EPA/600/R-16/085 | August 2016 | www.epa.gov/research
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
&EPA
EPA's Summary Report of the
Collaborative Green Infrastructure
Pilot Project for the Middle Blue
River in Kansas
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
-------
EPA/600/R-16/085
August 2016
EPA's Summary Report of the
Collaborative Green Infrastructure
Pilot Project
for the Middle Blue River
in Kansas City, MO
Compiled by:
Michelle Simon
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Water Supply and Water Research Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
i
-------
EPA/600/R-16/085
August 2016
Notice/Disclaimer
The United States Environmental Protection Agency, through its Office of Research and
Development, funded and conducted the research described herein under an approved Quality
Assurance Project Plan (Quality Assurance Identification Number W-10162). This document
has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and
approved for publication. Any mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
EPA/600/R-16/085
August 2016
Foreword
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with
protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national
environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a
compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and
nurture life. To meet this mandate, US EPA's research program is providing data and technical
support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base
necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our
health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) within the Office of Research
and Development (ORD) is the Agency's center for investigation of technological and
management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that threaten human
health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on methods and
their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface
resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites,
sediments, and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of
ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster
technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's
research provides solutions to environmental problems by: developing and promoting
technologies that protect and improve the environment; advancing scientific and engineering
information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and providing the technical support and
information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental regulations and strategies at the
national, state, and community levels.
Cynthia Sonich-Mullin, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
EPA/600/R-16/085
August 2016
Abstract
The United States Environmental Protection Agency evaluated the performance of a hybrid
green-gray infrastructure pilot project installed in the Marlborough Neighborhood by the Kansas
City Water Services Department. Within the consent decree signed in 2010, Kansas City Water
Services Department committed to completing pilot projects to construct distributed green
infrastructure in select areas. Kansas City installed 135 vegetated storm control measures
including 24,490 square feet (-2.275 m ) of porous or permeable pavement and 292,000 gallons
(1,100 cubic meters) of underground storage. Collectively these green and hybrid green-grey
infrastructure solutions received drainage from about 54% of a total the 100 acres (40.5 hectare)
that made up the pilot study area. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
evaluated the monitoring of the performance of this stormwater management pilot project.
Independently, both the EPA and Kansas City determined that the green-gray combined
infrastructure reduced the sewer flow volume in the combined sewer by approximately 30% after
the installation of green infrastructure for the study area.
EPA studied nine individual storm control measures to evaluate hydraulic flow rates. A subset
of four sites were also studied for water quality parameters. Inlet water pH ranged from 5.0-
10.2, outlet water pH ranged from 6.5-7.9. Fecal coliform concentrations were unexpectedly
high, with concentrations often above the upper detection limit of 6 million colony forming units
per lOOmL for both inlet and outlet water. Analyzed influent samples ranged from 5-31 |ig/L
total copper, <25-151 |ig/L total zinc, and <50-61 |ig/L total lead. Only one outlet sample
produced enough water to make a total copper measurement which was 15 |ig/L. Dissolved
metal concentrations were below detection limits (<5 |ig/L copper, <25 |ig/L zinc, and <50 |ig/L
lead) for inlet and outlet water samples.
The measured soil infiltration rate was greater than the design rate (1.0 inch/hour; 2.54 cm/hour)
resulting in very little overflow from the individual stormwater runoff control measures. There
were eight effluent flow events of sufficient volume at one location to allow comparisons of inlet
and outlet water quality. On average, there was a decrease in concentration from influent to
outlet, for turbidity (37%), total suspended solids concentration (52%) and mean particle average
diameter (21%). There was only one storm event at this location of great enough magnitude to
compare inlet versus outlet nitrate and phosphate values. The nitrate and phosphate
concentrations decreased by 52% and 56.5%, respectively for that storm.
iv
-------
EPA/600/R-16/085
August 2016
Acknowledgements
The primary contributors and/or authors of this work are:
Michelle Simon, Ph.D., P.E., EPA
Brenda Groskinsky, EPA
Richard Field, P.E., EPA
Dustin Bambic, P.H., Tetra Tech
Deborah O'Bannon, Ph.D., P.E., University of Missouri, Kansas City
Robert Pitt, P.E., Ph.D., D.WRE, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa
Scott Struck, Ph.D., P.E., formerly of Tetra Tech
Jason Wright, P.E., Tetra Tech
This project is the culmination of efforts of many contributors. Mr. Richard Field was the
original EPA Project Officer of this study from 2008 to 2012 and Dr. Michelle Simon became
EPA Project Officer from 2012-2015.
Dr. Michael Ports of Mid-Am erica Regional Council was instrumental in initiating and
interpreting this project since 2008.
Many capable Tetra Tech Staff members worked on this endeavor, notably Dr. Scott Struck,
Tetra Project Manager from 2009 to 2012, and Messrs. Dustin Bambic and Jason Wright from
2012 to 2013.
Professor Deborah O'Bannon of the University of Missouri - Kansas City, and Professor Robert
Pitt of the University of Alabama - Tuscaloosa, and their students were instrumental in the
project from 2012-2014. Dr. Leila Talebi of the University of Alabama, provided invaluable
analyses of the stormwater hydrology and runoff calculations.
Mr. Francis Reddy and Ms. Padmavathi (Pria) Iyengar of the Kansas City Water Services
Department provided crucial information on the Kansas City green infrastructure plans and
implementation. Mr. David Dods of the URS Corporation (AECOM) and several staff members
of Burns and McDonnell, contractors to the Kansas City Water Services Department, provided
critical information on the design and construction of the green and gray infrastructure of this
project.
Mses. Kerry Herndon, Mandy Whitsitt, and Brenda Groskinsky of EPA Region 7 provided
valuable facilitation and coordination of the project. The EPA Region 7 analytical laboratory
performed the metal and nutrient analyses on the stormwater samples. Other water quality
analyses were performed by the University of Missouri - Kansas City and Alabama -
Tuscaloosa.
Mses. Josephine Gardiner and Marilyn Dapper assisted in manuscript preparation.
v
-------
EPA/600/R-16/085
August 2016
Table of Contents
Notice/Disclaimer ii
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Acknowledgements v
List of Figures vii
List of Tables viii
Acronyms and Abbreviations ix
Executive Summary x
Preface xi
EPA's Collaborative Green Infrastructure Pilot Project for the Middle Blue River in Kansas City,
MO 12
1.0 Background 12
2.0 The Project 12
3.0 Methodology 13
4.0 Stormwater Runoff Modeling Background 14
5.0 Land Use and Subcatchment Drainage Area Determination 16
6.0 Soil Infiltration 18
7.0 Water Quality 19
8.0 Conclusions 20
References 22
You-tube web sites for further reference 23
Appendix A 24
Summary of Water Analyses from Individual Storm Control Measures (2012-2013) 24
vi
-------
Appendix B - National Demonstration of Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas
City, Missouri - A Pre-performance Summary Report September 2011.
Appendix C - Advanced Drainage Concepts for Using Green Solutions for CSO Controls 2012
EPA/600/R-16/085
August 2016
Appendix B - National Demonstration of Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas
City, Missouri - A Pre-performance Summary Report September 2011.
Appendix C - Advanced Drainage Concepts for Using Green Solutions for CSO Controls 2012
Summary Report.
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Land Use Map 17
Figure 2 - Drainage Area Determination 18
Figure 3 - Soil Infiltration Rates - Each symbol represents a location in the Marlborough
Neighborhood 19
vii
-------
EPA/600/R-16/085
August 2016
List of Tables
Table 1 Summary of Statistical Comparisons of Before and After Gl Facility
Construction Pilot Area (from Talebi (2014)) 15
Table 2 KCMO XPSWMM Results (from KCMOWSD (2013) 15
Table 3 Analytical Laboratories and Methods 25
Table 4 pH Analytical Results 25
Table 5 Turbidity Analytical Results 25
Table 6 Fecal Coliform Analytical Results 26
Table 7 Nitrogen as N Analytical Results 26
Table 8 Phosphate as P Analytical Results 26
Table 9 Total Copper Concentrations Analytical Results 26
Table 10 Total Zinc Concentrations Analytical Results 26
Table 11 Total Lead Concentrations Analytical Results 27
Table 12 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Analytical Results 27
Table 13 Particle Size 27
Table 14 Outlet Water Analysis from 1222 East 76th Street, collected on May 27, 2013
28
Table 15 Percent Removals per Parameter from 1222 East 76th Street 29
Table 16 Comparison of Inlet versus Outlet pH, SU 29
Table 17 Comparison of Inlet versus Outlet Fecal Chloroform, CFU/100 mL 30
viii
-------
EPA/600/R-16/085
August 2016
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AVG Average
BMP Best Management Practices
CF Cubic feet
CFU Colony Forming Unit
CFS Cubic feet per second
CSO Combined Sewer Overflow
CSS Combined Sewer System
DOI Digital Object Identifier
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GI Green Infrastructure
KCMO Kansas City, Missouri
KCMOWSD Kansas City Water Services Department
MAX Maximum value
MIN Minimum value
N Number of samples
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units
OCP Overflow Control Plan
ORD EPA's Office of Research and Development
pH negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion
Region 7 U.S. EPA, Region 7
Rv inch runoff/inch rain
SCM Storm Control Measures
SSC Suspended Solids Concentration
SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow
SSS Sanitary Sewer System
SU Stand Units for pH
SUSTAIN System for Urban Stormwater Treatment and Analysis INtegration
SWMM StormWater Management Model
TSS Total Suspended Solids
Tt Tetra Tech, Inc.
UA University of Alabama - Tuscaloosa
UMKC University of Missouri - Kansas City
URS URS, Inc.
WinSLAMM Source Loading and Management Model for Windows
WQ Water Quality
WSD Water Services Division
WWF Wet Weather Flow
ix
-------
EPA/600/R-16/085
August 2016
Executive Summary
In 2010, Kansas City, Missouri signed a consent decree with the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) on combined sewer overflows (CSOs). Kansas City proposed to use
adaptive management to implement green infrastructure (GI), in lieu of, and in addition to gray
structural controls. Kansas City installed 135 stormwater control measures (SCMs) — primarily
bioretention units—in a 100-acre pilot area, the Kansas City Middle Blue River Green
-3
Infrastructure Pilot Project, plus an additional 292,000 gallons (1,100 m ) of underground
storage. The EPA and Kansas City each independently determined that the green-gray combined
infrastructure reduced the volume of runoff in sewer flow by approximately 30% in the
combined sewer after the installation of GI (Talebi 2014). EPA Office of Research and
Development evaluated the installation and performance of the KC GI from 2009-2013.
From 2009 to 2013, 112 storm events were monitored for hydrologic and hydraulic performance.
Originally, it was planned to compare the 100-acre pilot area to an adjoining 83-acre control area
under the same storm conditions but problems with measurement of sewer flows in the 83-acre
control area precluded analyzing these flows. Therefore, sewershed flows measured before SCM
construction were compared with flows post-construction at the 100-acre site from 2010 to 2011.
An additional complication to this study was the fact that Kansas City suffered a drought in the
summer of 2012.
Only about half of the total area was directed to the retrofitted bioretention units due to
unexpected difficulties in constructing SCMs in many of the proposed locations. For example,
many relief sewers were extended to backyard areas to solve local flooding and ponding
problems. These inlets were located on private property and we could not access the inlets to
install SCMs during this program. Other locations hindered construction of SCMs because of
interferences due to driveways and large trees.
Nine of the 135 public right-of-way bioretention devices were monitored for water flows during
the project. Precipitation, inflow, and outflow values were used to calibrate the empirically based
WinSLAMM (Source Loading and Management Model for Windows, version 10.0; Pitt 1986)
water quality model. Many of the details of the work performed by EPA and contractors can be
found in Appendices B and C. The soil infiltration rate measured was more (l.Oinch/hour) than
expected for the soils and these individual storm control measures had very little overflow.
WinSLAMM modeled, performed by the EPA team, and XPSWMM Modeling by the Kansas
City Team both indicated that the total sewershed flow was reduced by 30% by the addition of
the GI.
Four of the nine SCMs were sampled for water quality parameters. Inlet water pH ranged from
5.0-10.2, outlet water pH ranged from 6.5-7.9. Fecal coliform concentrations were unexpectedly
high, with concentrations often above the upper detection limit of 6 million colony forming unit
per lOOmL for both inlet and outlet water. Analyzed influent samples ranged from 5-31 |ig/L
total copper, <25-151 |ig/L total zinc, and <50-61 |ig/L total lead. Only one outlet was sampled
for total copper (15 |ig/L). Dissolved metal concentrations were below detection limits (<5 |ig/L
copper, <25 |ig/L zinc, and <50 |ig/L lead) for inlet and outlet water samples.
x
-------
EPA/600/R-16/085
August 2016
There was very little overflow from these four SCMs. Only eight storm events, at one location
produced effluent underdrain discharges of sufficient volume to allow comparisons of inlet and
outlet water quality. For the eight storms that that produced inflow and outflow that was
measured, there was a decrease in concentration from influent to outlet: for Nephelometric
Turbidity Units (37%), total suspended solids (52%) and average diameter particle size (21%).
There was only one storm event of great enough magnitude where inlet versus outlet nitrate and
phosphate could be compared at this location. The nitrate concentration was reduced by 52%
and phosphate concentration reduced by 56.5% for that storm.
xi
-------
EPA/600/R-16/085
August 2016
Preface
The United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Research and
Development's (ORD) Aging Water Infrastructure Research Program was initiated in 2007 and
focused on the advancement and demonstration of innovative technologies and techniques; the
goal was to reduce cost, while providing improvement in the effectiveness of operation,
maintenance, and replacement of aging and failing drinking water and wastewater infrastructure
(Murray 2009). A strategy within the research program was to leverage outside entities such as
municipalities, universities, and associations, utilizing their technical expertise and facilities,
thereby enhancing the program's research capabilities and investments through cooperation and
collaboration.
In the late 1900's, it was well known that wet-weather flow (WWF), or the storm-induced
discharges from nonpoint sources, such as combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and sanitary sewer
overflows (SSOs), were a leading cause of water quality impairment in the United States' rivers
and streams (EPA 1999). As such, improving the Agency's ability to control the overflow
continues to be an EPA priority. Municipalities need low-cost, innovative technology to reduce
the overflow events. One such innovation is the use of green infrastructure (GI). GI mimics
natural processes by directing stormwater to areas that allow storage, infiltration, and
evapotranspiration.
Critical research questions that continue to be current are:
1. How do we integrate green and gray infrastructure approaches?
2. How do we determine what locations are best suited for GI?
3. How are GI practices evaluated?
4. Are the GI costs beneficial when compared to gray approaches?
5. And finally, what are the operational and maintenance requirements of using GI?
xi
-------
EPA/600/R-16/085
August 2016
EPA's Collaborative Green Infrastructure
Pilot Project for the Middle Blue River in
Kansas City, MO
1.0 Background
On April 19, 2007, United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator
Stephen Johnson signed a "Statement of Intent" with state, environmental, and wastewater utility
groups to formalize the use of green infrastructure (GI) for water management. In support of the
agreement, several nationally focused research projects were initiated by EPA's Office of
Research and Development (ORD), including a pilot GI study located in Kansas City, MO.
Notably, Kansas City had, and continues to have, a strong commitment focused on the use of GI
as a solution for stormwater management (EPA 2007). The city council for Kansas City adopted
a resolution in 2007, "establishing the policy of the City to integrate green solutions protective of
water in our City planning and development processes in a comprehensive Wet Weather
Solutions Program" (KCMO 2007, 2008).
The goal of the collaboration between ORD, Region 7, Kansas City, and their partners, was to
implement a pilot project to demonstrate the efficacy of integrated Gl-based solutions to wet
weather flow (WWF) and resulting pollution problems in combined sewer systems (CSS) located
in a suburban neighborhood of Kansas City. This included the demonstration and assessment of
multiple "green" practices, monitoring quality and quantity of flows, modeling efficacy at
multiple scales of implementation, and conducting economic analyses comparing traditional (i.e.,
gray) with green approaches. ORD, Region 7, and Kansas City were also interested in the
facilitation of local and regional resources for implementation of the project, including
development of an approach to identify and prioritize green solutions, development of
partnerships at neighborhood, watershed, and regional levels, and the provision of community
outreach and coordination.
2.0 The Project
The Kansas City, MO Water Services Department (KCMOWSD) provides wastewater treatment
and stormwater services for 653,000 customers and 27 different communities that cover a total of
420 square miles (KCMOWSD 2009). The area serviced by KCMOWSD includes both sanitary
sewer systems (SSS) and CSS with the CSSs covering 58 square miles. The city has 90 CSS
discharge locations with overflows into the Blue River, Brush Creek, Kansas River, and Missouri
River. CSOs in the Blue and Missouri Rivers resulted in water quality impairments from
increased bacteria levels. In 2009, the KCMOWSD developed an Overflow Control Plan (OCP)
for the combined sewer overflow (CSO) with an extensive overhaul of the sewer and stormwater
systems with anticipated completion in twenty-five years and $4.5 billion cost in 2008 dollars
(KCMOWSD 2009). An overall goal established in the 2010 CSO consent order with the EPA
was to capture seven overflow events per year, which equate to capture of about 88% of a typical
12
-------
EPA/600/R-16/085
August 2016
year wet weather flow through the sewer system. Prior to these new controls, a typical wet
weather overflow volume was 11.64 billion gallons/year (44 million cubic meters) for Kansas
City. The overflow volume of the new system is required to be 1.4 billion gallons/year (5.3
million cubic meters).
KCMOWSD planned to install a two-million-gallon storage tank with a 1.4 million gal/day
pumping station, a 51 million gallon/day screening treatment plant, and to replace tens of
thousands of linear feet of sewer pipe for a cost of $30.6 million in the Marlborough
Neighborhood. KCMOWSD later determined that GI implementation in the Middle Blue River
basin could result in a more cost effective mechanism to achieve overflow control than the
originally planned approach. Because KCMOWSD's analysis revealed potential benefits of GI
and there was strong interest expressed by the neighborhood, Kansas City selected the
Marlborough neighborhood, on the eastern side of Troost Avenue, as a location to install the
pilot GI project.
In 2009, as the first course of action, KCMOWSD relined the aging and leaking sewer pipe
infrastructure. Approximately 17,000 linear feet of damaged and leaking CSSs were
rehabilitated and more than 70 manhole structures were repaired or replaced within the pilot
project area. Prior to the pilot, the neighborhood did not have curbs or gutters. As part of
negotiation for the implementation of pilot project in their neighborhood, residents requested
KCMOWSD repave the streets and put in curbs and gutters. This increased the volume of
stormwater runoff entering the CSS, especially since the newly relined sewer pipes were no
longer leaking (Simon et al. 2014).
In 2010-2012, KCMOWSD installed a distributed GI system in the public right-of-ways within
the Marlborough neighborhood. KCMOWSD installed 135 vegetated storm control measures
(SCMs), 24,490 square feet of porous or permeable pavement, and 292,000 gallons (1,100 cubic
meters) of underground storage space in the residential neighborhood (KCMOWSD 2013).
Originally, KCMOWSD planned to install storage for 360,000 gallons (1,500 cubic meters) of
stormwater, but were unable to do so due to physical limitations of the site.
The installed SCMs included:
• 81 Rain Gardens
• 53 Bioretention units
• 1 Bioswale (2,000 ft2 or -186 m2)
• 24,490 ft2 (-2.275 m2) of porous concrete sidewalk
2 2
• 5,070 ft (-471 m ) of permeable paver sidewalk installed on Troost Avenue next to the
Marlborough Neighborhood.
3.0 Methodology
ORD's study objective was to quantify the sewer flow of the system before and after installation
of SCMs and underground storage. KCMOWSD contemplated a "green only" project to replace
the tank, pipe, and other traditional gray structures but XPSWMM modeling indicated additional
storage was needed to manage storm events.
13
-------
EPA/600/R-16/085
August 2016
XPSWMM (http://xpsolutions.com/software/\pswmtn/) is a commercial software package based
on EPA's public domain model SWMM (Stormwater Management Model
https://www.epa.gov/water-research/storm-water-management-model-swmm). Therefore, a
hybrid green and gray infrastructure project was installed. The area of study included two CSO
outfalls (069 and 059) that drained a 744-acre area (KCMOWSD 2013).
ORD along with Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tt), the University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC), and the
University of Alabama (UA), monitored the sewershed flow for the 100-acre GI pilot area in SE
Kansas City, MO, and compared its flow both before and after the GI was installed. ORD
intended to compare volumetric flow in the 100-acre pilot area sewershed to a nearby 83-acre
sewershed that would have the same weather conditions (Talebi 2014).
Sewershed flow was measured for both areas using an ISCO 2150 area-velocity sensor
(Teledyne-ISCO Lincoln, NE). Per ISCO's webpage
(http://www.isco.com/products/products3.asp?PL=2021010): "The 2150 Flow Module uses
continuous wave Doppler technology to measure mean velocity. The sensor transmits a
continuous sound wave, then measures the frequency shift of returned echoes reflected by air
bubbles or particles in the flow." However, low flow levels and high particulate concentrations
in these sewers lead to multiple sensor failures during the sampling period (2009 to 2013).
These compromised data in the three control areas rendered them unusable.
GI installation was completed in 2012, but during that summer, Kansas City, and much of the
surrounding region, suffered a drought (Appendix B). Therefore, it was necessary for ORD to
extend the monitoring period for another year, beyond the original intent, to obtain adequate
data.
Because compromised sewer flow data in the 83-acre control area could not be used, it was
decided to compare at the pilot study area sewer flow volumes before installation of GI to those
after installation. The before flows from 69 storm events (3/23/2009 - 6/16/2010) were compared
to the after GI installation flows (37 storm events; 04/07/2013 - 10/31/2013). Between June
2010 and June 2012, sewers were relined in the pilot study area, but only six storms produced
enough data for analyses. The technical team realized the before and after flow data had
significant overlap and were not statistically different. Thus, they were combined and used to
represent the baseline value for a total of 75 storm events. The runoff for the pilot site was
estimated from calibrated WinSLAMM (http://winslamm.com/) results.
Runoff for the pilot watershed was calculated to be 0.18 in stormwater runoff per inches of rain.
This represents a 32% reduction in runoff when compared to before installation of GI. The result
is consistent with the estimated 36% reduction reported by KCMOWSD from XPSWMM
modeling (KCMOWSD 2013). A detailed description of these WinSLAMM analyses can be
found in Talebi (2014).
4.0 Stormwater Runoff Modeling Background
Stormwater runoff modeling using WinSLAMM was performed by UA as a subcontractor to
Tetra Tech. WinSLAMM is the windows application of the SLAMM (Source Loading and
14
-------
EPA/600/R-16/085
August 2016
Management Model) model. WinSLAMM empirically correlates stormwater runoff for SCMs
under various conditions. The output parameter of WinSLAM is Rv, the ratio of an inch of
runoff from an area to an inch of rainfall that falls onto it.
Table 1 Summary of Statistical Comparisons of Before and After GI Facility Construction Pilot Area (from
Talebi (2014)).
Monitoring Period
Dates
Corresponding to
Monitoring Period
Number of
Monitored
Storms in each
Monitoring
Period
Flow Weighted
Rv values
Rv =
inch
runoff/inch
rain
Percent
Change
between First
Monitoring
Period and the
Second
Initial Baselining
and After Relining
3/23/2009-
6/16/2010
and
2/24/2011-
3/192011
75
0.26
-32.3%
(p<0.001)
After Construction
4/7/2013-
10/31/2013
37
0.18
(p from Mann-Whitley Rank Sum Test)
The key finding of the WinSLAMM analysis is that installing GI reduced the total flow from the
100-acre pilot test reduced by 30%, in spite of the repair of the leaking sewer pipe and the
installation of the curb and gutters, which made drainage in the watershed more efficient. This
result is consistent with the XPSWMM modeling performed by KCMOWSD. KCMOWSD's
XPSWMM modeling indicated that the peak flow would decrease by 76% (KCMOWSD 2013),
which may be adequate to reduce the CSO flows from this area. It was not possible for EPA to
record CSO volume from the 100-acre pilot area during this study period.
Table 2 KCM
O XPSWMM Results (from KCMOWSD (2013)
Pre-existing Conditions
Calibrated BMP Model
Difference
XP SWMM Model
Location
Peak Flow
Total
Peak Flow
Total
Peak Flow
Total
(cfs)
Volume
(cf)
(cfs)
Volume
(cf)
(%)
Volume
(%)
Pilot Area
12.1
108,000
2.9
69,000
-76.0
-35.9
Outlet
CSO 069
45.0
184,000
30.9
133,000
-32.2
-27.8
EPA studied the hydrology of nine locations: 1324 East 76th Street, 1325 East 76th Street, 1419
East 76th Street, 1612 East 76th Street, 1336 East 76th Street, 1141 East 76th Terrace Street, 1222
East 76th Terrace, and 1112 East 76th Terrace. It was planned to measure a tenth location, but the
equipment was accidently removed before measurements could be taken. The precipitation,
inflow, and outflow volumes are presented in Appendix B. Talebi modeled these individual
15
-------
storm control measures using WinSLAMM (Talebi 2014).
EPA/600/R-16/085
August 2016
5.0 Land Use and Subcatchment Drainage Area Determination
In order to use the WinSLAMM modeling environment, several data sets needed to be collected,
which include characterization of land use, soil infiltration, and meteorology. ORD/UA/UMKC
identified land use of specific parcels in the 100-acre pilot area with surveys of each of the 600
residential plots and the commercial areas. The land was characterized based on each of three
traits: 1) commercial or residential, 2) pervious or impervious, and 3) vegetated or non-
vegetated, so that their respective runoff characteristics could be established (Figure 1). Detailed
information concerning roof drains and paved area connections were included in the on-site
surveys conducted by UMKC graduate students during the summer of 2011. Soil infiltration tests
were conducted throughout the area during this period. In addition to an extensive study of land-
use for the Middle Blue River, Tt and UA did topographical surveys to determine the drainage
area of each individual SCM (Figure 2). Illustrated in Figure 3 are the specific SCMs utilized
(e.g., bioretention, porous pavement, bioswale, rain garden) and their respective drainage
acreage. KCMOWSD placed as many SCMs as possible due to the physical constraints of the
neighborhood. Approximately 54% of the area was tributary to SCMs.
16
-------
EPA/600/R-16/Q85
August 2016
N*
Land Use and Impervious Surfaces
CSOShed Pilot Area pg
Pilot Areas
* [* • Study Area
• Control Area
GSImp Surfaces
Surface
Athlete: Surfaces
Dedcs and Patios
Drainage Improvements
fSi Foundations
[9 Gravel Surfaces
Misc Surfaces
New Construction
Paved Roads
Paved Surfaces
Playing Fields
Pools
Sidewalks 1
Sidewalks 2
Structures
Wood Decks
Commercial (low!
gg Developed
Industrial Business Park (High)
Industrial Business Park (Low)
Office (Low)
[~B Office (Medium)
Parks Open Space
|^| Public/Semi-publlc (Low)
5 Row
RRRow
Residential MF High
Residential MF Low
Residential MF Medium
Residential MF Very High
Residential SF Large Lot
H Residential SF Low
Residential SF Medium
t I Residential SF Very Low
Rural Residential
UrbanFrlnge
~ Vacant;' Ag
Figure 1 - Land Use Map
East 75th Tprrafo
QDlffip
3l|:
iMliOa
ppD q p
DGcndfin
17
-------
EPA/600/R-16/Q85
August 2016
Sulnv atersheil with no devices
Subwuteisheds wilk sSottuwiHei control*
Sewer Network
Dioieseiitiou
Curb cxtcntion with bioretcntion
Curb extention with ramgarden
Porous sidewalk
Slialow bioieteutiou
Bioswale
Raiiigarden
CLJ1N
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3
Figure 2 - Drainage Area Determination.
6.0 Soil Infiltration
UMKC measured soil infiltration rates in triplicate at six locations, for 18 individual infiltration
tests. The details of the soil infiltration methods are presented in Talebi (2014). The measured
infiltration rate plots are presented in Figure 3. Each symbol in Figure 3 represents a specific
location in the Marlborough neighborhood. The saturated infiltration rates were higher than
expected, approximately 1.0 inch/hour (Figure 3). The original estimate for soil infiltration in
the initial CSO XPSMM modeling was measured to average 0.3 inch/hour.
Originally, the majority of the residential streets in the neighborhood did not have curbs and
gutters. Some residents complained of standing water in many locations due to poor drainage.
As such, sewer relining, along with the installation of curbs and gutters, helped to prevent
problems of standing water. It was encouraging to note that the overall runoff volume decreased
after the GI practices were installed, as the increased drainage efficiencies that were associated
with the installation of the sewer pipe relining and new curbs and gutters were expected to
increase runoff volume.
18
-------
EPA/600/R-16/085
August 2016
Time since start of infiltration test (minutes)
Figure 3 - Soil Infiltration Rates - Each symbol represents a location in the Marlborough
Neighborhood
7.0 Water Quality
EPA measured water quality parameters at four public right-of-way locations: 1222 East 76th
Terrace, 1324 76th Street, 1325 East 76th Street, 1419 East 76th Street. A 3700 series ISCO
automatic sampler (http://www.isco.com/products/products3.asp?PL=201101030) was placed at
each of these four locations. A broad set of stormwater quality parameters (pH, turbidity, fecal
coliform, total nitrogen, nitrate, total phosphorous, phosphate, copper, zinc, lead, total suspended
solids (TSS), suspended sediment concentration (SSC), median particle size (dso)) were
measured in SCM inlet and underdrain outlet flows at four GI curb bump-out bioretention
devices. Fifteen storm events produced enough water to be monitored for inflow water quality in
at least one of the four bioretention devices during the 2012-2013 calendar years. The storms
ranged from 0.4 to 2.6 inches total event rainfall depth.
UMKC, UA, and EPA's Region 7 Laboratories performed water quality analyses. Appendix A
contains water quality data results, analytical methods and the laboratory performing the
analysis. Often, there was not enough water collected to perform all analyses. In general, water
quality data are very consistent among the four locations, probably due to their close spatial
proximity and consistent land use. However, pH results do show some variance (Table 3). All
data were submitted to the International BMP Database (http://www.bmpdatabase.org/).
19
-------
EPA/600/R-16/085
August 2016
Most of the stormwater infiltrated with very little overflow or underdrain flow from any of the
SCM devices studied. At only one location, (1222 East 76th Street, and during eight of the 15
storms where water samples could be collected), was there flow in the underdrain available to
compare with the inlet water quality with any statistical rigor. There were three storm events at
1419 East 76th Street and one storm at 1324 76th Street where there was an outflow. The fact that
only 53% of the storm events produced any measureable discharge at this location is likely
because the individual bioretention devices were effective at infiltrating and storing the wet
weather flow (i.e., seven storm events generated rainfall totals that exceeded the design storm
size of 1-inch).
The pH of the inlet water ranged from 5.0 to 10.2 and the outlet water ranged from 6.5 to 7.8.
Fecal coliform concentrations were unexpectedly high, with concentrations often above the
upper detection limit of 6 million CFU of organisms/lOOmL. Nitrate as N concentrations for all
locations were very low, less than 7 mg/L, and most were below the detection limit of 1 mg/L.
All phosphate concentrations for all locations were very low, less than 2 mg/L and most were
below the detection limit of 1 mg/L (Table 5). All dissolved copper concentrations were below
5|ig/mL detection limit. All dissolved zinc concentrations were below the detection limit of 25
|ig/L. All dissolved lead was below the detection limit of 50 |ig/L. Statistics were calculated
assuming that value was equal to the detection limit, whether it was upper or lower.
8.0 Conclusions
In 2010, Kansas City, MO signed a consent decree with EPA to resolve combined sewer
overflows. The City proposed to use an adaptive management approach in order to utilize GI in
lieu of, and in addition to, gray structural controls. KCMO installed 135 GI stormwater control
measures—primarily bioretention units—in a 100-acre pilot project named the Kansas City
Middle Blue River Green Infrastructure Pilot Project. This pilot is one of the largest retrofitted
GI areas in the United States. ORD and EPA Region 7 collaborated with the KCMOWSD to
conduct long term monitoring efforts to quantify (GI) performance at two scales: site scale
(individual SCMs) and pilot project (100-acre) scale.
EPA collected sewershed flow data before and after installation of GI, and performed evaluations
of land use, soil infiltration, area served, and individual bioretention unit performance. Site-scale
elements of the GI project included stormwater monitoring systems at nine individual SCMs
(rain gardens and bioretention cells with underdrains) dispersed throughout the pilot area.
Parameters measured included inflow, infiltrated volume, bypassed flow, and drawdown times.
In addition, a subset of SCMs were monitored for water quality parameters including particle
size distribution, bacteria counts, nutrient concentration, and metal concentration.
Only about half of the total flows were tributary to the bioretention GI devices due to property
restrictions and other interferences. Including these devices at the time of original development,
or redevelopment, would be much more effective as they could be designed as an integral part of
the drainage system rather than a retrofit. Even with the reduced treatment of the total area
flows, WinSLAMM model results for the pilot area estimate a 30% decrease in Rv ratios after GI
installation. The flow reductions are consistent with the XPSWMM model results presented by
KCMOWSD. KCMOWSD's modeling also predicted installation of SCMs would reduce peak
20
-------
EPA/600/R-16/085
August 2016
flows by 76%. Few data were available for direct observation of water quality improvements due
to the large amount of infiltration at the test locations.
Nine individual storm control measures were studied for hydraulic flow rates and water quality
parameters. The soil infiltration rate was measured to be higher (1.0 inch/hour) than expected
and these individual storm control measures produced very little overflow. There were eight
storm events at one location that produced effluent discharges of sufficient volume to allow
comparisons of inlet and outlet water quality. Inlet water pH ranged from 5.0-10.2, outlet water
pH ranged from 6.5-7.9. Fecal coliform concentrations were unexpectedly high, with
concentrations often above the upper detection limit of 6 million CFU lOOmL for both inlet and
outlet water. On average, there was a decrease in concentration from influent to outlet, for
national turbidity units (37% +/-15%), total suspended solids (52% +/-34%), suspended solid
concentration (51% +/-24%), and average diameter particle size drop (21% +/-43%). There was
only one storm event of great enough magnitude where inlet versus outlet nitrate and phosphate
could be compared. The nitrate concentration was reduced by 52% and phosphate concentration
reduced by 56.5% for that storm. Analyzed influent samples ranged from 5-31 |ig/L total
copper, <25-151 |ig/L total zinc, and <50-61 |ig/L total lead. Dissolved metal concentrations
were below detection limits (<5 |ig/L copper, <25 |ig/L zinc, and <50 |ig/L lead) for inlet and
outlet water samples.
In conclusion, GI caused a reduction in volume of water flow into the combined sewers that
should result in a reduction in contaminant mass flow into the combined sewers.
21
-------
EPA/600/R-16/085
August 2016
References
EPA. 1999. Preliminary Data Summary of Urban Storm Water Best Management Practices
http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-ll/documents/urban-stormwater-
bmps preliminary-study 1999.pdf.
EPA. 2007. Green Infrastructure Statement of Intent.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2Q15-10/documents/gi intentstatement.pdf
EPA - Kansas City Consent Decree. 2010. https://archive.epa.gov/region07/enforcement-
compiiance-archive/web/pdf/kctno ocp cd.pdf
EPA. 2011. Report of Enhanced Framework (SUSTAIN) and Field Applications for Placement
of BMPs in Urban Watersheds. EPA/600/R-11/144.
http://nepis.epa.gOv/Exe/ZyNET.exe/P 100DEW1. TXT?ZyActi onD=ZyDocument&Client=EP A
&lndex=201 1 +Thru+2015&Docs=&Ouery=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod= l&TocRestri
ct=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&OField=&OFieldYear=&OFieldMonth=&OFieldDay=&lntOFieldOp
=0&ExtOFieldOp=0&XmlQuerv=&File=D%3A%5Czvfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5Cllthrul5%
5CTxt%5C00000004%5CP100DEWI.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&Sort
Method=h%7C-
&MaximumDocuments= 1 &FuzzvDegree=0&lmageQualitv=r7 5 g8/r7 5 g8/x 150v 150g 16/i425&D
isplav=p%7Cf&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZvActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Resu
1 ts%20page& M axi mum Pages=1 &ZyEntry= 1 & SeekPage=x&ZyPURL
International BMP Database http://www.bmpdatabase.org/.
Kansas City, MO (KCMO) 2007, Rooftops to Rivers.
http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/rooftopsII/files/RooftopstoRivers KansasCitv.pdf
Kansas City, MO (KCMO) Resolution No. 070830. 2008.
http://www.cleanairinfo.com/sustainableskylines/documents/Presentations/Track%205/Session%
204%20-%20Stormwater%20Mitigation%20Issues%20and%20Strategies%20Part.%201/03%20-
%20Scott%20Cahail%20EPA%20Dallas%203-l 0-09.pdf
Kansas City Water Services Department (KCMOWSD). 2009. Overflow Control Plan. Revised
2012. https://www.kcwaterservices.org/vvp-
content/uploads/2013/04/Qverflow Control Plan Apri302012 FINAL.pdf
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-09/documents/independence-cd.pdf
Kansas City Water Services Department (KCMOWSD). 2013. Final Report Kansas City
Overflow Control Program Middle Blue River Green Solutions
http://www.burnsmcd.com/proiects/kansas-citv-overflow-control-program-management
Murray, D.J. (2009) EPA Aging Water Infrastructure Research Program: State of the
22
-------
EPA/600/R-16/085
August 2016
Technology for the Condition Assessment and Rehabilitation of Wastewater Collection Systems.
World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2009: pp. 1-7. doi:
10.1061/41036(342)107
Simon, M.A.; J.G. Lee; D. O'Bannon; R. Pitt; J. Wright; D. Bambic. "Update on Kansas City
Middle Blue River Green Infrastructure Pilot Project" - presented to EWRI Portland, OR, June
5, 2014.
Talebi, Leila. Assessment of Integrated Green Infrastructure-Based Stormwater Controls in
Small to Large Scale Developed Urban Watersheds. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Civil,
Construction, and Environmental Engineering. The University of Alabama, 2014. 620 pgs.
http://unix.eng.ua.edu/~rpitt/Publications/ll Theses and Dissertations/Leila Dissertation.pdf
Tertra Tech. 2011. National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure
in Kansa City, Missouri. A Pre-performance Summary Report. 9/30/2011. 98 pages.
Tetra Tech. 2013. Advanced Drainage Concepts for Using Green Solutions for CSO Control.
2012 Summary Progress Report. 63 pages.
You-tube web sites for further reference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pi7WHysURGs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAxq7ilDf6s
23
-------
EPA/600/R-16/085
August 2016
Appendix A
Summary of Water Analyses from Individual Storm Control Measures
(2012-2013)
24
-------
EPA/600/R-16/085
August 2016
Summary of Water Analyses from Individual Storm Control Measures (2012-2013)
EPA followed EPA Quality Assurance Plan Number W-10162 for the water analyses. EPA
measured water quality parameters at four public right-of-way locations: 1222 East 76th Terrace,
1324 76th Street, 1325 East 76th Street, 1419 East 76th Street. Each of these locations contained a
6712 series ISCO automatic sampler. Stormwater quality parameters (pH, turbidity, fecal
coliform, total nitrogen, nitrate, total phosphorous, phosphate, copper, zinc, lead, total suspended
solids (TSS), median particle size (dso)) were measured in SCM inlet and underdrain outlet flows
at four GI curb bump-out bioretention devices.
Table 3 Analytical Laboratories and Methods
Parameter
Analytical
Reference
Method
Method Detection
Laboratory
pH
YSI Meter
0.05 SU
UMKC
Turbidity
YSI Meter
0.1 NTU
UMKC
Fecal Coliform
SM 922B
100 CFU/lOOmL
UMKC
Nitrogen as N
SM 4500-Nora C
0.01 mg/L
UMKC
Phosphate as P
EPA 365.2
Total Suspended Solids
UMKC
Total Copper, Zinc, Lead
EPA 300.0
0.7 |ig/L
EPA Region 7
Filtered Copper, Zinc,
Lead
EPA 200.7
0.7 |ig/L
EPA Region 7
Total Suspended Solids
SM 2540
1 mg/L
UMKC
Particle Size
Coulter Counter
NA
UA
Table 4 pH Analytical Results
Location
Inlet Water (SU)
Outlet Water (SU)
N
Min
Max
n
Min
Max
1222 East 76m Terrace Street
15
6.1
7.6
8
6.9
7.8
1324 East 76m Street
12
5.0
7.2
1
6.5
6.5
1325 East 76® Street
13
5.4
7.1
0
1419 East 76m Street
15
6.0
10.2
3
7.2
7.7
Table 5 Turbidity Analytical Results
Location
Inlet Water (NTU)
Outlet Water (NTU)
n
Avg.
Min
Max
n
Avg.
Min
Max
1222 East 76m Terrace Street
14
27
6
69
8
19
6
45
1324 East 76m Street
12
27
11
62
1
93.5
1325 East 76® Street
12
22
7
53
0
1419 East 76m Street
15
27
7
66
3
9
3
16
25
-------
Table 6 Fecal Coliform Analytica
Results
Location
Inlet Water (CFU/lOOmL)
Out
et Water (CF1
U/100M1)
n
Min
Max
n
Min
Max
1222 East 76th Terrace Street
10
<2 x 104
>6 x 10b
3
<4 x 104
<2 x 105
1324 East 76® Street
9
<4 x 104
>6 x 10b
1
>6 x 105
1325 East 76® Street
10
<2 x 104
>6 x 10b
0
1419 East 76® Street
11
1.7 x 104
>6 x 10b
2
<4 x 104
1.8 x 105
*6 x 10SCFU/100 mL was the laboratory maximum for Fecal Coliform analyses. All of the sampling
locations had values above this range.
Table 7 Nitrogen as N Analytical Results
Location
Inlet Water (mg/L)
Outlet Water (mg/L)
n
Avg.
Min
Max
n
Avg.
Min
Max
1222 East 76® Terrace Street
14
1.9
<1
7
7
1
<1
1
1324 East 76® Street
11
1.1
<1
2
1
1
1
1
1325 East 76® Street
11
1.4
<1
5
0
1419 East 76® Street
13
1.3
<1
5
1
1
<1
1
Table 8 Phosphate as P Analytical Results
Location
Inlet Water (mg/L)
Outlet Water (mg/L)
n
Avg.
Min
Max
n
Avg.
Min
Max
1222 East 76® Terrace Street
12
1.2
<1
2
7
2
1
3
1324 East 76® Street
10
1.1
<1
2
1
1
1
1
1325 East 76® Street
9
0.9
0.5
1
0
1419 East 76® Street
12
1.1
0.5
2
3
4
<1
10
Table 9 Total Copper Concentrations Analytical Results
Location
Inlet Water (|ig/L)
Outlet Water (
^g/L)
n
Avg.
Min
Max
n
Avg.
Min
Max
1222 East 76® Terrace Street
2
20
9
31
1
15
1324 East 76® Street
4
16
12
21
0
1325 East 76® Street
3
13
7
22
0
1419 East 76® Street
3
9
5
16
0
Table 10 Total Zinc Concentrations Analytical Results
Location
Inlet Water (
Hg/L)
Outlet Water (|ig/L)
N
Avg.
Min
Max
n
Avg.
Min
Max
1222 East 76® Terrace Street
2
144
136
151
1
<25
1324 East 76® Street
4
67
<25
139
0
1325 East 76® Street
3
69
34
130
0
1419 East 76® Street
3
45
25
71
0
26
-------
Table 11 Total Lead Concentrations Analytical Results
Location
Inlet Water (
Hg/L)
Outlet Water (|ig/L)
n
Avg.
Min
Max
n
Avg.
Min
Max
1222 East 76th Terrace Street
2
56
50
61
1
<50
1324 East 76® Street
4
50
<50
50
0
1325 East 76® Street
3
50
<50
50
0
1419 East 76® Street
3
50
<50
50
0
Table 12 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Analytical Results
Location
Inlet Water (mg/L)
Outlet Water (mg/L)
n
Avg.
Min
Max
n
Avg.
Min
Max
1222 East 76® Terrace Street
15
187
30
678
7
46
14
92
1324 East 76® Street
12
215
34
825
1
149
1325 East 76® Street
13
250
26
1128
0
1419 East 76® Street
15
150
55
301
3
46
8
69
TSS values were the average of two dup
Table 13 Particle Size
icates.
Location
Inlet Water 9
(|im)
Outlet Water (
|im)
n
Avg.
Min
Max
n
Avg.
Min
Max
1222 East 76® Terrace Street
13
80
15
255
7
27
15
50
1324 East 76® Street
12
40
50
711
1
12
1325 East 76® Street
12
77
15
300
0
1419 East 76® Street
12
77
20
300
3
165
30
400
27
-------
Only one outlet sample from 1222 East 76th Street on May 27, 2013, produced enough water
to measure the complete suite of parameters:
Table 14 Outlet Water Analysis from 1222 East 76th Street, collected on May 27, 2013
Parameter, units
Value
pH, SU
7.25
Turbidity, NTU
6.4
Fecal Coliform, CFU/lOOmL
<200,000
Total Nitrogen as N, |ig/L
2530
Nitrate as N, mg/L
<1
Total Phosphate as P, |ig/L
700
Phosphate as P, mg/L
3
Total Copper, |ig/L
15
Dissolved Copper, |ig/L
6
Total Zinc, |ig/L
<25
Dissolved Zinc, |ig/L
<25
Total Lead, |ig/L
<50
Dissolved Lead, |ig/L
<50
Total Suspended Solids, mg/L
14
Suspended Sediment Concentration, mg/L
52
Particle Size, dso. |im
35
28
-------
Here are the percent removals for the parameters that were measurable.
Table 15 Percent Removals per Parameter from 1222 East 76th Street
Parameter, units
n
Avg.
Minimum
Maximum
Turbidity, NTU
37
8
4
57
Total Nitrogen as N, pg/L
52
1
Total Phosphate as P, pg/L
56.5
1
Total Suspended Solids, mg/L
52
7
-29
97
Suspended Solids
Concentration, mg/L
51
7
-3.5
87
Particle Size, D50. pm
21
6
-67
94
Table 16 Comparison of In
et versus Outlet pH, SU
Location
Date
Inlet pH
Outlet pH
1222 East 76th Street
9/13/2012
6.4
7.05
1222 East 76th Street
4/7/2013
6.8
7.4
1222 East 76th Street
4/9/2013
6.1
6.9
1222 East 76th Street
5/2/2013
6.2
7.5
1222 East 76th Street
5/27/2013
6.75
7.25
1222 East 76th Street
5/30/2013
7.2
7.8
1222 East 76th Street
6/5/2013
6.6
7.7
1222 East 76th Street
6/9/2013
8.0
7.35
1324 East 76th Street
5/31/2013
6.0
6.8
1419 East 76th Street
8/31/2012
6.3
7.2
1419 East 76th Street
11/11/2012
6.1
7.2
1419 East 76th Street
4/23/2013
7.4
7.7
29
-------
Tabic 17 Comparison ofTnk-1 \cisus OulK-l Fccal Chloroform. CFI~ inn ml.
1 .ocalion
Dale
In lei Fecal
Chloroform
Onllei Fecal
Chloroform
1222 East 76th Street
4/9/2013
<20,000
<40,000
1222 East 76th Street
5/2/2013
>120,000
40,000
1222 East 76th Street
5/27/2013
>600,000
<200,000
1222 East 76th Street
5/30/2013
400,000
<200.000
1419 East 76th Street
11/11/2012
390,000
180,000
1419 East 76th Street
4/23/2013
<40,000
<40,000
30
-------
Appendix B
National Demonstration of Integration of Green and Gray
Infrastructure in Kansas City, Missouri -
A Pre-performance Summary Report September 2011.
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration
of Green and Gray Infrastructure in
Kansas City, Missouri
A Pre-performance
fl I11111UII1U1111 HI I It II Ij III
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray
Infrastructure in Kansas City, Missouri
A Pre-performance Summary Report
by
Scott D. Struck, Ph.D.1
Robert Pitt, P.E., Ph.D., D.WRE2
Deborah O'Bannon, P.E., Ph.D.3
Michael Ports P.E., P.H., D.WRE4
Ginnerva Moore, J.D.5
Tom Jacobs5
Kerry Herndon6
Mandy Whitsitt6
*Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA
2University of Alabama, Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, Tuscaloosa, AL
3University of Missouri - Kansas City, Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Kansas City, MO
4Private consultant, Jacksonville, FL
sMid-America Regional Council, Kansas City, MO
SEPA Region 7, Kansas City, KS
In support of
EPA contract no. EP-C-05-061
Project Officer
Richard Field, P.E., BCEE, D.WRE
Urban Watershed Management Branch
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
2890 Woodbridge Avenue (MS-104)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Edison, NJ 08837
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
September 2011
-------
Disclaimer
The work reported in this document was funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA
or the Agency) under Task Order 78 of contract no. EP-C-05-061 to TetraTech, Inc. Through its
Office of Research and Development, EPA funded and managed, or partially funded and
collaborated in, the research described herein. This document has been subjected to the Agency's
peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication. Any opinions expressed in
this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency;
therefore, no official endorsement should be inferred. Any mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
Foreword
The EPA is charged by Congress with protecting the nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a
mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions
leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to
support and nurture life. To help meet this mandate, EPA's research program is providing data and
technical support for solving environmental problems today and building the science knowledge
base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our
health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL or the Laboratory) is the Agency's
center for investigation of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing
risks from pollution that threaten human health and the environment The focus of the Laboratory's
research program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution
to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems;
remediation of contaminated sites, sediments, and groundwater; prevention and control of indoor
air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with public and private sector
partners to both foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging
problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to environmental problems by developing and
promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment; advancing scientific and
engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and providing the technical
support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental regulations and
strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan,
and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user community and
to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
Executive Summary
Combined sewer systems are designed to collect rainwater runoff and domestic and industrial
wastewater in the same pipe. Approximately 742 cities in the U.S. have combined sewer systems.
Most of the time, these systems transport all of the wastewater to a wastewater treatment plant,
where it is treated and then discharged to a water body. During intense storm events, resulting
high flows can overwhelm certain parts of the sewer system and treatment process, causing
combined sewer overflows (CSOs). In some cases, where pipes are undersized because of
population growth and/or where there is increased runoff volume from connected roof leaders and
directly connected impervious areas, even small rainfall events can result in overflows.
Municipalities are responsible for developing comprehensive long-term control plans (LTCPs) that
recognize and control the site-specific nature of CSOs and their impacts on receiving water bodies.
Many of the more recent plans include sections for "Green Infrastructure" and similar source
controls that are a part of advanced design concepts. Green infrastructure includes practices and
site-design techniques that store, infiltrate, evaporate, or detain stormwater runoff and in so
doing, control the timing and volume of stormwater discharges from impervious surfaces (e.g.,
streets, building roofs, and parking lots) to the sewer system. These techniques are currently
being encouraged by EPA as a management practice to contain and control stormwater at the lot
or parcel level However, strategic application of green infrastructure and source controls is
required to most cost effectively consider the site-specific nature of CSOs to control them.
The Kansas City Water Services Department (WSD) provides wastewater collection and
treatment for approximately 650,000 people, located within the City and in 27 tributary or
"satellite" communities. Approximately 56 square miles within Kansas City, south of the
Missouri River, are served by combined sewers. The City's combined sewers overflow to a
number of receiving streams, including the Kansas River, the Missouri River, the Blue River
and Brush Creek. The City of Kansas City, Missouri has developed a project to demonstrate
the application of green infrastructure for combined sewer overflow (CSO) control in the
Middle Blue River.
Kansas City's WSD has designed and begun construction on a 100 acre retrofit of an aging
neighborhood that has included sewer rehabilitation and implementation of Green
Infrastructure along with some subsurface storage to provide a hybrid approach.
This project evaluates integrated, green infrastructure-based solutions on wet-weather
flow pollution problems. The project focuses on an urban core neighborhood sub-
watershed drained by a combined sewer system. Objectives of this project are:
• To measure the effects of larger-scale application of LID practices on a CSS
• Monitor the following impacts on a CSS from wet weather flows prior to
implementation:
o rainfall
o peak system flow
o total system flow volume
o land characteristics
o Infiltration properties
-------
In partnership with the Kansas City, Missouri Water Services Department, The University
of Missouri - Kansas City and the Mid America Regional Council the project team monitored
pre-implementation conditions and modeled proposed designs. In conjunction with the
implementation of LID practices, sewer rehabilitation was also completed for those areas in
need of repair. Public rights-of-way are targeted for practice implementation with
education and outreach occurring in private areas to encourage participation.
EPA's Office of Research and Development has the goal to provide detailed guidance and
information on methodologies for selection, placement, and cost effectiveness and to
document the benefits of green infrastructure applications in urban watersheds for new
development, redevelopment, and retrofit situations. This project report provides detail on
the approaches taken, monitoring data collected, models completed, implementation of
private rain gardens and rain barrels, and the outreach and education that has occurred to
date.
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
Contents
Disclaimer iv
Foreword v
Executive Summary vi
List of Tables xi
List of Figures xii
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations xv
1. Introduction 1
1.1. Green Infrastructure 1
1.2. Project Background 2
1.3. GI Pilot Project Site Description 4
2. Monitoring to Determine Performance of GI 7
2.1. Land Characteristics Survey in Kansas City Test Watershed 7
2.1.1. Flow and Rainfall Monitoring 9
2.2. Flow Sampling and Rain Gauge Monitoring Equipment 10
2.3. Large-Scale Flow Monitoring Locations and Descriptions 10
2.4. Small-Scale Flow Monitoring Locations and Descriptions 13
2.5. BMP Monitoring and Locations 14
2.5.1. Curb-extension Biofilters/Bioretention 14
2.5.2. Rain Gardens 15
2.6. Small-Scale Flow Monitoring Techniques 15
2.7. Analytical Parameters of Interest 16
2.7.1. E.coli 16
2.7.2. Basic Chemistry 17
2.7.3. Particle Size Distribution 17
2.7.4. Nutrients and Metals 17
2.7.5. Analytical Methods 18
3. Modeling of Pilot Project Areas 19
3.1. Storage Volume Analysis for 069 Sewershed 19
3.1.1. Overview of XP-SWMM Model 20
3.1.2. XP-SWMM Modeling Approach and Results for 069 Sewershed 21
3.2. Green Alternatives for 069 Sewershed 22
3.3. SUSTAIN Case Study 24
3.4. Application of SUSTAIN Framework 26
3.5. BMP Optimization Considerations for CSO Control 27
viii
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
3.5.1. GI Cost Representation 28
3.5.2. Gray Infrastructure Costs 29
3.5.3. Exploratory Management Scenarios 29
3.6. SUSTAIN Optimization Summary and Conclusions 30
3.7. WinSLAMM Modeling for Private Residential GI 32
3.7.1. WinSLAMM Background Information 32
3.8. Stormwater Controls and Calculations in WinSLAMM 32
3.9. Model Calibration and Verification 3 3
3.10. Land Development and Urban Soil Characteristics 33
3.11. Sources of Flow and Pollutants 34
3.12. Evaluation of On-site Controls 34
3.13. Preliminary Evaluation of other Land Use Controls 37
3.14. WinSLAMM Analysis Summary and Considerations 39
4. Performance of Selected Manufactured Treatment Devices 41
4.1. Up-Flo Filter by Hydro International 41
4.2. UrbanGreen BioFilter by Contech Construction Products 43
4.3. Site Location and MTD Design 44
5. Site and System Benefits of Rain Gardens 48
5.1. Thomas Rain Garden 49
5.1.1. Infiltration Tests 49
5.1.2. Full Inundation Infiltration Test 51
5.1.3. Thomas' Property Rain Garden Construction 53
5.1.4. Installation and Instrumentation of Flow Monitoring Devices and Structures 57
5.1.5. Rain Garden Flow Monitoring Results 57
5.2. Other Private Property Rain Garden Projects 61
5.3. Rain Barrel Properties 75
5.4. Downspout Disconnection Properties 76
6. Results to Date 77
6.1. Rainfall and Flow Monitoring 77
6.2. Rainfall Data 78
6.3. Flow Data 78
6.4. Flow Analysis 80
6.5. Effect of Sewer Rehabilitation 82
6.6. Land Use Characterization 83
7. Community Education and Outreach 88
7.1. Background 88
x
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
7.2. Outreach Goals Established 88
7.3. Community Education and Outreach - On the Ground 89
7.4. On the Ground - Street Meetings 89
7.5. Ongoing Outreach - Maintain Public Enthusiasm 92
7.6. Green Solutions on the Ground 93
7.6.1. Residential Property Demonstrations Installed 93
7.7. KCMO Begins Construction of Green Solutions 94
7.8. Celebrating Residential Green Solutions 95
7.9. Lessons Learned 97
7.10. Future Opportunities 97
8. References 98
x
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
List of Tables
Table 2-1. Pilot and control drainage areas 10
Table 2-2: Analytical methods for targeted parameter analyses 18
Table 3-1: Gray infrastructure CSO controls for outfall 069 23
Table 3-2: Information sources and uses in the SUSTAIN application 26
Table 3-3: GI capital costs for the 069 sewershed 28
Table 3-4: Cost estimation for private parcel retrofit GI 29
T able 3-5: Summary and description of baseline and exploratory optimization scenarios 29
Table 3-6: Management component size and costs for exploratory optimization scenario 31
Table 4-1. Summary of Up-Flo filter storm event monitoring results 42
Table 5-1. Soils report for Thomas rain garden absorption area 49
Table 5-2. Turf-Tec Infiltration Results - Test 1 50
Table 5-3. Full inundation test on 9/2/10 for Thomas rain garden 51
Table 5-4. Full inundation test on 10/28/10 for Thomas rain garden 52
Table 5-5: Design details of Gredell rain garden 61
Table 5-6: Design details ofthe Moss rain garden 64
Table 5-7: Design details ofthe Reese rain garden 66
Table 5-8: Design details ofthe Rodriguez rain garden 68
Table 5-9: Design details ofthe Watson rain garden 69
Table 5-10: Design details ofthe Williams rain garden 71
Table 5-11: Design details ofthe Yuelkenbeck rain garden 73
Table 6-1: Summaiy of rainfall data collection 78
Table 6-2: Summary of flow data for site 1 (UMKC001) 79
Table 6-3: Summary of flow data for site 2a (UMKC002a) 79
Table 6-4: Summary of flow data for site 2b (UMKC002b) 79
Table 6-5: Summary of flow data for site 3 (UMKC003) 79
Table 6-6: Example observed rainfall and runoff conditions 81
Table 6-7: Example calculated rainfall and runoff conditions (based on observed conditions) 81
Table 6-8: Original GIS measurements by KCMO WSD for test watershed 83
Table 6-9: Medium density residential areas 84
Table 6-10: Infiltration rates across the pilot watershed 84
xi
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Kansas City, Missouri SSS and CSS basins 2
Figure 1-2: Middle Blue River outfall 069 5
Figure 1-3: Selected BMP locations for pilot study area (based on KCMO WSD designs) 6
Figure 2-1. Detailed GIS coverage showing land cover components of different land uses in the
Kansas City pilot watershed 8
Figure 2-2: Pilot (UMKC01) and control watersheds (UMKC02a, UMKC02b, andUMKC03) 9
Figure 2-3: Flow monitoring site UMKC01 11
Figure 2-4: Flow monitoring site UMKC02a 12
Figure 2-5: Flow monitoring site UMKC02b 12
Figure 2-6: Flow monitoring site UMKC03 13
Figure 2-7: Curb-extension bioretention detail on 76th Street 14
Figure 2-8: Rain garden plan detail 15
Figure 2-9: Inlet design modified with the H-Flume for inflow monitoring 16
Figure 2-10: Outlet depth meter measuring outflow based on stage 16
Figure 3-1. Storm size distribution for a typical Kansas City, Missouri meteorological year 20
Figure 3-2: Runoff conceptualization in XP-SWMM 21
Figure 3-3: Location of pilot and control areas within the 069 sewershed 22
Figure 3-4: Conceptual diagram of SUSTAIN 25
Figure 3-5: Sample of a cost-effectiveness curve from SUSTAIN post-processing 26
Figure 3-6: Cost-effectiveness junctions and trajectories for exploratory optimization scenarios 30
Figure 3-7: Soil infiltration characteristics for Kansas City test area 34
Figure 3-8: Production function for roof runoff rain gardens 35
Figure 3-9: Monthly irrigation requirements to match evapotranspiration 35
Figure 3-10: Production function of water cistern/tanks storage for irrigation to meet
evapotranspiration 36
Figure 3-11: Effectiveness of roof disconnections for different soil characteristics 37
Figure 3-12: Cost-effectiveness of alternative stormwater management programs 38
Figure 4-1: Up-Flo filter by Hydro International 41
Figure 4-2: Performance for mixed media for suspended solids 42
Figure 4-3: TSS test data for the Up-Flo filter (Source: Andoh et al. 2009) 42
Figure 4-4: UrbanGreen BioFilter 43
Figure 4-5: StormFilter cartridge 43
Figure 4-6: Hydraulic loading characteristics of UrbanGreen BioFilter 44
Figure 4-7: Drainage areas at the City Fleet Maintenance Facility (aerial of 18th and Prospect streets) .
44
Figure 4-8: Drainage area A (in orange) for the UGBF 45
Figure 4-9: Drainage area A site visit image (close-up) 45
Figure 4-10: Drainage area A site visit image 45
Figure 4-11: Survey results for 18th and Olive streets for UGBF location 46
Figure 4-12: Drainage area for Up-Flo filter system (in orange) 46
Figure 4-13: Drainage B site visit images 47
Figure 4-14: Survey results for 18th and Wabash streets for Up-Flo location 47
Figure 5-1. Locations of currently constructed rain gardens and downspout disconnections 48
Figure 5-2: Turf-Tec Infiltrometer 50
Figure 5-3: Turf-Tec infiltration test 51
xii
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
Figure 5-4: Full inundation test (9-2-10) 52
Figure 5-5: Full inundation test (10-28-10) 53
Figure 5-6. Plan view of Thomas property rain garden plant layout 53
Figure 5-7: Sod removal in stormwater absorption area of the rain garden. Perimeter of the rain
garden is marked by the rope (6/10/10) 54
Figure 5-8: Planting additional vegetation (left) and rain garden looking east (right) (7/21/10) 54
Figure 5-9: Raingarden weir installation (9/23/10) 55
Figure 5-10: Disconnected roof leader and view of flow measurement barrel connected to pipes,
looking northeast (9/28/10) 55
Figure 5-11. Installed rain garden on Thomas property 56
Figure 5-12: Educational sign for rain garden 56
Figure 5-13: Global Water Level Logger WL16 for data collection 57
Figure 5-14: Rain garden response to precipitation eventon October 11, 2010 58
Figure 5-15: Rain garden response to precipitation eventon October 12, 2010 59
Figure 5-16: Rain garden response to precipitation eventon October 22, 2010 60
Figure 5-17: Rain garden response to precipitation eventon November 12, 2010 61
Figure 5-18: Construction of the Gredell rain garden 62
Figure 5-19: Rain garden area with outlet protection 63
Figure 5-20: Installed rain garden on Gredell property 63
Figure 5-21: Soil excavation from rain garden absorption area 64
Figure 5-22: Rain garden with installed media and outlet protection 65
Figure 5-23: Installed rain garden on Moss property 65
Figure 5-24: Rain garden absorption area with outlet protection 66
Figure 5-25: Rain garden with installed media 67
Figure 5-26: Installed rain garden on Reese property 67
Figure 5-27: Construction of Rodriguez rain garden 68
Figure 5-28: Installed rain garden on Rodriguez property 69
Figure 5-29: Soil excavation for rain garden absorption area 70
Figure 5-30: Rain garden media installation 70
Figure 5-31: Installed rain garden on Watson property 71
Figure 5-32: Construction of Williams rain garden 72
Figure 5-33: Rain garden with installed media and outlet protection 72
Figure 5-34: Installed rain garden on Williams property 73
Figure 5-35: Construction of Yuelkenbeck rain garden 74
Figure 5-36: Soil excavation for rain garden absorption area 74
Figure 5-37: Installed rain garden on Yuelkenbeck property 75
Figure 5-38: Homes with directly connected downspouts (blue indicates pilot project area) 76
Figure 6-1: Rainfall and flow monitoring locations 77
Figure 6-2: Hydrograph of a wet-weather event with its respective hyetograph for pilot and control
sites 80
Figure 6-3: Comparison of base line (dry weather flow) for sites 1 and 3 before and after sewer
rehabilitation 82
Figure 6-4: Turf-Tec Infiltrometer test results for site 1-A 85
Figure 6-5: Turf-Tec Infiltrometer test results for site 1-B 85
Figure 6-6: Turf-Tec Infiltrometer test results for site 1-C 86
Figure 6-7: Turf-Tec Infiltrometer test results for site 2-A 86
Figure 6-8: Turf-Tec infiltrometer test results for site 2-B 87
Figure 7-1: October 24, 2009 street meeting 91
Figure 7-2: Examples of rain garden (top) and rain barrel (bottom) outreach material 92
Figure 7-3: Constructing Ms. Thomas' rain garden 93
xiii
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
Figure 7-4: Completed Thomas rain garden 93
Figure 7-5: Installed rain barrel (left) and rain garden (right) 95
Figure 7-6: Ms. Brenda Thomas addresses the community about rain garden (left). Ms. Cindy Circo
(former City Council member and Mayor Pro Temp at the press conference) and Ms.
Thomas display a painted rain barrel (right) 97
Figure 7-7. Students at the press conference displaying rain barrels they painted 97
xiv
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
BG
Billion gallons
BMPs
Best Management Practices
CFS
Cubic feet per second
COD
Chemical oxygen demand
CSO
Combined sewer overflow
CSS
Combined sewer system
DCIA
Directly connected impervious area
DO
Dissolved oxygen
EMCs
Event Mean Concentrations
FWS
Flood warning system
GI
Green infrastructure
HRU
Hydrologic response unit
In
Inch
I/I
Inflow and infiltration
KCMO
Kansas City, Missouri
MARC
Mid-American Regional Council
MBR
Middle Blue River Basin, Kansas City, MO
MG
Million gallons
MTD
Manufactured T reatment Device
NCDC
National Climatic Data Center
O&M
Operation and maintenance
OCP
Overflow Control Plan (Kansas City)
OWTs
Onsite wastewater treatment systems
PSD
Particle size distribution
RCP
Reinforced concrete pipe
ROW
Rights-of-way
SSO
Sanitary sewer overflow
SSS
Separate Sanitary Sewer System
SUSTAIN
System for Urban Stormwater Treatment and Analysis Integration
TKN
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
TP
T otalphosphorous
TSS
Total suspended solids
UGBF
Urban Green Biofilter
WSD
Water Services Department, Kansas City, MO
WWF
Wet-weather flow
WWSP
Wet-weather Solutions Program
UMKC
University of Missouri Kansas City
USEPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
1.Introduction
In 2009, Kansas City, Missouri began implementing green infrastructure (GI) demonstration
projects to determine the pollutant and volume control benefits in abating combined sewer
overflows (CSOs) due to wet-weather flow (WWF). Those projects have included the participation
of local and regional efforts to identify and prioritize stormwater runoff control projects, and to
develop strong partnerships at the neighborhood, watershed, and regional levels. One of the city's
pilot projects has specifically been designed to evaluate the performance of GI to control CSO
discharges. The GI project will be compared with the alternate control measure considered for this
area—a conventional CSO storage facility. This project will aid in the comparison of costs and
benefits using the different technologies. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through
the efforts documented in this report, is monitoring and evaluating the performance of GI
implemented at the sewershed scale. Previous understanding of GI applied at this scale was largely
dependent on model analysis. This study will explore the performance of an actual implemented
system. This report outlines the efforts of the EPA study that have been completed to date. These
efforts are intended to, (1) determine the potential benefits of GI through modeling, (2) provide an
understanding of the monitoring implemented to determine the performance of selected GI and
manufactured treatment devices (MTDs), (3) detail results to date from flow and rainfall
monitoring (4) review the site and system benefits of rain gardens from demonstration projects,
and (5) discuss the education and outreach efforts and benefits of these efforts.
1.1. Green Infrastructure
Advanced drainage concepts such as GI (or upland runoff and source control techniques) are
currently encouraged by EPA as a management practice to contain and control stormwater at the lot
to neighborhood scale. GI techniques increase retention at the runoff source, thereby decreasing the
runoff volume entering the drainage system and the demand on a drainage system. Because GI is
often employed at smaller scales and provides water quality and quantity benefits, it is applicable to
all drainage systems—including separate sanitary sewer collection systems (SSS), and storm sewer
systems or combined sewer systems (CSS).
The increased volume and rapid runoff that results from highly impervious urban areas is a direct
contributor to the amount of CSO discharge. GI works to replicate natural hydrologic processes and
reduce the disruptive effects of urban development and runoff. GI generally focuses on distributed
controls that capture and retain runoff near the source and enhance infiltration, percolation, and
evapotranspiration; reduce pollutant discharges to surface water; and encourage groundwater
recharge. Some common examples of GI include bioretention/biofiltration, rain gardens, porous
pavement, grass swales, infiltration basins, and disconnection of paved areas and roof tops.
Although GI techniques are increasingly used across the country, there is currently an absence of
information regarding their performance when incorporated within CSSs, either as a single practice
or in combination with more traditional gray storage. Thus, an objective of this project is to
measure the effects of retrofitting and adding GI techniques to an urban drainage area—specifically
to demonstrate a reduction in the peak flow rates, total flow volumes, and pollutant loadings of
storm-generated flows at a larger scale. If this is effective, the Kansas City, Missouri Water Services
Department (KCMO WSD) may consider GI retrofits as an approach to reduce smaller storm
contributions to the CSS, as well as the benefits associated with reduced loading to impaired waters.
1
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
NORTHERN WATERSHEDS
Incorporating GI techniques in the sewershed to capture, retain, or reduce stormwater before it
enters the piped drainage system may be an attractive and practical alternative for many developed
areas. Both developed storm and combined sewersheds can benefit from added storage, detention,
and volume reduction from areas retrofitted with bioretention cells, pervious concrete, rain
gardens, or other "micro" best management practices (BMPs), such as catch basin retrofits or
additional tree plantings. Such practices can reduce stormwater runoff volume and pollutant mass
loading, as well as the frequency of CSOs, sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), and stormwater with
discharges typically occurring only during larger, less frequent storm events.
1.2._ Project Background
The KCMO WSD provides wastewater
treatmentand stormwater services for
653,000 people in the city and 27 different
communities that cover a total of 420
square miles (WSD 2009). The area serviced
by the WSD includes both SSSs and CSSs,
with CSSs comprising 58 square miles
of this area (Figure 1-1). The total sewer
system service area is 318 square miles and
there are approximately 2,700 miles of
sewer in the system. The CSS area is
predominately in older portions of the city.
During rain events, stormwater enters into
the collection systems leading to CSOs. The
city has 90 combined sewer discharge
locations that overflow to the Blue River,
Brush Creek, Kansas River, and the Missouri
River. CSOs in the Blue and Missouri rivers
result in water quality impairments from
increased bacteria levels. The Blue River is
on Missouri's 303(d) list as impaired for
Escherichia coli (WSD 2009). Through the
use of computer modeling, the city
estimates the CSO discharged volume to be
nearly 6.4 billion gallons (BG) per year. The
average overflow frequency is
approximately 18 times per year (WSD
2009).
Lfttf CHI I K.
ROCK CREEK
QOOXMECK CREEK
TURKEY CREEK
LOWtR BLUE RIVE*t
mum cam
TOWN FORK CREEK
M'PPc • R, i IT RIVF "
Bt UE RIVER CENIRAl
BIRMINGHAM WATERSHED)
MO RIVER NEICJ
BLUE RIVER NORTH
ROUND GROVE
LITTLE BLUE RIVER
Figure 1-1: Kansas City, Missouri SSS and CSS basins.
The city began evaluating CSOs in the early 1980s. Those early efforts included various studies, CSO
management plans, modeling efforts, and assessing the implementation of EPA's Nine Minimum
Controls requirement for (EPA 1995}. In 2003 the WSD began a comprehensive Wet Weather
Solutions Program (WWSP}, which was developed to address flood control and water quality issues.
Two principal plans were developed to work together to achieve the goals of the WWSP— the
Overflow Control Plan (OCP} and the Kansas City Stormwater Management Plan (KC-One
Stormwater Management Plan and Waterways Program}. Once complete, the OCP will reduce the
average annual CSOvolume to 1.4 BG that will be attained by capturing 88 percent of WWF in the
CSS area, and which will reduce the overflow events by 65 percent (Leeds 2009}.
2
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
The city embraced the concept of GI as part of its WWSP. The acknowledgment of GI as a desirable
component of the plan was made at a political and policy level. As part of incorporating the concept
and the plan, the city established several committees to address CSOs and city-wide GI solutions.
For example, the Green Solutions Committee was organized in 2007 to address GI for wet-weather
solutions. The committee created a Green Solutions Position Paper in which it endorsed a formal
policy on wet-weather solutions. The resolution includes four specific strategies—public education
and outreach including regional partnerships, adjusting regulations to promote GI, creating
incentives for GI, and investing public funding for GI—and was approved in August 2 007 (WSD
2009).
The city proposed the inclusion of funding specific for GI in the OCP. It was anticipated that these
resources would be directed at urban lakes, streamside protection, demonstration projects, CSS
areas planned for separation, and as part of a Blue River Watershed Management Plan (Leeds
2009). In order to better understand the implication and economics of GI, preliminary analyses were
conducted on three watersheds that investigated the potential cost impact of combining green and
gray infrastructure. These studies were centered on capital cost and did not include lifecycle
analysis. The technologies originally considered included catchbasin retrofits in city rights-of-way
(ROW), curb extension swales, street trees, permeable pavement, green roofs, and stormwater
planters. The analyses considered a desktop level study that did not include detailed modeling or
monitoring due to cost and time constraints. The evaluations included Brush Creek and Town Fork
Creek watersheds, and OK Creek. Two additional storage projects within the Middle Blue River
(MBR) Basin were also considered.
The findings from the Brush Creek and Town Fork Creeks studies concluded that integrating gray
infrastructure and GI would exceed the cost of gray infrastructure alone to meet the required level
of control (total volume of overflow). In order to make the strategy justifiable to the city's
ratepayers, it was determined that significant private investment would be required. The findings
for OK Creek were similar to the Brush Creek and Town Fork Creek findings, drawing the
conclusion that meeting the required level of overflow control when considering capital cost alone;
GI alternatives were more costly than gray infrastructure on a per volume basis.
As noted previously, the city evaluated two projects within the MBR Basin (outfalls 059 and 069)
for the application of GI. The city determined that planned storage tanks could be cost-effectively
replaced with distributed GI to achieve the desired level of control. The City then revised the MBR
Basin Plan to incorporate GI and some associated traditional gray controls to provide the necessary
storage to meet the goal of six or less overflows per year. The original gray infrastructure plan and
the green/gray plan were estimated at $51 million (or $17 per gallon of storage provided) and $46
million for 3 million gallons (MG) of storage, respectively (Leeds 2009). KCMO WSD then decided to
include one of the Middle Blue River projects (outfall 069) as a demonstration opportunity and
included this project within their OCP to meet CSS control requirements. The amount of GI to be
installed in future phases of the City's OCP implementation will be determined on the basis of
demonstration programs and monitoring results. The EPA study of the MBR demonstration project
will support the City's efforts and the body of knowledge by performing evaluation monitoring and
assessing the results of the project when completed. In that assessment, the EPA study goals are the
following:
• Demonstrate individual and collective system performance of GI retrofits in the MBR
demonstration project by measuring the changes in the peak flows, total volumes, and
pollutant loadings of the WWFs entering the CSS before and after GI implementation
3
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
• Compile data from other public and private flow control opportunities to demonstrate the
effects of GI on different scales
• Use models to demonstrate GI and gray infrastructure integration and performance
(volume and number of overflow events) on a larger scale within the CSS, and to calculate
or predict the benefit of the reduction in volume, pollutant load, and number of overflow
events
• Provide information on socio-economical-political barriers of green infrastructure
acceptance
• Gather information for understanding outreach and education benefits to the local
community
• Develop life-cycle cost comparison between conventional CSO control and green
infrastructure control
The EPA Study was originally started in 2008 with the expectation that GI practices would be
implemented by the city by fall of 2009 to allow for post-construction monitoring. Because of
unexpected delays in design and construction, actual construction of GI practices was not started
until spring of 2011. As a result, the scope of this report is limited to work performed through July
2011. The contents of this report include an overview of the modeling and data assessment
conducted to date, performance of private rain gardens, initial planning and design of MTDs, and
public outreach for the project
1.3. GI Pilot Project Site Description
KCMO WSD determined through the desktop analyses of GI opportunities that GI implementation in
the MBR basin would be a cost-effective option to achieve the desired level of overflow control
compared to traditional storage tanks (gray infrastructure). The MBR demonstration project is part
of a larger adaptive management approach to incorporate GI into the Kansas City OCP. The project
involves local and regional efforts to provide the "basis-for-success" of the implementation of GI
and stormwater management at the neighborhood, watershed, and regional levels. The EPA project
accepts the MBR demonstration project location and intends to evaluate the feasibility of the
strategy methodology and performance, including model support for sewershed performance of GI
implementation within Kansas City, Missouri.
The following components are included in the EPA GI demonstration project:
• Data collection and surveys
• Modeling of conceptual design of GI distributed storage
• Post construction monitoring and green solutions operation and maintenance (O&M)
The pilot project is within the MBR watershed and targets the area draining to outfall 069, which is
atotal of 475 acres. The demonstration project includes a 100-acre area where GI implementation
will occur in the first phase of construction. An adjacent 86-acre area is being used as a control area
to compare system response to rainfall with and without GI implementation. No GI will be
incorporated into this control area for the duration of the post construction monitoring program
(Figure 1-2). The demonstration project and control areas are both fully developed with
approximately 34 percent impervious area, and include mostly residential with some commercial
land uses. Demonstration project opportunities within the drainage basin have been evaluated
based upon
4
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
The pilot watershed and location of selected BMPs are shown in Figure 1-3. The site selection for
each type of control practice was developed from the modeled results predicting the amount of
rainfall runoff draining to a catchbasin and the potential for capturing the volume in GI systems to
apture the runoff before entering the catchbasin.
5
Legend
CS0069 outrai
CSO069 Watershed Context
M*0_t »l_SMMFW«i>te*x#»_Vir*t_FlFS_;«03_F*i
The possibility of siting
multiple practices to
create the opportunity
for a more measurable
effect at the overflow
locations
Locations without large
upstream contributions
of flow; good
mo ni tor ing I o c a ti o n
availability for targeted
drainage areas
Potential involvement
by site owners, both
public (e.g., public
entities) and private
(e.g., commercial
property owners and
private homeowners]
Sufficient area for a
number and variety of
locations for the
stormwater controls
Reasonably
representative of local
conditions
Available site
information including
detailed topographic
maps, age of
development, aerial
photographs, and maps Figure 1-2: Middle Blue River outfall 069.
showing existing storm
drainage system
Permeability of soils (where appropriate for infiltrating practices)
Area available between sidewalks and streets
Depth to groundwater at least 10 feet
High downspout connection possibilities where current downspouts are directly connected
to impervious areas
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
Pilot Watershed
Design Plan BMPs
76th St
75»h Tor
Legend
Subwatersbed
BMPs
Boretention
| Curb Extern (ion (Bio retention)
Curb Extention (Rain garden)
| Porous Srdewak
| Shallow Boretention
Boswale
| Cascade
| Raingarden
Figure 1-3: Selected BMP locations for pilot study area (based on KCMO WSD designs).
6
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
2.Monitoring to Determine Performance of Gl
The monitoring design for this study meets multiple objectives. First, it describes a monitoring
protocol that specifies locations and monitoring plans for broader, watershed monitoring and
smaller scale management practice monitoring. This provides information at multiple scales
allowing for better interpretation of scaling-up issues. Secondly, the design uses multiple
comparative approached to determine whether results are statistically significant A statistical
approach is required to justify the allocation of limited resources and to demonstrate the validity of
results. One way to reduce the overall number of samples collected is to establish control samples
that are independent of watershed changes and that can easily be compared to data dependent on
designed changes to the watershed. This study combines two approaches—a control versus test
sample approach, and a before versus after approach. These approaches are discussed in further
detail below.
To establish a statistically valid sampling protocol, knowledge of the actual watershed and sewer
conditions is essential. Often a phased sampling approach is recommended, allowing some
information to be collected initially to generate preliminary estimates of the sampling effort and
expected ranges of data needed to subsequently reduce the required number of samples and
analytical parameters. However, not developing a monitoring plan early in the process can result in
haphazard sample collection and ultimately require much more time and resources than actually
needed.
The pilot project sampling will occur within the 100-acre project watershed tributary to the
combined sewer outfall 069. Samples will also be collected from the adjacent 86-acre control
watershed. The land use within both of these areas is predominantly residential with some
commercial along Troost Avenue.
Two scales of sampling objectives were selected for experimental design to achieve desired
objectives, large-scale and small-scale watershed monitoring. First, large-scale watershed
monitoring of flow was completed in both the pilot and control watersheds to establish typical
baselines. Pre-construction flow monitoring was used to calibrate the models WinSLAMM and
SUSTAIN (System for Urban Stormwater Treatment and Analysis INtegration) thatwere selected
for use this project The process to calibrate WinSLAMM for the test area, including the control
practices, is discussed in Chapter 3. It is described further, along with the calibration results, in a
supplemental WinSLAMM modeling report prepared as part of this project An analogous process
was used to calibrate SUSTAIN for the same area.
Post-construction watershed monitoring in both the test and control locations) will be used to
verify the calibration and validate modeling results at this larger scale. Post-construction results
will be monitored to determine the changes attributable to GI controls in the pilot area. Monitoring
stations will be located at discharge locations of several subwatersheds. This monitoring approach
will establish a paired test, using comparable data collected from the pilot and control locations.
Note that before and after results can also be compared providing another monitoring approach.
2.1. Land Characteristics Survey in Kansas City Test Watershed
For modeling and a general understanding purposes, and to obtain a general understanding of the
development characteristics that affect stormwater quality and quantity, land use characterizations
7
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
In many areas, detailed
aerial coverage with GIS
data sets are becoming
available, showing and
quantifying the finer
elements of an area.
Figure 2-1 is an example
of a geographic
information system (GIS)
map from Kansas City,
Missouri, showing a
portion of the study area.
Although this high
resolution GIS data
Land Use and Impervious Surfaces
CSOShed_PilotArea_pg I I Misc Surfaces
I | Residential MF High
~ Residential MF Low
| Residential MF Medium
| Industriali'Bus. Park (High) | | Residential MF Very High
| Industriah'Bus. Park (Low) | | Residential 3F Large Lot
] Office (Low) Residential SF Low
] Office (Med) Residential SF Medium
I Parks, Open Space 1 | Residential SF Very Low
^j] Public/Semipublic (Low) | | Rural Residential
~ ROW | 1 Urban Fringe
| RR ROW | | Vacant/Ag
Figure 2-1. Detailed GIS coverage showing land cover components of different
land uses in the Kansas City pilot watershed.
Pilot Areas
l mwmiJ Study Area
_ j Control Area
GSImpSurfaees
Surface
~ Athletic Surfaces
j ^ Decks And Patios
[ | Drainage Improvements I | Structures
| | Foundations Wood Decks
Gravel Surfaces
~ New Construction ~ Commercial (Low)
j | Paved Roads |; J Developed
| | Paved Surfaces
j Playing Fields
I | Pools
I Sidewalks 1
I | Sidewalks2
shows all of the main
elements, field surveys were still needed to verily the drainage pattern for each impervious element
in the test watershed, and to identify many other site elements used in storm water quality
modeling.
Dr. O'Bannon and her graduate students atthe University of Missouri, Kansas City (UMKC)
conducted a detailed survey of the development characteristics in the study area. This information
was used in conjunction with the overall GIS information describing each land element to identify
the specifics needed for the continuous modeling. They surveyed a total of 576 homes in the 100-
acre area, of which 90.6 acres were residential (housing density of about 6.4 homes per acre).
8
of each parcel within the pilot watershed were inspected and evaluated for land use
characterization, including the following address; property type; date of construction; dwelling
type; building
co nditio n/mainte nance;
number of stories;
percent of roof draining
to pervious, impervious,
or underground; roof
type; potential sediment
sources; whether treated
wood is present (source
ofheavy metals),
landscaping coverage;
landscaping type;
landscaping
maintenance, percent of
connected sidewalk;
percent of connected
driveway; driveway type;
driveway condition;
driveway texture
(smooth or rough); and
BMP potential.
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
KCMQ01KCMO02
KCMO03 UMKCQr
2.1.1. Flow and Rainfall Monitoring
SSOs and CSOs are often a result of heavy rainfall events when the combined flow of wastewater
and stormwater can exceed the capacity of the sewer system. During such events, the excess flow is
discharged at a designed overflow point and released into local waterways to prevent flooding in
homes, businesses, and streets. Because of this, flow in the system as well as rainfall amounts are
important parameters to measure. Accuracy in these measurements assists in improving the
development of models and their ability to predict flows in the combined system as well as surface
flooding. Therefore, flow, and concurrent rainfall are the primary parameters for monitoring for this
study. In this regard, data should be collected for every qualified event that occurs during the
monitoring period. A qualified event is anticipated rainfall >0.15 inch per day, as determined by
forecasting and multiple spatially varied rainfall gages.
In general, large-scale
monitoring is much
more challenging
than small-scale
monitoring, as the
benefits of using such
devices in the
drainage area will
have less of a benefit
than the individual
monitoring described
above. With about 50
events occurring each
year that can produce
measureable flows in
the combined sewers,
data from all of the
events during the
monitoring program
might result in about
100 total events
during a 27-month
monitoring period.
With a larger
coefficient of
variation (GOV) Figure 2-2: Pilot (UMKC01) and control watersheds (UMKC02a, UMKC02b,and UMKC03).
expected (about 1.0),
9
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
Site investigations were conducted in the pilot project area and flow meters were located at four
monitoring sites for which the flow data was recorded. The areas draining to each of the
monitoring site locations are shown in Figure 2-2. The drainage area contributing to the
monitoring site UMKCO1 depicts the pilot watershed where GI implementation will take place and
the drainage areas contributing to the monitoring sites UMKC02a, UMKC02b, and UMKC03
indicate the control watersheds. Drainage areas for these catchments are summarized in Table 2-
1.
Table 2-1. Pilot and control drainage areas
Drainage
Monitoring Location
Area (Acres)
Pilot UMKC01 99.7
UMKC02a 41.4
Control UMKC02b 27.6
UMKC03 17.6
2.2. Flow Sampling and Rain Gauge Monitoring Equipment
For all flow monitoring an ISCO 2150 type flow sensor with a model 6700 controller was installed
in the pipe using an expansion ring or concrete screws to hold the meter in place. An ISCO model
674 tipping bucket rain gauge was deployed at the border between the pilot and control
watersheds during non-freezing temperatures to record rainfall quantities. Rainfall-runoff
hydrographs were developed at the metering points of the control and the pilot basins.
2.3. Large-Scale Flow Monitoring Locations and Descriptions
UMKC 01: The monitoring site is located at 1461 East 76th Terrace on a grass easement The
manhole is constructed with brick and shows evidence of surcharge. The average depth of flow
observed was 1.25 inches, with an average velocity of 3 feetper second (fps). An ISCO 2150 type
flow meter was installed in the 42-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) entering into the manhole.
Figure 2-3 shows the general location of the UMKC 01 monitoring station (left) and the location of
the manhole relative to the street (right).
10
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
E 76TH TER
General Location I Surface
Figure 2-3: Flow monitoring site UMKC01.
Because the control site was downstream of the pilot site and given the potential error and
difficulty of trying to subtract flows at one location from another (adding flow data is generally
more accurate), three locations were selected for the control watershed.
11
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
UMKC 02a: The monitoring site is located at 1451 East 77th Street in the middle of the road. The
manhole is constructed with brick and no evidence of surcharge was observed. The average depth
of flow observed was 0.50 inches, with an average velocity of 0.50 fps. AnISCO 2150 type flow
meter was installed in the 30-inch RCP sewer pipe entering into the manhole. Figure 2-4 indicates
the general location of the UMKC 02a monitoring station (left) and shows the location of the
manhole relative to the street (right).
E 76TH TER
S t 77THST
260 5QC Fort
General Location
Figure 2-4: Flow monitoring site UMKC02a.
Surface
UMKC 02b: The monitoring site is located at 1451 East 77th Street on a sidewalk. The manhole is
constructed with brick and no evidence of surcharge was observed. The average depth of flow
observed was 0.50 inches, with an average velocity of 1.25 fps. ISCO 2150 type flow meter was
installed in the 24-inch RCP sewer pipe entering into the manhole. Figure 2-5 indicates the general
location of the UMKC 02b monitoring station (left) and shows the location of the manhole relative
to the street (right).
E 76TH TER
< E 77THST
O
>.
UMKC2b
T
Surface
General Location
Figure 2-5: Flow monitoring site UMKC02b.
12
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
UMKC 03: The monitoring site is located at East 77th Street at Paseo Boulevard on a paved sidewalk.
The manhole is constructed with brick and 5.5 feet of surcharge was observed. The Average depth
of flow observed was 1,00 inches, with an average velocity of 1.50 fps. ISCO 2150 type flowmeter
was installed in the 30-inch RCP sewer pipe entering into the manhole. Figure 2-6 indicates the
general location of the UMKC 03 monitoring station (left) and shows the location of the manhole
relative to the street (right).
09/05/2008
QlLULL
E 77THST
ETTfHtER
E 78TH S r
250 500 F«
General Location
Surface
Figure 2-6; Flow monitoring site UMKC03.
2.4. Small-Scale Flow Monitoring Locations and Descriptions
Small-scale monitoring of individual GI practices will determine the performance of single systems.
Several pairs of monitoring stations will be established to determine the direct benefits. These will
be paired analyses with concurrent influent and effluent monitoring of flows and pollutants.
Stratified random sampling will be used to separate the data into groups corresponding to different
rain depths per season. Although initial modeling of the area will be used to identify rain categories
for the stratifications, prior experience suggests the following rain depth strata: < 0.5, 0.5 to 3, and
> 3 inches. In addition, seasonal variations (relating to soil moisture and other antecedent period
factors) will be examined for appropriate strata. The desired number of events in each strata will
depend upon the expected variability of the monitored factors and the data quality objectives. Most
stormwater constituent coefficient of variances range from a value of about 0.5 to 1. If performance
levels (treatment benefits) defined by percentage reductions of about 25 percent are desired to be
statistically identified, with confidence levels of 0.95 and power of 0.8, then approximately 75 pairs
of samples may be needed. With a multi-year project, about 30 or more events per year should be
targeted for evaluation. Flows are relatively inexpensive to monitor after the equipment is installed,
so data should be collected for almost every rain event Because water quality evaluations are
secondary for this project however, less demanding data quality objectives may be warranted. If 50
percent differences are a suitable goal, then only about 25 pairs of samples will be needed. When the
data is obtained, it will be separated into different seasonal and rain depth strata for comparison
testing are obtained. In the past, this approach has resulted in a more complete understanding of
device performance and better quality data than simply grouping all data together. Further details
13
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
of the individual GI types and locations are provided below.
2.5. BMP Monitoring and Locations
The MBR demonstration project offers several opportunities to incorporate specific practices
located within existing ROW. Individual practices will typically be situated between existing curbs
or edges of pavement and the sidewalk, or possibly under the sidewalk where there is insufficient
ROW for additional storage. The individual practices consist of the following five primary types:
rain gardens, bioretention cells (with pipe storage), curb extensions bioretention, cascading
bioswales, and porous sidewalk systems. Some of these primary types also have subtypes of
practices.
Simple designs typically
require less complex
monitoring strategies. As
such, the EPA project
team has focused on the
less intricate systems in
the design drawings.
With these systems, it is
possible to potentially
monitor influent, effluent,
and bypasses/overflows
at the one or two
locations where these
exist rather than the
many locations
associated with more
complex designs.
Calculated use of
monitoring equipment
for one or two systems
provides the opportunity
to gather greater data in
one location and will
likely result in significant
data and allow for better
overall comparison.
Based on the final plans,
two types of systems have
been selected for monitoring—curb-extension biofilters/bioretention and rain gardens. The
locations of each are described below,
2.5.1. Curb-extension Biofilters/Bioretention
Location: East 76th Street at Station 19 + 79.61 in design plans (Figure 2-7)
This location has about 10 homes upgradient along the street and it does not have any complex
underground pipe storage. Overflow continues east along East 76th Street This site has feasible inflow
and overflow monitoring.
14
STA 19+64.33-13,13 LT
CONST. TYPE 47CukB ClilT
INLET/FOREBAY,
SEE DET/VIL SHEET 1202
FL=942.00
CONSTRUCT 45.22 LF
POROUS CONC. SIDEWALK
942.67 EL
941.96 EL
: dAS IN* ELty.'=941, To
/77¦-/' '
a \
+96.59
941.86 TC
941.39 FL 941.36 FL
20+00
+62.64
942.57 TC
941.64 TC
942.07 FL
+62.64
+49.24
942.02 TC
942.42 TC
• JiJ.b'J
941.52 FL
941.25 TC
941.92 FL
941.47 TC
941.00 FL
940.97 FL
7//////////////A
7znz. -
vtzz&zzzzzzp^--
V///////////Z
BASIN^ELEV.^940.76
942.42 EL
941.47 EL
STA 19+54.74-14.00' RT
CONST. TYPE 1 CURB CUT
INLET/FOREBAY
SEE DETAIL SHEET 1202
FL=941.70
WM
-STA 19+59.96, RECONST.
CURB INLET TOP
SEE DETAIL SHEET 1207
CURB EXTENSION WITH RAINGARDEN
DETAIL 9 : STA 19+79.61 - SURFACE
SCALE: 1" = 10'
NOTE:
INLET FLUMES EXTEND
FARTHER THAN NORMAL
AT THIS LOCATION
Figure 2-7: Curb-extension bioretention detail on 76th Street.
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
2.5.2. Rain Gardens
Location: East 76th Street at Station 25 + 2.89 in design plans (Figure 2-8}.
This location has about 2 or 3 homes upgradient. This is a very simple rain garden with no complex
subsurface storage, making flow monitoring feasible for inflow and overflow.
ONC
sI§P-5v£6
931-55 EL
930.30 EL
¦CQNC. SIDEWALK
¦*929.33
^0HP
1~ om
MH
-43.3S
+09.38
930.13 TC
929.88 FL
CONST. TYF^S 1 CURB CUT
INLET/FOREBAY
SEE DETAILsHEET 1202
.67 FL
930.86 FL
25+00
- w —
— w
HIGH BACK CURB
CONC.
NOTE:
OVEREXCAVATE RAINGARDEN BED
1 FOOT AND REPLACE NATIVE SOIL
WITH 1 FOOT OF ENGINEERED SOIL
MIX AT THIS LOCATION.
jCVY* V
RAINGARDEN
DETAIL 14 : STA 25+22.89 - SURFACE
SCALE: 1" = 10'
CONC.
r\nn/r
NOTE:
INLET FLUMES EXTEND
FARTHER THAN NORMAL
AT THIS LOCATION
Figure 2-8: Rain garden plan detail.
2.6. Small-Scale Flow Monitoring Techniques
Flow monitoring is critical for this project and accurate inflow and overflow rates will need to be
continuously measured. Because of the closeness of the inlets to the biofilters and rain gardens,
there is insufficient distance to install many types of throated flow monitoring flumes. However, it
is likely that small H flumes, a pre-fabricated flume with calibrated depth used for accurately
measuring flow rate and volume, will be used.
The 0.50H flume requires an approach channel length of 2.5 feet. It is 0.95 feet wide and 0.675 feet
tall. The flow range for this flume is 0.0004 to 0.35 cubic feet per second (cfs). For most of the
drainage areas noted above (about 1 acre, or less), this size flume can be used to monitor flows
15
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
during heavy rains having peak intensities of at least 1 inch per hour, though they can also measure
flows during lighter rains down to 0.1 inch total, or less.
The IT flume will be installed level with the approach length. The total length of the approach and H
flume would be about 3 or 4 feet Notably, this required a modification of design to extend the length
of the flumes beyond that for which they were originally designed. If a narrower entry is required
for the II flume, an aluminum sheet will be bolted in place over the concrete flume to allow
runoff to be directed into the flume. Figure 2-9 shows a typical inlet and the lengthened flume with
estimated location for the H flume. A stilling well and level recorder will also be needed for the
influent H flume, and
one will also be needed
in a standpipe in the
biofilter to record the
water depth.
Overflow/bypass water
volumes would be
estimated from the rain
garden/bio filter
ponded water depth.
This level will indicate
when the flume is Figure 2-9: Inlet design modified with the H-Flume for inflow monitoring.
flooded and water is bypassing the entrance to the device. The effluent from the H flume can be
directed into the forebay box, which may require a slight construction change to locate it further
into the biofilters. The water sampler intake
should also be located where the cascading
water from the II flume can fall onto the inlet,
in the forebay.
Most of the outlets will be monitored by using
depth meters calibrated to the outlet (treated
as a broad crested weir) to determine the Flgure 2.10; Qutlet depth meter measuring outflow
depth (and therefore volume in the system) and based on stage,
time of overflow/effluent flow (Figure 2-10).
2.7. Analytical Parameters of Interest
The local WSD laboratory, along with UMKC, will provide most of the analyses, while particle size
distribution will be analyzed at the University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. The other parameters of
interest are discussed below.
2.7.1. E. coli
Escherichia coli (E coli) bacteria are the commonly-used bacterial indicator of sanitary quality of
foods and water. They are rod-shaped Gram-negative non-spore forming organisms that ferment
lactose with the production of acid and gas when incubated at 35 to 37 °C. E. coli bacteria are
abundant in the feces of warm-blooded animals, but can also be found in the aquatic environment,
in soil, and on vegetation. E. coli are easy to culture and their presence is used to indicate that other
TYPE C-1 CURB
WlNGWALL
—wu:
• I b
t k
i
r£4
BIOaFTFNTION
BEO ELEVATIO-
* PVC UNDERDRAW
16
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
pathogenic organisms of fecal origin might be present For this study, E. coli bacteria will be
monitored during the initial stages of the study to evaluate presence or absence.
2.7.2. Basic Chemistry
Total suspended solids is a common water quality measurement usually abbreviated TSS. It is listed
as a conventional pollutant in the Clean Water Act Chemical oxygen demand (COD) is a common
test used to indirectly measure the amount of organic compounds in water. Most applications of COD
determine the amount of organic pollutants found in surface water (e.g., lakes and rivers),
making COD a useful measure of water quality. Turbidity is the cloudiness or haziness of a fluid
caused by individual particles (suspended solids) that are generally invisible to the naked eye. The
measurement of turbidity is another key test of water quality. TSS, COD, and turbidity are are the
basic chemical constituents of interest in this project.
TSS analytical procedures will include filtration through a 0.45 |a,m filter paper and comparing pre-
weighed dry paper with filtered and oven dried filter paper using an analytical balance (A&D
Company Limited, U.K.; model HA-202M, range < 42 g, accurate to 0.01 mg). Turbidity will be
measured with a Hach turbidity meter (Hach Company, Loveland, Colorado; model 2100 AN, range
1-10,000 NTU) and in-situ using the optic port of a YSI water quality sonde (Yellow Springs
Instruments, Yellow Springs, Ohio; model 6920). The YSI sondes will be used to monitor water
column chemistry continuously within a BMP installation during the course of a storm event
Collectively, these instruments will measure the following water quality parameters:
• Dissolved oxygen (DO)
• Conductivity
• T emperature
• pH
• Turbidity
2.7.3. Particle Size Distribution
Suspended sediments are defined as solid particles transported in a fluid media or found in deposit
after transportation by flowing water, wind, glacier, and gravitational action. Suspended sediments
play a key role in shaping the characteristics of a body of water.
Particle size distribution (PSD) is an estimation of the relative amounts of particles present, sorted
according to size. The PSD of a material can be important in understanding its physical and
chemical properties. It affects the treatability of the storm water and affects the maintenance and
clogging of media. It can also affect the reactivity of solids participating in chemical reactions.
2.7.4. Nutrients and Metals
Nutrient pollution, such as the release of sewage effluent and runoff from lawn fertilizers or
agricultural lands into natural waters, can cause eutrophication (i.e., nutrient over-enrichment).
Eutrophication generally promotes excessive plant growth and decay, favors certain weedy species
over others, can produce excessive or harmful algal blooms, and is likely to cause severe reductions
in water quality.
Heavy metal pollution can arise from many sources but often is deposited through rainfall or
associated with automotive (e.g., brake pads) or industrial runoff. Through precipitation of their
compounds or by ion exchange into soils and clays, heavy metal pollutants can localize or remain
17
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
inactive. Unlike organic pollutants, heavy metals usually do not decay and thus pose a different kind
of challenge for control in stormwater. The following constituents of interest in this project are:
• Total phosphorous (TP)
• Phosphate (PO4)
• T otal Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
• Total ammonium (TNH4)
• Dissolved nitrate/nitrite (NO3/NO2)
• Total and dissolved copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), and lead (Pb)
2.7.5. Analytical Methods
The analytical techniques used for evaluating each parameter of interest are shown in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2: Analytical methods for targeted parameter analyses
Analytical Reference
Minimum Detection
Target Parameter
Method
Limit
E. coli
Standard Methods*
(SM) 9222B
100 colony forming
units/100 mL
TP
EPA+ 365.2
0.001 mg/L
P04
EPA 365.2
0.001 mg/L
TKN
SM 4500-Norg C
0.214 mg/L
tnh4
SM 4500-NH3 F
0.006 mg/L
Dissolved N03
EPA 300.0
0.002 mg/L
Dissolved N02
EPA 300.0
0.001 mg/L
TSS
SM 2540 D
0.1 mg/L
COD
SM 5220C
-
Filtered Cu, Zn, Pb
EPA 200.7
-
Total Cu, Zn, Pb
EPA 200.7
-
Major ions and cations
EPA 300.0
-
* Clesceri et. Al (1998) American Public Health Association Standard Methods
t EPA (1983)
18
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
3.Modeling of Pilot Project Areas
The evaluation of GI cost, technologies, and prioritization of locations is discussed in this chapter.
Relatively simple desktop studies as well as complex monitoring and modeling efforts have been
conducted to assess the potential for GI implementation and project location. Several modeling
activities were performed by both the KCMO WSD, under the parallel EPA study or as part of this
project These modeling efforts were performed at various points in time and with different
objectives specific to each study. The monitoring data available for use in these modeling efforts
also changed over time. Additional monitoring data provided new hydrologic information which
resulted in updated model representation of the system. This section provides (1) a brief
background description of those efforts, (2) a description of each model applied, and (3) a summary
of the conclusions of each evaluation.
The following modeling efforts were conducted:
• AnXP-SWMM sewershed model that was developed by KCMO WSD as part of the OCP (WSD
2009);
• Desktop analysis conducted by KCMO WSD to highlight BMP opportunity and cost estimates
within the study area;
• SUSTAIN modeling performed under parallel EPA study to evaluate the application of the
SUSTAIN model when evaluating GI versus gray infrastructure from a cost optimization
perspective; and
• WinSLAMM used for the opportunities and potential benefits of BMPs on private properties.
3.1. Storage Volume Analysis for 069 Sewershed
The KCMO WSD developed the OCP to provide guidance for managing CSOs (WSD 2009). In lieu of a
continuous simulation of rainfall record and runoff in the city, a set of eight rainfall design events
was constructed to characterize city rainfall for a typical year (WSD 2009). The development of the
design storms was based on previously conducted continuous simulation hydrologic models. Eight
separate events that resulted in a frequency of overflows were selected.
In a typical year, the city experiences an average of 78 rainfall events. A histogram showing the
typical distribution of storm events by rainfall depth intervals is presented in Figure 3-1.
As part of that effort, an XP-SWMM model was developed as an evaluation tool. The primary
modeling objective was to determine the amount of overflow from the existing sewer system and
size controls to reduce CSO discharges. As applied in the 069 sewershed, the model was used to
quantify the required storage capacity to achieve various levels of control of CSO discharges.
Because it was developed as an event-based model, it is not intended for long-term continuous
simulation.
19
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
oc
H—
o
aj
-O
£
40
35
30
20
15
<0.28 0.28-0.52 0.52-0.86 0.86-1.4 1.4-1.8 1.8-2 2-2.4
2.9
Rainfall Depth (inch)
Figure 3-1. Storm size distribution for a typical Kansas City, Missouri meteorological year.
3.1.1. Overview of XP-SWMM Model
XP-SWMM (XP Software, Inc., Portland, Oregon) is a dynamic model based on EPA-SWMM. It is
applicable in single events and continuous simulations accounting for all important components of
time-varying rainfall, runoff, and flow routing cycle in a watershed. Flows from both piped
collections systems and natural drainage channel networks can be modeled (routed) in XP-SWMM.
Both design or actual rainfall events can be used in XP-SWMM. A set of rainfall patterns including SCS
types, Huff distributions, Chicago storm, and several other user-defined distributions were included
in the software's library from which design storms for any duration and return period can
be created. Numerous methods are available for computing storm runoff for event and continuous
simulations, including non-linear runoff routing (EPA runoff method), Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) unithydrographs, Kinematic wave, Rational method, EPA R,T,K unit hydrograph (R
parameter is the fraction of rainfall volume entering the sewer system as infiltration and inflow, T is
the time to peak, and K is the ratio of time of recession) for rainfall dependent inflow and
infiltration (RDII), as well as several other unithydrographs.
The EPA-SWMM non-linear runoff method (SWMM runoff) is the primary runoff hydrograph
generation method used in XP-SWMM (Figure 3-2). Overland flow hydrographs are generated by a
routing procedure using Manning's equation and a lumped continuity equation. The catchment is
further described by surface roughness and depression storage for pervious and impervious area
parameters. Unit hydrograph methods such as SCS, Rational, etc., are used for single event
simulations. Unsaturated zone infiltration can be simulated in XP-SWMM with a number of methods
including SCS, Hortons equation, and the Green-Ampt equation.
20
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
Precipitation
Evaporation
xz
Q Q=
1.486
•W*(d-df2*S1'2
Ds
Infiltration
EPA Surface Runoff
Non-linear Reservoir
Figure 3-2: Runoff conceptualization in XP-SWMM.
In XP-SWMM, sanitary flows can be loaded using hourly and daily variation factors and peaking
factors to produce unique loads to each node using direct flow, unit flow rate, or census-based
methods.
3.1.2. XP-SWMM Modeling Approach and Results for 069 Sewershed
As partofWSD's efforts to evaluate existing CSO discharges and alternatives for controls, a
statistical analysis was performed to characterize the storm distribution for a typical
meteorological year within the study area.
The XP-SWMM model was developed for the entire combined sewer system. The land simulation
component of the model was initially developed for planning level sizing of the CSO control
alternatives. The model assumed that only runoff from directly connected impervious area (DCIA)
reached the CSO network. For that reason, the model was primarily calibrated by adjusting the ratio
of DCIA per subwatershed. The initial model representing the 100-acre pilot watershed was a
component of the overall city model.
The model was calibrated using 2008 metering and rainfall data. The response of the CSOs to the
series of design rainfall events was then determined using the XP-SWMM model. This rainfall
distribution was applied in the 069 sewershed area. As modeled, rainfall depths of greater than
1.28 inches resulted in CSOs at outfall 069. The results were aggregated to estimate the overall
volume of CSOs in a typical year. The calibrated model was used to estimate overflow volume to be
controlled at outfall 069 for Design Storm D of 1.4 inches (16-hour duration). This design storm
corresponds to a frequency of six overflow events per year.
The original outcome ofthe modeling concluded that500,000 to 700,000 gallons of storage was
required to mitigate the CSO in 069 sewershed. The model was updated by the city based on
updated outfall design information. This resulted in a reduction of calculated storage to
approximately 300,000 gallons or 56 percent of the runoff generated from Design Storm D.
21
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
3.2. Green Alternatives for 069 Sewershed
KCMO WSD conducted a desktop analysis and subsequently published a technical memorandum.
Green Infrastructure Alternatives for Outfalls 059 & 069 (WSD 2008), which quantifies the costs
associated with modifying the CSO controls presented in the May 6, 2008 draft OCP summary for
two outfalls in the MBR basin. Approximately 460 acres of outfall 069 drainage area within the MBR
basin was selected for the desktop study (Figure 3-4). That study included considerations for
incorporating both conventional gray infrastructure (i.e., underground storage tanks) and GI
technologies for mitigating CSOs. Modeling results indicated that areas tributary to these two
outfalls were likely to be improved through implementation of GI.
Kilometers
Legend
^ Outfall
- Stream
CSO069 Watershed
Boundaries
NAD_198 3_StatePlane_M issoif i_West_FI PS_240 3_Feet
Map produced 06-13-2011
Figure 3-3: Location of pilot and control areas within the 069 sewershed.
22
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
This analysis was conducted without the benefit of detailed modeling of the system, which to
properly represent the distributed green storage anticipated, would be a relatively expensive and
time-consuming effort Relating to this, an assumption was made in this study that the volume of
storage in green solutions would result in an equal reduction in the volume of storage in gray
components. The gray controls included storage tanks with screening facilities and outflow
pumping stations. The size of the storage tank was selected to capture existing CSO volume
resulting from the Design Storm D.
Table 3-1: Gray infrastructure CSO controls for outfall 069
Control Component
Total Estimated
Capital Cost
(million dollars)
Storage Provided
(MG)
Capital Ccost per
Gallon Stored
(dollars)
2-million gallon storage tank
1.5-MGD pumping station
51-MGD screening
100-foot, 48-inch sewer
500-foot, 12-inch force main
Odor control
2.0 $15.30
Considering the potential benefits and cost savings associated with GI, several green technologies
were considered in this desktop study. The green solutions considered and their estimated capital
cost per gallon stored is as follows:
• Catchbasin retrofits in road and street ROW
• Curb extension bioretention
• Cascading swales
• Replacing sidewalks in road and street rights-of-way with permeable pavement
• Replacing pavement outside of road and street rights-of-way with permeable pavement
• Converting roof areas to green roofs
For complete elimination of the storage tanks and related facilities, it was assumed that GI would
provide storage in the watershed along with potential infiltration. To demonstrate the selection of
GI over gray infrastructure, these two GI processes must offset the volume stored in the tanks, as
well as the volume pumped from the tanks during the most intense part of the design storm event
Other considerations must be taken into account when comparing the cost-benefit of GI versus gray
infrastructure. For example, the gray infrastructure solution presented in Table 3-1 requires 2.0 MG
of storage volume, which assumes that pumping from storage occurs during the most intense 6
hours of the design storm. A GI solution must provide storage volume greater than 2.0 MG because
of the additional pumping capacity otherwise represented in the gray storage tank. Accounting for
the additional pumping capacity, the required storage volume of GI must equal that of gray
infrastructure storage plus 6 hours' pumping volume (an additional 0.375 MG), which results in a
total GI storage capacity of 2.375 MG (WSD 2008). According to the original desktop analysis results,
the estimated capital cost to develop 2.375 MG of GI storage in the area tributary to outfall
069 is approximately $24.6 million—a $6 million dollar (« 20 percent) savings (WSD 2008). It is
important to note that the cost information published in this study represents capital costs only and
no O&M costs were included.
23
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
In January 2009, the KCMO WSD released the full text of its OCP. The plan cites some uncertainty
associated with the performance of GI in mitigating overflow volumes at the outfalls. As a result, the
GI capital budget proposed by the desktop analysis was increased by approximately 30 percent,
bringing the original estimate of $24.6 million up to $32 million (WSD 2009). Following the
adjustment, the updated plan suggests that gray infrastructure might be a more cost-effective
solution when considering capital cost alone. Nevertheless, while the full cost of gray infrastructure
represents a major public expense, GI offers the possibility for cost sharing through public-private
partnerships. In addition, GI provides other benefits (e.g., reduced heat island effect, carbon
sequestration, interception, aesthetic beauty) not offered by gray infrastructure. The OCP also
proposed an annual budget of $2 million for O&M costs associated with GI upstream of outfalls 059
& 069.
Another result of the desktop study was the selection of the 100-acre pilot study catchment The
desktop study recommended further investigation of GI placement opportunity and associated
costs, as well as a quantification of GI benefits. Further, the pilot study site was targeted to receive
the first phase of implementation activity for which significant pre- and post-implementation
monitoring would be performed.
3.3. SUSTAIN Case Study
Selection and placement of management practices form an integral part of the GI. SUSTAIN is a tool
that was used in a companion/parallel study by EPA. The case study of the MBR project area was
intended to provide an opportunity to further explore the decision-making process for selection and
placement of GI practices by building on past or ongoing complementary efforts, including (1) cost
data for local GI practices, (2) pre- and post-implementation monitoring data, and (3) GI
performance modeling efforts in the watershed.
SUSTAIN was developed as a part of an EPA-initiated research project in 2003 to develop a fully
integrated decision-support framework for the selection and placement of stormwater BMPs at
strategic locations in urban or developing watersheds. Specifically, SUSTAIN was developed by
combining publicly available modeling techniques, costs of management practices, and optimization
tools in a geographically based framework to achieve design objectives, in turn
facilitating the objective analyses of multiple water quality management alternatives while enabling
consideration of interacting and competing factors such as location, scale, and cost
The available data from this study was used to support the parallel SUSTAIN analysis. Products of
this work that supported the SUSTAIN analysis included baseline watershed characterization, GI
design specifications and siting analysis, pre-implementation monitoring data, and the site-specific
GI performance modeling of private and public land areas using WinSLAMM.
SUSTAIN can be used for different watershed applications, including
• Developing total maximum daily load (TMDL) implementation plans
• Identifying management practices to achieve pollutant reductions in an area under an MS4
(municipal separate storm sewer systems) stormwater permit
• Determining optimal GI strategies for reducing volume and peak flows to CSO systems
• Evaluating the benefits of distributed GI implementation on water quality (as they may
impact urban streams)
24
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
SUSTAIN is built on a base platform interface using ArcGIS, providing the user an access to the
following framework components: a BMP siting tool, a watershed runoff and routing module, a BMP
simulation module, a BMP cost database, a post-processor, and an optimization module (Figure
3-5).
Feasible Option Matrix
Potential
BMP types
BMP configuration
Location
1 (0-1)
A. B. C
Depth
Surface area
2 (0-1)
A. B. C
Depth
Decision
Optimization
Engine
Modules
Land
Framework
Manager
Land
(buffer strip)
Network
construction
Land
(Micro scale)
W atershe
Land
(Watershed)
Conduit
Land
N etwork/Re ac h
Routing
a
¦a
a
w
Output
Post-Processor
Figure 3-4: Conceptual diagram of SUSTAIN.
Each module in SUSTAIN serves its own specific function. Usually the applications begin with the
use of BMP siting tool that determines the site suitability for various BMP options based on the user
guided rules. The land segment module generates runoff time series data while the conveyance
module provides routing capabilities between land segments or BMPs or both. Simulation of
management practices by using a combination of processes for storage retention, open-channel
controls, filtration, biological purification, and mechanical structure facilitated separation are
provided by the process-based BMP module. The cost database is organized according to BMP
construction components and populated with unit costs for each component Results from other
modules in the framework are used by the optimization module to evaluate and select a combination
of BMP options that achieve a pollutant-reduction goal at minimum cost Finally the
optimization results are presented by the post-processor as part of a cost-effectiveness curve
(Figure 3-6).
25
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
¦g 45%
I
30%
25%
$0.0 SO 5 $1.0 $15 $2.0 $2 5 $3.0 $3 5
Cost ($ Million)
Figure 3-5: Sample of a cost-effectiveness curve from SUSTAIN post-processing.
3.4._ Application of SUSTAIN Framework
For this study, GI was modeled in (ROW) areas to illustrate the cost-benefit relationships associated
with introducing GI in conjunction with gray infrastructure. SUSTAIN was then applied to the rest
of the outfall 069 area using the existing designs for the 100-acre pilot area to determine benefits of
GI application for the entire watershed. As a part of the SUSTAIN application, criteria for
management practice placement based on cost-effectiveness were identified. The impacts of
implementing practices that enhance volume reduction at the private parcel scale (i.e., residential
and commercial areas), in conjunction with public ROW GIs, were also studied. GI designs included
in the SUSTAIN analyses were porous pavement and bioretention and rain garden systems. Rain
barrels were modeled as appropriate private parcel GI practices. Table 3-2 summarizes the
available information sources and describes how each source was used as part of the SUSTAIN
application.
Table 3-2: Information sources and uses in the SUSTAIN application
Source Key Information Potential Use in SUSTAIN Application
Desktop analysis
GI design plan
Pre-construction
monitoring data
Green options and related cost
estimate; gray control option (i.e.,
storage tank) and its cost estimate
Detailed BMP design and locations
for the 100-acre pilot watershed
together with estimated GI costs
15-minute rainfall data at two
locations on the northwest and
southeast borders of the pilot
area; in~pipe flow data at seven
locations
The estimated cost data will be used to
quantify economic benefits and
impacts of selected controls
The GI specifications and estimated
cost were represented in SUSTAIN
Used for model calibration and
validation
SUSTAIN provides the user an option to link to an existing sewershed model using unit-area time
series for each land unit, or hydrologic response unit (HRU), for boundary conditions. HRUs were
developed in SUSTAIN based on a unique set of physical features, (1) impervious elements, (2)
hydrologic soil type, and (3) slope. These elements affect the hydrology and help in characterizing
26
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
the rainfall runoff response. Because HRUs are a unique combination of a selected set of physical
features, they can be used consistently in analyzing areas outside the pilot study.
The external land use time series option in SUSTAIN was used to represent the watershed land-
based runoff boundary condition. In addition, the aggregate GI methodology was used to derive
land-use-associated sizing criteria for GI components within the network. The aggregate GI
approach provided a means for extrapolating or projecting expected GI performance to areas
outside the modeled study area. Because GI components with a SUSTAIN aggregate BMP network
are sized according to contributing land use distribution, it provides a means for projecting
expected responses to nearby areas with similar land use characteristics. The aggregate BMP
methodology was also used to project or extrapolate the model results from this task to others in
the 475-acre drainage area, and to outfall 069 to estimate Gl-related costs and water quality
benefits at a larger scale.
The city's criterion for GI practices is to locate them in the ROW. Thus, in the SUSTAIN application, it
was assumed that all GI units would be located within the existing ROW of the public streets. As
described above, GI units are typically located between the curb or edge of pavement and the
sidewalk or under the sidewalk on streets where insufficient ROW behind the curb exists. GI
opportunities were also identified in currently paved surfaces as bioretention and rain garden curb
extensions.
Several factors or site conditions that limited the type, number, and cost of locating green solutions
within the existing street ROW were considered, including the following:
• Slope - important factor that affects the length and storage capacity of a GI system or unit
• Surface and underground utilities - can restrict the type, size, and depth of GIs that can be
used
• Soils and geology - primary limitations are depth to bedrock and permeability of native or
disturbed soils
• Other obstructions - include paved driveways, parking and walkways, sign posts, and large
trees
• Property owner acceptance - anticipate improvements will be viewed as community
amenities
After the HRUs were developed, a calibration process was performed to identify a unique set of
parameters for each HRU that remain constant for all instances of that HRU within the study area,
such that the spatial variation of the watershed response becomes only a function of the HRU
distribution within each subarea. To characterize the model performance for a wider range of
storm conditions, 10 storms ofvarious sizes from the years 2008, 2009, and 2010 were selected.
Some of the calibrated storms had rainfall volumes that were higher than the critical condition
design storm, while others had comparable peak intensities. Calibration parameters were adjusted
during the process until an acceptable match of benchmark calibration metrics was achieved. Some
of the key parameters were those associated with depression storage and overland flow,
infiltration, and DCIA.
3.5. BMP Optimization Considerations for CSO Control
Several exploratory management alternatives were considered during this pilot study in order to
depict the degree of management that would be required to achieve CSO control throughout the
27
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
entire 069 sewershed. These included (1) extending the proposed GI design plan (GI on public
ROW) to the remainder of the 069 sewershed, (2) expanding the scope of GI to include
implementation of certain practices on private land, and (3) exploring gray infrastructure options
for supplemental CSO storage at the regulator outlet The objectives for optimization are to both
maximize runoff volume control, and minimize the total capital cost of implementation, as needed,
to satisfy the set criteria of capturing 5 6 percent of Design Storm D.
Because model testing showed that the aggregate GI configuration was valid and representative for
subwatersheds around 100 acres in size, the remainder of the area within CSO 069 was delineated
into subwatersheds of similar size. Next, the aggregate BMP rules were applied and the simulation
was completed for the remaining area of 069 watershed to evaluate the options of meeting the set
CSO control criteria of capturing 56 percent of Design Storm D.
3.5.1. GI Cost Representation
Contractor bid data provided by KCMO WSD for the Middle Blue River Green solutions pilot project
was used to analyze GI costs. Both general site preparation and specific site GI costs associated with
construction were collected from contractor bid data.
The general cost components included
• Preconstruction costs (mobilization, traffic control, erosion and sediment control,
surveying and construction staking)
• Tree removal and utilities relocations
• Street and sidewalk improvements
• Landscape restoration
• Mulch, plants, and other miscellaneous landscape materials
The specific Gl-associated costs included the following items:
• Below-grade storage system structures and general backfill
• GI construction for various surface GI types (rain gardens, shallow bioretention, pervious
pavement, cascades, bioretention, and grass swale)
The costs were proportionally distributed among the GI units according to total number of GI units
in design plan, and the Gl-specific cost items were averaged by GI type to derive a unit cost of each
GI type (Table 3-3).
Table 3-3: GI capital costs for the 069 sewershed
GItypes
Site Preparation
GI Costs
Gl-specific Costs
Total Cost per Unit
Porous Pavement on Cube
Rain Garden
Storage
Bioswale
Cascade
Porous Sidewalk
Bioretention
Shallow
Other
$19,616
$19,616
$19,616
$19,616
$16,163
$16,163
$19,616
$19,616
$1,249
$59,048
$1,938
$3,247
$2,923
$3,383
$13.1 /ft2
$10.7/ft3
Varies by surface area
Varies by volume
$21,554
$22,863
$22,539
$22,999
$20,865
$75,210
28
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
GI costs for private parcels were derived from local applications and literature sources (Table 3-4).
Schueler et al. (2007) published a manual through the Center for Watershed Protection. The
manualprovided construction cost estimates for rain garden and rain barrels retrofits, and design
and engineering cost estimates of 5 to 40 percent of the construction cost However, local values
were used wherever possible.
Table 3-4: Cost estimation for private parcel retrofit GI
GI Cost ($ per Gallon of Treated Runoff)
BMP Type
Construction Cost Design and Engineering
Literature Range Median (40% of Construction Costs)
Total Cost
Rain garden
Rain barrel
$0.40-$0.67
$1.67-$5.35
$0.53
$3.34
$0.21
Not applicable
$0.75
$2.81
3.5.2. Gray Infrastructure Costs
As per the OCP, the total capital cost for the 2-MG storage facility for sewershed 069 was estimated
at $30.6 million. The estimated capital costs included an allowance of 25 percent of the total
estimated construction cost for planning engineering, and design, as well as an additional
contingency cost of 25 percent This cost estimate was based on 2006 data and has been updated
for this case study using a multiplier of 1.163 (20 city Engineering News Record index value of
March 2011/2006 Annual Average) to reflect a 2011 cost of $35.6 million. An initial fixed cost of
$11.63 million (aboutone-third ofthe literature-based costvalue, or $10 million x 1.163) was
approximated to be a reasonable amount on the basis of inference from local contractor bids for
certain components. The remainder of the gray infrastructure costs was approximated by back-
calculating the rate as a linear function of storage capacity. Calculations demonstrating this are
provided below:
Storage cost = ($35,600,000 - $11,630,000) 4- 2 MG = $12/gallon = $89.76/ft3
Total capital cost ($) = $11,630,000 + $89.76 x (storage volume in ft3)
3.5.3. Exploratory Management Scenarios
Three exploratory management scenarios were developed to evaluate the cost-benefits associated
with gray and GI controls. Cost-effectiveness curves were plotted for each scenario towards
achieving the set management goals of minimizing costs and capturing 100 percent of Design Storm
D, but had an assumed GI design capture of about 50 percent of Design Storm D objective.
Table 3-5: Summary and description of baseline and exploratory optimization scenarios
Optimization Scenario Description
Baseline Public green (pilot Full adoption of the GI design plan within the 100-acre pilot study area
area)
Exploratory Gray only Baseline + supplemental gray storage at the 069 regulator outlet
Public green + Baseline + public green expanded to other 069 areas + gray supplemental
gray storage
Public + private Baseline + public Green expanded to other 069 areas + private green
Green + gray opportunity + gray supplemental storage
29
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
The optimization scenarios were run using average antecedent moisture conditions for the Design-
Storm D time series and a comparison of overflow compliance costs associated with the three
exploratory management scenarios.
Among the exploratory optimization scenarios, proposed GI options for both public and private land
were maximized, with the exception of the gray only scenario, in which GI was not considered.
For the scenarios containing GI, the difference in cost is attributable to the size of the gray
supplemental storage associated with meeting the optimized target
3.6. SUSTAIN Optimization Summary and Conclusions
The optimization conclusions for GI opportunity for CSO mitigation in 069 sewershed can be
summarized in terms of implications for planning and management decisions. Post processing
results are shown in Figure 3-7.
100%
Optimization Target
City Desig
riated GI Design Target
• Public Green (Pilot Area)
Public Green (Other 069 Areas)
O Public Green (069 Max)
— Public + Private Green
• Public + Private Green (Max)
— Gray only
— Public Green + Gray
— Public + Private Green + Gray
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
BMP Capital Cost ( Million $)
45
50
55
60
Figure 3-6: Cost-effectiveness junctions and trajectories for exploratory optimization scenarios.
Optimization for the outfall 069 sewershed used the design plan from the 100-acre pilot study site
and applied proportionally the design controls to the remainder of the watershed (335 acres). The
Design Storm D was used for optimization, because controlling this event was expected to attain the
CSO mitigation objective as defined by the city. The modeling performed in this pilot study only
considered GI implementation in public ROW as per the design plans. The cost-benefit analysis did
not include O&M costs and is limited to the capital cost of construction, contingencies, and design
fees. Considering the city-designated GI design target (which is approximately 56 percent volume
reduction of the Design Storm D), implementation of GI on public areas and private parcels can be
cost-effective in achieving the volume objective. Therefore, the target set by the city as the goal for
30
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
volume reduction is met by this scenario. However, if 100 percent capture of Design Storm D is
required, the current design of GI will be insufficient to capture all flows and will require additional
gray storage to achieve that goal. In this case, the generalized city stated CSO mitigation objectives
(100 percent capture of Design Storm D) could not be achieved by only implementing GI on public
ROW, as defined by the design plan. In fact, more capture is needed.
Adding GI on private parcels provided an additional 6 to 8 percent volume reduction. When
considering the costs portion of the optimization analyses the retrofit GI alternatives proposed for
the study are likely to be more expensive than new GI construction costs because of significant
overhead costs associated with site preparation, reconstruction of curbs and sidewalk system, and
the traffic control measures needed during construction. Similarly, as this is a pilot project, the
present cost considerations, which used the actual bid price, likely contain undue costs based on
the uncertainty and risk with constructing the GI in this area. Therefore, these bid cost are likely to
be higher than if this were a regular practice within Kansas City. Table 3-6 shows the component
sizes and costs from the exploratory optimization scenarios that were based on bid costs.
Table 3-6: Management component size and costs for exploratory optimization scenario
Scenario
Management Component
Total Storage
Capacity
(Gallons)
Total Cost
(S)
Unit storage
volume cost
($/Gallon)
Public
Other
520,023
$4,310,671
$8.29
Bioretention
green
Shallow
82,109
$519,610
$6.33
Bioswale
44,313
$102,447
$2.31
Cascade
64,188
$522,682
$8.14
Porous sidewalk
59,301
$381,698
$6.44
Porous pavement on cube
11,404
$180,020
$15.79
Rain garden
474,081
$6,069,606
$12.80
Pipe storage
915,905
$7,178,998
$7.84
Private
Rain barrels
14,662
$41,480
$2.83
green
Rain gardens
950,443
$706,000
$0.74
Gray
Gray only
2,778,994
$38,607,040
$13.89
Public green + gray
1,819,754
$28,731,790
$15.79
Public + private green + gray
1,718,747
$27,692,290
$16.11
Furthermore, additional GI benefits such as esthetic improvement, community educational
opportunity, increased property value, volume reduction of treatment plant inflow, carbon
sequestration, and possible reduction in heat island effects, can be considered as potential factors
to consider for implementing GI. GI implementation and maintenance could possibly provide a
means for creating employment opportunities for a municipality (e.g., green jobs), which can
ultimately contribute to sustaining a local economy.
31
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
3.7. WinSLAMM Modeling for Private Residential Gl
As a parallel effort, WinSLAMM was used to evaluate the water quality and quantity improvement
benefits of a large-scale application of GI control practice retrofits in the pilot watershed.
WinSLAMM effort focused on BMP practices for private property as supplementary management to
the practices designed in the public ROW. The WinSLAMM model was applied using a long-term,
continuous simulation approach, which generated time series of flow for various types of upland
controls on private parcels. The goal of the WinSLAMM study was to quantify individual private
parcel GI performance.
3.7.1. WinSLAMM Background Information
WinSLAMM was developed to evaluate storm water runoff volume and pollutant loadings in urban
areas using continuous small storm hydrology, in contrast to single event hydrology methods that
have been traditionally used for much larger drainage design events. WinSLAMM determines the
runoff based on local rain records and calculates runoff volumes and pollutant loadings from each
individual source area within each land use category for each rain event Examples of source areas
include roofs, streets, small landscaped areas, large landscaped areas, sidewalks, and parking lots.
3.8. Stormwater Controls and Calculations in WinSLAMM
WinSLAMM was used to examine a series of stormwater control practices applied to private
property including rain barrels, water tanks (cisterns), and absorbent lawns and landscaping. While
WinSLAMM has the capability of evaluating other controls such as infiltration or biofiltration
practices, street cleaning, wet detention ponds, grass swales, porous pavement, catch basins, and
selected combinations of these practices, for the current application, it was limited to applications
on private property. The model evaluates the practices through calculations of the unit processes
based on the actual design and size of the controls specified and determines how effectively these
practices remove runoff volume and pollutants. The following summarizes the WinSLAMM modeling
results that are further described in the WinSLAMM project report
WinSLAMM does not use a percent imperviousness or a curve number to generate runoff volume or
pollutant loadings. Rather, the model applies runoff coefficients to each "source area" within a land
use category. Each source area has a different equation based on factors such as slope, type and
condition of surface, and soil properties to calculate the runoff expected for each rain event Custom
equation coefficients are developed using monitoring data from typical examples and specific local
conditions.
Each source area is also assigned a unique pollutant concentration (event mean concentrations or
EMCs) and a probability distribution. The EMCs for a specific source area vary depending on the
rain depth. The source area's EMCs were developed from decades of extensive monitoring
conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,, the
University of Alabama, and other groups. These monitoring efforts isolated source areas (roofs,
lawns, streets, etc.) for different land uses and examined long-term data on the runoff quality. The
pollutant concentrations are also continuously updated as new research data become available.
For each rainfall event in a data set, WinSLAMM calculates the runoff volume and pollutant load
(EMC x runoff volume) for each source area. The model then sums the loads from the source areas
32
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
to generate a land use or drainage basin subtotal load. The model continues this process for the
entire rain series described in the rainfall file. It is important to note that WinSLAMM does not
apply a "unit load" to a land use. Each rainfall produces a unique load from a modeled area based on
the specific source areas in that modeled area.
The model's output is customizable, and typically includes the following:
¦ Runoff volume, pollutant loadings, and EMCs for a period of record and/or for each event
¦ Pre- and post-data for each stormwater management practice
¦ Removal by particle size from stormwater management practices applying particle settling
¦ Other results that can be selected related to flow-duration relationships for the study area,
impervious cover model expected biological receiving water conditions, and life-cycle costs
of the controls.
3.9. Model Calibration and Verification
WinSLAMM was originally calibrated using site specific data obtained from site measurements
(Section 2.1 and Section 6.4) and the use of the local rainfall data. Test watershed site soil
infiltration data (Section 6.5) was also used to quantify the soil responses for the modeling. In
addition, regional stormwater quality data, as contained in the National Stormwater Quality
Database, and more recent data from Lincoln, Nebraska were used to develop calibrated regional
parameter modeling files for use in Kansas City. Verification of the model is ongoing as additional
site monitoring data becomes available. Currently, the test and control watershed flow monitoring
and rainfall data for the last 2 years was used to verify the model calculations under current
conditions for the complete drainage areas.
In addition, rain garden monitoring data has been collected in the test watershed and those
observations have been used to verify the model predictions on rain garden performance. Additional
verification will occur as individual practice data becomes available during the coming project
phase, while the test and control watershed flow (and rain) data will be used to verify the
performance of the large-scale implementation of the GI controls throughout the area. Future use of
the calibrated and verified model will be used to examine stormwater conditions for other land
uses in the Kansas City area, and to calculate the benefits of alternative stormwater control
programs for those areas.
3.10. Land Development and Urban Soil Characteristics
The pilot and control areas are comprised of mostly medium density residential land use,
constructed prior to 1960, with a small amount of strip commercial area along Troost Avenue.
Detailed inventories were made of each of the approximately 600 homes in the area by graduate
students from UMKC. The breakdown of the different land surface components in the test
watershed for the residential areas is shown in the results section within Chapter 6.
In addition to the site surveys, site-specific soils information was also collected for the area (Section
5-6). Disturbed urban soils have infiltration rates that are usually substantially less than rates
based on general county soil maps. For the Kansas City project, small-scale infiltrometers were used
to measure infiltration rates in the disturbed urban soils of the test watershed area. Infiltration
33
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
rates were monitored atseveral locations near the streets throughout the project area. Figure 3-8
shows the average infiltration responses from 3 sets of measurements at 6 locations, representing
18 individual infiltration tests for different storm durations. Initial infiltration rates were several
inches per hour, but were reduced to about 1 inch per hour after about 1 hour, as also shown on
Figure 3-8. Although initial modeling efforts assumed sustained infiltration rates of about 0.3 inches
per hour, more recent measurements and deeper soil profiles indicated that this may even be too
large for the site. Therefore, for the shallow rain gardens considered in this analysis, infiltration
rates of 0.2 inches per hour were used as a conservative approach.
•>
at
0>
>
o
V
¦4-»
Average infiltration rates (in/hr) for different
event durations (minutes)
100
m .2
2 &
a
GO
re
0)
>
<
0.1
10 100
Duration of rain event (minutes)
Figure 3-7: Soil infiltration characteristics for Kansas City test area.
3.11. Sources of Flow and Pollutants
The study watershed stormwater sources change for different rain depths. For the smallest rains (<
1.25 inches of rain), most of the runoff originates from the directly connected impervious areas,
such as directly connected roofs, paved parking driveways, sidewalks, and streets. After about 0.25
inches of rain for the higher intensity short duration events, the small landscaped areas contribute
about half of the runoff—a relatively large fraction due to lower infiltration capabilities. Generally,
streets contribute about half of the remaining flows, followed by driveways and roofs.
3.12. Evaluation of On-site Controls
Modeling was used to examine the benefits of using rain gardens, rain barrels/tanks, and roof
disconnections in the Kansas City test area for the reduction of volume contributions that would
contribute to CSOs. Performance plots were prepared comparing the size of the rain gardens to the
size of the roof versus percent flow reductions (Figure 3-9). Rain gardens with a size of about 20
percent of the roof area are expected to result in about a 90 percent reduction in total annual flow
compared to directly connected roofs. This area is about 200 ft2 per house that could be comprised
of several smaller rain gardens so they can be located at each downspout. Fifty percent reductions
in the total annual flows could be obtained if the total rain garden area per house was about seven
34
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
percent of the roof area. The 200 ft2 rain garden area per house is also expected to completely
control the runoff from the regulatory Design Storm D of 1.4 inches.
Percentage Reduction in Annual Roof
Runoff with Rain Gardens
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
/
/
/
0.1
1 10
Percent of roof area as rain garden
100
Figure 3-8: Production function for roof runoff rain gardens.
The water harvesting potential for the retrofitted rain gardens and water tanks was calculated
based on supplemental irrigation requirements for the basic landscaped areas. The irrigation
requirements were determined to be the amount of water needed to satisfy the evapotranspiration
rates of typical turf grasses, after normal rainfall, and is shown in Figure 3-10.
Supplemental Irrigation Needs per
Month (typical turfgass)
2.00
01
01
1.50
~ 1.00
-a
at
01
0.50
0.00
il
n
¦
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure 3-9: Monthly irrigation requirements to match evapotranspiration.
Rain barrel effectiveness is related to the water balance between the need for supplemental
irrigation and rainfall amount for each season. The modeling simulations used a typical 1-year
rainfall series and average monthly evapotransipration values for varying amounts of roof runoff
storage. As shown on Figure 3-11, a single 35-gallon rain barrel (typical size) is expected to reduce
the total annual runoff by about 24 percent compared to directly connected systems if the water
balance is closely regulated to match the irrigation requirements. If four 35-gallon rain barrels were
35
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
used (such as one on each corner of a house assuming four separate roof downspouts exist), the
total annual volume reductions from the roof area could be as high as about 40 percent Larger
storage quantities result in increased beneficial usage, but likely require larger water tanks.
Percentage Reduction in Roof Runoff with
Irrigation of Landscaped Areas
_ 100
%
c 90
o 80
0
T5 70
3
1 60
IW
~ 50
o
'5 40
3
"O
2 30
0)
tO)
ra zU
*-»
§ 10
0)
o
0.001
Figure 3-10: Production function of water cistern/tanks storage for irrigation to meet evapotranspiration.
Figure 3-12 illustrates expected benefits of pavement or roof disconnection practices for different
individual rains, up to 4 inches in depth. The volumetric runoff coefficient (Rv; the ratio of runoff
volume to rainfall volume falling on an area) is seen to increase with increasing rain amounts. For
directly connected pitched roofs, the Rv is about 0.7 for 0.1 inch rains, and is quite close to 1.0 for
rains larger than about 2 inches in depth. When disconnected to clayey soils, runoff is not expected
until the rain depth is greater than 0.1 inches, and the Rv starts to climb steeply with rains larger
than several inches in depth. Rv is expected to be very large for very large and unusual rain events
that can cause severe flooding regardless of whether they are disconnected or not. However, the
benefits of pavement or roof disconnection practices for small and intermediate rains are large.
36
0.01 0.1 1
Rain barrel/tank storage (ft3 per ft2 of roof area)
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
100
90
¦a 80
01
S 70
c
8 60
¦5
It 50
| 40
U
| 30
^ 20
10
0
AAA
~ ~
4
~ % reduction if disconnected to
clay soils
¦ % reduction if disconnected to
silt soils
A % reduction if disconnected to
sandy soils
Rain depth (inches)
Figure 3-11: Effectiveness of roof disconnections for different soil characteristics.
3.13. Preliminary Evaluation of other Land Use Controls
A recent comprehensive evaluation of storm water controls was conducted by Pitt (2011) for many
land use categories in Lincoln, Nebraska as part of their stormwater management plan. The
following example is taken from the Lincoln report and is very likely based on comparative data
that can closely represent conditions similar to the pilot and control watersheds in Kansas City,
Missouri.
A total of 2 8 alternative control options were examined by Pitt (2011) for this medium density
residential area and are compared to the base conditions (Figure 3-13). Notably, that analysis used
data from the batch processor in WinSLAMM that enables many attributes of each control
alternative to be examined, including life-cycle costs, land requirements, maintenance
requirements, expected biological conditions in the receiving waters, and runoff and pollutant
characteristics. The performance characteristics and the total annual costs were included
onscatterplots to enable the most cost-effective alternative to be identified for different levels of
performance. Based on that evaluation, the most cost-effective stormwater control programs (i.e.,
the alternatives with the least cost at the highest potential control benefits) are the following:
• Curb-cut bio filters along 20 percent of curb line (37 percent runoff annual volume
reductions)
• Curb-cut bio filters along 40 percent of curb line (5 4 percent runoff annual volume
reductions)
• Small wet pond and curb-cut biofilters along 40 percent of curb line (5 4 percent annual
runoff volume reductions; same volume reduction as above alternative, but higher cost due
to small pond for increased particulate pollutant control)
• Small wet pond, rain gardens (15 percent of roof area), and curb-cut biofilters along 40
percent of curb line (66 percent annual runoff volume reductions; increased volume
37
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
reduction due to rain gardens added to curb-cut biofilters, small pond added for increased
particulate pollutant control)
• Curb-cut biofilters along 80 percent of curb line (75 percent annual runoff volume
reductions; though it would be clearly challenging to install this high level of curb-cut
biofilters in an area that is already developed)
Residential 1960 to 1980 Med. Density, Clay Loam; Runoff
Vol. Reduc. vs. Total Annualized Cost
350000
~ 300000
>
u 250000
ro
o
o
5"; 200000
o
u
3
C
C
<
150000
100000
50000
| t
~ ~*
>~
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Percent Runoff Volume Reductions
Figure 3-12: Cost-effectiveness of alternative stormwater management programs.
In addition to the above medium density residential land use analyses by Pitt (2011), similar
analyses were conducted for other Lincoln area land uses that are similar to land uses found in the
Kansas City area. The following is a brief discussion of the findings for these areas.
For runoff volume controls, each land use group had similar "most cost-effective" controls, as
shown on the following list for the controls having at least 2 5 percent levels of runoff volume
reduction potential in areas having clay loam soils in the infiltration areas. Although other control
options have similar potential levels of control, the others were likely more costly. These are listed
in order with the first control having the lowest level of maximum control (the approximate
percentage of runoff reduction is shown) and with the best unit cost-effectiveness, while the last
control listed having the highest level of maximum control, but the worst expected unit cost-
effectiveness. Therefore, if low to moderate levels of control are suitable, the first control option
might be best, but if maximum control levels are needed, then the last control option listed would
be needed.
• Strip mall and shopping center areas:
o Porous pavement (in half of the parking areas), 25 percent annual volume
reductions
38
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
o Curb-cut biofilters (along 80 percent of the curbs) for strip malls or bio filters in
parking areas (10 percentofthe source area) for shopping centers, 29 percent
annual volume reductions
o Biofilters in parking areas (10 percentofthe source area) and curb-cut biofilters
(along 40 percent of the curbs), 42 percent annual volume reductions
• Light industrial areas:
o Curb-cut biofilters (along 40 percentofthe curbs), 26 percent annual volume
reductions
o Roofs and parking areas half disconnected, 32 percent annual volume reductions
o Roofs and parking areas all disconnected, 61 percent annual volume reductions
• School, church, and hospital institutional areas:
o Small rain tank (0.10 ft3 storage per ft2 of roof area) for schools and churches; rain
tank (0.25 ft3 storage per ft2 of roof area) for hospitals, 26 percent annual volume
reductions
o Roofs and parking areas half disconnected, 31 percent annual volume reductions
o Roofs and parking areas all disconnected, 67 percent annual volume reductions
• Low and medium density residential areas:
o Curb-cut biofilters (along 20 percentofthe curbs), 36 percent annual volume
reductions
o Curb-cut biofilters (along 40 percentofthe curbs), 53 percent annual volume
reductions
o Curb-cut biofilters (along 80 percentofthe curbs), 75 percent annual volume
reductions
3.14. WinSLAMM Analysis Summary and Considerations
Pre- and post-control installation monitoring of the CSOs of the drainage area below where the
storm water management controls are being installed will enable direct measurements of the
benefits of the GI options. In addition to large-scale monitoring individual controls were also
monitored to quantify their performance under a variety of runoff conditions. The stormwater
management controls in the demonstration area drain to the municipal combined sewer drainage
system in the MBR watershed. The drainage pattern allowed isolation of the benefits of the green
infrastructure stormwater controls with no flows coming from outside areas. The watershed model
(WinSLAMM) and the sewerage model (SWMM) have been calibrated for this area using the pre-
construction flow and water quality data. The calibrated models have been used to predict the
benefits of the controls, and these predictions will be verified as the controls are installed. The
calibrated and verified models can also be used to predict the benefits of wider applications of the
upland controls across the city during later project phases. Specifically, the models will predict the
decreased runoff volumes and peak runoff rates associated with stormwater controls to alleviate
problems in the combined sewer system.
Water quality benefits associated with stormwater pollutant discharge reductions of wet-weather
flow particulates (including particle size distributions), nutrients, (fecal indicator) bacteria, and
heavy metals were also quantified using WinSLAMM. The model was also used to calculate the
stormwater contributions to the combined sewerage system during wet-weather by providing a
time series of flows and water quality conditions, for various types of upland controls, while
SWMM, with its detailed hydraulic modeling capabilities, will focus on the interaction of these time
series data with the sewerage flows and detailed hydraulic conditions in the drainage system. Both
39
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
models were used interactively emphasizing their respective strengths. For example, the detailed
analyses of site-specific designs of the study area storm water controls conducted using WinSLAMM
were used to optimize the control performance components contained in SUSTAIN. The strength of
using a combination of models is in increasing the weight of evidence supporting the green
infrastructure approach.
Suitable care is needed in the construction of stormwater controls and interpreting modeling
results, as other critical factors may dramatically affect their success. Certain site conditions might
restrict the applicability of some controls. The designs of infiltration devices need to be checked
based on their clogging potential. As an example, a relatively small and efficient bio filter (such as in
an area having a high native infiltration rate) can capture a large amount of sediment Having a small
surface area, this sediment would accumulate rapidly, possibly reaching a critical clogging load
early in its design lifetime. Infiltration and bioretention devices can show significantly reduced
infiltration rates after about 2 to 5 lb/ft2 (10 to 25 kg/m2) of particulate solids have been loaded,
especially during a short (several years) period of time.
40
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
4.Performance of Selected Manufactured Treatment Devices
Two types of manufactured treatment devices (MTDs) were planned to be examined as part of the
demonstration project for this study. Two Up-Flow filters by Hydro International and one
UrbanGreen BioFilter by Contech Construction Products were considered for the City Fleet
Maintenance Facility on 18th and Vine streets. Performance and water quality data of these MTDs,
and the project description, are provided below.
4.1Up-Flo Filter by Hydro International
The Up-Flo Filter by Hydro International (Figure
4-1) is a compact stormwater filtration
technology that removes trash, fine suspended
sediments, phosphorus, heavy metals, and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from runoff.
In brief, stormwater enters the system through
an inlet pipe. Debris and sediment settle out,
and floatables and oil float to the top. The flow is
directed upwards through a screen before
flowing across a filter media. The filtered water
is then conveyed to an outlet pipe. During times
of excessive flow, water bypasses the filtration
media but oils and floatables are prevented by a
floatables baffle. After the storm event, the
filtered water drains out through a patented
drain down port that also provides a light
backwash for the media. Upflow filtration, as
opposed to conventional downward flow filtration,
therefore minimize bypass (Khambhammettu etal.
Controlled tests of the Up-Flo
filtration system indicate a
suspended solids removal
efficiency of 85 to 90 percent
(with a 50 percent removal for
particles, 0.45 to 30 |.im, and a 95
to 100 percent removal for
particles larger than 30 (im)
(Khambhammettu, etal. 2006).
Figure 4-2 shows the
performance for mixed media for
suspended solids at influent
concentrations of 500mg/L, 250
mg/L, 100 mg/L and 50 mg/L
41
Figure 4-1: Up-Flo filter by Hydro International.
was developed to overcome clogging and
2006).
600
E -100
« 300
-High Flow500
-Mid Row 500
» Low Flow 500
-High Flow250
-Mid Flow 250
- Low Flow 250
-High Flow 100
-Mid Row 100
-Low Flow 100
-High Flow50
Mid Flow 50
- Low Flow 50
Influent Cone.
Effluent Cone.
Figure 4-2: Performance for mixed media for suspended solids
(Source: Khambhammettu etal.,2006],
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
(Khambhammettu etal. 2006). Further laboratory testing indicates the Up-Flo filter removes more
than 80 percent of experimental silica sand with hydraulic loading rates around 20 gallons per
minute (gpm)/ft2 (Andoh etal. 2009). TSS test results are presented in Figure 4-3 (Andoh 2009).
Laboratory testing also indicates that the Up-Flo filter is capable of higher hydraulic loading rates
(around 18.2 gpm/ft2) when compared to typical filters (around 2 gpm/ft2). To achieve that
improvement, the system requires "2 0 in. of driving head above the filter" with the Hydro Filter
Sand media (Andoh 2009).
500
p 450
— 400
| 350
^ 300
~ 250
g 200
g 150
O 100
CO eg
70 percent A
summary of the storm event monitoring data for turbidity, suspended solids, total solids, ammonia,
E. coli, and total coliforms (a broader group of fecal indicator bacteri that includes E. coli) is
presented in Table 4-1. The performance tests indicate the Up-Flo filtration system is more effective
at reducing particulate matter than dissolved constituents.
Table 4-1. Summary of Up-Flo filter storm event monitoring results (Source: Khambhammettu et al. 2006).
Parameter
Average Influent
Average Effluent
Probability that
Concentrations (all mg/L,
Concentrations (all mg/L,
Influent * Effluent
except for Bacteria that are
except for Bacteria that are
(Nonparametric Sign Test)
#/100 mL and Turbidity that is
#/100 mL and Turbidity that is
(A = 95% Level)
NTU) (COV)
NTU) (COV)
Turbidity
Suspended solids
Total solids
Ammonia
E. coli
Total coliforms
41(2.5)
64 (2.9)
137 (1.7)
0.44 (1.47)
4,750 (0.8)
12,600 (1.0)
15 (1.4)
19 (1.6)
94 (1.2)
0.24 (1.30)
2,710 (0.8)
6,700 (0.7)
42
> 99% (significant
reduction)
> 99% (significant
reduction)
> 99% (significant
reduction)
> 97% (significant
reduction)
> 99% (significant
reduction)
> 99% (significant
d ti )
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
4.2. UrbanGreen BioFilter by Contech Construction Products
The UrbanGreen BioFilter (UGBF) by Contech
Construction Products is a small-scale stormwater
runoff treatment system that provides bioretention and
filtration (Figure 4-4}. The UGBF is a tree box treatment
system that can be used in small drainage areas (< 2
acre) or can be expanded to include subsurface
infiltration for reduced runoff. The UGBF can be
installed with a curb inlet and can treat runoff from
parking lots, roads, roofs, and other surfaces that
produce runoff. The soil media is specified to provide
high levels of "pollutant removal, hydraulic conductivity
and biological vitality" (Contech 2011).
The stormwater runoff is filtered through the optimized
soil media during each storm event, where pollutants
are absorbed by the soil and vegetation. The system has
two bypass paths. The first bypass contains a filtration
cartridge (Figure 4-5) and is utilized after the
biofiltration bay has reached capacity. The filter
cartridge allows for an increase in treatment capacity.
The second is an internal bypass for high flow which is
directed downstream. The discharge can be sent to the
municipal conveyance system or can be combined with an
infiltratio n system.
Overall, the system provides evapotranspiration
for small storm events and dry weather runoff (about 10
percent of annual runoff] and biofiltration for medium
sized storm events (about 30 to 60 percent of annual
runoff), the remaining flow can be treated through the
filter cartridge (about 20 to 50 percent of annual runoff),
and any excess stormwater is bypassed (less than 20
percent of annual runoff) (Contech 2011).
Test results show a solids removal capability of > 95
percent for a mean particle size of 25 (.im. Hydraulic tests
also show no scour for flows of 2 ft3/s or less (Contech
2011). The hydraulic loading characteristics are shown in
Figure 4-6. The system treats stormwater with a 50
inch/hour rate and 12 inches of driving head. Because the
the hydraulic loading rate can be provided with a
lower driving head.
43
¦to u-wesCO"
C«TIHWWUO'HOQ»
Figure 4-5: StormFilter cartridge
Figure 4-4: UrbanGreen BioFilter
(Source: Contech Construction Products.].
(Source: Contech Construction Products],
soil is able to provide high conductivity,
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
y = 0.000056x:>+ 0.013923x
o
0
50
100
150
200
250
Hydraulic Loading Rate (in/hr)
Figure 4-6: Hydraulic loading characteristics of UrbanGreen BioFilter
(Source: Contech Construction Products].
4.3._ Site Location and MTD Design
The MTDs were examined for potential application at the City Fleet Maintenance Facility. This site
contains two drainage areas (Figure 4-7) that could accommodate both manufactured devices in
secure environments. The potential location for the UGBF was at the end of Olivia Street (drainage
area A) while the Up-Flo filter was at the end of Wabash Street (drainage area B).
Figure 4-7: Drainage areas at the City Fleet Maintenance Facility (aerial of 18th and Prospect
streets).
Both systems will be subject to performance evaluations over the course of multiple storm events
based upon water quality data collected using automated sampling equipment Influent and effluent
water quality will be assessed for solids, phosphorus, metals, and nutrients. The sampling will
include collection of a first flush sample as well as flow-paced discrete and field composite samples
44
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
by the automated sampling equipment over the course of a precipitation event. Individual influent
and effluent discrete samples will be combined according to the event hydrograph to create bulk
influent and effluent stormwater composite samples that represent the mean influent and effluent
water quality. First flush samples will be processed using the specified subsampling equipment and
submitted to the analytical laboratory for testing. Subsamples will be taken from the bulk composite
samples using the specified subsampling equipment for subsequent analysis. Field samples
will be analyzed without additional processing.
Figure 4-8; Drainage area A (in orange) for the UGBF.
Drainage area A at Olivia Street (Figure 4-8) is relatively small (19,068.9 ft2), includes part of the
road and parking area, and contains two inlets. During site visits in 2010, it appeared that the inlets
in drainage area A were used as temporary staging for heavy equipment and had large amounts of
debris accumulated near the inlet (Figures 4-9 and 4-10).
Figure 4-10: Drainage area A site visit image. Figure 4-9: Drainage area A site visit image (close-up).
45
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
The survey results for drainage area A and the potential location of UGBF are shown in Figures
4-11.
Notably, drainage area B at
Wabash Avenue (Figure 4-12) is
larger than drainage area A and
includes part of the road, a
parking area, pavement storage
area, and half of a roof top, and
only has one inlet The drainage
area for the Up-Flo filter system
is estimated to be 1.72 acres (74,
761 ft2], which assumes partial
rooftop drainage. During site
visits in 2010, it appeared that ^
the inlet in drainage area B had
significant sediment build-up
(Figure 4-13).
Figure 4-11: Survey results for 18th and Olive streets for UGBF location.
The survey results for drainage
area B and the location of the Up-Flo filter are shown in Figure 4-14. For this installation example,
the runoff would enter the devices through the curb inlet and would be conveyed to the sump
under the inlet. An adjustable weir has been provided and acts as a floatables trap that prevents
floating items from being washed out during less frequent storm events. Flow beyond 300 gpm will
pass through the bypass and directly into the municipal collection system.
Measure
|4rea measurement
Segment: 61.656392 Feet
Perimeter: 1,290-890829 Feet
Area: 74,761,284722 Soare Feet
ation Detail f
icavation Det
ccavation Det
icavation Det
icavation Det
ccavation Det
I Group Layei
dwg Annotat
dwg Point
dwg Polyline
dwg Polygon
other values>
Renderer
DER, 1,25
inuous, 3. 25
inuous, 1,25
Figure 4-12: Drainage area for Up-Flo filter system (in orange)
46
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
18th St
J
Figure 4-14: Survey results for 18th and Wabash streets for Up-Flo
location
Figure 4-13: Drainage B site visit images.
47
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
5.Site and System Benefits of Rain Gardens
The pilot project is intended to provide information and experience that will allow for widespread
implementation of GI projects throughout Kansas City, Missouri. This section provides an overview
of the currently installed demonstration technologies, including 6 rain gardens, 20 planned
downspout disconnections, and 20 planned rain barrel installations. All of these pilot projects are
located on private residential properties. One of the rain garden installations (Thomas' rain garden)
has detailed pre- and post-construction monitoring results. The other rain gardens include design
details and pre- and post-construction images.
Watson
Sredell
Rodriguez
Yuelkenbeck
iThomas
Rain Garden
Downspout Disconnect
Figure 5-1. Locations of currently constructed rain gardens and downspout disconnections.
Rain gardens are designed to capture smaller volumes of runoff, particularly those associated with
smaller storm events, from impervious surfaces and allow infiltration of stormwater runoff into the
ground. They are well suited for pollutant removal. The rain garden pilot projects are shallow
vegetated, depressed areas that use soil- and plant-based filtration to remove pollutants and
infiltrate runoff. The depressed area was planted with small- to medium-sized vegetation that can
withstand urban environments and tolerate periodic inundation and dry periods. The design storm
for all of the pilot rain gardens is 1.37 inches with soil infiltration rates based on infiltration tests.
48
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
5.1. Thomas Rain Garden
As a part of this study a private rain garden was constructed on Ms. Thomas' property and its
performance is being monitored and evaluated for potential stormwater reduction benefits. The rain
garden is designed based on the soil type, moisture content, design rainfall depth, and plants
adaptable to the physiographic region. The steps involved in the construction of the rain garden are
shown in Figure 5-6 through Figure 5-10. Soils data for the Thomas property is summarized in
Table 5-1 below:
Table 5-1. Soils report for Thomas rain garden absorption area
Thomas Rain Garden
Field soil texture and visual description: Silty clay loam, brown
Particle size distribution Sand retained on No. 10: 0.2%
Sand retained on No. 200: 2.3%
Silt (0.005-0.074 mm): 53.3%
Clay (<0.005 mm): 44.3%
Soil classifications USDA Silty clay
AASHTO A-7-6
USCS Lean clay
Atterberg limits Liquid limit: 44
Plastic limit: 21
Plasticity index: 23
Sand-cone density (date of test: 8-18-10) Density (dry): 1.507 g/cm3 (1507g/L)
Density (wet): 1.934 g/cm3 (1934 g/L)
28.3%
Specific gravity of soil solids 2.69
5.1.1. Infiltration Tests
Two Full-inundation infiltration tests of the rain garden were conducted on September 6, 2011 and
October 2 8, 2 011. These tests measure the actual capacity of the rain garden to infiltrate stormwater
runoff. Measurements of the depth of ponding in the rain garden absorption area with respect
to the time were recorded using a stop watch and staff g £Je. Meaaig'emerits were recorded
every minute for first 5 minutes of the test following the initial filling of rain garden, then in 5-
minute increments for the remainder of the test
Infiltration tests were conducted in and around the potential site, because infiltration of water into
the surface soil is responsible for the largest abstraction of stormwater in natural areas. Turf- Tec
Infiltrometers (Figure 5-1) were used to measure the infiltration rates. These devices have an inner
and outer ring. Both the inner and outer compartments are filled with clear water by first filling the
inner compartment and allowing it to overflow into the outer compartment As soon as the
measuring point reaches the beginning of scale, the timer is started and readings are taken every 5
minutes for a duration of 2 hours or until a constant infiltration is observed. The incremental
49
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
infiltration rates were calculated by noting the change in water level in the inner compartment over
the 5-minute period.
g 'flSpi
Hk
Figure 5-2: Turf-Tec Infiltrometer.
Table 5-2 and Figure 5-2 show the results of the first infiltration test
Table 5-2. Turf-Tec Infiltration Results - Test 1
Infiltration Test with Turf-Tec Infiltrometer
Test #:
Date of test:
Test site location:
Locations of test:
Rain gauge site ID:
Last rainfall event:
Moisture content (%):
In-place dry density (g/l):
1
8-18-10
Private rain garden - Thomas' property
South side of garden, ~2 ft from berm, located near center east-west
East side of garden, ~2 ft. from east berm, ~2 ft. from south berm
North side of garden, ~1 ft. from north berm, located near center east-west
UMKC rain gauge no.l - Paseo
8-17-10: 0.08 inches
26.5
1,507
50
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
0£
Infiltration Test (Test#l)
12.00
10.00
8.00
£ 6.00
5 4.00
ai
E
HI
« 2.00
0.00
Infiltration Rate = 1.9 In/hr
Decay = 0.01/hr (for 2 hr test)
60 80
Time (min)
140
Figure 5-3: Turf-Tec infiltration test.
5.1.2. Full Inundation Infiltration Test
Full inundations tests were also completed for the Thomas rain garden. These tests measure the
effects of macro-features of the absorption area that allow additional storage and direct access to
additional soil surface area, which increases the effective area of the rain garden absorption area.
While infiltrometers are effective at measuring the infiltration at the surface of the soil, full
inundation testing provides information on the entire rain garden and includes lateral flows and
macro-features that can increase infiltration rates. The full inundation tests demonstrate that the
macro-features in the soil have a strong influence on the effective infiltration rate of absorption
area (Table 5-3, Table 5-4, Figure 5-3, and Figure 5-4).
Table 5-3. Full inundation test on 9/2/10 for Thomas rain garden
Full Inundation Test
Test #: 1
Date of test: 9-2-10
Test site location: Private rain garden - Thomas property
Exact location of test: Full inundation infiltration test
Rain gauge site ID: UMKC rain gauge no.l - Paseo
Last rainfall event: 8-31-10: 0.62 in, 9-1-10: 0.42 inches
Moisture content (%): Southeast corner of absorption area: 28.3
Southwest corner of absorption area: 32.4
In-place dry density (g/L): 1,507
51
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
Full Inundation Infiltration Test (9-2-10)
80.00
70.00
Infiltration Rate = 15.2 In/hr
Decay = 0.077/hr (for 1.5 hr test)
4i 60.00
+-
IB
ec
50.00
30.00
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
Full Inundation Infiltration Test (10-28-10)
80.00
Infiltration Rate = 13.22 In/hr
Decay = 0.08/hr(for 1.5 hrtest)
70.00
=• 60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
£ 20.00
10.00
0.00
0
20
40
60
80
100
Time (min)
Figure 5-5: Full inundation test (10-28-10).
5.1.3. Thomas' Property Rain Garden Construction
Construction and planting of the Thomas rain garden was completed entirely by volunteers and
student labor. Figure 5-5 indicates the planting scheme of the rain garden while Figure 5-6 and
Figure 5-7show the clearing and planting phases, respectively.
INLET
PROTECTION
- WATER LEVEL
LOGGER
* X
© © © * ^
I) @ © X © 0 (A)
© * © ® ® (A)
X ~ X ~
* ® © ®
© *
X
X
X
0 X ®
a * ® ®
PLANT LAYOUT
PLANT LIST
SYMBOL
COMMON NAME
QUANTITY
A
COPPER ires
0
B
SMOOTH PBvJSTEWCN
0
C
RJRPLE POPPY
0
D
PURFLE CCfsEFLOV%ER
7
E
PRAIRE BLAZN3STAR
7
F
YELLOW CCf^ER-OViER
7
G
FALSE ASTER
0
H
GOLDEN ROD
3
1
SOFT FSJSH
1
BROWJ FCK SEDGE
33
Figure 5-6. Plan view of Thomas property rain garden plant layout.
53
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
Figure 5-7: Sod removal in storm water absorption area of the rain garden. Perimeter of the rain garden
marked by the rope (6/10/10).
Figure 5-8: Planting additional vegetation (left) and rain garden looking east (right) (7/21/10).
As discussed in the monitoring chapter (2), monitoring of flow is essential and one of the most
important aspects of evaluating these GI systems. Figure 5-9shows the calibrated weir that was
constructed to determine outflow of the Thomas rain garden. Figure 5-10 shows the disconnected
roof leader and measurement barrel, while Figure 5-11 and Figure 5-12 show the completed rain
garden and an educational sign for the rain garden, respectively.
54
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
Figure 5-9: Raingarden weir installation (9/23/10).
Figure 5-10: Disconnected roof leader and view of flow measurement barrel connected to pipes, looking
northeast (9/28/10).
55
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
Figure 5-11. Installed rain garden on Thomas property.
Horn goi«w
••nam* uim°
Figure 5-12: Educational sign for rain garden.
56
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
5.1.4. Installation and Instrumentation of Flow Monitoring Devices and Structures
Two roof leaders were connected to a flow monitoring device to measure real time inflow to the
rain garden, which consisted of a 55-gallon high-density polyethylene drum for stormwater
collection and an orifice plate for controlled discharge from the barrel to the rain garden, A Global
Water WL16U Water Level Logger (Figure 5-12) was installed to measure and record the depth of
the water in the barrel, which is correlated with the theoretical discharge from the barrel outlet
orifice. Any discharge from the rain garden was measured by a 1 /8" thick stainless steel 22.5 degree
sharp-crested v-notch weir at a protected outlet Head above the crest is measured in the pool
of the rain garden by a second water level logger in a perforated PVC casing. The logger also
measures rain garden ponding depth and infiltration response of the absorption area to various
hydraulic loadings and recurrence intervals.
Figure 5-13: Global Water Level Logger WL16 for data collection.
The water loggers have a storage capacity of 81,759 stamped data points and are programmed to
sample depth on a 1-second interval. When storage space is exceeded, the collected data in the
logger is wrapped, replacing the oldest data sequential in chronological order with the new data
samples. The available storage capacity of the water level loggers required that data be collected
within approximately 22.5 hours of the beginning of a precipitation event to record the entire rain
garden inflow hydrograph and rain garden ponding depths.
5.1.5. Rain Garden Flow Monitoring Results
Installation of the flow monitoring devices and fabrication of orifice-controlled barrel flow
monitoring device and outlet weir allowed flow monitoring to commence late September 2010. The
first precipitation event was recorded on October 11, 2010 and the laston November 12, 2010. The
latter measured event was prior to winterization of the flow monitoring device and restoration of
the roof leaders on the residential property to discharge directly to rain garden.
57
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
The capacities of the rain garden to react to the precipitation events of varying intensities are
durations were demonstrated in Figures 5-13 through Figure 5-16. Because the events shown had
smaller discernable events that preceded the time span shown in the figures, or immediately
followed the time span shown in the figures, the precipitation event durations were shortened to
show a meaningful visual representation of the full event
The reaction of the pooling depths of the rain garden to the inflow hydrograph was consistent and
reflective of the peak inflow and duration of the precipitation event The infiltration of the
absorption area was estimated during the periods of low inflow to the rain garden, and the
infiltration rate for this event was maintained following the peak inflow at about 7.4 inches/hour.
0.04
0.035
0.03
- 0.025
o
0.02
re
13
re
t£.
0.015
0.01
0.005
1
1
i
1 A
3.75
3.5
3.25
2.75
2.5
01
re
13
re
C£.
0
1
E
CO
£
o
(U
>
i-n^rorjTHoa^oor^
^^rONHOijiwfNiiu-irJrnoJH
THcsirO'^ti-noOTHrJro^i-OOTHrg
r--
o
r-.
o o
COCOCOOCCOCOCOGlQ
ooooooooo
Time Stamp (HH:MM:SS)
Figure 5-14: Rain garden response to precipitation event on October 11,2010.
58
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
0.04
0.035
0.03
~ 0.025
o
0.02
re
13
0.015
re
ec
0.01
0.005
oo i-n in en id m
co Ln
LO
3.75
3.5
v
3.25
re
13
re
£
o
2.75
2.5
2.25
re
>
(N (N (N m m ro
UDUDUDUD UD'JD'JD'JD
ooooooooooo
Rain Garden Inflow Hydrograph
¦Pool Elevation
¦Weir Crest Elevation
Time Stamp (HH:MM:SS)
Figure 5-15: Rain garden response to precipitation event on October 12,2010.
For the event on October 12, 2010, there was a slight delay between the beginning of the first peak
of the inflow hydrograph and the beginning of the pooling depth peak, which was attributed to the
infiltration rate of the rain garden initially exceeding the inflow rate. An infiltration rate between
7.0 and 8.5 inches/hour was maintained through the duration of this event
The inflow hydrograph for the precipitation event shown in Figure 5-15 was higher in intensity and
of shorter duration compared to the events shown in Figure 5-13 and Figure 5-14. The infiltration
capacity of the absorption area significantly exceeded the rate of inflow, which resulted in a zero
change in pooling depth.
59
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
0.05
0.045
0.04
— 0.035
| 0.03
0.025
S 0.02
re
0.015
0.01
0.005
O H (N fO ^ ID
o o o o o o o
lo ro t-h
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
0.05
0.045
0.04
_ 0.035
£ 0.03
o
0.025
5 0.02
0)
— Rain Garden Inflow Hydrograph
— Pool Elevation
—Weir Crest Elevation
O^CO(N^O^OOrNJkDO'vj-OOrNJkD
0(^0^THL0n">0^tTH,>f
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
Gredell Rain Garden
Rooftop Contributing Area
Total Soil/Mulch Amendment Depth (storage depth)
Mulch depth
Soil depth
Sand
Topsoil
Compost
Vegetation
Total Effective Depth
Construction Time
Planting Time (total labor hours)
Total Materials Cost
Unit Cost / Gallon Managed
0.008 acres (351 ft )
Width: 5 feet
0.5 ft
0.17 ft
0.33 ft
50%
40%
10%
55 plants
0.55 ft
6 hours (2 volunteers)
2 hours (3 volunteers)
$97.37
$0.32 /gallon
Figure 5-18: Construction of the Gredell rain garden.
62
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
Figure 5-19: Rain garden area with outlet protection.
KflHllaflli
Figure 5-20: Installed rain garden on Gredell property.
63
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
Table 5-6: Design details of the Moss rain garden
Moss Rain Garden
Rooftop Contributing Area
BMP Design Target (runoff capture)
Design Volume
BMP Design
Soil Type
Average Infiltration Rate
BMP Sizing
Total Soil/Muich Amendment Depth (storage depth)
Mulch depth
Soil depth
Sand
Topsoil
Compost
Vegetation
Total Effective Depth
Construction Time
Planting Time
Total Materials Cost
Unit Cost / Gallon Managed
0.006 acres (282 ft2)
100% of KCMO WSD Design Storm D
240.8 gallons (32.19 ft3)
Bioretention (30% porosity)
Group C with 0.0083 (ft/hr) saturated infiltration rate
0.014 ft/hr
Length: 13 feet
Excavation Depth: 0.9 ft
Rain Garden Depth: 0.5 ft
Width: 7 feet
0.5 ft
0.17 ft
0.33 ft
50%
40%
10%
91 plants
0.55 ft
8 hours
2 hours
$152.64
$0.63 /gallon
Figure 5-21: Soil excavation from rain garden absorption area,
64
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
Figure 5-22: Rain garden with installed media and outlet protection.
| 1
If 1 1 fy
III ,•
—~~ 1
PIP'
— ' i J
B' - ' WS6? Thffi* 1 _>f> » '-s "j- i V *
^1
Figure 5-23: Installed rain garden on Moss property.
65
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
Table 5-7: Design details of the Reese rain garden
Reese Rain Garden
Rooftop Contributing Area
BMP Design Target (runoff capture)
Design Volume
BMP Design
Soil Type
Average Infiltration Rate
BMP Sizing
Total Soil/Muich Amendment Depth (storage depth)
Mulch depth
Soil depth
Sand
Topsoil
Compost
Vegetation
Total Effective Depth
Construction Time
Planting Time
Total Materials Cost
Unit Cost / Gallon Managed
0.007 acres (324 ft2)
100% of KCMO WSD Design Storm D
276.7 gallons (36.99 ft3)
Bioretention (30% porosity)
Group A with 0.025 (ft/hr) saturated infiltration rate
0.25 ft/hr
Length: 13 feet
Excavation Depth: 0.9 ft
Rain Garden Depth: 0.5 ft
Width: 4 feet
0.5 ft
0.17 ft
0.33 ft
50%
40%
10%
56 plants
0.55 ft
4 hours
2 hours
$84.44
$0.31/gallon
Figure 5-24: Rain garden absorption area with outlet protection.
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
Figure 5-25: Rain garden with installed media.
Figure 5-26: Installed rain garden on Reese property.
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
Rodriguez Rain Garden
Table 5-8: Design details of the Rodriguez rain
Rooftop Contributing Area
BMP Design Target (runoff capture)
Design Volume
BMP Design
Soil Type
Average Infiltration Rate
BMP Sizing
Total Soil/Mulch Amendment Depth (storage depth)
Mulch depth
Soil depth
Sand
Topsoil
Compost
Vegetation
Total Effective Depth
Construction Time
Planting Time
Construction Time
Planting Time
Total Materials Cost
Unit Cost / Gallon Managed
0.004 acres (205 ft2)
100% of KCMO WSD Design Storm D
175.0 gallons (23.4 ft3)
Bioretention (30% porosity)
Group A with 0.025 (ft/hr) saturated infiltration rate
0.042 ft/hr
Length: 9 feet
Excavation Depth: 0.9 ft
Rain Garden Depth: 0.5 ft
Width: 4 feet
0.5 ft
0.17 ft
0.33 ft
50%
40%
10%
46 plants
0.55 ft
4 hours
2 hours
3.5 hours
1.5 hours
$53.11
$0.30 / gallon
Figure 5-27: Construction of Rodriguez rain garden.
68
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
Figure 5-28: Installed rain garden on Rodriguez property.
Table 5-9: Design details of the Watson rain garden
Watson Rain Garden
Rooftop Contributing Area
BMP Design Target (runoff capture)
Design Volume
BMP Design
Soil Type
Average Infiltration Rate
BMP Sizing
Total Soil/Mulch Amendment Depth (storage depth)
Mulch depth
Soil depth
Sand
Topsoil
Compost
Vegetation
Total Effective Depth
Construction Time
Planting Time
Total Materials Cost
Unit Cost / Gallon Managed
0.010 acres (432 ft )
100% of KCMO WSD Design Storm D
368.9 gallons (49.32 ft3)
Bioretention (30% porosity)
Group A with 0.025 (ft/hr) saturated infiltration rate
0.288 ft/hr
Length: 10 feet
Excavation Depth: 0.9 ft
Rain Garden Depth: 0.5 ft
Width: 7 feet
0.5 ft
0.17 ft
0.33 ft
50%
40%
10%
70 plants (estimated)
0.55 ft
6
2
$119.02
$0.32 / gallon
69
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
Figure 5-29: Soil excavation for rain garden absorption area.
Figure 5-30: Rain garden media installation.
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
Williams Rain Garden
Figure 5-31: Installed rain garden on Watson property,
Table 5-10; Design details of the Williams rain garden.
Rooftop Contributing Area
BMP Design Target (runoff capture)
Design Volume
BMP Design
Soil Type
Average Infiltration Rate
BMP Sizing
Total Soil/Mulch Amendment Depth (storage depth)
Mulch depth
Soil depth
Sand
Topsoil
Compost
Vegetation
Total Effective Depth
Construction Time
Planting Time
Total Materials Cost
Unit Cost / Gallon Managed
0.009 acres (413 ft2)
100% of KCMO WSD Design Storm D
352.7 gallons (47.15 ft3)
Bioretention (30% porosity)
Group A with 0.025 (ft/hr) saturated infiltration rate
0.029 ft/hr
Length: 10 feet
Excavation Depth: 0.9 ft
Rain Garden Depth: 0.5 ft
Width: 7 feet
0.5 ft
0.17 ft
0.33 ft
50%
40%
10%
77 plants
0.55 ft
8 hours
2 hours
$105.31
$0.30 / gallon
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
Figure 5-32: Construction of Williams rain garden.
Figure 5-33: Rain garden with installed media and outlet protection.
72
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
x3"Br
¦Vs. «*: •-» - _ •
gPff% . £ -iv
*'-• " — ••
- JHi
• v' '*•¦
Figure 5-34: Installed rain garden on Williams property.
Table 5-11: Design details of the Yuelkenbeckrain garden
Yuelkenbeck Rain Garden
Rooftop Contributing Area 0.014 acres (600 ft2)
BMP Design Target (runoff capture) 100% of KCMO WSD Design Storm D
Design Volume 512.4 gallons (68.5 ft3)
BMP Design Bioretention (30% porosity)
Soil Type Group B with 0.167 (ft/hr) saturated infiltration rate
Average Infiltration Rate 0.018 ft/hr
BMP Sizing Length: 11 feet
Excavation Depth: 0.9 ft
Rain Garden Depth: 0.5 ft
Width: 11.5 feet
0.5 ft
0.17 ft
0.33 ft
50%
40%
10%
94 plants
0.55 ft
12 hours
2 hours
$205.36
$0.40 / gallon
Total Soil/Mulch Amendment Depth (storage depth)
Mulch depth
Soil depth
Sand
Topsoil
Compost
Vegetation
Total Effective Depth
Construction Time
Planting Time
Total Materials Cost
Unit Cost / Gallon Managed
73
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
Figure 5-35: Construction of Yuelkenbeck rain garden.
HH
Figure 5-36: Soil excavation for rain garden absorption area.
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
Figure 5-37: Installed rain garden on Yuelkenbeck property.
5.3. Rain Barrel Properties
Collecting rainwater in containers or other depositories for future use during drier periods is an
ancient and common practice. With the rising price of municipal water, widespread drought
restrictions, and benefits for flow and volume control, homeowners are increasingly turning to the
harvesting of rainwater to both save money and protect this precious natural resource.
Rain barrels (or cisterns] are containers that can capture rooftop runoff and store it for future use.
Often, the captured rainwater is used for irrigation of vegetation, including lawns and gardens, or it
can be used for alternative gray water uses such as laundering clothes. Rain barrels for private
residences are generally smaller systems, typically holding <100 gallons. The collection of rooftop
runoff in rain barrels is a useful method of reducing stormwater runoff volum es in urban areas
where site constrains might limit the use of other GI practices.
A total of 20 rain barrels were installed as part of the pilot project The rain barrels were often
installed along with downspout disconnection (discussed in the following section) or rain gardens.
As was shown in the modeling section, rain barrels can result in a reduction of runoff to the CSS—
especially in instances where the downspouts were previously connected directly to the sewer
system.
75
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
5.4. Downspout Disconnection Properties
Older neighborhoods often have downspouts that are directly connected to the CSS. Therefore, any
rooftop runoff is directed straight to the CSS, contributing to CSOs following precipitation events.
The pilot project area includes a number of homes that have directly connected downspouts as
identified through smoke testing (Figure 5-38}. As part of the pilotproject, 20 houses will have
their downspouts disconnected from the CSS, reducing the burden on the sewer system capacity.
The disconnections will target the heaviest flows from the homes shown in Figure 5-38.
Figure 5-38: Homes with directly connected downspouts (blue indicates pilot project area).
76
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
6.Results to Date
This chapter presents the results of monitoring efforts and land use characterization to date for this
project It includes an overview of rainfall and flow monitoring data in MBR Basin and historical
rainfall data from the greater Kansas City area. It also discusses the impacts of sewer rehabilitation
in the MBR pilot study. The rainfall and flow monitoring data in the MBR watershed has been
collected at both the pilot and control sites to allow for comparison and verily effects of the installed
BMPs (following implementation ). Much of this data was also used in the preceding modeling
chapter (3).
6.1. Rainfall arid Flow Monitoring
Rainfall and flow data has been collected both in the pilot and control areas to monitor and evaluate
the pre- and post- construction stormwater controls. Both the dry and wet-weather data are
obtained for the pilot sewershed. Pre-construction flow and water quality data are used to calibrate
the watershed model (WinSLAMM) and sewerage model (SUSTAIN). These models are used to
predict the benefits of stormwater controls, and these predictions will be verified once the controls
are installed. For the purpose of monitoring, flow data has been collected at four different
monitoring sites; site 1 being the pilot/test watershed while sites 2a, 2b and 3 are within the control
watershed.
RainfajyjMK
UMKCD3
Figure 6-1: Rainfall and flow monitoring locations.
77
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
6.2. Rainfall Data
Historically, KCMO WSD has been collecting rainfall data for several years to provide flood
warnings, evaluate infiltration and inflow (I/I) in sanitary sewer system areas, prepare master plans
for citywide collection system improvements, and to conduct previous wet-weather control
studies. Continuous long term data are available from two primary sources—the National Climatic
Data Center (NCDC) for the Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport (Downtown Airport) and the
Kansas City International Airport (MCI). Both sources provide 56 years of continuous and complete
hourly precipitation data, with a precision of 0.01 inches. In addition to the historical airport rainfall
data sets, recent real-time precipitation data are available for the Kansas City metropolitan
area from the Flood Warning System (FWS), which uses automated technology to transmit
environmental data to a central computer in real-time. The system includes 441 defined sensors
from 108 rain gauges, 83 water level sensors, 11 weather data stations, and 113 battery sensors.
The FWS sensors are designed to record rainfall in increments of 0.04-inches (1 mm). In this pilot
study, for a finer resolution and to maintain accuracy (proximity to the study site), rainfall data has
been collected from a rain gage located in the grassy center of Paseo Boulevard at the intersection
with 77th Street Rainfall has been recorded for the years 2009, 2010, and 2011 in 5-minute
intervals. The history and availability of localized data are summarized in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1: Summary of rainfall data collection.
Year
Rainfall Data Collection
Start Date End Date
(Time) (Time)
Missing Data
Number of
Rain
Events
2009
9-4-09 (9:43)
11-23-09 (11:40)
10/29/09 23:25 to 11/4/09 14:35
12
2010
4-1-10 (10:43)
10-12-10 (10:41)
25
2011
4-05-11 (13:55)
Present
CO
SD
Flow Data
Flowmeters were installed at four monitoring sites (UMKC001, UMKC002a, UMKC002b, and
UMKC003) as shown in Figure 6-1. For the purpose of analyzing the flow data for the control site,
two lateral monitoring sites (UMKC002a and UMKC002b) and one outfall monitoring site
(UMKC003) were selected. This will provide a clear idea of how each individual subwatershed is
contributing to outfall and help in eliminating any discrepancies in flow data that might occur due to
improper data collection by the flow monitoring devices. The availability of flow data is summarized
in Tables 6-2 through Table 6-5. Flow data was recorded in 5-minute intervals for sites UMKC001,
UMKC002a, and UMKC003, and in 15-minute intervals for site UMKC002b. Because the data
was collected in smaller time intervals for sites UMKC001, UMKC002a, and UMKC003, these results
were aggregated into 15-minute intervals, including the control watershed.
78
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
Table 6-2: Summary of flow data for site 1 (UMKC001)
Year
2008
11-22-08
12-31-08
2009
1-1-09
12-31-09
3-18-09 (12:25] to 3-18-09 (13:25]
5-22-09 to 6-17-091
2010
1-1-10
12-31-10
3-19-10(13:10] to 3-19-10 (14:05]
5-5-10 to 5-14-102
6-19-10 to 11-7-10 (4:00]3
2011
1-7-11(16:25]
3-10-11 (10:40]
-
1. Meter fouled 2. Meter removed for repair 3. Meter removed for sewer relining
Table 6-3: Summary of flow data for site 2a (UMKC002a)
Year
Start Date (Time)
End Date (Time)
Missing Data
2008
11-23-08 (4:50]
12-31-08
2009
1-1-09
12-31-09
5-22-09 to 5-31-091
2010
1-1-10
12-31-10
1-19-10 to 1-21-102
2-3-10 to 3-4-103
3-19-10 (12:45] to 3-19-10 (13:40]
10-14-10 (12:05] to 10-29-10 (2:40]4
2011
1-7-11(16:25]
3-10-11 (10:40]
--
1. Meter became unattached; reattached on 5-31-09 2. Meter fouled 3. Meter removed for replacement
4. Meter removed for calibration
Table 6-4: Summary of flow data for site 2b (UMKC002b)
Year
Start Date (Time)
End Date (Time)
Missing Data
2008
11-23-08 (4:50]
12-31-08
2009
1-1-09
12-31-09
3-18-09 (11:30] to 3-18-09 (12:30]
5-22-09 (12:00] to 6-1-09 (l:00]i
2010
1-1-10
12-31-10
3-19-10(12:30] to 3-19-10 (13:15]
10-14-10 (12:05] to 10-29-10 (2:40]
2011
1-7-11(16:25]
3-10-11 (10:40]
--
1. Meter fouled
Table 6-5: Summary of flow data for site 2c (UMKC002c)
Year
Start Date (Time)
End Date (Time)
Missing Data
2008
11-23-08 (4:50]
12-31-08
2009
1-1-09
12-31-09
2-16-09 to 2-16-09 (13:30]
5-22-09 to 6-17-091
2010
1-1-10
12-31-10
3-19-10 (12:10] to 3-19-10 (13:05]
4-9-10 (11:00] to 4-9-10 (11:10]
2011
1-7-11(16:25]
3-10-11 (10:40]
--
1. Meter removed for replacement
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
Table 6-5: Summary of flow data for site 3 (UMKC003)
6.4. Flow Analysis
For the purpose of analyzing the flow data to calculate different aspects of flow during storm events
such as peak flow, total flow, average flow, etc., a dry weather base line flow is established from the
available flow data for the years 2009, 2010, and 2011. This base line flow is calculated by taking an
average flow over a 7-day dry period. After the base line flow is calculated, the flow during storm
events was determined by subtracting the base line flow from the total flow. An example of an event
from the control and pilot watersheds is shown in Figure 6-2.
Storm Event Profile
Start Date: 10/8/2009 2:15
End Date: 10/8/2009 23:25
Total Precipitation: 2.06 inches
0 00 Total Event Duration: llh 10m
Antecedent Dry Period: 4d 15h
0.02
004 _
10
-------
National Demonstration of the Integration of Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, MO
Pre-performance Summary Report
Table 6-6: Example observed rainfall and runoff conditions
Rainfall
Pipe Flow
Peak
Event
Start
Start
End
Total
5-Minute Peak
Site/
Area
Start
End
Total Discharge
Discharge
Number
Date1
Time
End Data Time
(In)
Intensity (In/Hr)
Watershed
(Ac)
Start Date
Time
End Data Time
Volume (Ft3)2
Rate (Cfs)2
1
4-5-10
7:25
4-7-10
19:40
1.46
2.64
Pilot
100
4-5-10
7:30
4-11-10
5:15
638,316
39.5
Control
86
4-5-10
7:30
4-11-10
5:30
329,237
33.7
2
4-16-10
5:15
4-16-10
9:15
0.11
0.12
Pilot
100
4-16-10
6:00
4-16-10
7:30
1,844
0.68s
Control
86
4-16-10
6:30
4-16-10
8:30
3,203
0.89
3
4-22-10
10:15
4-27-10
5:45
3.36
1.08
Pilot
100
4-22-10
10:30
4-29-10
0:00
1,016,906
19.1
Control
86
4-22-10
10:30
4-29-10
9:30
485,674
9.8
4
4-29-10
10:00
5-3-010
11:00
0.82
1.2
Pilot
100
4-30-10
7:00
5-3-10
4:45
123,915
23.1
Control
86
4-29-10
10:00
5-3-10
11:15
102,261
10.99
6
5-19-10
11:30
5-21-10
2:00
1.34
0.96
Pilot
100
5-19-10
11:30
5-24-10
0:00
532,394
19.61
Control
86
5-19-10
14:15
5-21-10
1:30
182,745
10.68
7
6-1-10
13:00
6-2-10
7:45
0.75
1.92
Pilot
100
6-2-10
6:45
6-2-10
9:45
58,305
16.12
Control
86
6-2-10
6:30
6-2-10
8:30
23,959
8.27
1The rainfall data are obtained from a rain gauge at the site location
2 The discharge volumes and flow rates have dry weather base flow value subtracted
This event had suspect data for UMKC001 flow meter
Table 6-7: Example calculated rainfall and runoff conditions (based on observed conditions)
Total
Peak/Avg
Event Antecedent Dry
Rainfall
Average Rainfall
Pipeflow
Pipeflow/Rain
Pipeflow Rate
Number Rain Start Date Days
Duration (Hr)
Intensity (In/Hr)
Site
Duration (Hr)
(In)
Rv
Duration Ratio
Ratio
1
4-5-10
N/a
60.25
0.024
Pilot
141.75
1.75
1.19
2.35
31.6
Control
142
1.05
0.72
2.35
51.9
2
4-16-10
8.4
4
0.027
Pilot
1.5
0.005
0.04
0.375
2.341
Control
2
0.01
0.09
0.5
2.26
3
4-22-10
6.04
115.5
0.029
Pilot
157.5
2.8
0.83
1.36
10.68
Control
167
1.55
0.46
1.44
12.18
4
4-29-10
2.18
97
0.0085
Pilot
69.75
0.34
0.41
0.72
47
Control
97.25
0.33
0.40
1.00
37.7
6
5-19-10
2.03
38.5
0.034
Pilot
108.5
1.46
1.09
2.82
14.43
Control
35.25
0.58
0.43
0.91
7.47
7
6-1-10
11.46
18.75
0.04
Pilot
3
0.16
0.21
0.16
3.23
Control
2
0.077
0.10
0.10
2.8
1 This event had suspect data for UMKC001 flow meter
81
-------
6.5. Effect of Sewer Rehabilitation
As partof the KCMO sewer improvements in 2010, sewers of small diameter (< 12 inches) in
diameter were repaired and rehabilitated to reduce the quantity of flow entering the system and
improve service by reducing the frequency and severity of basement backups. During this process
several pipes in the pilot subwatershed were rehabilitated (including the lining of sewer pipes) in
2010. During this period the flow monitor at site 1 was removed, which accounts for the missing
flow data for Site 1 (6-19-10 to 11-7-10 [4:00]) in Figure 6-2. A baseline hydrograph is plotted in
Figure 6-3 showing the base line flow for Sites 1 (pilot) and 3 (control) from the available 2009 to
2011 data.
M—
u
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
-Site 1 2009
-Site 1 2011
-Site 3 2009
Site 3 2011
—v *v
Time
Figure 6-3: Comparison of base line (dry weather flow) for sites 1 and 3 before and after sewer rehabilitation.
Figure 6-3 also shows that the base line flow for site 3 remains relatively unchanged from 2009 to
2011, whereas significant change is observed in the base line flowfor site 1 from 2009 to 2011. The
results (i.e., an increase in base line flow for site 1) are likely linked to rehabilitation maintenance of
the sewers by lining the cured-in-place pipe technology. Lining the sewers would not only prevent
inflow/infiltration from wet-weather events (the objective for lining the sewers) but would also
prevent any exfiltration from the sewer lines. If the exfiltration does not occur during dry weather,
the base line flow would increase. That change can have a significant impact to the area, including
potential for basement flooding or a greater number of CSOs.
82
-------
6.6. Land Use Characterization
Land use characterization plays a major role in selection and implementation of GI. Information
regarding different aspects—including type of land use (high-density residential, commercial,
industrial, institutional, and etc.), pervious and impervious areas (sidewalks, streets), soil type, slope,
and roof top drain discharges—were collected. These elements affect the site hydrology and
water quality characteristics. Because infiltration of water into the surface soil is responsible for the
largest abstraction of storm water in natural areas, infiltration tests were conducted in study area to
evaluate the potential for the placement of storm water infiltration controls.
Table 6-8 and Table 6-9 show the original GIS information for the test watershed from KCMO WSD
city sources along with the detailed site data.
Table 6-8: Original GIS measurements by KCMO WSD for test watershed
Decks
Paved
Type Of Land
and
Gravel
Paved
Parking/
Pervious
Use
Patios
Surfaces
Roads
Storage Sidewalks Roofs Pools
Areas
Sum
All Commercial:
acres 0.00 0.14 1.92 3.41 0.24 1.36 0.00 1.25 8.32
% 0.00 1.68 23.10 40.93 2.87 16.37 0.00 15.06 100.00
All Office
acres 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.03 0.17 0.00 0.11 0.58
% 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.86 5.80 29.72 0.00 18.63 100.00
All Institutional
acres 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.56
% 0.00 0.00 56.07 2.59 6.36 0.00 0.00 34.98 100.00
All Residential
acres 0.94 0.25 8.08 8.17 2.03 11.72 0.02 59.35 90.56
% 1.04 0.27 8.93 9.02 2.24 12.94 0.02 65.54 100.00
All Combined
acres 0.94 0.39 10.32 11.85 2.34 13.25 0.02 60.91 100.02
% 0.94 0.39 10.32 11.85 2.34 13.25 0.02 60.89 100.00
Although the major categories for the site agreed between the GIS information and the site surveys,
the site surveys were able to distinguish the different categories of pervious surfaces and quantify
how much of the impervious areas were directly connected to the drainage system. This additional
information can have dramatic effects on the actual storm water quality and quantity, especially for
the small and intermediate storms that produce most of the annual site runoff, and even for the 1.4-
inch design storm used for the CSO evaluations. As an example, only about 15 percent of the
residential roofs are directly connected to the CSS. If all were assumed to be connected, large errors
in the roof runoff contribution calculations would occur. Similarly, if roof runoff stormwater controls
were located at all properties, those located where the roofs were already disconnected would
have much lower effects in decreasing the runoff reaching the combined system. Therefore,
even though the detailed GIS information is very informative, the area requires site surveys.
83
-------
Table 6-9: Medium density residential areas
Impervious Condition
Roofs
Driveways
Sidewalks
Parking/
Storage Streets Landscaped Isolated
(Ac)
Total
Area
Impervious:
Directly connected (ac)
1.87
4.12
1.15
(%)
(15%)
(46%)
(46%)
1.59 9.35
18.07
Disconnected (ac)
10.57
4.03
1.34
(%)
(85%)
(45%)
(54%)
15.95
Pervious:
Unpaved (ac)
0.81
0.81
(%)
(9%)
Landscaped
Isolated (swimming
pools)
65.13
65.13
0.05 0.05
Total residential area
12.44
8.95
2.49
1.59
9.35
65.13
0.05 100.00
Similar to the rain garden methodology and reporting above, Turf-Tec Infiltrometers were used for
infiltration testing in various locations across the pilot study area. Table 6-10 summarizes the data
collected across the pilot watershed.
Table 6-10: Infiltration rates across the pilot watershed
Moisture
Content -
Previous
Measured
Two
Test
Date of
Description of Site
Rainfall
Precipitation
Locations
Number
Test
Address
Location
Event
(In)
(%)
1-A
1-B
1-C
2-A
2-B
4-8-09
4-8-09
7444 Lydia
7428 Lydia
4-15-09 76 Terrace
4-15-09 1480, 76th Ter
Between curb and
sidewalk
Between curb and
sidewalk
4-8-09 845, 77th Street Near curb
Near UMKC Flow
Meter MH 01
Between sidewalk
and edge of road
4-2-09
4-2-09
4-2-09
4-8-09-
4-13-09
4-8-09-
4-13-09
0.12
0.12
0.12
1.30
1.30
26.6, 25.7
23.5, 27.8
24.5, 27.5
41.5,37.8
27.8, 25.6
The infiltration rates for the investigated sites ranged from 0.17 inches/hour to 17.83 inches/hour
(Figure 6-4 through Figure 6-8) indicating the soils fall under hydrological soil groups A (sand,
loamy sand, or sandy loam) and B (silt loam, or loam) with low runoff potential and moderate to
high infiltration rates. These results indicate that the pilot area is well suited for GI implementation.
84
-------
Infiltration Test: Site 1-A
QJ
re
DC
o
¦M
re
re
¦M
C
0)
E
o
u
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Infiltration Rate = 8.13 In/hr
Decay = 0.21/hr
10
20
-» » ~ I
30 40
Time (min)
Figure 6-4: Turf-Tec Infiltrometer test results for site 1-A.
50
60
Infiltration Test: Sitel-B
4)
+¦>
(U
DC
C
o
'¦M
fU
= £
05 '—'
e
-------
Infiltration Test: Site 1-C
TO
CC
12.00
10.00
8.00
O
5 6.00
TO
4-1
c
0)
E
0)
u
4.00
2.00
0.00
Infiltration Rate = 1.58 In/hr
Decay = 0.028/hr(for 1.75 hr)
20
40
60
80
100
120
Time (min)
Figure 6-6: Turf-Tec Infiltrometer test results for site 1-C.
11
t
~ ~ *
t
ft
ft t
t
ft " " >
11 It
ft—
•
nt« ~
__ ~ ttt tt
T I i r-ft r- -n
140
*•>
to
CC
c
o
TO
3.0
2.5
2.0
- c 1.5
TO '—'
O)
E
01
i-
U
1.0
0.5
0.0
Infiltration Test: Site 2-A
10
20
30 40
Time (min)
50
60
t
Infiltration Rate = 0.17 In/hr
Decay = 0.027/hr (for 1.0 hr)
1 t
Mi 1 1 1 1—ft
70
Figure 6-7: Turf-Tec Infiltrometer test results for site 2-A.
86
-------
Infiltration Test: Site 2-B
16
^ 14
c
T 12
ro
DC 10
1 B
2
= 6
c
"re 4
4-*
c
-------
7.Community Education and Outreach
An extensive effort went into community education and outreach activities because they were
considered to be critical to project success. This chapter describes many of these efforts, including
meeting, surveys, and other outreach events, to connect with the local community.
7.1. Background
In 2008, KCMO WSD initiated a green solutions project in the MBR Basin in Kansas City, Missouri
(the "pilot project"), which was intended to evaluate the effectiveness of green solutions as an
alternative to traditional CSO controls. The city selected an area of approximately 100 acres,
extending from 73rd Street to 77th Terrace and Holmes Road to Paseo Boulevard in south-central
Kansas City. This project area lies mostly within the borders of the Battleflood Heights
Neighborhood Association, which in turn is a part of the Marlborough Community Coalition that is a
non-profit organization focused on neighborhood improvements in this general area of the city.
Lessons learned from KCMO WSD's pilot project will be used in the city's future planning for
widespread use of green solutions—not just in the city's combined sewer area, but throughout the
city; see map, Attachment A.
The National Demonstration of Advanced Drainage Concepts Using Green Solutions for CSO Control
Project ("ADC Project"), funded through the EPA and managed by Tetra Tech, is partnering with the
city to measure the effects of larger-scale application of stormwater management practices on CSOs.
The ADC Project will help demonstrate larger scale implementation of green solutions practices as
part of an overall adaptive management approach to combined stormwater and sewerage system
needs and to control CSO.
As noted above, critical to the success of incorporating green solutions into KCMO WSD's CSO
control plan is the support and involvement of the local community. This chapter documents
community engagement and participation efforts that were implemented during the time period
prior to, and at the commencement of, actual construction of green solutions by KCMO WSD. As
such, these efforts were the result of significant collaboration between those involved with the ADC
Project and KCMO WSD's pilotproject
It became clear early on that effective communication and collaboration between the ADC Project
team and KCMO WSD was as important to the success of the ADC Project as communicating and
engaging with residents in the pilot project area. The city relied on two consulting firms to develop
and deliver its messages to the community, in addition to city staff and other consultants who were
overseeing the technical aspects of the pilotproject The ADC Project team and the city both
understood that because the local community would not differentiate between the ADC Project and
the MBR pilotproject, outreach efforts on the partofboth groups needed to be consistentand
collaborative. Coordination among all parties involved in these projects required frequent meetings
and follow-up activities.
The ADC Project team began meeting with the city in the summer of 2008. The initial focus of these
meetings was to seek an improved understanding of the scope and time frame for the MBR pilot
project, since it was the driver for the ADC Project team's efforts in the pilot project area. By the late
fall of 2008/early 2009, bi-weekly conference calls were established between the ADC Project team
and the city and its consultants to share progress and other information related to both the technical
work and communications and outreach developments. In addition, a SharePoint website
88
-------
was established in early 2009, and which has served as a
useful information-sharing tool, used by both the ADC
Pojectteam and the city and its consultants. The ADC
Project team also developed a flyer that while somewhat
technical in nature, could explain to interested parties the
research that the team would be conducting; see
Attachment B.
Planning for the community outreach and engagement
activities began early in the development of the ADC Project.
The planning team was comprised of staff and consultants
representing KCMO WSD and the local members of the ADC
Project team, which in turn included staff from EPA Region
7 and from MARC. As mentioned earlier, the planning team
recognized that the community would not understand or
appreciate that there were two separate projects occurring
in the pilot area, KCMO WSD's pilot project and the ADC
monitoring and evaluation project. For that reason, the team
developed an overall approach to community outreach
and engagement activities that was applicable to both
projects.
7.2. Outreach Goals Established
An initial set of goals for community engagement and participation were established at the
beginning of the process to support and enhance both projects. The goals will carry through the
completion of the city's pilot project, which includes not only the construction of GI on city right-of-
way property throughout the project, but also includes other activities and possible incentive
programs to be implemented by the city during and after construction.
The ADC Project team and KCMO WSD staff and consultants also recognized the need for
consistency and to avoid repetition in presenting information to the community. For that reason, a
set of key messages and communication strategies were developed that served as the basis for
communications tools and activities.
Goals:
• Engage, educate, encourage, and excite residents and business owners in
the MBR pilot project area to support the city's ADC project by installing
green solutions on their property
• Collect and interpret data on which communication and engagement
techniques result in the greatest positive response to programs and
incentives offered
• Install a variety of green solutions on strategically located private property
• Collect and interpret effectiveness of green solutions on private property
Once both teams understood each project and common goals for community education and
outreach efforts were established, the ADC Project team then developed its own Communications
89
Key Messages:
Green solutions benefit people
and their environment
Green solutions can improve
property values, provide jobs,
offer health benefits, and add
beauty
Neighbors working in
partnership with each other and
the city can enhance and amplify
all project goals
These projects offer residents
opportunities to contribute to
one of the largest green
infrastructure projects in the
United States
-------
and Public Engagement Plan (Communications Plan), designed to achieve the goals established
through the joint planning process with KCMO WSD staff and consultants. A copy of the
Communications and Public Engagement Plan is included (see Attachment C) to this report The
team used basic demographic information about the neighborhood as a starting point for
development of the Communications Plan's strategies and tasks.
Battleflood Heights Demographic Information
(Based on 2000 Census Data)
Population
3,962
Gender
Male: 43,1%: Female: 56.9%
1 Race
76,4% African American
Unemployment (age 16 and over)
B,S8%
Household Income
75% of households less than $75,000 annually
Age
50% age 30 and older
Based on the demographic information, the ADC Project team laid out the following tasks in its
Communications Plan:
• Prepare and disseminate communications tools
• Organize and participate in meetings
• Identify interests and skills of property owners and residents
• Provide training to residents and business owners on installation, operation, and
maintenance of green solutions on private property
• Install demonstration Projects on private property
• Celebrate success
7.3. Community Education and Outreach - On the Ground
The community education and outreach work began in earnest in early 2009 with a community
meeting that took place on January 26, 2009 atthe United Believers Church, 7546 Troost Avenue,
Kansas City, Missouri. The meeting was hosted by KCMO WSD with support from the ADC Project
communications team. Despite falling snow and ice, over 100 people attended the meeting. The
focus of which was to inform residents of the Battleflood neighborhood about the city's pilot project
and to begin educating residents about the benefits of rain gardens, rain barrels, and downspout
disconnects. The city provided a survey to residents atthe meeting, pertaining to the neighborhood
in general, problems/concerns of neighborhood residents, communication techniques, and baseline
knowledge of green solutions. Twenty responses to the survey were collected.
7.4. On the Ground - Street Meetings
The spring and summer of 2009 found the city still in initial stages of project planning and design,
as well as the procurement of consultants. Regular meetings and conference calls between the city's
staff and the ADC Project team continued throughout this period. Although a decision was made to
not to move forward aggressively on public outreach until the city had some initial designs
prepared for public input, ADC Project team members did attend meetings of the Battleflood
Heights Neighborhood Association to continue to develop relationships with neighborhood leaders
90
-------
and interested residents. During this time, the Battleflood Heights Neighborhood Association also
became active in the Marlborough Community Coalition
By the fall of 2009, KCMO WSD had some very preliminary renderings of potential green solutions
available for public review. The city and the ADC Project staff teamed up to host a series of street
meetings for residents in the city's pilot project area in the fall of 2009. The street meetings were
held on two consecutive Saturdays in October (10-24-09 and 10-31-09). Prior to the meetings, the
city and the ADC Project team employed several methods to inform residents about the street
meetings, including yard signs, press releases, letters to residents, attending neighborhood
meetings, email to interested individuals, and posting on the city's website and newsletters.
In an effort to avoid confusion over the two separate projects, the ADC Project team's strategy was to
allow the city to take the lead in developing and disseminating flyers to invite residents to the street
meetings. A copy of the flyer developed for this purpose is included as Attachment G. Both the
ADC Project team and the city participated in distributing the flyers by making them available at
a local community center, through door-to-door canvassing and by placing flyers in local public
library locations.
The October 24, 2009 street meeting took place in the front yard of the house at 7444 Lydia Avenue,
Kansas City, Missouri (Figure 7-1). This location was chosen because it is clearly visible
from a relatively main thoroughfare in the neighborhood. The October 31, 2009 street meeting was
held at 1123 East 76th Street Both addresses were within the pilot project area.
Figure 7-1: October 24,2009 street meeting,
91
-------
The street meetings served multiple purposes. First, the
meetings afforded both the ADC Project team and the city
an opportunity to begin to inform those who lived in the
pilot project area about the imminent work that was going
to be taking place in their neighborhood. It was also
important to the city in particular that residents have
some opportunity to provide input into the design and
location of the green solutions that the city would be
installing.
From the perspective ofthe ADC Project team, these
meetings also served as a chance for the team to inform
citizens about the monitoring aspect of the Project, so that
residents might have a better understanding of and less
concern about, the presence of people from outside of
their neighborhood. The street meetings also provided the
ADC Project team a chance to educate residents generally
about rain gardens, rain barrels, and other best practices
for managing storm water runoff on their property (Figure
7-2).
Finally, the street meetings gave both teams the
opportunity to learn more about the residents within the
pilot area, their interest in gardening in general, and their
openness to installing rain gardens and/or rain barrels on
their property in particular.
The city distributed a second written survey, jointly
developed by the city and the ADC Project communications
teams, which was focused on
understanding neighborhood habits, including traffic
patterns, and best practices for disseminating information
to residents in the pilot area. The city's intent was to use
the information to help develop the best ways of
communicating important information to residents during
the construction of the green solutions. The city also
collected information that would assist in determining
how best to minimize the disruption to residents while the
sewers in the area were upgraded and during installation
of the green solutions.
Benefits of a
RAM GAR0CH5 slowly fih*r M»l»f Ima th* ground, r«tur tng flooding,
«W»rm««fr pollution e*l HrMmtWd frOwqtl.Thitmrtm l«« ffcnwatrr h
Intern* rtsttn **¦«* rtduclng (ambtotd »m* swrflowi
polluted rarofl from (Miring qui suMrsrjyv
A rain garden liuil mti native ptami can absorb at feast 30 percent m
ttvin iht 5'jf ar«f o( ^«n.
Location, location, location
It h important to locatr yuur rain garden
¦rhrre H w«ll wilret thtgnilot (mount el
rairdaO «unulf potiiW*. -Ijcru} your rain
gjnJw $0mMI Irwn pjnsf ujrf*:cs -fur?
imIk ninjraify flew, wJ inramae Ri
abJrtf racdlKt rniott Ydu candKipsri i
tdralrng water iraIk**wng and survUud* tol>
-------
installed the rain barrel on a resident's property. The ADC Project team also used informative flyers
and posters depicting rain gardens and rain barrels and their usefulness. As a result of both street
meetings, the ADC Project team compiled a list of residents who indicated an interest in having a
rain garden or rain barrel installed on their property.
7.5. Ongoing Outreach - Maintain Public tnthusiasm
the first residential rain garden in
the area. MARC provided funding
for soil amendments and plants,
while UMKC students designed
the rain garden and a monitoring
program that would be conducted
on this first installation.
Volunteers from the ADC Project
team then dug tilled, and planted
the garde n in July of 2 010 in the
front yard of Ms. Thomas' home.
One of the roof drains was
connected to an inlet in the rain
garden.
Installation by the city of its green
solutions was delayed for a year. This
presented challenges not just to the
technical work to be conducted by the
ADC Project team, but also regarding
ongoing communications. There was
clearly a need to keep residents
interested and engaged in the prospect of
rain gardens and other green solutions
during the interim before green solutions
were actually going to be installed by the
city. There was also a need for residents
to see what an installed and operational
rain garden looked like. One particular
resident, Ms. Brenda Thomas, who lives
at 1312 East 79th Street, had been
particularly excited about having a rain
garden in her yard, so the ADC Project
team decided to find a way to construct
Figure 7-3: Constructing Ms. Thomas' rain garden.
neighborhood and doing an exceptional job of capturing and infiltrating all the rain water it
received. Notlong after, other community members began to ask when they could get some
assistance to install one of the green solutions. Clearly, installation of Ms. Thomas' rain garden was
By September of 2010 the garden
was a showcase for the
Figure 7-4: Completed Thomas rain garden.
93
-------
instrumental in attracting and keeping residents' interest in green solutions during the 2010 year
while there was a lull inKCMO WSD's pilot project schedule.
The ADC Project team had known since the initiation of the project that few resources were
available to install rain gardens and rain barrels on the property of interested city residents. The
ADC Project team addressed this challenge in two ways. First, the team continued its education and
outreach work by attending Marlborough Community Coalition meetings during the spring and
summer of 2010, and by staffing booths at community events during the 2010 year. Second, the ADC
Project team explored additional funding opportunities through existing programs in Kansas City,
including a program sponsored by the city's Fair Employment Council for summer
employment The team also applied for a federal grant, though neither of these leads came to
fruition.
Concurrently, EPA Region 7 team members looked for funding within EPA and late in the fiscal year
of 2010 some funds within their Water Division became available. Next, Region 7 issued a Request
for Proposals for the installation of approximately 8 demonstration rain gardens and 20 rain
barrels, and for services to disconnect 20 roof drains from the CSS—all on private property within
the pilot project area. The Kansas City office of Tetra Tech was selected to conduct this work.
7.6. Green Solutions on the Ground
7.6.1. Residential Property Demonstrations Installed
In the early months of 2011 persons who had expressed an interest in having green practices
installed on their property during street meetings or subsequent meetings of the Marlborough
Community Coalition were contacted for follow up assessment Their interest was confirmed and
access agreements signed. Site visits were scheduled to determine whether the topography, yard
size, and downspout locations would accommodate the selected practices. With these criteria and
time constraints in mind, the team was able to identify seven properties to place demonstration
rain gardens. The team then worked with each resident to design and locate the rain gardens and
select the plants to be installed. The plan was to begin installation of rain gardens in March 2011,
but an unusually long winter and wet spring delayed the installations until May and into the first
week of June.
The team also attended and made presentations at events scheduled by the Marlborough
Community Coalition. The first was a presentation at the Marlborough Community Coalition's
regular monthly meeting in order to explain the residential program and its place in the larger
combined ADC pilot project As a result, the team was also asked to make a small presentation at a
dedication ceremony for a bridge that was constructed in the area. This provided an opportunity to
address the broader general public about the green infrastructure work being conducted in the
Marlborough area.
Volunteer labor was used to install rain gardens. Priorto beginning the installations, the team
conducted 3 rain garden training sessions for a total of 11 volunteers. These volunteers consisted of
UMKC students, high school students, and other interested community members. The volunteer
team, led by a Tetra Tech team leader, dug the depressions, incorporated soil amendments, and
planted the gardens. All seven demonstration rain gardens were installed within a few blocks of
each other. After installation, the team followed up with each homeowner to answer any questions
they had and provided a guidance document outlining suggested rain garden maintenance. The
94
-------
team will also make follow-up visits at 1-month and 4-month intervals to assure that the gardens
are functioning well and plants are thriving.
Although six of the seven properties that received demonstration rain gardens also volunteered to
have a rain barrel installed at their residence, none had downspouts directly connected to the sewer
system. Therefore, the team then reviewed the results of the city's smoke tests of the sewers to
target homes with downspouts connected to the CSS in order to identify candidate properties for
downspout disconnections and rain barrel installations.
Figure 7-5: Installed rain barrel (left) and rain garden (right).
Before beginning rain barrel installations, the team coordinated with a local non-profit organization
(Bridging the Gap) to hold a rain barrel construction and installation training. Three residents and
six volunteers participated in the training. Because of connections formed with the neighborhood,
the team was able to hold the training at a church in the neighborhood, with assistance by the
Marlborough Community Coalition. By the end of the training, the group had constructed 20 rain
barrels to be installed at residential properties.
All 20 rain barrels were installed by the team and volunteers, 1 per property. Three additional rain
barrels were installed that were purchased by homeowners. Ten of the 20 properties with rain
barrels also had connected downspouts thatwere disconnected, Intotal, 23 rain barrels on 20
properties were installed, and 17 roof drain downspouts on 10 properties were disconnected. The
team plans to include several of these installations in their overall monitoring program to quantify
contributions from various kinds of green solutions, as well as to quantify the benefits of having
residential property installations.
In May 2011, the city also broke ground on their pilot project The city sponsored a community-
wide event held at South Broadland Presbyterian Church on Saturday, May 21, 2011, beginning
with a pancake breakfast Mayor Sly James welcomed everyone to the event. He was followed by
councilpersons representing the residents of the pilot project area, officials from the KCMO WSD,
and representatives of the various contractors who would be involved in the city's construction of
green solutions. Each explained their role, introduced their representatives (whom residents could
call with questions or concerns), and talked about the pilot project and schedule. Additionally,
7.7. KCMO Begins Construction of Green Solutions
95
-------
representatives of the various utilities (gas and power) talked about assistance they could provide,
and various organizations that provide social and financial services had tables where community
members could learn about available assistance. At least 60 community members participated. This
event bolstered community spirits—the long awaited pilot project was finally happening.
7.8. Celebrating Residential Green Solutions
From the time funds became available for the residential demonstration of green solutions project,
the ADC Project team had planned to hold a celebration when the demonstration projects were
completed. EPA Region 7 agreed to take the lead, and started the planning process by meeting with
the Marlborough Community Coalition to introduce the idea and get their input on the approach
and timing of the celebration. While EPA provided leadership, the ADC Project team and Coalition
were involved in all phases of planning and hosting the celebration event
The Marlborough Community Coalition proposed July 22, 2011 as the event date. Initially the group
wanted to have two events, one on Friday (7-22-11) for elected officials and the media and one the
next day (Saturday 7-23-11) for residents. The ADC Project team and Marlborough Community
Coalition members decided jointly that a bus tour of the rain gardens and a press conference to
announce the completion of the demonstration projects would be ideal for Friday. Ms. Thomas
volunteered to host the press conference on the front lawn of her residence with her rain garden in
the background. The Coalition also suggested that some young student from the Benjamin Banneker
Charter Academy of Technology participate in the celebration. They arranged for an art teacher
to work with some of her students to paint several rain barrels that would be on display during
the press conference. Ideas discussed for the Saturday event included a picnic, a festival with
booths at one of the area schools, self-guided home tours where green solutions have been installed,
and some demonstrations on rain garden and rain barrel maintenance. In the end, the Coalition
determined that the summer schedule was already booked for key participants and the
amount of construction in the neighborhood made planning of tour routes difficult. Thus, the
Marlborough Community Coalition decided it best to postpone the ideas for a Saturday event to
future date.
Ultimately, the heat wave that occurred around July 22,2011 made everyone pleased that
additional outside activities had not been planned. However, the Friday bus tour at 11:15 a.m. and
the subsequent noon press conference, even with temperatures close to 100 degrees, was a superb
event, with approximately 75 people present
96
-------
Figure 7-6: Ms. Brenda Thomas addresses the community about rain garden (left). Ms. Cindy Circo (former City
Council member and Mayor Pro Temp at the press conference) and Ms. Thomas display a painted rain barrel
(right).
Figure 7-7. Students at the press conference displaying rain barrels they painted.
Ms. Thomas opened the press conference with a welcome to her home and neighborhood. She talked
about her rain garden, the flora and fauna that live there, and how much she enjoyed
maintaining her rain garden. Next, Mark Hague, Acting Deputy Regional Administrator for EPA spoke
about how the rain garden and rain barrel installations resulted from the successful partnering
of many groups. Cindy Circo, Kansas City Mayor Pro Tem, spoke about the value of the pilot
project to the revitalization of the Marlborough Neighborhood. Ms. Thomas closed the event
by helping the student group present one of the painted rain barrels to Ms. Circo for a display at
City Hall. Several local television stations shot footage and a reporter from the Kansas City Star was
present to develop a story that was in the local newspaper. The local public television station, KCPT,
conducted interviews and information for a segment in a series called Imagine KC, which will air at a
later date.
97
-------
7.9. . . >or • .irned
Many lessons were learned throughout the multi-year project, though this report will only attempt
to describe three. The first was the value of community celebrations. Each of the events that have
occurred in the Marlborough area during the last year (Ground-breaking for City's Green Solutions
Project in May, and the Residential Rain Garden Press Conference and Tour in July) have brought
positive attention to the neighborhood. This visibility has resulted in a growing sense of pride as
well as a willingness on the part of residents to become more active in overall community
revitalization efforts.
Another lesson learned was that during the 3 years of community engagement work that the ADC
team, the city, and the city's consultants, did in the project area had a secondary benefit—it
supported the formation of the Marlborough Community Coalition. With both projects needing
community support, this need stimulated community leaders to organize themselves to respond,
not only to environmental concerns, but also housing, community policing, and the need for
neighborhoodrevitalization.
A final lesson learned was the value of working with a local champion. Ms. Brenda Thomas became
the highly visible and outspoken champion for green solutions at the neighborhood level. She was
the first implementer GI and always willing to talk to others about her rain garden. She was an
organizer who had many contacts inside and outside of the community and was willing to help the
ADC team engage people. She also brought neighbors together to participate. She was also involved
with the Marlborough Community Coalition and helped the team connect with a group that was
gaining strength as an organization that mattered in local decision-making.
ortunities
The ADC team and city both realize that public engagement will continue to be a priority as
installation and monitoring of local green solutions occur. It is vital to continue to nurture the early
implementers of green solutions with information and additional ideas for ensuring that their
demonstration projects remain successful. We also need to continue to find ways to celebrate
success for both public and private investments. Lastly, we need to assist the Marlborough
Community Coalition in organizing and hosting their postponed Saturday festival sometime this fall.
38
-------
Andoh, R, R. Pitt, N.. Togawa, and K. Osei. 2009. The Up-FIo Filter - An Advanced Novel High-Rate
Filtration System for Stormwater Treatment. Stormwater 2009, Australia.
Contech Construction Products, Inc. 2011. UrhanGreen ™ Bio Filter. .
Accessed June 23,2011.
Clesceri, L.S., A.E. Greenberg, and A.D. Eaton (ed.). 1998. Standard methods for the examination of
water and wastewater, 20th ed. American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.
Khambhammettu, U., R. Pitt, R. Andoh, and S. Clark, S. 2006. Performance of Upflow Filtration for
Treating Stormwater. World Environment & Water Resources Congress, ASCE/EWRI. Omaha,
Nebraska. May 21-26, 2006.
Leeds, T. 2009. Kansas City's Green LTCP & Pilot Programs. Water Services Department, Kansas City,
MO.
Pitt, R. 2011. WinSLAMM Calibration, Pollutant and Flow Sources; and Performance of Stormwater
Control Programs for the Marlborough Neighborhood Test and Control Watersheds. Kansas City,
MO.
USEPA(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1983. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes, 3rd edition. EPA report number 600479020. Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. SUSTAIN - A Framework for Placement of
Best Management Practices in Urban Watersheds to Protect Water Quality. EPA/600/R-09/095.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.
WSD (Water Services Department). 2008. Green Alternatives for Outfalls 059 & 069. Water Services
Department, Kansas City, MO.
WSD (Kansas City, Missouri, Water Services Department). 2009. Overflow Control Program. January
30,2009. Water Services Department, Kansas City, MO.
XP Software. 2010. XP-SWMM Technical Description 2010. Accessed [Tune 27th. 2011],
-------
Appendix C
Advanced Drainage Concepts for Using Green Solutions for CSO
Controls 2012 Summary Report
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts for
Using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
(modified by Michelle Simon and published in 2016)
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts for Using Green Solution for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
by
Dustin Bambic, P.H.1
Jason Wright, P.E.1
Robert Pitt, P.E., Ph.D., D.WRE2
Deborah O'Bannon, P.E., Ph.D.3
*Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA
2University of Alabama, Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, Tuscaloosa, AL
3University of Missouri - Kansas City, Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Kansas City, MO
In support of:
EPA contract no. EP-C-11-009
Work Assignment 1-04
Project Officer:
Michelle Simon, Ph.D., P.E.
Urban Watershed Management Branch
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
2890 Woodbridge Avenue (MS-104)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
December 2012
-------
Disclaimer
The work reported in this document was funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA
or the Agency) under Work Assignment 1-04 of contract no. EP-C-11-009 to TetraTech, Inc.
Through its Office of Research and Development, EPA funded and managed, or partially funded and
collaborated in, the research described herein. This document has been subjected to the Agency's
peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication. Any opinions expressed in
this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency;
therefore, no official endorsement should be inferred. Any mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
Executive Summary
Green infrastructure includes practices and site-design techniques that store, infiltrate, evaporate,
or detain storm water runoff and in so doing, control the timing and volume of storm water
discharges from impervious surfaces (e.g., streets, building roofs, and parking lots) to the
storm water collection systems. EPA's Office of Research and Development has the goal to provide
detailed guidance and information on methodologies for selection, placement, and cost
effectiveness and to document the benefits of green infrastructure applications in urban
watersheds for new development, redevelopment, and retrofit situations.
The Kansas City Water Services Department (KCWSD) provides wastewater collection and
treatment for approximately 650,000 people, located within the City and in 27 tributary or
"satellite" communities. The City of Kansas City, Missouri has developed a project to demonstrate
the application of green infrastructure for combined sewer overflow (CSO) control in the Middle
Blue River. KCWSD has recently completed construction of a 100-acre retrofit of an aging
neighborhood that has included sewer rehabilitation and implementation of over 100 green
infrastructure (GI) solutions. This project is one of the largest in the United States and provides a
unique opportunity for USEPA ORD to quantify the benefits of GI solutions on large scales (overall
pilot project area) and small scales (individual GI solutions) and meet its Gl-related goals.
This progress summary report describes efforts completed during the 2012 calendar and presents
preliminary results from monitoring efforts to date. The ADC projectmade significant progress
during the 2012 calendar year, including the following technical achievements:
• Installation of water quality and/or hydraulic monitoring equipment at eight individual GI
solutions
• Hydraulic monitoring of 12 storm events at the individual GI solutions
• Water quality monitoring of 9 storm events at the individual GI solutions for a total of 29
water quality samples
• Continued collection and download of hydraulic monitoring data from the four large-scale
flow meters and rainfall gage
• Continued collection and download of hydraulic monitoring data from two private rain
gardens
• Modeling of the pre- and post-construction hydrology of the pilot project area versus the
control area
• Extensive efforts to compile and analyzed hydraulic and water quality monitoring data
collected to date (both large-scale and small-scale)
The achievements listed above do not include the many non-technical achievements including
fostering of collaboration and information exchange among EPA ORD and KCMWD and efforts by
Region 7 staff to increase community awareness regarding the benefits of green infrastructure.
The lengthy construction timeline for the MBRGS pilot project and severe drought conditions have
led to the project being extended into the 2013 calendar year. The following efforts are expected to
be completed in 2 013:
ii
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
• Continued hydraulic and water quality monitoring at in the individual GI solutions, with an
emphasis on water quality sampling of larger (>l-inch) storm events that generate effluent
from the GI solutions
• Additional modeling efforts including SWMM or SUSTAIN modeling
• Additional statistical analyses to support quantification of the performance of individual GI
solutions
• Additional analyses to quantify the post-construction performance of the MBRGS pilot
project area versus the control area
• Completion of a final report that can serve as a national reference regarding the
performance of GI solutions at multiple scales
• Training of KCMWD staff regarding the water quality monitoring protocols to encourage
long-term monitoring of the GI solutions
• Transition of monitoring responsibility for the four large-scale flow meters to KCMWD
(which owns the flow meters)
The ADC project is on track to support the GI-related goals ofEPAORD and significantly benefit the
national community of agencies associated with managing stormwater and CSO impacts.
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
Contents
Disclaimer i
Executive Summary ii
Contents iv
List of Tables v
List of Figures vi
1. Background 1
2. Overview of 2 012 Activities 3
2.1. MBRGS Pilot Project Construction 4
2.2. Flow and Water Quality Monitoring Efforts 5
2.2.1. Large-scale Flow Monitoring of Pilot Project and Control Areas 5
2.2.2. Small-Scale Monitoring of Individual GI Solutions 9
2.2.2.1. Hydraulics Monitoring Methods 9
2.2.2.2. Water Quality Sample Collection Methods 9
2.2.2.3. Water Quality Analytical Methods 10
3. Preview of Results from 2012 31
3.1. Large-Scale Flow Monitoring 31
3.1.1. Hydrograph Separation 31
3.1.2. Regression Analyses for Patching UMKC01 Data Patching 35
3.2. Small-Scale Hydraulics and Water Quality Results 3 6
3.2.1. Hydraulics Results 37
3.2.2. Water Quality Results 46
4. Conclusions and Next Steps 62
5. References 63
iv
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
List of Tables
Table 1. Large-Scale Flow Monitoring Locations 7
Table 2. Individual GI Solutions Monitored for Flow and/or Water Quality for the ADC Project 10
Table 3. Laboratory Analyses for Monitoring of Small-Scale GI Solutions1 12
Table 4. Storm Events Monitored for Hydraulics or Water Quality in Public, Individual GI Solutions
36
Table 5. Summary Statistics for UMKC-measured Constituents: TSS, Turbidity, Nitrate, and
Phosphate 57
Table 6. Summary Statistics for UMKC-measured Constituents: pH and Fecal Coliform 58
Table 7. Summary Statistics for UA-measured Constituents: TSS, SSC, and Dso 59
Table 8. Summary Statistics for R7-measured Constituents: Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorous
60
Table 9. Summary Statistics for R7-measured Constituents: Total and Dissolved Lead 60
Table 10. Summary Statistics for R7-measured Constituents: Total and Dissolved Copper and Zinc
61
v
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
List of Figures
Figure 1. KCWSD Service Area with Sanitary Sewer and Combined Sewer Basins 2
Figure 2. Missouri Drought Conditions as of December 2012 (table) and September 2012 (map)
(Source: U.S. Drought Monitor) 3
Figure 3. Google® Street View of a Street within the MBRGS Pilot Project during Construction 4
Figure 4. MBRGS Pilot Project Area, Individual GI Controls, and Micro-drainage Areas 5
Figure 5. Outfall 069 Watershed including Pilot Project Area and Adjacent Control Area 6
Figure 6. Pilot Project (red) and Control Area (blue) Flow Monitoring Locations 8
Figure 7. Flow Path Diagram for Large-Scale Flow Meter Sites (Source: GBA) 8
Figure 8. Locations of Individual GI Solutions Monitored during the ADC Project 11
Figure 9. Pictures from Individual GI Solution #1 at 1324 East 76th Street (Curb Extension) 13
Figure 10. As-built Schematic of Monitoring Installation at Individual GI Solution #1 at 1324 East
76th Street (Curb Extension) 14
Figure 11. Pictures from Individual GI Solution #2 at 1325 East 76th Street (Curb Extension) 15
Figure 12. As-built Schematic of Monitoring Installation at Individual GI Solution #2 at 1325 East
76th Street (Curb Extension) 16
Figure 13. Pictures from Individual GI Solution #3 at 1419 East 76th Street (Curb Extension) 17
Figure 14. As-built Schematic for Monitoring Installation for Individual GI Solution #3 at 1419 East
76th Street (Curb Extension) 18
Figure 15. Pictures from Individual GI Solution #4 at 1612 East 76th Street (Rain Garden Extension)
19
Figure 16. As-built Schematic For Monitoring Installation at Individual GI Solution #4 at 1612 East
76th Street (Rain Garden Extension) 20
Figure 17. Pictures from Individual GI Solution #5 at 1336 East 76th Street (Rain Garden Extension)
21
Figure 18. As-built Schematic for Monitoring Installation at Individual GI Solution #5 at 1336 East
76th Street (Rain Garden Extension) 22
Figure 19. Pictures from Individual GI Solution #6 at 1141 East 76th Terrace (Rain Garden
Extension) 2 3
Figure 20. As-built Schematic for Monitoring Installation at Individual GI Solution #6 at 1141 East
76th Terrace (Rain Garden Extension) 24
Figure 21. Pictures from Individual GI Solution #7 at 1222 East 76th Terrace (Rain Garden with
Smart Drain) 25
Figure 22. As-built Schematic for Monitoring Installation at I GI Solution #7 at 1222 East 76th
Terrace (Rain Garden with Smart Drain) 2 6
Figure 23. Pictures from Individual GI Solution #8 at 1112 East 76th Terrace (Cascade Swale) 27
Figure 24. As-built Schematic for Monitoring Installation at Individual GI Solution #8 at 1112 East
76thTerrace (Cascade Swale) 28
Figure 25. Pictures from Individual GI Solution #9 at 1312 East 79th Street (Mrs. Thomas Private
Rain Garden) 29
Figure 26. Pictures from Individual GI Solution #10 at 1505 East 76th Street (Mrs. Moss Private Rain
Garden) 30
Figure 27. Example Hydrograph Separation for a UMKC01 Storm Event 32
Figure 28. Total Rainfall Depth (top) and Peak 5-minute Rainfall Intensity (bottom) at the ADC
Rainfall Gage during 2008 to 2011 Storm Events with Data from All Four Flow Meters 33
vi
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
Figure 29. Total Storm Volume (top) and Peak Discharge Rate (bottom) for Wet Weather Flows
from the PilotProject Area Area Control Are a during 2008 to 2011 Storm Events
with Data from All Four Flow Meters 34
Figure 30. Cross Sectional Area (v4) versus Flow Velocity (v) atUMKCOl between 2008 and 2011 35
Figure 31. Storm Event Hydraulics Data for Individual GI Solution #1 at 1324 East 76th Street
(Curb Extension) 38
Figure 32. Storm Event Hydraulics Data for Individual GI Solution #2 at 1325 East 76th Street
(Curb Extension) 39
Figure 33. Storm Event Hydraulics Data for Individual GI Solution #3 at 1419 East 76th Street
(Curb Extension) 40
Figure 34. Storm Event Hydraulics Data for Individual GI Solution #4 at 1612 East 76th Street
(Rain Garden Extension) 41
Figure 35. Storm Event Hydraulics Data for Individual GI Solution #5 at 1336 East 76th Street (Rain
Garden Extension) 42
Figure 36. Storm Event Hydraulics Data for Individual GI Solution #6 at 1141 East 76th Terrace
(Rain Garden Extension) 43
Figure 37. Storm Event Hydraulics Data for Individual GI Solution #7 at 1222 East 76th Terrace
(Rain Garden with Smart Drain) 44
Figure 38. Storm Event Hydraulics Data for Individual GI Solution #8 at 1112 East 76th Terrace
(Cascade Swale) 45
Figure 39. Measured Concentrations ofTSS at Individual GI Solutions (UMKC, top; UA, bottom) 47
Figure 40. Measured Concentrations of SSC (top) and Median Suspended Particle Size (bottom)
by UA at Individual GI Solutions 48
Figure 41. Measured Turbidity by UMKC at Individual GI Solutions 49
Figure 42. Measured Fecal Coliform Concentrations by UMKC at Individual GI Solutions 50
Figure 43. Measured Concentrations of Nitrate (top, UMKC) and Total Nitrogen (bottom, R7)
at Individual GI Solutions 51
Figure 44. Concentrations of Phosphate (top, UMKC) and Total Phosphorous (bottom, R7)
at Individual GI Solutions 5 2
Figure 45. Measured pH at Individual GI Solutions (UMKC) 53
Figure 46. Measured Concentrations of Dissolved Copper (top, R7) and Total Copper (bottom, R7)
at Individual GI Solutions 54
Figure 47. Measured Concentrations of Dissolved Lead (top, R7) andTotal Lead (bottom, R7)
at Individual GI Solutions 55
Figure 48. Measured Concentrations of Dissolved Zinc (top, R7) and Total Zinc (bottom, R7)
at Individual GI Solutions 56
vii
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
1.Background
In 2012, Kansas City, Missouri Water Services Department (KCWSD) completed construction of the
Middle Blue River Green Solution (MBRGS) pilotproject, which is a 100-acre area where green
infrastructure (GI) solutions have been implemented to demonstrate their volume control benefits
for abating combined sewer overflows (CSOs) due to wet weather flows. The MBRGS pilot project is
a landmark component of the KCWSD's Overflow Control Program and will be used to assess the
implementability of GI solutions across the entire CSO service area (Figure 1) including
constructability, cost-effectiveness, maintenance requirements, and community acceptance.
Nationally, the MBRGS pilot project is one of the largest GI retrofits to date in the United States.
Since the initial conception of the MBRGS pilotproject, EPA's Office of Research & Development (EPA
ORD) has been collaborating with KCWSD to [1] support KCWSD's GI implementation efforts and [2]
utilize the pilot project as an opportunity to nationally demonstrate the effectiveness of GI solutions
for volume and pollutant control. Efforts to support KSWSD have including monitoring of pre-
implementation conditions and modeling of proposed designs. The MRRBGS pilotproject is
considered a national demonstration opportunity for Advanced Drainage Concepts because EPA
ORD has the goal to provide detailed guidance and information on methodologies for selection,
placement, and cost effectiveness of GI solutions. Further, ORD has the goal to document the
benefits of green infrastructure applications in urban watersheds for new development,
redevelopment, and retrofit situations.
Several Advanced Drainage Concepts work plans have been implemented by EPA ORD over the
course ofthe design and construction of the MBGRS pilotproject (EPA ORD, 2009; EPA ORD, 2011a;
EPA ORD, 2011b), with goals including the following:
• Measure small- and large-scale system performance of GI retrofits in the MBR
demonstration project by monitoring the changes in the peak flows, total volumes, and
pollutant loadings before and after GI implementation
• Use models to demonstrate GI and gray infrastructure integration and performance
(volume and number of overflow events) on a larger scale within the CSS, and to calculate
or predict the benefit of the reduction in volume, pollutant load, and number of overflow
events
• Provide information on socio-economical-political barriers of green infrastructure
acceptance
• Gather information for understanding outreach and education benefits to the local
community
• Develop life-cycle cost comparison between conventional CSO control and green
infrastructure control
This report summarizes the activities during 2012 and highlights the preliminary results of
monitoring efforts. These monitoring efforts will continue into 2013, after which a comprehensive
final report will be developed. A modeling report with the same submittal date accompanies this
progress report (EPA ORD, 2012).
1
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
NORTHERN WATERSHEDS
UML CREEKi
ROCK CREEK
WATt«SHtD:
i I
NORTHWESTERN
WATERSHEDS
-r*—MO RIVER NEItt
GOOSENECK CREEK
91UE RIVER NORTH
WOUNO GftOVE
TURKEY CREEK
LOWER BLUE RIVER
BRUSH CREEK
TOWN FCKK CREEK
MIDDLE BLUE RIVER
BLUE RIVER CENTRAL
UFfLE BLUE RIVER
BLUE RKVER: SOUTI
Figure 1. KCWSD Service Area with Sanitary Sewer and Combined Sewer Basins
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
2.Overview of 2012 Activities
This section describes the activities completed during 2012. Previous reports provide many
additional details on details on the design of GI solutions, site selection, rationale for selected field
and laboratory methods, and pre-performance data analyses.
Ahistoric droughtduring 2012 affected all activities associated with this project, including pilot
project construction and monitoring. As shown in Figure 2, a vast majority of the state (84%} was
under Severe Drought conditions in September 2012, with 17% beingunder Extreme Drought
conditions. These drought conditions reduced the survival rate for many plantings in GI solutions,
and limited the number of wet weather flow events that could be monitored. Ultimately, the
drought conditions have led to the continuation of monitoring activities into 2013, in order to allow
for collection of additional data from wet weather flows.
Figure 2. Missouri Drought Conditions as of December 2012 (table) and September 2012 (map)
(Source: U.S. Drought Monitor)
Drought Conditions {Percent Afbb}
None
D0-D4
D1-D4
D2-D4
D3-D4
~4
Current
O.CO
100.00
94 68
29 09
o.co
0.00
LBSt Week
(12'11.7012 map i
O.CO
100.00
94 68
29 09
o.co
o.co
3 Monlhs Ago
I'39'18'2U12 map I
O.OO
100.00
100,00
64 55
16 90
0.00
Slarl of
Calendar Year
|12'27.'2011 mapi
95 48
4.62
0.00
O.CO
O.OO
O.OO
Slarl of
'¦Va1ar Yaar
(Q&'25 '2012 map 1
0,00
100,00
100.00
84 50
16 90
O.OO
One Yaar.Ago
(12'13,7011 map I
72 39
37 61
1.27
O.OO
O.CO
O.OO
Irrt&nsliv:
OH Abnormally Dry
Dt Draught - Moderate
D2 Drought - Snvarn
D3 Draught - Exlrranc
D-fl Draught - EvrGfibonal
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
2.1MBRGS Pilot Project Construction
The active construction period for the MBRGS pilot project was from May 2011 to July 2012.
Shown in Figure 3 is an example street view during construction. More than 100 individual GI
solutions were constructed and planted. In order to allow KCWSD to assess the implementability of
different GI designs, multiple types of GI solutions were constructed including rain gardens,
bioretention areas, bioswales, porous sidewalks, and cascading swales. For most types of GI
solutions, several different types of underground features are represented (under-drains, Smart
Drains, subsurface storage, etc.].
Figure 3. Google® Street View of a Street within the MBRGS Pilot Project during Construction
By spring 2012, a majority ofthe individual GI solutions were near completion including plantings.
From spring 2012 to July 2012, much of the construction effort involved completion of plantings,
which was challenged by the worsening drought conditions. During this period, many ofthe inlets
to the individual GI solutions were sandbagged to avoid siltation due to upstream construction
activities. By late July 2012, the roads in the MBR neighborhood were repaved and all sandbags had
been removed, which marked KCMWD's completion of construction.
Shown in Figure 4 is the MBRGS pilot project area and individual GI solutions constructed within
the watershed. Also shown are the approximate micro-drainage areas to the individual GI solutions
(yellow-shaded areas) and the areas do not drain to GI solutions (mostly yards and areas not
directly connected to the street scape). Approximately half of the 100-acre pilot project area drains
directly to a GI solution.
4
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
Subwatershed with no devices
Sub water sheds with storm water controls
Subwatershed with no devices selection
sewer_network
¦ Bioretention
Curb extention with bioretention
Curb extention with raingarden
Porous sidewalk
Shalow bioretenton
Bios wale
Cascade
Raingarden
Numbers on the map represent areas (acre)
Mile:
Figure 4. MBRGS Pilot Project Area, Individual Gl Controls, and Micro-drainage Areas
2.2._ Flow and Water Quality Monitoring Efforts
This sub-section describes the monitoring activities conducted during 2012, organized by large-
scale and small-scale investigations.
2.2.1. Large-scale Flow Monitoring of Pilot Project and Control Areas
The lQO-acre pilot project is within the MBR watershed and captures wet weather flows from a
sub-drainage to CSO Outfall 069, which is a total of 475 acres. An adjacent 86-acre area is being
used as a "control" area to compare system response to rainfall with and without GI
implementation (Figure 5). No GI will be incorporated into this control area for the duration of the
post construction monitoring program. The demonstration project and control areas are both fully
developed with approximately 34 percent impervious area, and include mostly residential with
some commercial land uses.
5
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
Legend
~ CS0069 Outfal
Stream
CSO069 Watershed Context
NADjr tovnjHmtJ ijmm
Mv coauom Q*1 2-21311
Kilometers
] Mies
TETHATiCH
Figure 5. Outfall 069 Watershed including Pilot Project Area and Adjacent Control Area
6
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
As shown in Table 1 and Figure 6, a total of four locations have been monitored for the large-scale
flow assessment: UMKC01, UMKC02a, UMKC02b, and UMKC03. These sites have been monitored
since November 2008. During 2012, flow monitoring efforts involved downloading data from these
sites' data loggers on a monthly basis. For all flow meter sites, an ISCO 2150 type flow sensor with a
model 6700 controller is installed in the pipe using an expansion ring or concrete screws to hold
the meter in place. While monitoring has occurred over a 4-year period, gaps in the record for each
meter are common. Notable gaps in the record include the following:
• Gaps in UMKC01 Record:
o June 28, 2010 to November 7, 2010 (due to sewer line rehab)
o March 30, 2011 to November 20, 2011 (unknown reason)
o November 20, 2011 to September 7, 2012 (level sensor failure)
• Gaps in UMKC02a Record:
o March 30, 2011 to May 28, 2011 (unknown reason)
o September 12, 2011 to February 15, 2012 (unknown reason)
• Gaps in UMKC02b Record:
o No gaps longer than 2-weeks reported
• Gaps in UMKC03 Record:
o March 30, 2011 to July 5, 2011 (unknown reason)
o September 12, 2011 to November 21, 2011 (unknown reason)
In order to calculate volumes discharged from the control area, the volumes measured by the three
control area flow meters are added (UMKC02a, UMKC02b, and UMKC03; see Figure 7). Flows
from the pilot project area and control area are independent of on another Data analysis efforts,
including efforts to "patch" some of the data gaps, are described in Section 3.
Table 1. Large-Scale Flow Monitoring Locations
Equipment Type
Area
Type
Model
Address
Design
Station
Date
Installed
Drainage
Area
(acres)
Rain gauge
Both
Pilot and
Control
RainWise
tipping bucket
77th St & Paseo
N/A
7/22/09
N/A
UMKC1 flow meter
Pilot
ISCO 2150
Near 1461
E 76th Terr
S128-498
11/7/08
99.7
UMKC2a flow meter
Control
ISCO 2150
Near 1451
E. 77th St
S128-422
11/7/08
41.4
UMKC2b flow meter
Control
ISCO 2150
Near 1451
E. 77th St
S128-420
11/7/08
27.6
UMKC3 flow meter
Control
ISCO 2150
77th St & Paseo
Overpass
S128-426
11/7/08
17.6
7
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
Figure 6. Pilot Project (red) and Control Area (blue) Flow Monitoring Locations
(Source: GBA, note: sites KCM002, KCM002, and KCM001 were not monitored for this project)
KCM002
KCMOOJ
KCMOOI
UMKC01
UMKC02O ) j0-
UMKC03
UMKC02b
LEGEND
Q PILOT PROJECT FLOW BASIN
Q CONTROL FLOW BASIN
- SEWER
Figure 7. Flow Path Diagram for Large-Scale Flow Meter Sites (Source: GBA)
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
2.2.2. Small-Scale Monitoring of Individual Gl Solutions
A total of 10 individual GI solutions have been monitored for this ADC project (Table 2
and Figure 8). Photographs, drainage information, and as-built schematics of monitoring
installation atthese 10 sites are shown in Figure 9 through Figure 26. Four of these GI solutions
were monitored for flow rate and water quality (GI Solutions #1-3 and #7), and six GI solutions
were monitored for flow rate only (GI Solutions #4-6 and #8). The private rain gardens (GI
Solutions #9 and #10) have been monitored since late September 2010. The private rain garden
monitoring sites were decommissioned in November 2012, and will no longer be monitored. For all
other individual GI solutions (GI Solutions #1 thru #8), monitoring equipment was installed in
spring and early summer 2012 (May or June for most sites), and will continue into 2013.
2.2.2.1. Hydraulics Monitoring Methods
For all individual GI solutions, continuous flow rate monitoring includes inflow and outflow using
either an ISCO bubbler (inlets of sites with water quality monitoring) or Global Water WL16 Water
Level Loggers (all outlets and also inlets of sites without water quality monitoring). Private rain
gardens were monitored using a 1-minute time step, while all other individual GI solutions were
monitored with a 5-minute time step. Flow rates at GI Solutions #1 thru #8 were monitored using
H-flumes at the inlets and V-notch weirs at the outlets, and in-garden water levels were measured
using Global Water Level Loggers placed within the garden. Flow data were downloaded
approximately monthly from the data loggers.
2.2.2.2. Water Quality Sample Collection Methods
Three curb extension rain gardens and one rain garden extension were monitored for water quality
between June and November 2012. The water quality monitoring installation consists of two ISCO
samplers housed in an equipment box (see Figure 9 for a typical set-up). All inlet samples were
collected using flow composite methods using a pre-set volume pacing. The curb extension rain
gardens have overflow outlets with no underdrain, and outlet samples were triggered using a
Liquid Level Actuator (if the water level reaches the height of the actuator, which corresponds to
the height of the outlet structure, then the outlet ISCO is triggered and aliquots were filled every 15
minutes). The rain garden extension has a Smart Drain underdrain and outlet samples were
triggered using a tethered cable on a time delay of 15-minutes after inflow to the rain garden was
detected (after this 15-minute delay, aliquots were collected every 15-minutes if flow was present).
Samples were collected during rainfall events that produced sufficient runoff volume, as described
in Section 3.
At the onset of the 2012 monitoring effort, five individual GI solutions were equipped for water
quality monitoring. The fifth GI solution equipped for water quality monitoring was a rain garden
with SmartDrain (similar to Solution #8) atll40 East76thTerrace. However, in June 2012 the
equipment box containing two ISCO samplers from this site was destroyed by the local municipal
solid waste agency. The solid waste crew reportedly mistakenly identified the equipment box as
trash that has been disposed curb-side and extracted it using a truck-mounted crane. The box was
disposed at the local landfill and was never recovered. Therefore, water quality data was collected
from four individual GI solutions (not five).
9
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
Table 2. Individual Gl Solutions Monitored for Flow and/or Water Quality for the ADC Project
No
BMP Type
Address
Design
Station
No.
Flow
Probes
Installed?
Water
Quality
Sampling?
Outlet
ISCO
Triggered
via Cable
or LLA?
1
Curb Extension
1324
East 76th St.
19+79.61
1
Yes
LLA
2
Curb Extension
1325
East 76th St.
19+79.61
1
Yes
LLA
3
Curb Extension
1419
East 76th Terr.
26+51.65
1
Yes
LLA
4
Rain Garden
Extension
1612
East 76th St.
31+31.12
2
No
—
5
Rain Garden
Extension
1336
East 76th St.
21+29.95
2
No
—
6
Rain Garden
Extension
1141
East 76th Terr.
16+10.10
2
No
...
7
Rain Garden w/
Smart Drain
1222
East 76th St.
16+28.15
1
Yes
Cable
8
Cascade Swale
1112
East 76th Terr.
12+22.24
2
No
...
9
Private rain
garden
1312
East 79th St.
Mrs.
Thomas
2
No
...
10
Private rain
garden
1505
East 76th St.
Mrs.
Moss
2
No
...
2.2.2.3. Water Quality Analytical Methods
For monitored storm events, water quality samples were analyzed by up to three laboratories,
as follows (Table 3):
• University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC): the laboratory of Dr. Deborah O'Bannon
analyzed samples for pH, turbidity, total suspended solids, nutrients, and/or fecal coliform.
• University of Alabama (UA): the laboratory of Dr. Robert Pitt analyzed samples for total
suspended solids, suspended solids concentration, and particle size distribution.
• Region 7 EPA (Region 7 Lab): the laboratory of Gaiy Welker analyzed samples for
nutrients and/or metals.
All samples were flow-weigh ted composites, processed by UMKC including combing bottles from
ISCO samplers, creating sub-samples for individual laboratories using cone filter, filtering
preservation, and shipping. In some cases, limited sample volume was available, and not
constituents could be analyzed. In this case, the order of priority was generally from the top row to
the bottom row in Table 3.
10
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
Legend
Cascade Swale
Curb Extension
Private Rain Garden
Rain Garden Extension
Rain Garden wI Smart Drain
Pilot Project Area Watershed
K6iIiliTS"t1
Individual Gl Solutions
Monitored for ADC Project
NAD_ 1983_ Sta tePlane_M issoori_West_FI P S _2403_ Feet
Map produced 06-09-2011
0.2
3 Kilometers
Figure 8. Locations of Individual Gl Solutions Monitored during the ADC Project
11
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
1
Table 3. Laboratory Analyses for Monitoring of Small-Scale Gl Solutions
Pollutant Class Unfiltered Filtered
Analyte Lab Samples Samples
PH
UMKC
V
General
Turbidity
UMKC
V
Bacteria
Fecal coliform
UMKC
V
Total nitrogen
R7
V
Nitrate
UMKC
V
Nutrients
Total phosphorous
R7
V
Phosphate
UMKC
V
Copper
R7
V
V
Metals
Zinc
R7
V
V
Lead
R7
V
V
TSS
UMKC & UA
V
Solids
SSC
UA
V
Particle size distribution
UA
V
1 - If sample volume was limited (less than 4-liters), then the order of priority was generally from top to bottom row.
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
Only receives flows from W along E 76th St ("from driveway up")
N o underdrain.
Figure 9. Pictures from Individual Gl Solution #1 at 1324 East 76 Street (Curb Extension)
13
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
\Mp ofSedimefit Box
Reldtive^Ele *5.02 ft
/y * ~ if ~ ~
Fiumejhrqpt
/ J?elotive^le^4.91 Jt ^
liD lnl£t * * * - r '
lative Ele=4.8 ft * * *
Jartlen Censor *
glative Be=5.43f1
Bottom of Weir (V)
Relative Ele=5.02ft
Figure 10. As-built Schematic of Monitoring Installation at Individual Gl Solution #1 at 1324 East 76th Street (Curb Extension)
14
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
2 samples from small rain in morning of Oct 25, 2012
Drains from street centerline to far side of sidewalk to centerline of
Troost
Looking upgradient towards Troost (most of lawns and homes slope
south away from this location)
Figure 11. Pictures from Individual Gl Solution #2 at 1325 East 76th Street (Curb Extension)
15
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
,ottom of Weir (V)
Native Ele-5.39#
jl !etattv-e EIq.=5 .15 1ft
iop of Sedinoent^Box^,
* Relative Ele =5*31 ft
Gbrddh S^r
%ftveTEIe
v ^
tsor
5.99ft
Figure 12. As-built Schematic of Monitoring Installation at Individual Gl Solution #2 at 1325 East 76th Street (Curb Extension)
16
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
Figure 13. Pictures from Individual Gl Solution #3 at 1419 East 76 Street (Curb Extension)
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
Ele= 5.28 ft
jmejhroat
stative Ele= 5.75
Top of Sediment Box
Relative Ele = 6.12 ft
ottom of Weir (V)
qtive Ele—6,-Uft
Garden Sensor
Figure 14. As-built Schematic for Monitoring Installation for Individual Gl Solution #3 at 1419 East 76th Street (Curb Extension)
18
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
No samplers but two level recorders (inlet and bottom of garden]
towards East (upgradient)
Towards West falso upgradient") [treated wood pole in rain garden")
Figure 15. Pictures from Individual Gl Solution #4 at 1612 East 76th Street (Rain Garden Extension)
19
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
*
\\/
\l>-
^ M,
Relative Ele =5.43lt * " * *
^ \j/ 1
V ,
, | J
^ ,1
im ^ ^ \ls N
Flume Jhropt ( /" ^ * *
Relative Ele=5.49Jt Garden Sensor
Curb Inlet Relative Ele=5.3 f
t
Relative Ele=5.1 ft
Figure 16. As-built Schematic For Monitoring Installation at Individual Gl Solution #4 at 1612 East 76th Street (Rain Garden Extension)
20
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
No samplers, 2 level recorders (inlet and bottom of rain garden)
Upgradientfrom rain garden
Figure 17. Pictures from Individual Gl Solution #5 at 1336 East 76th Street (Rain Garden Extension)
21
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
m * Tor of pediment Box * Gordon Sensor
* Relative Ele = 7.
Relative^Ele=i,7.58 ft
M' V
* *
ume Throat
elative
38
Relative Ele= 7.16 ft
Figure 18. As-built Schematic for Monitoring Installation at individual Gl Solution #5 at 1336 East 76th Street (Rain Garden Extension)
22
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
Towards E showing sloping driveway from rain garden; only half
of street and a bit of yard to system [near top of street slope]
Very small drainage area; large inlet right below rain garden
Yard slopes away from rain garden; sidewalk to street center
Driveway slopes away from rain garden towards yard inlets
Figure 19. Pictures from Individual Gl Solution #6 at 1141 East 76th Terrace (Rain Garden Extension)
23
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
AS BUILT NOT AVAILBLE
Figure 20. As-built Schematic for Monitoring Installation at Individual Gl Solution #6 at 1141 East 76th Terrace
(Rain Garden Extension)
24
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
2 samplers and 2 level recorders (inlet and smartdrain underdrain)
E edge of drainage area slopes from garden (no house or driveway)
Figure 21. Pictures from Individual Gl Solution #7 at 1222 East 76th Terrace (Rain Garden with Smart Drain)
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
* 4< • * * 1 \J
' ' t
' L L L
t < ,
j1". 'f ,l< 4 •. '.f |< -
»• • £ . i 1. « * ,
r • 1 4 . * . > < »
¦'* - i
'" 1 £ 0
&• * •
** 4
3ir (V)
6.75 ft
\
f iij» Mr y
' ^ ^ nj
-4, 4, 4,
f ^ ^
*4?
f %|r yl? ^
' ~ ~ ~ ~ ^
^ & Jilt-
1p» -br
p of Sedirr
ative Eie =
urne Thro<
Relative-He
ent Box
= 5.69 ft /
Bottom of W<
Relative Ele=
it /
*>> 4- ,4, ^ j-
>1' ^
>k ylr sp- ^
+ ^ ^ s±,
_^F
}=5.45 ft
Curb Inlet
Relative Ele= 5.19 ft
Figure 22. As-built Schematic for Monitoring Installation at I Gl Solution #7 at 1222 East 76th Terrace (Rain Garden with Smart Drain)
26
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
Cascade
rain garden
W towards Troost and two businesses that drain to this device
Figure 23. Pictures from Individual Gl Solution #8 at 1112 East 76th Terrace (Cascade Swale)
27
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
¦
Bottom of Weir (V)
"tysfrrlive Ele=-4r5&4t
- fep-dT
rdenS
Relative
Curb
Relative Elev= 2.65 ft
nrj
Figure 24. As-built Schematic for Monitoring Installation at Individual Gl Solution #8 at 1112 East 76th Terrace (Cascade Swale)
28
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
Roof drains from half of front and half of side of home
Typical street without rain gardens
Figure 25. Pictures from Individual Gl Solution #9 at 1312 East 79tn Street (Mrs. Thomas Private Rain Garden)
29
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
Figure 26. Pictures from Individual Gl Solution #10 at 1505 East 76 Street (Mrs. Moss Private Rain Garden)
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
3.Preview of Results from 2012
This section presents a preview of results based on data collected and/or compiled during 2012.
Data collection will continue into 2013 and overall summary statistics, trends, and patterns are
likely change by the time the final project report is generated. The final report will contain more
detailed and rigorous statistical analyses.
3.1. Large-Scale Flow Monitoring
A primary goal of the large scale flow monitoring is to quantify the effectiveness of the 110 GI
solutions constructed within the pilot project area. In general, the data from the four flow meter
stations (Table 1) will support development of watershed models (e.g., WinSLAMM, SUSTAIN,
and/or SWMM models). WinSLAMM modeling is described in the accompanying model report (EPA
ORD, 2012) and SUSTAIN or SWMM modeling will be presented in the final report
During the 2012 performance period, data from the four large-scale flow meters were compiled and
analyzed. Analyses consisted of two primary efforts:
1. Hydrograph separation for storm events that occurred from November 2008 thru July 2012.
2. Regression analyses to patch missing water level from UMKC01 between November 2011
and September 2012
These efforts are described in the following sub-sections.
3.1.1. Hydrograph Separation
A total of 186 storm events were identified between November 2008 and July 2012. Time series
analyses were used to identify these storm events and characterize storm event hydrographs.
Storm hydrograph separation was performed whereby pipe-flow recorded in the time-step prior to
a rainfall event was set as the base flow condition (Figure 27). If the flow rate dropped below the
initial base flow level, the base flow rate was reset to that lower value. In addition, contemporaneous
rainfall data were analyzed and associated with each storm event For rainfall
analyses, data from the ADC rainfall gage were used and, when necessary, nearby precipitation
gages (5110, 5030, 5050, and 5100) where used to patch missing intervals in the ADC precipitation
time series record. Storm intervals were established according to KCWSD storm criteria of 12-hour
inter-event time and rainfall total >= 0.1 inches.
The distributions of rainfall events and wet weather flows for storm events between November
2008 and July 2012 are shown in Figure 28 and Figure 29, respectively. Storm events with flow
data available for all four large-scale flow meters are shown. If any of the four gages had a data gap
during a storm event, the storm is not shown. A total of 103 storm events had data for all four flow
meters. These events represent the dataset for the pre- and inter-project period, from before
construction to project completion. The post-project data will be evaluated and compared to the
pre-project period dataset in the final report A preliminary analysis of the pilot project area versus
the control area is presented Talebi 2014.
The median rainfall total for the 103 storm events that had available from all four flow meters was
0.4 inches, with the maximum rainfall total being 3.5-inches. The median rainfall intensity for
events that had available from all four flow meters 1 inch per hour, with the maximum rainfall
31
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
intensity being 4.5-inches per hour (Figure 28], The distribution curves for total volume and peak
discharge rate are similar for the MBRGS pilot project area and control area, with the exception
being the extreme decitiles (10th and 90th percentile values)(Figure 29). The similarity among
stormwater volumes and flow rates is expected considering the pilot project and control areas have
similar drainage areas (100 and 87 acres, respectively) and land uses.
•Base flow
¦Storm Flow
Rainfafl
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
r v
f
•
\ t
L f
0
0.1
0.2
0,3
0.4 -£
0.5 %
0.6 £
0,7
0.8
0.9
1
3/23/09 9:15 PM
3/24/09 5:35 AM
Date-time
3/24/09 1:55 PM
Figure 27. Example Hydrograph Separation for a UMKC01 Storm Event
32
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
10
c
ra
I 1
£
+-»
o
0.1
~~
Total Rainfall
if
U
Is
10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentile
80 90 100
10
¦E
c
(0
c
o
c
"n
tt.
0.1
10
Ham intensity
4
»
/
*
y
4~
~
~
jA
**
*
~
20
30
40 50
Percentile
60
70
80
90
100
Figure 28. Total Rainfall Depth (top) and Peak 5-minute Rainfall Intensity (bottom) at the ADC
Rainfall Gage during 2008 to 2011 Storm Events with Data from All Four Flow Meters
33
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
1,000,000
Total Pipeflow
DischargeVolume
Control
Pilot
50
Percentile
1,000
Peak Pipeflow
Discharge Rate
Control
Pilot
50
Percentile
Figure 29. Total Storm Volume (top) and Peak Discharge Rate (bottom) for Wet Weather Flows
from the Pilot Project Area Area Control Area during 2008 to 2011 Storm Events
with Data from All Four Flow Meters
34
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
3.1.2. Regression Analyses for Patching UMKC01 Data Patching
As described in Section 2.2.1, between November 2011 and September 2012 the water level sensor
for the UMKC01 flow meter failed. Data prior to November 2011 were used to develop a regression
between measured velocity (v) and cross sectional area [A), such that flow rate (Q) could
be estimated during the data gap period according to the equation Q = vxA. Regression methods
were based on the following:
• Missing flow values were estimated using a regression equation developed from available
paired velocity and depth values under non-surcharge conditions, where depth
measurements were converted to area of section flow.
• Depth measurements were transformed into area of section flow on the basis of the
monitored pipe dimensions and the empirical formula:
6 — cos 1 (1 — 2
depth \
pipe diameter
P
Where
pipe diameter2
A = (1 — (cos6)(sin6))
The polynomial regression shown in Figure 30, which had an R-value of 0.83, was used to estimate
flow data where only velocity data were available according to for UMKC1: Q = vxA. It is noted that
relationships between v, Q, and depth were also analyzed, but the regression between v and A had a
superior goodness-of-fit
Seriesl Poly. (Seriesl)
y = O.QOS4X5 ~ 0.003 6xJ + 0.001 lx
R! = 0.6819 7 °
1.5 2
Velocity (m/s|
3.5
Figure 30. Cross Sectional Area (A) versus Flow Velocity (v) at UMKC01 between 2008 and 2011
35
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
3.2. Small-Scale Hydraulics and Water Quality Results
A total of 12 storm events were monitored within at least one of the individual GI solutions during
the 2012 calendar year (Table 4). Of these 12 storms, a total of nine storms were monitored
within at least one public, individual GI solution for water quality (only hydraulics data were
collected for the storms that began on May 30, September 26, and December 14). Hydraulics and
water quality data are presented in the following sub-sections.
Table 4. Storm Events Monitored for Hydraulics or Water Quality in Public, Individual GI Solutions
Individual GI Solution and Whether It was Monitored for Water Quality1'2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Curb Extension
Rain Garden Extension
Rain
Garden
with
Smart
Drain
Cascade
Swale
Storm
Event
Start
Date
Total
Rainfall
(inches)
1324
East
76th St.
1325
East
76th St.
1419
East
76th
Terr.
1612
East
76th St.
1336
East
76th St.
1141
East
76th
Terr.
1222
East
76th St.
1222
East
76th
Terr.
5/30/12a
0.4
6/11/12
0.8
X
X
6/21/12
1.0
X
X
X
7/26/12
0.5
X
X
X
X
8/31/12
2.6
X
X3
X
9/13/12
0.4
X
X3
9/26/12a
0.2
10/12/12
0.9
X
X
X
X
10/17/12
??
X
X
11/5/12
0.8
X
11/11/12
1.5
X
X
X3
12/14/12a
0.4
1- During each storm event, each of the eight GI solutions was monitored for hydraulics with some exceptions.
2- For some storms/sites, the collected sample volume was limited and therefore not all constituents were analyzed.
3-Water quality sample (effluent) was also collected from the outlet structure.
a - No water quality samples were collected during this storm event, but most sites captured hydraulics data
(hydraulics monitoring was continuous).
36
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
3.2.1. Hydraulics Results
For the ADC project, small-scale hydraulics data consists of flow rate measured at the inlet and
outlet (if applicable) of the individual GI solutions, along with in-garden water level sensors. A total
of 12 storm events were monitored for hydraulics within at least one of the public individual GI
solutions during the 2012 calendar year (Table 4). These hydraulics data are the foundation of all
ADC analyses to quantify the performance of individual GI solutions, both in terms of volume
reduction and pollutant loading reduction.
The hydraulics data collected from the eight public individual GI solutions during the 2012 calendar
year are presented in Figure 31 through Figure 38. For each captured storm event, water levels
measured by the inlet H-flume sensors/bubblers and in-garden sensors are reported, along with
estimates of total inflow volume and rainfall depth. It should be noted the water levels (units of
length) from the inlet H-flumes correspond to inflow rates (units of volume per time) per standard
hydraulics equations, which will be calculated and reported in the final report. Similarly, for storm
events where effluent was generated through the outlet V-weirs or Smart Drain, the in-garden or
in-drain water levels (units of length) correspond to outflow rates (units of volume per time), which
will also be calculated and reported in the final report. Observations from the in-garden water level
sensors also allow for estimates of infiltration rates (i.e., drawdown times in units of length per
time), as discussed in Talebi 2 014.
37
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
1324 76th Flume on Rainevent 06/21
Graph for 1324 76th Rainevent 07/26
elapsed time vs flume depth in feet
9> 0.8
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Elapsed time(minute)
The rainfall depth for this event is 1.03 inch
T=0 at 6/20/2012 19:05:00
Total volume for the flume is S16 gal
The water level in Garden is always zero.
1324 76th Flume on Rainevent 08/31
- Elapsed Time for flume vs Flume depth in feet
- Elapsed Time for Garden vs Garden depth in feet
200 400 600 800 1000
Elapsed Time(minute)
The rainfall depth for this event is 2.61 inch
T=0at8/31/2012 22:20:00
Total volume for the flume is 4000 gal
1324 76th Raingarden on Rainevent 10/13
s Flume depth in feet
JU
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Elapsed Time
The rainfall depth for this event is 0-49 inch.
T=0 at 7/25/2012 11:15:00
The total volume of water into the garden during this event is 338 gal.
The water level in garden is always zero during this period
1324 76th Raingarden on Rainevent 09/13
- Elapsed time for flume vs Flume depth in feet
- Elapsed time for garden vs Garden depth in feet
400 600 800 1000
Elapsed Time(minute)
1200 1400 1600
The rainfall depth for this event is 0.43 inch
T=0 at 9/13/2012 12:00:00
The total volume of water into the garden during this event is 2101 gal.
1324 76th Raingarden on Rainevent 11/11
Elapsed time for flume vs flume depth in feet
¦ Elapsed time for garden vs Garden depth in feet
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2
Elapsed Time(minute)
The rainfall depth for this event is 0.86 inch.
T=0at10/12/2012 21:00:00
The total volume of water into the garden during this event is 2778gal.
- Elapsed time for flume vs flume depth in feet
- Elapsed time for garden vs Garden depth in feet
200
400
Elapsed time(minute)
The rainfall depth for this event is 1.45 inch.
T=0 at 11/11/2012 01:00:00
The total volume of water into the garden during this event is 2,021gal.
Figure 31. Storm Event Hydraulics Data for individual Gl Solution #1 at 1324 East 76th Street
(Curb Extension)
38
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
1325 76th Flume on Rainevent 06/21
Graph for 1325 76th Rainevent 07/26
1325 76th Flume on Rainevent 08/31
Elapsed time (minute)
The rainlail depth for this event is 1.03 in<
T=0 at 8/20(201219:10:00
t otal volume lor the flume -s 137a gal
- Elapsed time vs Flume depth in feet
0 200 4D0 500 BOO 1000 1200 1400
Elapsed Time(minute)
The rainfall depth tor this event is 0.49 inch.
T=0 at 7/25*201217 00:00;
The total volume of water into the garden during ths event is 328 gal.
The water level in garden is af«vays zero During this period
fJi
0 200 -800 600
1000 1200 1400 1600
Elapsed time(minute)
The rainfall depth for this event is 2.6
T=0 at8/31/2012 19:00:00
Total volume foi the Hume is 4870 gal
1325 76th Raingarden on Rainevent 09/26
1325 76th Raingarden on Rainevent 09/13
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Elapsed time(minute)
The rainfall depth for this event is C.43 inch.
The total volume of water into the garden during this event is 5354 gal.
f larked
depth in feet
1325 76th Raingarden on Rainevent 10/13
Elapsed time (minute)
The rainfall depth for this event is 0 23 inch
T=0 at 9/25/2012 20:30: CO
:e total volume of water into the garden dui
ISCO flume stopped at &26/201Z 3 at
ig this event is 42gal.
500
1500 2000
Elapsed time(minute)
The ramfall depth for this event is 0.E8 inch.
T=0 at10'12'201219:00:00
ai volume of water into the garden dunng this event is I553gai.
1325 76th Raingarden on Rainevent 11/11
1325 76th Raingarden on Rainevent 11/06
blapstd time lor garcen vs garden depth in leet
ilapsed brnerminute)
r.Tnfjsl depth fill -I'M KMBnl s 0 ?T i
T=:< st 6.10J2C 12 22:05:00:000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 12C0 1400 1600 '800 2000
Elapsed time(minute)
The rainfall depth for ths event is 1.45 inch.
Ts0 at 11/11/2012 00:10:00
Ths total volume of water nto the garden during this event is 725gal.
Figure 32. Storm Event Hydraulics Data for Individual Gl Solution #2 at 1325 East 76th Street
(Curb Extension)
39
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
1419 76th Terrace Flume on Rainevent 06/21
- Elapsed time vs depth in
100 200 300 400 500 6C0 700
Elapsed time (minute)
T-0 at 6'21/2D12 00:55:00
otal volume for tha Hums is 232 9a!
Graph for 1419 76 Terr Rainevent 07/26
- Elapsed time for flume vs flume depth in fee
Elapsde time for garden vs garden in feet
0 200 400 600 800
Elapsed Time (minute)
The rainfall depth for (his event is 0.49 inch.
T=0 at 7/25/2012 17:55:00
The total volume of water into the garden during this event is 103 gal
1419 76th Terr Flume on Rainevent 08/31
200 300 400
Elapsed Time(minute)
The rainfall depth for (his event is 2 .61 inch
T=0at8/31,'2012 11:00:00
total volume for the flume is 1340 gal
1419 76th Terr Flume on Rainevent 08/31
100 200 300 400
Elapsed Time(minute)
The rainfall depth for this event is 2.61 inch
T=0 SI8/31/2012 11:00:00
Total volume for the tluma is 1840 gal
1419 76th Terr Raingarden on Rainevent 09/13
rW\
5 0.2
400 500 BOO 1000 1200 1400
Elapsed time(minute)
T=0 at 9/13/201214-10:00
The total volume of water into the garden during 1hi
1419 76th terr Raingarden on Rainevent 09/26
- Elapsexl time vs flume depth in
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Elapsed time(minute)
The rainfall depth for this event is 0.23 inch.
T=0 at 9/2&2012 02 25:00
The total volume of wale; Into the garden during this event is 583gal
1 he garden data is always zero during this period
ISCO ii ume stopped at S/26'2012 4 am but the rain was still on.
1419 76th terr Raingarden on Rainevent 11/11
1419 76th terr Raingarden on Rainevent 10/13
a 400 eoo boo 1000 1200 1400 isot
Elapsed time(minute)
The rainfall depth for this event is 0.06 inch,
T=0 at10.'12/2012 21:00:00
tat volume of water into the garden during this event is 34S7gal.
Elapsed time{minute)
The ramfall depth for this event is 1.45 inch.
T=0at 11/11/2012 D5 00.00
The total volume of water into the garden during this event is 10,903gal
NO Garden Data for this period
Figure 33. Storm Event Hydraulics Data for Individual Gl Solution #3 at 1419 East 76tn Street
(Curb Extension)
40
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
1612 76th Raingarden on Rainevent 06/11
_j=Jl
0 200 400 600 800 1000 120C
Elapsed Time( minute)
T'na rainfal depth foi this event is OJ
T=Oat&'1W2012 09 45:52
1612 76th Graphs on Rainevent 06/21
1612 76th on Rainevent 08/31-09/01
rsr-A.
The total volume of water into tha garden during this even; is 1 1 gal.
200 400 60i
Elapsed Time (minute)
The rainfall depth far ails event Is 1 03 inch
T=D at 8(210012 00:12:33
Total volume tor the flume Is 1031 gal
I 06
a>
5 0.4
is
5 0.2
f lapsed time vs Rume depth in feet
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Elapsed time(minute)
The rainfall depth for this event Is 5.60 Inch
T=(J at8/3!.<2012 11.00:64
Total volume tor the flume Is 1194 gal
1612 76th Raingarden on Rainevent 09/13
Elapsed time(minute)
The rainfall depth for this event is 0.43 inch.
T=0a'. 9/13(2012 14.40.54
Garden data is always zero during this period
1612 76th Raingarden on Rainevent 09/26
EE
Elapsed time vs f lums depth in
0 20 40 80 80 100 120 140 100 180
Elapsed time(minute)
The rainfall depth for this event is 0.23 inch
T=0 at S2G&012 02'56:54
The total volume of water into the garden during this event is 30gal
The garden data Is afivays zero curing t-iis period.
1612 E 76th St -13 Oct 2012
L I X^al
200 4O0 600 BOO 1000
Elapsed Time(minute)
The rainfall depth for this event is 0 84
The total volume ol
:0 at10(12(2012 21.00.00
s garden during thi
1612 76th on Rainevent 12/14/12
1612 76th Raingarden on Rainevent 11/11
1
600 1000 1S00 2000 2500
Elapsed Time(minute)
The rainfall depth for ".his event is 0 36 inch
T=0 at12(13(2012 13:44:54
Total volume for the f una is I0'9gai
0 200 400
Elapsed time(minute)
The rainfall depth for this event is 1 45 inch
7=0 at 11(11/2012 02:59:54
si volume at water Into the garoan during this event is 1 607gal.
Figure 34. Storm Event Hydraulics Data for Individual Gl Solution #4 at 1612 East 76lh Street
(Rain Garden Extension)
41
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
Graph for 1336 76th flume on Rainevent 30/5-31/5
1336 76th Raingarden on Rainevent 06/11
1336 76th Graphs on Rainevent 06/21
fl
\
1.2 ¦
___ 1.0-
I
\
®
-J 0.6
J
i\
f 0.4
1
\ \
0.2 •
- IW -J
0.0
Elapsed Time vs flume rn feet
Elapsed Timavs Garden in feet
I *
r—\
-Jj ^
50C 1000 1500 2000 2500
Elapsed time(tninule)
The total volume of water into (tie ga rder is 2S9ga!
rainfall depth tor this event is C 29 inch.(0 04 onS.29,0.23 an5.'30.0.32 an 5)31)
T=0at 5.'29.'2012 05:17:19
Graph for 1336 76 Terr Rainevent 07/26
500 1000 1600 2000 2500
Elapsed Time(minute)
The rainfall depth tor this event
T=0 at 6/10(2012 07021S
0 200 400 600 8
Elapsed Time(minute)
The rainfall depth for this event is 0.4S inch.
T=Oat7J26/2012 013119
is total volume or water Into the garden during this event is 75 gal.
The total volume of 'water Into the garder during this event is
1336 76th on Rainevent 08/31-09/01
V1
Elapsed Time(rninute)
The rainfall depth for this event s 5 SO inch
T=0 at&3l/2012 15 47.07
Total volume for the flume is B677 gal
50 100 150 200 250
Elapsed Time( minute)
The rainfall depth for this event is 1.03 inch
Total volume tor the Hurra is 3034 ga
1336 76th Raingarden on Rainevent 09/13
J 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Elapsed Time(minute)
The rainfall depth for 1his event is 0.43 inch
T=0 at 9/13/2012 14.37.17
The total volume ot water into the garden during this event is '592gal.
1336 76th Raingarden on Rainevent 09/26
Elapsed aire vs Flume depth
Elapsed Time(minute)
The rainfaH depth for this even; Is 0.23 inch.
T=0at&'28.'2012 03.02:07
The total volume of wi
to the garden during tnis event is 1 56gal
¦Avays zero during this period
1336 76th Raingarden on Rainevent 10/13
- Elapsed time vs Flume depth n feet
0 1000 2000 3000 400C 5000
Elapsed timefminute}
The rainfall depth tor this event is 0 86 inch
T=0 atWH 2012 1732:07
The tota volume of water irto the garden during this event is 293gal
The garaan data is always zero during this period
1336 76th Raingarden on Rainevent 11/11
n
JvV
0 500 1000 1500 2C0C 25M
Elapsed time(minute}
The rainfall depth for this event Is 1 45 inch.
T=0 at 11/11/2012 00:02:24
The total vourre of Wats' into the garden du'ing this evsnt is 10,664ga
1336 76(h on Ramevent 1?/14/12
M0 1000 1«» WOO
ttjjiMK! T imelmrmtej
rn* omiIm oot/B< u emu a O XMh
T»Oart2'1«'2012 MQ224
Ted* wfcro k* P» fcm * J0» f0
Figure 35. Storm Event Hydraulics Data for Individual Gl Solution #5 at 1336 East 76th Street
(Rain Garden Extension)
42
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
1140 76th Terrace Graphs on Rainevent 06/21
1140 76th terr Flume on Rainevent 06/11
s
J
I
100 200 300 400 500
Elapsed Time(minute)
- elapsed lime vs flume le'
=0 316/11/2012 02:03:12
ie garden during this event is 16.2 gal.
200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Elapsed Time (minute)
I The rainfall depth for this event is 1.03 inch
T=0 at 6/20/2012 19:22:24
Total volume for the flume is 14203 gal
1419 76th Terrace Flume on Rainevent 08/31-09/01
1140 76th Terr Raingarden on Rainevent 09/13
J
- Elapsed time vs Flume depth in feet
WW
500 1000 150C
Elapsed Time(minute)
The rain-al depth for this event is 5 60 inch
T=0at8,l31.'2012 11:02:17
Total volume for the flume is 46827 gal
Elapsed time vs Garden Depth in feet
" 0.4 -
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Elapsed Time(minute)
The rainfall depth for this event is 0.43 inch.
T=0 at 9/13,'2012 14:37:17
NO Flume data for this Rainevent
1140 76th terr Raingarden on Rainevent 09/26
1140 76th terr Raingarden on Rainevent 10/13
5 0.2
Elapsed time vs Flume depth in fee
5 0.2 -
100 200 300 400 500 600
Elapsed time(minute)
The rainfall depth far this event is 0.23 inch.
T=0 at 9'25f2012 23:54:34
The total volume of water into the garden during this event is 869gal.
The garden data is always zero during this period
- Elapsed time for flume vs flume depth in feet
Jl
J\ rJ L
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1E
Elapsed time(minute)
The rainfall depth for this event is 0 86 inch
T=0at10/12/2012 20:59 34
The total volume of water into the garden during this event is 536gal.
No Garden Data during these period due to batteries
Figure 36. Storm Event Hydraulics Data for Individual Gl Solution #6 at 1141 East 76l Terrace
(Rain Garden Extension)
43
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
1222 76th Flume on Rainevent 08/31
1222 76th Raingarden on Rainevent 06/11
Elapsed Time(minute)
T=0 at 6/11(2012 02 05 0(
ir n'.o the garden during this evai
Graph for 1222 76th Rainevent 07/26
Elapsed time for garden
103 200 300 400 500 600 700
Elapsed Tm (minute)
Tr» i»rr!*a dee* b* tfw **rt n 0 49 inch
T*QMTrum\2 is coon
D tne garden Ounr«g ma ewent it 82
i asvays z**o during th» ptnjtl
Elapsed Time(minute)
The rainfall depth tor this aven' is 2.61 inch
T=0 3tB/31'2012 11:35:00
Total volume far the flu me s "493 gal
1222 76th Raingarden on Rainevent 09/26
1222 76th Flume on Rainevent 09/13
Elapsed Time(minute)
awWv.fttnM.HI T»eninmamH,r«,mWt.0.43M
1222 76th Raingarden on Rainevent 10/13
The total volume of water nto the garden during this event is 762 gal
203 300 4D0
Elapsed time(minute)
The rainfall depth for this event is 0.23 inch.
T=0 at 9/26/2012 02:00:00
le of water into the garoen during :his event is 527gal,
ie Smartdrain outflow data is always zero during this period
®0 t0» 1200
Elapsed timofmtntrteli
Tha rantal wt a 0 86 «Klt
TO atlQ'13/2012 003000
CM wMm vnfitt «i» Wt 9*0*n dirrg th» «wf i» V
1222 76th Raingarden on Rainevent 11/11
o.s
200 300 <00 600
Elapsed time(minute)
Itio rainfall depth for this event is 1 45 ir<
7=0 at 11/11.2012 05:00:00
ter into the garden dunng tus event Is 284gal
Ths garden data is always zero during this period
Figure 37. Storm Event Hydraulics Data for Individual Gl Solution #7 at 1222 East 76th Terrace
(Rain Garden with Smart Drain)
44
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
1112 76th Terr on Rainevent 08/31-09/01
1112 76th Terr Raingarden on Rainevent 09/13
p\!V\IX
' V l t
0 200 400 600 SOO 1000 1200 1400 1600 1600
Elapsed Time (minute)
The rainfall depth fo- this event is 5,60 ncn
1=C atO,'31/2012 11.0S23
Total volume lor the flume is 8533 gal
Elapsed time fo" flume vs Flume depih in *ee?
Elaps
»d time fo- garden vs Garden depfri in fee;
II ft
itf
1
200 400 600 800 10M 1200 1400
Elapsed time(minute}
The rainfall depth for mis event is 0.43 inch.
T=0 at &'13/2012 14 08-23
total volume of water into the gsider. during this event is 20G8ga .
1112 76th terr Raingarden on Rainevent 09/26
1112 E 76th Terr-13 Oct 2012
5 0.2
0 20 40 60 S3 100 120 140 160 180
Elapsed time(minute)
T=D at 9/26*2012 02:08:23
Trte total voluma of water into the garden curing this evant s 2S1gai.
3000 4000
0 1000 2000
Elapsed time{minute)
The rainfall dep:h for this event is 0 86 inch.
T=0at10/12'2012 00 03:23
The ratal volume of water into the garden (luring this event is 1 197gal
1112 76th terr Raingarden on Rainevent 11/11
1112 76th terr on Raioevent 12/14/12
Elaosed time for flume vs flume depth m feet
Elapsed time let garden vs garden depth ;n feet
«. 0.6
vMw |V
It1
0 500 1000 1SOO 2000
Elapsed timefminute)
The rainfall depth for this evert is 1.45 inch.
T=0 at 11/10/2012 23:57:23
The tola volume of water Irto the garden duhng this aventis 53.04Bga!
1MO 2COO
EtapMi «»23
ToMvoKiralO'lhcfV^a n ?9S4gal
Figure 38. Storm Event Hydraulics Data for Individual Gl Solution #8 at 1112 East 76th Terrace
(Cascade Swale)
45
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
3.2.2. Water Quality Results
A total of 9 storms were monitored for water quality in at least one of the four GI solutions during
the 2012 calendar year. Recall that four of the eight public GI solutions monitored during the AD C
project have water quality monitoring installations (Table 4). The storms monitored for water
quality ranged in total event rainfall depth from 0.4- to 2.6-inches. A total of 28 water quality
samples were collected not including quality assurance/quality control samples (replicates and
blanks). Of these 28 samples, only three were effluent samples collected from outlet structures
(Table 4). The fact that such a low percentage (11%) of samples were effluent is likely due to two
primary reasons: [1] the individual GI solutions were effective at retaining the wet weather flows
that occurred during the monitored storms and [2] only two of the storms (August 31 and
November 11) generated rainfall totals that exceeded the typical design storm size of 1-inch.
The observed concentrations of measured water quality constituents are shown graphically in
Figure 39 through Figure 48. Summary statistics of water quality constituents are also shown in
Table 5 through Table 10. Note that non-detect samples were handled as if the measured
concentration was the full reporting limit. Preliminary results include the following:
• There was much overlap among sites in observed inflow concentrations, which may be
expected considering the individual GI solutions are in close proximity to one another
(Figure 8). For this reason, box plots are also shown for the "combined" dataset (all
samples from all sites).
• The most striking difference among water quality measurements was influent samples
(represented by boxes and whiskers) compared the effluent samples (stars). The observed
concentrations of solids, nutrients, and metals solids in effluent typically fell within the
lower quartile of observed concentrations for influent (i.e., stars generally align with lower
whiskers of the box plots).
• TSS and SSC showed similar patterns of relative concentrations among sites.
• Fecal coliform concentrations were unexpectedly high, with concentrations often above the
upper detection limit of 6 million MPN/lOOmL. The source of these high concentrations
(whether environmental or analytical) will be investigated.
• All analyzed samples were non-detect for lead.
• Greater than 5 0% of measured copper was in the dissolved form in all samples tested for
both dissolved and total copper (average % dissolved was 85%, ranging from 52% to
140%).
• For zinc, the median % dissolved was 44%, with two samples exhibiting % dissolved values
greater 50% and two samples exhibiting % dissolved values less than 50% (average %
dissolved was 44%, ranging from 18% to 71%).
• In several cases, the measured concentrations of phosphate were higher than those for total
phosphorous, which is not logical. The cause of this reporting or analytical issue will be
investigated.
Additional statistical analyses and comparisons of differences among sites will be performed for the
final report In addition, more robust methods for handling non-detect samples will be explored.
46
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
LEGEND
effluent
1,000
100
£ 100 -
w
C0
N
1222 1324 1325 1419
Rain Garden with Curb Extension Curb Extension Curb Extension
Smart Drain Rain Garden Rain Garden Rain Garden
All Data
Combined
1.000 —
100 -
10 -
1222 1324 1325 1419 All Data
Rain Garden with Curb Extension Curb Extension Curb Extension Combined
Smart Drain Rain Garden Rain Garden Rain Garden
Figure 39. Measured Concentrations of TSS at Individual Gl Solutions (UMKC, top; DA, bottom)
47
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
LEGEND
-j- max
1 -
-1- min
effluent
1,000
100
1222 1324 1325 1419 All Data
Rain Garden with Curb Extension Curb Extension Curb Extension Combined
Smart Drain Rain Garden Rain Garden Rain Garden
1.000 •
r 100-
1222 1324 1325 1419 All Data
Rain Garden with Curb Extension Curb Extension Curb Extension Combined
Smart Drain Rain Garden Rain Garden Rain Garden
Figure 40. Measured Concentrations of SSC (top) and Median Suspended Particle Size (bottom)
by UA at Individual Gl Solutions
48
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
LEGEND
y max
J- min
effluent
imp
[|
5
SL
¦
I
1222 1324 1325 1419 All Data
Rain Garden with Curb Extension Curb Extension Curb Extension Combined
Smart Drain Rain Garden Rain Garden Rain Garden
Figure 41. Measured Turbidity by UMKC at Individual Gl Solutions
49
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
LEGEND
-j- max
-L mln
~ effluent
10,000.000 -
„ 1,000.000 -
E
1222 1324 1325 1419 All Data
Rain Garden with Curb Extension Curb Extension Curb Extension Combined
Smart Drain Rain Garden Rain Garden Rain Garden
Figure 42. Measured Fecal Coliform Concentrations by UMKC at Individual Gl Solutions
50
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
LEGEND
-L min
ifc effluent
wm
1222 1 324 1 325 1419 All Data
Rain Garden with Curb Extension Curb Extension Curb Extension Combined
Smart Drain Rain Garden Rain Garden Rain Garden
10.000 ¦
1,000 ¦
100 -
1222 1324 1325 1419 All Data
Rain Garden with Curb Extension Curb Extension Curb Extension Combined
Smart Drain Rain Garden Rain Garden Rain Garden
Figure 43. Measured Concentrations of Nitrate (top, UMKC) and Total Nitrogen (bottom, R7)
at Individual Gl Solutions
NOTE: Y-axis label for Nitrate is rng/L (not ug/L). Y-axis units for Total Nitrate will be converted to
mg/L (instead of reporting as ug/L).
51
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
LEGEND
-|- max
-L min
effluent
10 -
0 1
1222 1324 1325 1419 All Data
Rain Garden with Curb Extension Curb Extension Curb Extension Combined
Smart Drain Rain Garden Rain Garden Rain Garden
1,000 -
1222 1324 1325 1419 All Data
Rain Garden with Curb Extension Curb Extension Curb Extension Combined
Smart Drain Rain Garden Rain Garden Rain Garden
Figure 44. Concentrations of Phosphate (top, UMKC) and Total Phosphorous (bottom, R7)
at individual Gl Solutions
NOTE: Y-axis label for Phosphate is mg/L (not ug/L). Y-axis units for Total Phosphorous will be
converted to mg/L (instead of reporting as ug/L).
52
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
LEGEND
effluent
1 e
c
2
1222 1324
Rain Garden with Curb Extension
Smart Drain Rain Garden
1325
Curb Extension
Rain Garden
1419
Curb Extension
Rain Garden
All Data
Combined
Figure 45. Measured pH at Individual Gl Solutions (LIMKC)
53
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
effluent
100 •
10 —
*
a
JL
~r~
1222 1324 1325 1419 Alt Data
Rain Garden with Curb Extension Curb Extension Curb Extension Combined
Smart Drain Rain Garden Rain Garden Rain Garden
100
£ 10
S
1222 1324 1325 1419 Atl Data
Rain Garden with Curb Extension Curb Extension Curb Extension Combined
Smart Drain Rain Garden Rain Garden Rain Garden
Figure 46. Measured Concentrations of Dissolved Copper (top, R7) and Total Copper (bottom, R7)
at Individual Gl Solutions
54
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
LEGEND
X max
J- mm
^ effluent
100
1222 1324 1325 1419 All Data
Rain Garden with Curb Extension Curb Extension Curb Extension Combined
Smart Drain Rain Garden Rain Garden Rain Garden
10 -
1222 1324 1325 1419 Atl Data
Rain Garden with Curb Extension Curb Extension Curb Extension Combined
Smart Drain Rain Garden Rain Garden Raini Garden
Figure 47. Measured Concentrations of Dissolved Lead (top, R7) and Total Lead (bottom, R7)
at Individual Gl Solutions
55
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
if effluent
100 -
10 -
1222 1324 1325 1419 All Data
Rain Garden with Curb Extension Curb Extension Curb Extension Combined
Smart Drain Rain Garden Rain Garden Rain Garden
1222 1324
Rain Garden with Curb Extension
Smart Drain Rain Garden
1325
Curb Extension
Rain Garden
1419
Curb Extension
Rain Garden
All Data
Combined
Figure 48. Measured Concentrations of Dissolved Zinc (top, R7) and Total Zinc (bottom, R7)
at Individual Gl Solutions
56
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
Table 5. Summary Statistics for UMKC-measured Constituents: TSS, Turbidity, Nitrate, and Phosphate
TSS (mg/L)
Turbidity (NTU)
Site
BMP Type
No.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Max
Min
No.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Max
Min
1324 E
76th St.
Curb Extension
4
194.75
194.52
468
51
4
28.13
23.27
62.1
11.2
1325 E
76th St.
Curb Extension
7
326
390.43
1408
27
6
22.89
16.26
52.8
6.56
1419 E
76th Terr.
Curb Extension
9
141
84.6
294
9
9
19.67
19.68
66
3.01
1222 E
76th St.
Rain Garden w/
Smart Drain
8
160
167.03
824
28
7
17.77
9.34
32.1
5.84
Nitrate as N (jjg/L)
Phosphate as P (|jg/L)
Site
BMP Type
No.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Max
Min
No.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Max
Min
1324 E
76th St.
Curb Extension
3
1.33
0.58
2
1
2
1
0
1
1
1325 E
76th St.
Curb Extension
5
1.8
1.79
5
1
3
0.83
0.29
1
0.5
1419 E
76th Terr.
Curb Extension
7
1.57
1.51
5
1
6
2.92
3.53
10
0.5
1222 E
76th St.
Rain Garden w/
Smart Drain
7
2.71
2.93
7
1
5
1.7
0.45
2
1
NOTE: NON-DETECT SAMPLES WERE HANDLED AS IF THE MEASURED CONCENTRATION WAS EQUAL TO THE REPORTING LIMIT
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
Table 6. Summary Statistics for UMKC-measured Constituents: pH and Fecal Coliform
Site
BMP Type
pH (SU)
Fecal Coliform (#/100mL)
No.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Max
Min
No.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Max
Min
1324 E
76th St.
Curb Extension
4
6.69
0.37
7.2
6.4
3
2546,667
3,067,007
6,000,000
140,000
1325 E
76th St.
Curb Extension
7
6.5
0.4
7.1
5.9
5
2,518,000
2,244,353
6,000,000
490,000
1419 E
76th Terr.
Curb Extension
9
7.2
1.19
10.2
6.1
6
2,200,000
2,944,738
6,000,000
180,000
1222 E
76th St.
Rain Garden w/
Smart Drain
8
6.9
0.5
7.6
6.4
4
1,932,500
2,806,580
6,000,000
50,000
NOTE: NON-DETECT SAMPLES WERE HANDLED AS IF THE MEASURED CONCENTRATION WAS EQUAL TO THE REPORTING LIMIT
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
Table 7. Summary Statistics for UA-measured Constituents: TSS, SSC, and D50
TSS (mg/L)
SSC (mg/L)
Site
BMP Type
No.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Max
Min
No.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Max
Min
1324 E
76th St.
Curb Extension
4
206.25
221.91
528
52
4
208.50
230.62
543
51
1325 E
76th St.
Curb Extension
7
143
246
698
29
7
146
242
693
30
1419 E
76th Terr.
Curb Extension
7
127
86.4
262
3
7
129
85.9
257
3
1222 E
76th St.
Rain Garden w/
Smart Drain
6
72.8
49.8
153
23
6
73.7
51.7
155
26
D50 (|Jm)
Site
BMP Type
No.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Max
Min
1324 E
76th St.
Curb Extension
4
24.75
4.27
30
20
1325 E
76th St.
Curb Extension
7
37
24
85
20
1419 E
76th Terr.
Curb Extension
7
128
155
400
27
1222 E
76th St.
Rain Garden w/
Smart Drain
6
67
90
250
18
NOTE: NON-DETECT SAMPLES WERE HANDLED AS IF THE MEASURED CONCENTRATION WAS EQUAL TO THE REPORTING LIMIT
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
Table 8. Summary Statistics for R7-measured Constituents: Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorous
Site
BMP Type
Total Nitrate as N (jjg/L)
Total Phosphate as P (|jg/L)
No.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Max
Min
No.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Max
Min
1324 E
76th St.
Curb Extension
1
4,967
N/A
4,967
4,967
1
650
N/A
650
650
1325 E
76th St.
Curb Extension
4
4,029.55
1,909.35
6,181
1,877.5
4
599
367.90
1113
268.4
1419 E
76th Terr.
Curb Extension
4
3,135.1
925.36
4,508
2529
4
432.98
97.77
502.5
288.3
1222 E
76th St.
Rain Garden w/
Smart Drain
3
2,805.33
2,249.36
5,126
634.8
3
497.23
431.86
980.6
149.4
NOTE: NON-DETECT SAMPLES WERE HANDLED AS IF THE MEASURED CONCENTRATION WAS EQUAL TO THE REPORTING LIMIT
Table 9. Summary Statistics for R7-measured Constituents: Total and Dissolved Lead
Total Pb (|jg/L)
Dissolved Pb (|jg/L)
Site
BMP Type
No.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Max
Min
No.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Max
Min
1324 E
76th St.
Curb Extension
1
50
N/A
50
50
1
50
N/A
50
50
1325 E
76th St.
Curb Extension
4
50
0
50
50
2
50
0
50
50
1419 E
76th Terr.
Curb Extension
3
50
0
50
50
2
50
0
50
50
1222 E
76th St.
Rain Garden w/
Smart Drain
4
50
0
50
50
1
50
N/A
50
50
NOTE: ALL SAMPLES WERE NON-DETECT
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
Table 10. Summary Statistics for R7-measured Constituents: Total and Dissolved Copper and Zinc
Total Cu (|jg/L)
Dissolved Cu (|jg/L)
Site
BMP Type
No.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Max
Min
No.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Max
Min
1324 E
76th St.
Curb Extension
1
21
N/A
21
21
1
11
N/A
11
11
1325 E
76th St.
Curb Extension
4
10.31
7.93
22
5
2
10
4.24
13
7
1419 E
76th Terr.
Curb Extension
3
12
4
16
8
2
8.5
0.71
9
8
1222 E
76th St.
Rain Garden w/
Smart Drain
4
7.27
2.14
10
5.01
1
10
N/A
10
10
Total Zn (pg/L)
Dissolved Zn (|jg/L)
Site
BMP Type
No.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Max
Min
No.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Max
Min
1324 E
76th St.
Curb Extension
1
139
N/A
139
139
1
25
N/A
25
25
1325 E
76th St.
Curb Extension
4
68.43
43.10
130
35
2
27.5
3.54
30
25
1419 E
76th Terr.
Curb Extension
3
53.67
19.22
71
33
2
60.5
50.20
96
25
1222 E
76th St.
Rain Garden w/
Smart Drain
4
43.9
7.24
54
38.4
1
35
N/A
35
35
NOTE: NON-DETECT SAMPLES WERE HANDLED AS IF THE MEASURED CONCENTRATION WAS EQUAL TO THE REPORTING LIMIT
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
4.Conclusions and Next Steps
The ADC project made significant progress duringthe 2012 calendar year, includingthe following
technical achievements:
• Installation of water quality and/or hydraulic monitoring equipment at eight individual GI
solutions
• Hydraulic monitoring of 12 storm events at the individual GI solutions
• Water quality monitoring of 9 storm events at the individual GI solutions for a total of 29
water quality samples
• Continued collection and download of hydraulic monitoring data from the four large-scale
flow meters and rainfall gage
• Continued collection and download of hydraulic monitoring data from two private rain
gardens
• Modeling of the pre- and post-construction hydrology of the pilot project area versus the
control area
• Extensive efforts to compile and analyzed hydraulic and water quality monitoring data
collected to date (both large-scale and small-scale)
The achievements listed above do not include the many non-technical achievements including
fostering of collaboration and information exchange among EPA ORD and KCMWD and efforts by
Region 7 staff to increase community awareness regarding the benefits of green infrastructure.
The lengthy construction timeline for the MBRGS pilot project and severe drought conditions have
led to the project being extended into the 2013 calendar year. The following efforts are expected to
be completed in 2 013:
• Continued hydraulic and water quality monitoring at in the individual GI solutions, with an
emphasis on water quality sampling of larger (>l-inch) storm events that generate effluent
from the GI solutions
• Additional modeling efforts including SWMM or SUSTAIN modeling
• Additional statistical analyses to support quantification of the performance of individual GI
solutions
• Additional analyses to quantify the post-construction performance of the MBRGS pilot
project area versus the control area
• Completion of a final report that can serve as a national reference regarding the
performance of GI solutions at multiple scales
• Training of KCMWD staff regarding the water quality monitoring protocols to encourage
long-term monitoring of the GI solutions
• Transition of monitoring responsibility for the four large-scale flow meters to KCMWD
(which owns the flow meters)
The ADC project team very much looks forward to the 2013 efforts and anticipates the results of the
project will significant benefit the national community of agencies associated with managing
stormwater and CSO impacts.
62
-------
Advanced Drainage Concepts using Green Solutions for CSO Control
2012 Summary Progress Report
5. References
EPA Office of Research and Development (2009, amended 2011). National Demonstration of
Advanced Drainage Concepts Using Green Solutions for CSO Control: Quality Assurance Project
Plan, with Addenda No. 1, No.2, and No.3. Not published.
EPA Office of Research and Development (2011a). National Demonstration of the Integration of
Green and Gray Infrastructure in Kansas City, Missouri: A Pre-performance Summary Report.
EPA Office of Research and Development (2011b). Report on Enhanced Framework (SUSTAIN) and
Field Applications for Placement of BMPs in Urban Watersheds. EPA 600/R-1/144 November
2011.
Talebi, Leila. Assessment of Integrated Green Infrastructure-Based Storm water Controls in Small
to Large Scale Developed Urban Watersheds. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Civil,
Construction, and Environmental Engineering. The University of Alabama, 2014. 620 pgs.
http://unix.eng.ua.edu/~rpitt/Publications/ll Theses and Dissertations/Leila Dissertation,
pdf
63
-------
Office of
Research and
Development
(8101R)
Washington,
DC 20480
Offal Business
Penalty for Private Use$3Q0
------- |