Loading...
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