36 Inner Outer
avg depth (in) 12.1 15.5 8.9 12.4 Length Ring (in):14.28 18.36
avg head (in)5.4 6.0 Length Penetration (in):2.2 2.9
Reading
cm
Flow
cm3 Reading cm Flow cm3 Incremental
Time (min)
Inner
cm/h
Annular
cm/h
1 1 5/13/2015 10:17 0 5.9 0.0 5.5 0.0 65 0.0
1 2 11:17 60 7 87.3 18.8 1056.0 60.0 0.29 1.24
1 3 11:49 92 8 79.4 26.7 627.3 32.0 0.49 1.38
1 4 12:13 116 8.5 39.7 33 500.2 24.0 0.33 1.47
1 5 13:39 202 9 39.7 36.8 301.7 86.0 0.09 0.25
2 1 12:49 0 9.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
2 2 13:19 30 10.3 87.3 5.8 436.7 30.0 0.57 1.03
2 4 13:44 55 10.9 47.6 11.1 420.8 25.0 0.38 1.19
0.29 0.92Average Infiltration Rate
Outer marionette empty, restart test
60-70 degrees, sunny
Remarks: Weather Conditions, etc.
Ground Temp: 65 degrees
Flow Readings
Liquid Temp
Incremental
Infiltration RateInner Ring Annular Space
MSD/M3: 2015 Infiltration Testing
Test Reading Date Time
Elapsed Time Δ
(total) min
2015-E (1)
CWC/ JJP
Depth of ring top to soil Depth of ring top to water
Warne
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
0 50 100 150 200 250Incrimental Infiltration Rate (cm/hr)Elapsed Time (min)
Test 1 Inner Test 1 Annular Test 2 Inner Test 2 Annular
REITZ & JENS, INC.Figure 9
Project Name:
Site Name:Soil type/ Preperation:Unamended brown silty clay fill with rubble
Test Location:Liquid Used: Water
Tested by:Reading Constant 79.4 cm3/cm
Area Inner Ring 304 cm2
side (mark dir.) inner (in) outer (in) inner (in) outer (in)Annular area 851 cm2
1: east 12.12 12.36 8.76 12.6
2: west 12 15.36 8.64 12.24 Inner Outer
avg depth (in) 12.1 13.9 8.7 12.4 Length Ring (in):14.4 18.36
avg head (in)5.7 5.9 Length Penetration (in):2.3 4.5
Reading
cm
Flow
cm3 Reading cm Flow cm3 Incremental
Time (min)
Inner
cm/h
Annular
cm/h
1 1 5/13/2015 11:18 0 2.8 0.0 3.7 0.0 65 0.0
1 2 12:11 53 2.8 0.0 5.7 158.8 53.0 0.00 0.21
1 3 13:01 103 2.8 0.0 7.5 142.9 50.0 0.00 0.20
1 4 13:45 147 4.9 166.7 9.6 166.7 44.0 0.75 0.27
1 5 14:20 182 5.1 15.9 11.2 127.0 35.0 0.09 0.26
0.20 0.23Average Infiltration Rate
Ground Temp: 65 degrees
60-70 degrees, sunny
Flow Readings
Liquid Temp
Incremental
Infiltration Rate Remarks: Weather Conditions, etc.Inner Ring Annular Space
2015-C (2)
CWC/ JJP
Depth of ring top to soil Depth of ring top to water
Test Reading Date Time
Elapsed Time Δ
(total) min
Warne
MSD/M3: 2015 Infiltration Testing
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0 50 100 150 200 250Incrimental Infiltration Rate (cm/hr)Elapsed Time (min)
Test 1 Inner Test 1 Annular
REITZ & JENS, INC.Figure 10
Project Name:
Site Name:Soil type/ Preperation:4-inches compost over brown silty clay fill
Test Location:Liquid Used: Water
Tested by:Reading Constant 79.4 cm3/cm
Area Inner Ring 304 cm2
side (mark dir.) inner (in) outer (in) inner (in) outer (in)Annular area 851 cm2
1: east 12.96 16.08 8.64 10.92
2: west 12.48 15.36 8.16 11.04 Inner Outer
avg depth (in) 12.7 15.7 8.4 11.0 Length Ring (in):14.52 17.52
avg head (in)6.1 6.5 Length Penetration (in):1.8 1.8
Reading
cm
Flow
cm3 Reading cm Flow cm3 Incremental
Time (min)
Inner
cm/h
Annular
cm/h
1 1 5/13/2015 11:37 0 2.4 0.0 7.1 0.0 65 0.0
1 2 12:10 33 3.1 55.6 24.3 1365.7 33.0 0.33 2.92
1 3 13:02 85 3.5 31.8 52.0 0.12
2 1 13:17 0 5.2 0.0 13.2 0.0 0.0
2 2 13:46 29 5.2 0.0 26.6 1064.0 29.0 0.00 2.59
2 3 14:08 51 5.4 15.9 39.6 1032.2 22.0 0.14 3.31
0.15 2.91Average Infiltration Rate
Ground Temp: 65 degrees
Flow Readings
Liquid Temp
Incremental
Infiltration RateInner Ring Annular Space
60-70 degrees, sunny
Outer marionette below reading level
Remarks: Weather Conditions, etc.
Outer marionette empty, restart test
MSD/M3: 2015 Infiltration Testing
Test Reading Date Time
Elapsed Time Δ
(total) min
2015-A (3)
CWC/ JJP
Depth of ring top to soil Depth of ring top to water
Warne
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Incrimental Infiltration Rate (cm/hr)Elapsed Time (min)
Test 1 Inner Test 1 Annular Test 2 Inner Test 2 Annular
REITZ & JENS, INC.Figure 11
Project Name:
Site Name:Soil type/ Preperation:4-6" Compost over brown silty clay with rubble fill
Test Location:Liquid Used: Water
Tested by:Reading Constant 79.4 cm3/cm
Area Inner Ring 304 cm2
side (mark dir.) inner (in) outer (in) inner (in) outer (in)Annular area 851 cm2
1: south 12 16.32 8.04 11.76
2: north 11.64 14.52 7.8 10.8 Inner Outer
avg depth (in) 11.8 15.4 7.9 11.3 Length Ring (in):14.4 18.24
avg head (in)6.5 7.0 Length Penetration (in):2.6 2.8
Reading
cm
Flow
cm3 Reading cm Flow cm3 Incremental
Time (min)
Inner
cm/h
Annular
cm/h
1 1 5/14/2015 10:09 0 5.2 6 60 0.0
1 2 10:56 47 5.4 15.9 6.6 47.6 47.0 0.07 0.07
1 3 11:30 81 5.4 0.0 6.8 15.9 34.0 0.00 0.03
1 4 11:53 104 5.4 0.0 6.8 0.0 23.0 0.00 0.00
1 5 12:25 136 5.4 0.0 6.8 0.0 32.0 0.00 0.00
2 6 13:02 0 5.4 9.8
2 7 13:32 30 5.4 0.0 10.2 31.8 30.0 0.00 0.07
2 8 13:58 56 5.4 0.0 10.3 7.9 26.0 0.00 0.02
2 9 14:24 82 5.4 0.0 10.4 7.9 26.0 0.00 0.02
0.01 0.04Average Infiltration Rate
Flow Readings
Liquid Temp
Incremental
Infiltration RateInner Ring Annular Space
Cloudy/Rainy 55-65 degrees
Ground Temp: 65 degrees
Remarks: Weather Conditions, etc.
Reset test due to no movement in 1.5 hrs
MSD/M3: 2015 Infiltration Testing
Test Reading Date Time
Elapsed Time Δ
(total) min
2015-A (1)
CWC/JJP
Depth of ring top to soil Depth of ring top to water
Labadie
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140Incrimental Infiltration Rate (cm/hr)Elapsed Time (min)
Test 1 Inner Test 1 Annular Test 2 Inner Test 2 Annular
REITZ & JENS, INC.Figure 12
Project Name:
Site Name:Soil type/ Preperation:4-6" Compost over brown silty clay with rubble fill
Test Location:Liquid Used: Water
Tested by:Reading Constant 79.4 cm3/cm
Area Inner Ring 304 cm2
side (mark dir.) inner (in) outer (in) inner (in) outer (in)Annular area 851 cm2
1: south 12 14.28 7.44 11.4
2: north 12 14.4 7.44 11.52 Inner Outer
avg depth (in) 12.0 14.3 7.4 11.5 Length Ring (in):14.52 18.24
avg head (in)7.1 6.8 Length Penetration (in):2.5 3.9
Reading
cm
Flow
cm3 Reading cm Flow cm3 Incremental
Time (min)
Inner
cm/h
Annular
cm/h
1 1 5/14/2015 10:28 0 2.7 2.4 60 0.0
1 2 10:57 29 6.8 325.5 3.2 63.5 29.0 2.22 0.15
1 3 11:24 56 10.3 277.9 4.6 111.2 27.0 2.03 0.29
1 4 11:54 86 13.1 222.3 18.3 1087.8 30.0 1.46 2.56
1 5 12:27 119 15.7 206.4 18.6 23.8 33.0 1.23 0.05
1 5 13:06 158 19.4 293.8 19 31.8 39.0 1.49 0.06
2 1 13:06 0 23.3 21.6
2 2 13:33 27 24.8 119.1 21.8 15.9 27.0 0.87 0.04
2 3 13:59 53 27.3 198.5 22.4 47.6 26.0 1.51 0.13
1.54 0.46Average Infiltration Rate
Labadie
MSD/M3: 2015 Infiltration Testing
Test Reading Date Time
Elapsed Time Δ
(total) min
2015-C (2)
CWC/JJP
Depth of ring top to soil Depth of ring top to water
Flow Readings
Liquid Temp
Incremental
Infiltration Rate Remarks: Weather Conditions, etc.Inner Ring Annular Space
Cloudy/Rainy 55-65 degrees
Ground Temp: 65 degrees
Reset Test
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160Incrimental Infiltration Rate (cm/hr)Elapsed Time (min)
Test 1 Inner Test 1 Annular Test 2 Inner Test 2 Annular
REITZ & JENS, INC.Figure 13
Project Name:
Site Name:Soil type/ Preperation:4-6" Compost over brown silty clay with rubble fill
Test Location:Liquid Used: Water
Tested by:Reading Constant 79.4 cm3/cm
Area Inner Ring 304 cm2
side (mark dir.) inner (in) outer (in) inner (in) outer (in)Annular area 851 cm2
1: south 12.24 15.6 7.8 11.76
2: north 12.12 15 7.8 11.64 Inner Outer
avg depth (in) 12.2 15.3 7.8 11.7 Length Ring (in):14.16 18.24
avg head (in)6.4 6.5 Length Penetration (in):2.0 2.9
Reading
cm
Flow
cm3 Reading cm Flow cm3 Incremental
Time (min)
Inner
cm/h
Annular
cm/h
1 1 5/14/2015 10:55 0 7.6 4.9 60 0.0
1 2 11:46 51 7.7 7.9 5.3 31.8 51.0 0.03 0.04
1 3 12:01 66 7.7 0.0 5.7 31.8 15.0 0.00 0.15
1 4 12:28 93 7.7 0.0 5.9 15.9 27.0 0.00 0.04
2 6 13:16 0 9.3 8.5
2 7 13:34 18 9.6 23.8 8.7 15.9 18.0 0.26 0.06
2 8 14:00 44 9.6 0.0 8.8 7.9 26.0 0.00 0.02
2 9 14:14 58 9.8 15.9 8.8 0.0 14.0 0.22 0.00
0.02 0.02Average Infiltration Rate
Labadie
MSD/M3: 2015 Infiltration Testing
Test Reading Date Time
Elapsed Time Δ
(total) min
2015-E (3)
CWC/JJP
Depth of ring top to soil Depth of ring top to water
Flow Readings
Liquid Temp
Incremental
Infiltration Rate Remarks: Weather Conditions, etc.Inner Ring Annular Space
Cloudy/Rainy 55-65 degrees
Ground Temp: 65 degrees
Reset test due to no movement in 1.5 hrs
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Incrimental Infiltration Rate (cm/hr)Elapsed Time (min)
Test 1 Inner Test 1 Annular Test 2 Inner Test 2 Annular
REITZ & JENS, INC.Figure 14
REITZ & JENS, INC
0
10
20
SCALE FEET
i
MSD: Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Geraldine Avenue 2015 Infiltration Testing
Sketch of Testing Locations
Figure 15-0
REITZ & JENS, INC. Figure 15-1
MSD: Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Geraldine Avenue Infiltration Testing
Photograph of testing locations at Geraldine bioretention site, standing on the edge of Thekla Avenue, looking
southwest.
'1
i
Mt
' 2015 Test Locati
lir
y
l3 eiLLocatio
t
REITZ & JENS, INC
0
10
20
SCALE FEET
MSD: Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
N. Vandeventer Avenue 2015 Infiltration Testing
Sketch of Testing Locations
Figure 16-0
REITZ & JENS, INC. Figure 16-1
MSD: Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
N. Vandeventer Avenue Infiltration Testing
Photograph of testing locations at N. Vandeventer bioretention site, standing on northeast corner of site, looking
west.
REITZ & JENS, INC
0
10
20
SCALE FEET
15 Test Lech ';� > 015-#
14 est ocation 2014-# -
MSD: Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Warne Avenue 2015 Infiltration Testing
Sketch of Testing Locations
Figure 17-0
REITZ & JENS, INC. Figure 17-1
. MSD: Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Warne Avenue Infiltration Testing
Photograph of testing locations at Warne Avenue site, standing on Warne Avenue, looking southeast
REITZ & JENS, INC
0
10
20
SCALE FEET
1-
MSD: Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Labadie Avenue 2015 Infiltration Testing
Sketch of Testing Locations
Figure 18-0
REITZ & JENS, INC. Figure 18-1
MSD: Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Labadie Avenue Infiltration Testing
Photograph of testing location A at Labadie Avenue site, standing on Labadie Avenue, looking south.
REITZ & JENS, INC. Figure 18-2
MSD: Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Labadie Avenue Infiltration Testing
Photograph of testing location C at Labadie Avenue site, standing at center of site, looking east.
REITZ & JENS, INC. Figure 18-3
MSD: Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Labadie Avenue Infiltration Testing
Photograph of testing location E at Labadie Avenue site, standing at center of site, looking south.
REITZ & JENS, INC
0
20
40
SCALE FEET
MSD: Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Utah Pervious Alleyway 2015 Infiltration Testing
Sketch of Testing Locations
Figure 19-0
REITZ & JENS, INC. Figure 19-1
MSD: Green Infrastructure Pilot Program
Utah Pervious Alleyway Infiltration Testing
Photograph of testing locations at Utah Pervious Alleyway site. Standing in center of alleyway behind property at
3626 Humphrey Street, looking west towards garage for property at 3630 Humphrey Street.
APPENDIX V AMENDED SOILS SUMMARY OF INSPECTIONS
Amended Soil Package #1 - Monitoring/Inspection - Warne Avenue
Inspection
Date
9/22/2011
9/22/2011
9/26/2011
9/26/2011
9/27/2011
9/27/2011
9/29/2011
9/29/2011
9/30/2011
9/30/2011
10/3/2011
10/3/2011
10/7/2011
10/7/2011
10/11/2011
10/11/2011
10/19/2011
10/19/2011
11/30/2011
11/30/2011
5/9/2012
5/9/2012
5/11/2012
5/11/2012
5/11/2012
12/6/2012
12/6/2012
12/6/2012
6/3/2013
6/3/2013
6/9/2014
6/9/2014
Street Name
Warne Ave.
Warne Ave.
Warne Ave.
Warne Ave.
Warne Ave.
Warne Ave.
Warne Ave.
Warne Ave.
Warne Ave,
Warne Ave.
Warne Ave.
Warne Ave.
Warne Ave.
Warne Ave.
Warne Ave.
Warne Ave.
Warne Ave.
Warne Ave.
Warne Ave.
Warne Ave.
Warne Ave.
Warne Ave.
Warne Ave.
Warne Ave.
Warne Ave.
Warne Ave.
Warne Ave.
Warne Ave.
Warne Ave.
Warne Ave.
Warne Ave.
Warne Ave.
Site
CB 3396
CB 3396
CB 3396
CB 3396
CB 3396
CB 3396
CB 3396
CB 3396
CB 3396
CB 3396
CB 3396
CB 3396
CB 3396
CB 3396
CB 3396
CB 3396
CB 3396
CB 3396
CB 3396
CB 3396
CB 3396
CB 3396
CB 3396
CB 3396
CB 3396
CB 3396
CB 3396
CB 3396
CB 3396
CB 3396
CB 3396
CB 3396
Amendment Type
Compost Amendment
Aerated Soil
Compost Amendment
Aerated Soil
Compost Amendment
Aerated Soil
Compost Amendment
Aerated Soil
Compost Amendment
Aerated Soil
Compost Amendment
Aerated Soil
Compost Amendment
Aerated Soil
Compost Amendment
Aerated Soil
Compost Amendment
Aerated Soil
Compost Amendment
Aerated Soil
Compost Amendment
Aerated Soil
Compost Amendment
In Situ Soil
Aerated Soil
Compost Amendment
In Situ Soil
Aerated Soil
Compost Amendment
Aerated Soil
Compost Amendment
Aerated Soil
Construction
Start Date
9/22/2011
9/22/2011
9/22/2011
9/22/2011
9/22/2011
9/22/2011
9/22/2011
9/22/2011
9/22/2011
9/22/2011
9/22/2011
9/22/2011
9/22/2011
9/22/2011
9/22/2011
9/22/2011
9/22/2011
9/22/2011
9/22/2011
9/22/2011
9/22/2011
9/22/2011
9/22/2011
9/22/2011
9/22/2011
9/22/2011
9/22/2011
9/22/2011
9/22/2011
9/22/2011
9/22/2011
9/22/2011
* monitoring/inspection procedures were revised; inspection not performed
Construction
Finish Date
10/3/2011
10/3/2011
10/3/2011
10/3/2011
10/3/2011
10/3/2011
10/3/2011
10/3/2011
10/3/2011
10/3/2011
10/3/2011
10/3/2011
10/3/2011
10/3/2011
10/3/2011
10/3/2011
10/3/2011
10/3/2011
10/3/2011
10/3/2011
10/3/2011
10/3/2011
10/3/2011
10/3/2011
10/3/2011
10/3/2011
10/3/2011
10/3/2011
10/3/2011
10/3/2011
10/3/2011
10/3/2011
Visual Inspection
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Fully green
Fully green
Green w/ brown patches
Green w/ brown patches
Green w/ brown edges
_ Green w/ large brown patches
Fully green
Mostly green
Fully green
Fully green
Fully green
Fully green
Fully green
Fully green
Fully green
*
*
*
Firmness
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
Soft
Hard
Soft
Avg. Depth of Number of
Avg. Root organic Rich Sample
Depth (in.) Horizon (in.) Locations
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.-
Hard
Soft
Hard
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Dry
Dry
Dry
not appl.
not appf.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
6.4
4.0
4.3
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
6.0
0.0
3.8
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
5
3
4
Wet Ground
Wet Ground
Wet Ground
Moist Ground
Moist Ground
7.0
3.7
6.4
7.4
6.8
6.3
0.3
3.8
7.2
6.4
4
3
4
3
3
Dry
Dry
8.3
8.0
6.7
0.7
3
3
Amended Soil Package #1 - Monitoring/Inspection - Lea Place
Inspection
Date
Street Name
Site
Amendment Type
Construction
Start Date
Construction
Finish Date
Visual Inspection
Firmness
Avg. Root
Depth (In.)
Avg. Depth of
Organic Rich
Horizon (In.)
Number of
Sample
Locations
9/29/2011
Lea PI.
CB 4429
Compost Amendment
9/29/2011
10/3/2011
Construction
not applicable
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
9/29/2011
Lea PI.
CB 4429
Aerated Soil
9/29/2011
10/3/2011
Construction
not applicable
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
9/30/2011
Lea PI.
CB 4429
Compost Amendment
9/29/2011
10/3/2011
Construction
not applicable
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
9/30/2011
Lea PI.
CB 4429
Aerated Soil
9/29/2011
10/3/2011
Construction
not applicable
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
10/3/2011
Lea PI.
CB 4429
Compost Amendment
9/29/2011
10/3/2011
Construction
not applicable
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
10/3/2011
Lea PI.
CB 4429
Aerated Soil
9/29/2011
10/3/2011
Construction
not applicable
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
10/7/2011
Lea Pl.
CB 4429
Compost Amendment
9/29/2011
10/3/2011
Fully green
Soft
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
10/7/2011
Lea PI.
CB 4429
Aerated Soil
9/29/2011
10/3/2011
Fully green
Hard
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
10/11/2011
Lea Pl.
CB 4429
Compost Amendment
9/29/2011
10/3/2011
Fully green
Soft
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
10/11/2011
Lea Pl.
CB 4429
Aerated Soil
9/29/2011
10/3/2011
Green w/ brown patches
Hard
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
10/19/2011
Lea PI.
CB 4429
Compost Amendment
9/29/2011
10/3/2011
Fully green
Soft
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
10/19/2011
Lea PI.
CB 4429
Aerated Soil
9/29/2011
10/3/2011
Mostly green
Hard
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
11/30/2011
Lea PI.
CB 4429
Compost Amendment
9/29/2011
10/3/2011
Fully green
Soft
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
11/30/2011
Lea PI.
CB 4429
Aerated Soil
9/29/2011
10/3/2011
Fully green
Soft
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
12/6/2012
Lea PI.
CB 4429
Compost Amendment
9/29/2011
10/3/2011
*
Wet Ground
7.5
8.1
4
12/6/2012
Lea PI.
CB 4429
In Situ Soil
9/29/2011
10/3/2011
*
Wet Ground
5.3
5.0
3
12/6/2012
Lea PI.
CB 4429
Aerated Soil
9/29/2011
10/3/2011
*
Wet Ground
6.6
5.1
4
6/3/2013
Lea PI.
CB 4429
Compost Amendment
9/29/2011
10/3/2011
*
Moist Ground
8.8
8.8
3
6/3/2013
Lea PI.
CB 4429
Aerated Soil
9/29/2011
10/3/2011
*
Moist Ground
6.4
6.4
3
6/9/2014
Lea PI.
CB 4429
Compost Amendment
9/29/2011
10/3/2011
*
Dry
8.3
10.0
3
6/9/2014
Lea PI.
CB 4429
Aerated Soil
9/29/2011
10/3/2011
*
Dry
6.3
5.3
3
* monitoring/inspection procedures were revised; inspection not performed
Amended Soil Package #2 - Monitoring/Inspection - Glasgow Avenue
Inspection
Date Street Name Site
6/1/2012
6/8/2012
6/15/2012
8/3/2012
12/6/2012
_12/6/2012
6/3/2013
6/9/2014
Glasgow Ave.
Glasgow Ave.
Glasgow Ave.
Glasgow Ave_
Glasgow Ave.
Glasgow Ave.
Glasgow Ave.
Glasgow Ave.
CB 1939
CB 1939
CB 1939
CB 1939
CB 1939
CB 1939
CB 1939
CB 1939
Amendment Type
Compost Amendment
Compost Amendment
Compost Amendment
Compost Amendment
Compost Amendment
In Situ Soil
Compost Amendment
Compost Amendment
Construction
Start Date
Construction
Finish Date
5/11/2012
5/11/2012
5/11/2012
5/11/2012
5/11/2012
5/11/2012
5/11/2012
5/11/2012
In 6/2012, sod was stolen and properties were then seeded.
* monitoring/inspection procedures were revised; inspection not performed
6/1/2012
6/1/2012
6/1/2012
6/1/2012
6/1/2012
6/1/2012
6/1/2012
6/1/2012
Visual Inspection
Firmness
Avg. Root
Depth (In.)
Avg. Depth of
Organic Rich
Horizon (in.)
Number of
Sample
Locations
*
'
not applicable
not
J
*
*
appl.
not
not appl.
not appl.
*
appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl._
_
*
*
_ not appl.
not appl.
*
Wet Ground
not appl.
7.1
not appl.
- not appl.
*
Wet Ground
3.7
7.3
4
�
*
Moist Ground
9.6
1.1
3
*
Dry
8.7
9.6
3
5.0
3
Amended Soil Package #2 - Monitoring/Inspection - Labadie Avenue
Inspection
Date
6/1/2012
6/1/2012
6/8/2012
6/8/2012
6/15/2012
6/15/2012
8/3/2012
8/3/2012
12/6/2012
12/6/2012
6/3/2013
6/9/2014
6/10/2014
Street Name
Labadie Ave.
Labadie Ave.
Labadie Ave.
Labadie Ave.
Labadie Ave.
Labadie Ave.
Labadie Ave.
Labadie Ave.
Labadie Ave.
Labadie Ave.
Labadie Ave.
Labadie Ave.
Labadie Ave.
Site
CB 3627
CB 3627
CB 3627
CB 3627
CB 3627
CB 3627
CB 3627
CB 3627
CB 3627
CB 3627
CB 3627
CB 3627
CB 3627
Amendment Type
Compost Amendment
Aerated Soil
Compost Amendment
Aerated Soil
Compost Amendment
Aerated Soil
Compost Amendment
Aerated Soil
Compost Amendment
In Situ Soil
Compost Amendment
Compost Amendment
Aerated Soil
Construction
Start Date
5/11/2012
5/11/2012
5/11/2012
5/11/2012
5/11/2012
5/11/2012
5/11/2012
5/11/2012
5/11/2012
5/11/2012
5/11/2012
5/11/2012
5/11/2012
* monitoring/inspection procedures were revised; inspection not performed
Construction
Finish Date
6/1/2012
6/1/2012
6/1/2012
6/1/2012
6/1/2012
6/1/2012
6/1/2012
6/1/2012
6/1/2012
6/1/2012
6/1/2012
6/1/2012
6/1/2012
Visual Inspection
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Firmness
not applicable
not applicable
*
*
*
*
Wet Ground
Wet Ground
Moist Ground
Dry
Dry
Avg. Root
Depth (in.)
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
6.9
5.7
8.4
9.3
7.0
Avg. Depth of
Organic Rich
Horizon (in.)
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
7.6
3.8
8.4
5.7
2.7
Number of
Sample
Locations
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
4
3
3
3
3
Amended Soil Package #2 - Monitoring/Inspection - N. Sarah Street
Inspection
Date
6/1/2012
6/8/2012
6/15/2012
8/3/2012
12/6/2012
12/6/2012
6/3/2013
Street Name
N. Sarah St.
N. Sarah St.
N. Sarah St.
N. Sarah St.
N. Sarah St.
N. Sarah St.
N. Sarah St.
Site
Amendment Type
Construction
Start Date
Construction
Finish Date
Visual inspection
Firmness
CB 3624
CB 3624
CB 3624
CB 3624
CB 3624
CB 3624
CB 3624
Compost Amendment
Compost Amendment
Compost Amendment
Compost Amendment
Compost Amendment
In Situ Soil
Compost Amendment
6/9/2014 N. Sarah St. CB 3624 Compost Amendment
In 5/2013, sod was stolen and properties were then seeded.
5/2/2012
5/2/2012
5/2/2012
5/2/2012
5/2/2012
5/2/2012
5/2/2012
5/2/2012
* monitoring/inspection procedures were revised; inspection not performed
6/1/2012
6/1/2012
6/1/2012
6/1/2012
6/1/2012
6/1/2012
6/1/2012
6/1/2012
*
*
*
*
*
*
not applicable
*
*
Wet Ground
Avg. Root
Depth (in.)
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
6.3
Avg. Depth of
Organic Rich
Horizon (in.)
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
5.3
Number of
Sample
Locations
not appl,
not appl.
not appl.
not appl.
4
Wet Ground
Moist Ground
Moist Ground
5.0
7.8
0.3
7.8
3
3
9.0 8.7 3