final_final_draft_aug12

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE IN
PROVIDENCE, RI: RESEARCH, ANALYSIS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Janice Gan; Grace Molino; Kai Salem; Andrew Vann; Brandon Wang
August 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE (GI)
ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION IN PROVIDENCE, RI
CANVASSING LOGISTICS AND STRATEGIES FOR CONNECTING
WITH NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE US: CASE STUDY CITIES
APPENDIX
3
5
11
15
i

3
INTRODUCTION
Summary
In the summer of 2015, our team of five Clean Water Action interns worked on a strategic
plan for implementing green infrastructure in Providence, RI. Our project began as classwork
for Brown University’s TRI-Lab, a three year-old initiative to bring engaged, community-
based research into an academic setting. TRI-Lab 2015 spans spring and fall whose classes
focused on climate change and environmental justice in the West End of Providence. Students
connected with community partners such as city agencies, neighborhood associations, and
environmental nonprofits in order to conduct research and build projects that increase climate
resiliency in the neighborhood.
Our group has framed green infrastructure as a solution to urban heat island effects,
stormwater runoff and flooding, and other climate change impacts, also as a method of
neighborhood beautification and community development. We worked with Clean Water
Action to evaluate localized climate impacts and community support for green infrastructure.
The data we collected seeks to provide our community partners with a streamlined means
towards green infrastructure implementation in the future.
Objectives
After a semester of research and two to three months of full-time assessment work, we created
this set of guidelines, simplifying the process for groups that want to use similar research
methods in the future. We hope this set reduces additional research and trial-and-error stages
for Providence administrators, community partners, and organizations seeking to expand
green infrastructure in the city.
Definitions of Green Infrastructure
Green infrastructure is defined as a vegetated or natural system installed to capture and
manage stormwater and restore balance to existing hydrological cycles. It includes various
types of projects across installation scales. These can include but are not limited to: permeable
pavement and surfaces, green roofs, bioswales, green street medians, curb cuts and sidewalk
installations, tree planting and trenches, bioretention zones, rain gardens, and rain barrels.
Green infrastructure has triple-bottom-line benefits: environmental, economic, and
social. These benefits include water management, urban cooling, reduced reliance on gray
infrastructure, neighborhood beautification, crime reduction, air pollution reduction, and
general enhancement of public health. For our research and assessment, we focused on green
infrastructure as a solution to stormwater management and urban heat island mitigation.
Why Green Infrastructure in Providence?
Providence’s density, population diversity, and location in both five watersheds and the
Narragansett Bay water district were important in contextualizing our research. Like many
historic cities on the United States’ Atlantic coast, Providence has a Combined Sewer Overflow
(CSO) system. Sewage and stormwater flow into and are treated in the same system before
being released into the Bay. However, if the city receives more than one inch of rain in 24
hours, the system is overwhelmed and untreated sewage and stormwater flow into surrounding
rivers. This results in beach closures and fishery impacts along the Bay, and is becoming a
greater concern as the frequency and intensity of these storms increase due to climate change.

4
INTRODUCTION
Using this Guide
This guide contains a detailed outline of the work we conducted over the summer, giving
a step-by-step breakdown of the actions we took, their effectiveness, and additional
recommendations for each step. The goal of this guide is to give groups and organizations
an understanding of our assessment practices so that they are replicable for future green
infrastructure projects. Information presented in this guide should be used to assist the
aforementioned groups in making more rapid and thorough site assessments and green
infrastructure installations.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Clean Water Action, the City of Providence, Groundwork Providence,
West Broadway Neighborhood Association, West Elmwood Housing Development Corporation,
and TRI-Lab at Brown University for their generous support and assistance in this project. We
would also like to thank Dave Everett, Craig Hochman, Jonathan Ford, and Lynn Carlson.

5
GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
RESEARCH
STEPS
Preliminary Data Collection and Target Area Selection
Before beginning our own data collection, we gathered city-wide geographic and demographic
data to choose a focus neighborhood and then identify smaller target areas within that
neighborhood for potential green infrastructure installations.
1. Consider the following criteria1
in determining a focus neighborhood:
Close proximity to natural water bodies
Lack of green space and tree cover
High impervious surface cover
High surface temperature/heat island effect
Presence of community partners2
Multiple past and projected climate vulnerabilities
Under-resourced demographics
2. Collect GIS data layers for selected focus neighborhood. Consider these recommended GIS
layers (high-priority):
Surface temperature (Lynn Carlson3
, Brown University)
Impervious surface (Lynn Carlson)
Tree cover4
(Forestry Division, City of Providence)
Sewer and storm drain system, CSO if possible (Department of Public Works, DPW)
Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Zones (RIGIS)
Topography (RIGIS)
Demographics and census data (RIGIS)
Existing GI projects5
*
Community and recreation centers *
Researcher-observed flooding *
Community-observed flooding *
Community acceptance6
*
* Data publicly unavailable, must be collected separately by researchers.
Resources and Contacts
Rhode Island Geographic Information System (RIGIS)
Lynn Carlson, GIS Manager, Brown University
Amelia Rose, Groundwork Providence
City of Providence
3. Choose target areas by analyzing GIS map data. Useful GIS layers at this stage may include:
Surface temperature indicating intensity of urban heat island effect.
Impervious surface data indicating areas which lack green space.
Demographic data that correlates with community resources or lack of infrastructure.
1 TRI-Lab focused on community partners, demographics, and projected climate vulnerabilities.
2 This was a priority for our study, with West Elmwood Housing Development Corporation, West Broadway
Neighborhood Association, and others playing large roles in the area.
3 Lynn Carlson was a great resource: she had previously worked on heat island effect in the West End and
provided us with several GIS layers.
4 Doug Still, City Forester, was unable to assist in our search for a GIS file of city tree cover. Street tree data
was the only file available.
5 Groundwork Providence conduted a tour of Providence and showed us various green infrastructure
projects, most notably in J.T. Owens Park and Roger Williams Park.
6 This metric comes from quantifying our canvassing survey results, detailed in the second chapter.

6
Flood zone data indicating where climate change may increase frequency and intensity
of flooding.
Field Operations
In addition to satellite and GIS mapping, it is important to conduct field work that provides
specific localized observations. In our case, our field work consisted of mapping flooding
incidents along streets and near storm drains occurring after a rain event. We plotted location
coordinates and relevant flooding details onto our map of surface temperature, impervious
surface, and demographics.
4. Document flooding in target areas during and after rain events. Use a mobile app or other
data-gathering systems to document event details.
Device Magic, an app that allows users to build and share custom data collection
forms. Our form allowed us to log observed flood sites, coordinates, photos of
each site, and other data, and then upload it easily into Google Sheets.
Collector from ArcGIS.
Additional information on using the Device Magic forms app can be found in
Appendix A1 and A2.
Walk street by street7
during/after rain events to gather standing-water flood data
using your chosen method.
This data can indicate improperly functioning or inadequate gray infrastructure,
which green infrastructure may be able to supplant.
Community Engagement
It is crucial to understand what communities want and will support in their neighborhoods.
Projects that involve vegetation require intense care during the first year after installation,
followed by maintenance in subsequent years. It often falls on community members to care for
these projects lest they fall into disarray and become ineffective.
5. Identify and begin conversations with community organizations.
Communicate partnership needs for green infrastructure project, including feedback,
maintenance and advocacy.
6. Canvass8
target areas. Door-knocking (canvassing) accesses households that otherwise
might not be involved in the process.
Prepare survey questions, answer-collection sheets, contact sheets, and quarter-
sheet slips with information and contact info in relevant languages9
. See
examples in Appendix A3.
Questions should address the following. See “Canvassing Strategies” for more detail.
Gather information on experience regarding local flooding.
Evaluate resident support for green infrastructure projects and green space.
Avoid jargon so that questions are easily understood.
Ask the same questions at each house to maintain consistency.
7 It took five interns in two groups roughly 5 – 10 hours to log 101 flood sites in 20-street sections.
8 It took five interns in two groups roughly 8 – 10 hours to canvass 200 houses. About 40% responded.
9 It is crucial to have a Spanish speaker in each canvassing group to a large part of the population.

7
7. Organize and conduct focus groups10
. Focus groups stimulate more extended discussion
between residents on problems and solutions. Different methods include:
Existing organizations. Many (church groups, neighborhood associations, etc.) may be
willing to devote agenda time to a conversation on green infrastructure.
Pros: Uses existing community meetings and structures.
Cons: Focus group will draw from people who are already active in the
community, will not necessarily be representative of the neighborhood.
Local businesses. Businesses often have a concentrated group of employees who
live and work in the area. During slow periods, they may be willing to discuss green
infrastructure.
Pros: Easier to organize (employees may be required to attend).
Cons: Again, not representative, businesses may be too busy or unwilling to
participate.
Independent focus groups. By reaching out to canvassed individuals for a deeper
discussion, we may access a group who isn’t already involved in the community.
Pros: Potentially more representative of the neighborhood, draws from people
interested in green infrastructure.
Cons: Difficult to organize and ensure attendance. May require financial
incentives.
Tabling at local farmers’ markets.
Pros: Large amount of people from different areas, ability for extended
conversations11
. Can have display boards with visualizations of green
infrastructure projects.
Cons: People at farmers markets are likely to share similar mindsets regarding
green space and green infrastructure. People might not live in target
neighborhood.
Data Analysis and Representation
At this stage, maps, spreadsheets, and infographics are helpful to visualize and analyze data.
These tools can identify potential project sites where green infrastructure is both needed and
feasible. The visual tools, in particular, are useful for communicating research findings.
8. Compile canvassing and observation-based data into spreadsheets and analyze.
Map-making tools include GIS maps, Google My Maps, or ESRI StoryMaps.
Additional information on creating visualizations with My Maps can be found in
Appendix A4.
Additional information on managing data can be found in Appendix A5.
9. Select areas for future project sites in target areas, using community support and observed
flood data as guides.
Select areas (from a small curb to an entire street) where residents identified flooding
issues or infrastructure issues related to stormwater.
Use drainage patterns, topographic maps and areas of flooding identified in field
observation to identify points in target areas where water flow can be
10 We were unable to organize focus groups; however, these strategies are important if successful.
11 These events can provide helpful contacts. Especially in Providence do all kinds of residents and citizens
attend markets, like city officials, for example.

8
absorbed by green infrastructure.
10. Generate renderings of green infrastructure projects in certain locations.
Additional information on visualizations can be found in Appendix A6.
Renderings can help communicate ideas about GI to stakeholders.
Project Design
Although potential green infrastructure projects may have already been rendered (see step
10), these preliminary renderings are not likely to contain the specifications, consideration of
green infrastructure methods, and cost estimates needed to create a useful project. An outside
design or engineering consultant may be brought in for this step.
11. Gather drainage pattern observations at chosen sites.
Water flow and drainage is either connected or disconnected: Connected water
flows into storm drains; disconnected water stays out of the storm system.
Green infrastructure focuses on collecting and filtering connected water
(water that would otherwise go into the gray infrastructure system).
Analyze the slope of the street and observe water flow during rain events to determine
connection vs. disconnection, the source of water, and its final destination(s).
These observations can be recorded using a form in Device Magic or other software.
Drainage patterns will guide the placement and type of green infrastructure.
12. Create plan. If project requires, consult engineering firm for design assistance.
List observed issues (drainage patterns, standing floods, lack of green space, etc.) and
create a priority list for addressing them.
Choose green infrastructure methods that fit the type and scale of issues observed.
How will these methods interact?
What are the crucial installation types, and which are supplementary?
Determine maintenance needs for the methods selected.
13. Determine approximate project costs.
Use calculators for quick-and-easy or ballpark figures.
Consult engineering firms for square footage-based, lifespan cost analysis.
Consider maintenance costs.
14. Revise as necessary based on projected initial and long-term costs and other factors.
Implementation Logistics
After gathering data and designing a project, organizations can begin to implement green
infrastructure. Care must be taken, during this step, to ensure that the final project is both
useful and sustainable. Maintenance, funding, permitting, and green infrastructure education
all influence the outcome.
15. Arrange support and maintenance for after the project is complete.
Residents or property owners. If these community members buy into your project
and get a say in its implementation then they may offer their stewardship and
help maintain the project; education on maintenance may be necessary.
Local organizations. Some organization may have groups that are willing to maintain
a project in a given area. For example, Friends of Bucklin Park is a local
organization that works with the Parks Department to maintain the park.

9
CONCLUSION
City departments. Contact DPW regarding support of project and potential site
maintenance.
16. Obtain source(s) of funding. The following are some grant opportunities:
EPA Grant to Green America’s Capitals
This program helps state capitals develop an implementable vision for
environmentally friendly neighborhoods incorporating green infrastructure.
EPA Urban Waters Small Grant
In 2014, $40,000 to $60,000 grants provided a variety of small organizations
dedicated to improving local water quality through community activities.
Emphasis is placed on underserved populations and recognition of the value
of urban waters.
Southeast New England Program – Water Quality Management Grants for Greater
Narragansett Bay Watershed
Requests for proposals are yet to be posted, but this grant will focus on water
quality around Narragansett Bay, and is likely to grant from $50,000 to
$70,000.
New England Grassroots Environmental Fund
These grants help inspire, connect, and fund community-based environmental
projects in New England, ranging from $240 to $3,500.
17. Acquire permitting from relevant city departments for project plan.
Sidewalk cutout. Contact DPW, which is responsible for the city sidewalks.
Bump-out/curb cut.Contact DPW and Department of Transportation (DOT), which are
responsible for the city roads.
Permeable pavement. Contact DPW and DOT, which are responsible for the city roads.
Rain gardens. Acquire permission from property owner. Contact organizations
that have experience in these types of projects to ensure proper installation
(e.g. Groundwork Providence).
18. Contract with organization(s) to implement project.
If possible, invite community to participate in installation by working with community
organizations for public outreach.
19. Publicize completion of project.
Articles in local news organizations.
Community events.
Green infrastructure tours in the neighborhood.
These guidelines are arranged around several guiding principles to ensure the success of
reen infrastructure projects. Each project will require different methods depending on the
specifics of the area and the goals of the researching organization. However, no matter the
project, organizations should, 1) consult the community, 2) use existing resources, 3) follow a
work plan from the beginning, 4) use visual tools to aid communication, and 5) focus on green
infrastructure’s multifaceted benefits.
1. Community engagement is vital to the success of green infrastructure. An
engaged community will support and help maintain after installation. Finally,
community outreach can educate residents about the purpose of green space.

10
2. Using existing resources will streamline the process. RIGIS, Clean Water
Action, Lynn Carlson (Brown University’s GIS Manager), DPW, and we, the TRI-Lab
team, already have access to key resources. By talking to these organizations directly,
a researcher new to the process can cut out several steps.
3. Clear work plans help the researcher organize the different research threads. It
is important to reach out to community partners while conducting research on climate
impacts.
4. Visualizations of green infrastructure through plans and perspective
images can help with education and communication of projects. Maps are a great way
to demonstrate geographic data; pictures and posters can convey complicated ideas
across multiple languages. For example, a photo of curbside flooding may be more
effective than a verbal description of flooding.
5. The multifaceted benefits of green infrastructure include environmental,
social, and economic benefits (triple-bottom-line benefits). Green space cleans water,
air, and reduces heat. It can also calm traffic and improve neighborhood aesthetics.
Finally, green infrastructure can be a cheaper alternative to gray infrastructure, aid in
job creation, and mitigate climate effects down the line.
Green infrastructure, regardless of where it is implemented, is still a relatively new form
of infrastructure. As municipalities continue to utilize it to minimize heat and manage
stormwater, the long-term impact of existing projects should be evaluated. After a green
infrastructure project is installed, organizations should continually assess changes in flood
patterns, water quality, and site maintenance.These guidelines are a work in progress: as we
learn more about the lifespan and effectiveness of green infrastructure in Providence through
impact assessment, we can improve our implementation methodology.
We also recommend the implementation of a stormwater utility to help fund green
infrastructure in the city. This fee would charge residents a flat rate based on the average
amount of impervious surface in the city. Residents would have the ability to lower the fee by
installing green infrastructure on their properties. Commercial property owners would also be
charged a fee based on the amount of impervious pavement on their property.
These guidelines are intended to help city departments and community organizations
implement green infrastructure in Providence. Although each neighborhood will have its own
challenges, these steps, including analytical mapping and community engagement, can apply
throughout the city. In addition, these guidelines are part of the larger collaborative effort of
the Rhode Island Green Infrastructure Coalition to expand its reach throughout the state.
Organizations can connect with the Coalition and its existing resources and contacts.
The long-term goal of this work is to jump start a city-wide effort to implement green
infrastructure as the primary stormwater management solution. The city needs an entity that
can improve communication and coordinate green infrastructure resources among different
departments. Once communication is improved and green infrastructure recognized as a goal,
the City of Providence should find implementing green infrastructure much easier. Increased
awareness and feasibility of future projects will occur not only in Providence but also in other
nearby municipalities.

11
CANVASSING LOGISTICS AND STRATEGIES FOR
CONNECTING WITH NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS
INTRODUCTION
CANVASSING
STRATEGIES
Summary
In our assessment, we prioritized community engagement and outreach because green
infrastructure is best utilized, maintained, and appreciated in areas where it is supported
and understood by the community. Thus, we have reached out to various city departments,
environmental nonprofits, neighborhood organizations, and West End residents for their
thoughts and feedback. To access those who might otherwise be unheard, whether due to
low English fluency, less available time, or factors of marginalization, we went door-to-door
initiating conversations.
This guide details some of the strategies we found to be most effective in connecting with
neighborhood residents, in addition to listing changes we consider important and things we
learned.
Identifying Canvassing Focus Areas
We first identified our target areas within the West End by layering existing GIS data, focusing
on impervious surface and surface temperature, onto a map of the neighborhood. Using this
map, which visually highlighted areas with both high heat and high impervious surface rates,
we could select locations most in need of green infrastructure. Within those areas, termed
target areas, we examined resident support and flood patterns through field observation
and door-to-door canvassing. We then used this data to select priority sites for green
infrastructure projects.
This map, created in ArcGIS, visualizes surface temperature and impervious surfaces. Three GIS datasets were
layered: 1) Surface temperature indicating red as hottest, 2) impervious surfaces contrasting dark red as impervious
and green as permeable, and 3) street map orienting the user. The blue shapes indicate three “hotspots” where
surface temperature and impervious surfaces align most. These areas became our target areas for canvassing.

12
Surveys
To assess local support for and understanding of green infrastructure, our team conducted
four separate days of canvassing with a short survey. This survey consisted of five questions
that assessed local experiences of flooding and general support for green infrastructure. The
questions are listed below:
Does your neighborhood flood after rain? If so, where?
Would you like to see a project in the neighborhood to control flooding?
Do you think more trees and bushes would improve the neighborhood? If so, where?
Do you have a front or backyard? Is it paved? How do you use it?
Would you be open to a project which removes pavement from your yard? Why?
These questions were designed to be simple, standardized, and direct. We wanted to keep the
survey short, so we capped it at five questions, which we also translated into Spanish. We then
worked with Dave Gerraughty at Clean Water Action to develop our delivery strategy. Through
Dave’s tips and our own experiences we improved our approach:
Pre-Planning
Test the canvassing questions. Pilot the survey before going out in the study area, so that any
edits can be made prior to the beginning of data collection.
Prepare materials. We brought a survey sheet (to record responses), a contact sheet, maps
to mark flooding, and infoslips (in Spanish and English) to give our contact information and
explain our project.
Assess need for visuals. We realized in hindsight that bringing photos of green infrastructure
installations and flooding would help so that residents would understand just as much.
Keep data-sharing restrictions in mind. The researcher should not attach survey data to
addresses, names, or other identifiers. They should also obtain permission from residents
before quoting them or using their names.
Anecdotes and Takeaways
Because we didn’t test different materials early on, we found ourselves in a situation
where we could not make changes to survey questions in order to keep data collection
consistent. Making these assessments early on can help prevent this problem.
Coming up with a shorthand for different types of non-responses helped to make this
process quicker and easier.
More than half of the residents in the West End speak Spanish; many of those only
speak Spanish (census data). Other languages spoken in the area include Portuguese,
Italian, Khmer, and Yoruba; however, we found that English and Spanish together
were adequate to reach the vast majority of residents.

13
The above image is an example notation method we used to track which houses were knocked and their response.
“—” knocked, no answer
“— x” knocked, do not return
“— √” knocked, interacted
“—” did not knock
Attitude
Be persistent. Even when someone initially refused or hesitated to take a survey or interact
with us, explaining that it takes “just a minute or two” almost always convinced the resident to
speak with us.
Cultivate a friendly and enthusiastic, but confident attitude. The most successful canvassing
occurred when we adopted a confident, enthusiastic attitude that assumed that the resident
wanted to help and talk with us.
Make personal contact. Compliment someone on their pets, their gardening, anything else for
a personal touch.
Be receptive to individual concerns. Even if a resident speaks off-topic, the information we
gather from the resident’s concerns is valuable.
At a couple of houses, we were initially turned down, but often remediated the
situation by politely saying, “Don’t worry, it will only take two minutes of your time” or
something along those lines.
Residents were more receptive when we made their perspective and concerns the focus
of our interaction (rather than appearing to be there just to get the data we needed).
Phrasing
Use a simple, brief opening. “Hi, my name is Kai, and I’m working for the organization Clean
Water Action. We’re conducting a survey of flooding in your neighborhood. Do you have a
minute to answer a few questions?” Use the who/who/what/what model: who I am, who I work
for, what I am doing, and what we want from the resident. Depending on the purpose of the
canvass, additional segments may include: what we can do for the resident or what the resident

1414
can do to follow up.
Vary the wording. In order to avoid sounding too practiced, we memorized only the outline of
the conversation and altered the exact wording of our pitch at each house. However, keep the
purpose of each question consistent to make sure all answers are still relevant to that issue.
Ask questions clearly without vacillation. Avoid reading directly from a sheet; making eye
contact while speaking clearly helped to make the canvassers appear more confident and
official.
Speak on the resident’s terms. Phrases like “green infrastructure” can be esoteric and
intimidating. Alternative phrasing that already exists in everyday speech (like trees, rain,
green space, or floods) should be used instead.
At several houses, we found that having two Spanish speakers was more effective than
just one due to the rapport that could be established. In any case, people seemed to
appreciate that we made an effort to consider their language needs and preferences.
Other Suggestions
Galvanize neighborhood kids. Kids playing in the yards often would fetch their parents for
us or suggest interactions with certain houses. They are often aware of which houses not to
canvass as well, whether the residents are out or the house is vacant.
Approach people in their yards. Residents relaxing, talking, gardening, or playing in their
yards tended to be easy to approach and open to interaction. A friendly wave and “hello” is
usually enough to start a conversation.
Educate, when possible. In addition to gathering information, we tried to take the opportunity,
when presented, to explain the value of green infrastructure (preferably after the questions
had been answered so as not to skew data). Our infoslips in multiple languages were useful for
this goal.

1515
INTRODUCTION
CASE STUDY
CITIES
Objectives
This chapter examines other case study cities in the US who are 1) leading in green
infrastructure plans or implementation, and 2) are comparable to Providence in terms of
climate, demographics, and economy. The purpose is to provide the City of Providence with
ideas, frameworks, and working systems already in place around the country to instigate
action and policy.
Identifying Comparable Cities
We first studied various criteria of Providence to determine how to measure related cities.
These criteria included: Demographics, Climate, Economy, and Government Expenditures,
and are of the city proper.
Demographics. Population, land area, ethnic diversity, and median age.
Climate. Climate zone, average yearly temperature, average yearly precipitation, and
major water bodies.
Economy. Median household income and major industries.
Government Expenditures (per resident, 2006). Construction and Current Operations.
We spoke with our community partners to gauge which particular cities stood out as leaders
in green infrastructure implementation. Two conditions our partners spoke about were, 1)
keeping research to a respective coast, given Providence’s location on the Atlantic coast, and
2) whether that city has established a stormwater utility or not. This fosters a sense of locality
and can make outreach and establishing contact easier, and sees what cities without a utility
do to gather funding otherwise raised by the utility, respectively. Initially, there were nine
cities chosen either for their comparable demographics to Providence, or their existing green
infrastructure implementation plans:
Portland, OR; Hoboken, NJ; Baltimore, MD; Somerville, MA; Worcester, MA *;
Hartford, CT *; Portland, ME *; Philadelphia, PA *; Lancaster, PA *.
Of these ten, we studied five cities, three in New England, and two in Pennsylvania:
Worcester, MA; Hartford, CT; Portland, ME; Philadelphia, PA; and Lancaster, PA.
!"#$%&'()*+,
-$(./'0*$12345678
9'1:2;&"'23,<=2#*/",8
!*>"&,*0?2345668
@":*'12;%"23?&,8
A&""12B('+"2C2+'(*0'
D/*#'0" !"#$%&'(#%)*+ ,-.*/,-.&%)&+ !"#$%&'(#%)0+ ,-.*/,-.&%)1+ !"#$%&'(# ,-.*/,-.& !"#$%&'(# ,-.*/,-.& !"#$%&'(#%)2+ ,-.*/,-.&%)3+ !"#$%&'(#%).-+ ,-.*/,-.&%)..+
D/*#'0"2E$1"22F64G
H"#("&'0.&"23I8 &,42 &. &5 &. &,40 &- *3 *1 &&40 && *142 *1
-&"+*(*0'0*$123*1C?"'&8 *343 *.4& *14* 554. 5240 554. *341 *&4- *,4, 5241 &-4& &&45
@'J$&2K'0.&'/2L$:*",2$M2N'0"&
O+$1$#?
@":*'12PP2Q1+$#"2345648
Q1:.,0&*",
-&$>*:"1+"R2SQ2F6G 9'1+',0"&R2-;2F4G P'&0M$&:R2DH N$&+",0"&R2@; -)*/':"/()*'R2-;22F7G -$&0/'1:R2@O
.11633* &365,& .,&6-.1 .2,6&** .6&&56.0& ,-563.*
.24* 14* .145 5140 .*.40 ,.4,
78#9":8;%<*-=>?%@A8$B%<51=>?
CD";E%<.5=>?%F#8":%<1=>?%GHI%I(
JI(B%K";B#%<,=>
@A8$B%<*,=>?%78#9":8;%<*-=>?%CD";E
<.5=>?%F#8":%<5=>?%L$AB(%<,=>
@A8$B%<.14,=>?%78#9":8;%<*54*=>?
CD";E%<5*4.=>?%F#8":%<,4&=>?%,M
(";B#%<.43=>?%L$AB(%<-43.=>
@A8$B%<&34*=>6%78#9":8;%<,-4&>?
CD";E%<..42=>?%F#8":%<04.=>?%,M
(";B#%<.4*=>?%L$AB(%<-405=>
CD";E%"DI:B%<*.40=>?%@A8$B
<504*=>?%78#9":8;%<.5=>?%F#8":
<04*=>?%GHI%I(%JI(B%K";B#%<,4,=>
@A8$B%<2540=>?%CD";E%<04,=>?
F#8":%<*4-=>?%78#9":8;%<540=>?
GHI%I(%JI(B%(";B#%<,40=>?
FJB(8;":%N:O8":%<-4.=>?%L$AB(
<-4-&=>
,241 5-4& ,342 5* 554& 5041
7PJ8O%QI:$8:B:$"D%R8DO%SPJJB(6
@B$%FDD%TB"(
7PJ8O%QI:$8:B:$"D%<7I$%SPJJB(
@B$%FDD%TB"(>
@B$%FDD%TB"(
@B$%FDD%TB"( 7PJ8O%SPU$(I98;"D
@B$%FDD%TB"(
R"#A"9"PV%WI:O6%SBBEI:E
K8XB(6%Y"(("V":#B$$%C"' QI:B#$IV"%K8XB(6%QAB#"9B"EB%C"' QI::B;$8;P$%K8XB( !"EB%ZP8:#8V"JI:O6%N:O8":%!"EB [BD"H"(B%K8XB( Q"#;I%C"'
556323 5,6125 ,161&5 *56*3, 5&6520 *,6.&&
]OP;"$8I:"D%<.&=>?%7B"D$A%Q"(B
<..=>?%F;;IJIO"$8I:%":O%ÎIO
SB(X8;B#%<2=>?%R8#;BDD":BIP#
R":P_";$P(8:V%<2=>?%W(I_B##8I:"D6
S;8B:$8_8;%":O%GB;A:8;"D%SB(X8;B#
<&=>
7B"D$A;"(B%<.-=>?%F;;IJJIO"$8I:
`%_IIO%#B(X8;B#%<2=>?%]OP;"$8I:
<1=>?%ÎIO%<&=>?%QI:#$(P;$8I:
<&=>?%RB$"D#%<*=>?%W(I_B##8I:"D%`
S;8B:$8_8;%`%GB;A:8;"D%<*=>
7B"D$A;"(B%<.,=>?%^8:":;B%":O
8:#P(":;B%<3=>?%F;;IJJIO"$8I:6
ÎIO%SB(X8;B#%<2=>?
FOJ8:8#$("$8XB%":O%SP99I($%":O
@"#$B%R":"VBJB:$%<1=>?
]OP;"$8I:%<1=>?%WPUD8;
FOJ8:8#$("$8I:%<&=>
]OP;"$8I:%<5,41=>?%7B"D$A;"(B
<,-40=>?%SI;8"D%F##8#$":;B
<.1=>?%RI$I(%aBA8;DB%":O%W"($#
[B"DB(#%<..41=>?%W(I_B##8I:"D6
S;8B:$8_8;6%GB;A:8;"D%SB(X8;B#
<.-=>?%F($#%]:$B($"8:JB:$
KB;(B"$8I:%<242=>
]OP;"$8I:%<5.4&=>?%7B"D$A;"(B
<,.40=>?%SI;8"D%F##8#$":;B%<.143=>?
RI$I(%aBA8;DB%":O%W"($#%[B"DB(
<.-43=>%W(I_B##8I:"D6%S;8B:$8_8;%":O
GB;A:8;"D%SB(X8;B#%<.-41=>?%F($#
]:$B($"8:JB:$%KB;(B"$8I:%<340=>?
^8:":;B%":O%N:#P(":;B%<04&=>
7B"D$A%Q"(B%<.-41=>6
F;;IJJIO"$8I:%":O%_IIO
#B(X8;B#%<242=>6%]OP;"$8I:"D
#B(X8;B#%<24*=>6%^8:":;B%":O
8:#P(":;B%<24-=>6%W(I_B##8I:"D6
#;8B:$8_8;6%":O%$B;A:8;"D%#B(X8;B#
<14&=>

1616
Outreach and Communication
Throughout our research, each of us have connected with, spoken to, or otherwise contacted
the various governmental and organizational bodies that manage green infrastructure in our
respective cities. These contacts included city officials like Director of Planning, Director of
Public Works, City Forester, or Stormwater Manager, and we all had varying results per city.
Other contacts included county or state departments, neighborhood initiatives and groups,
watershed councils, and institutions.
In order to reach specific people and gather results as quickly as possible, we used different
tactics that included direct and indirect contact. Calling or emailing an individual or city
office, for example, was often the best solution; however, occasionally we would direct our
questions through a different office or official to, as a minimum, get ourselves on their radar.
For example, calling for the Director at Department of Public Works would not always gather
immediate response, so we made contact through other officials like Stormwater Project
Manager or City Forester.
Reaching Beyond City Government
We knew from the beginning we had to make contact with bodies outside city government,
and we immediately looked to other coalitions, councils, nonprofit organizations, and state
departments to understand how our specific cities were implementing and sustaining
green infrastructure. Also, whether we were searching for a “Green infrastructure plan”,
maintenance and stewardship, or funding strategies, we turned to nd connected with those
respective organizations for answers. For example, in Lancaster, stewardship and maintenance
is jointly managed by DPW and Lancaster County Conservancy, while funding and grants
come from a variety of state departments and private funds. When possible, we also
connected directly with local places like schools and restaurants—on whose property a green
infrastructure project was completed—as they were relatively more accessible.
City Summaries
We undertook five cities with an introduction relating them to Providence and synthesized our
research into four specific categories:
1. Green Infrastructure and Stormwater Management,
2. Grants, Funding, and Costs,
3. Outreach and Communication, and
4. Maintenance and Stewardship.
All contacts are listed in Appendix A7, complete with names, titles, and contact information.

1717
WORCESTER,
MA
Image credit: Blackstone River Watershed Association
Introduction
Worcester is often used as a case study for Providence because of the remarkable similarities
between the two cities. The two population centers exploded in the late 1800s with the rise of
industrialization, but by the 1960s they were in a steep decline. Worcester’s population never
reached the peak that Providence’s did (about 250,000 people), but it managed to retain many
more of its residents. Both cities are slowly growing again as they focus their industry on
health care and education.

1818
One side effect caused by industrialization in both cities is soil and watershed contamination.
Worcester contains part of Lake Quinsigamond and a few other natural bodies of water,
but the most important body is the Blackstone River, which runs all the way down through
Rhode Island until it becomes a tidal river in Providence, the Seekonk. Consideration of the
watershed is especially important in Worcester due to the existing contamination and the city’s
position at the beginning of the Blackstone.
The demographics of the two cities differ in a few important ways. First, Worcester has
twice the land area of Providence; thus, overall, the city is much less dense, although their
urban cores are comparable. Second, Providence has a much higher population of minority
residents (about 60% vs 40%). The largest racial group in Providence is latinx, at 40%. Finally,
Worcester’s population is, on average, wealthier: the median household income is over
$43,000, compared to Providence’s $34,000.
Despite Worcester’s greater wealth, similar population, and similar situation, the city is
far behind Providence in green infrastructure implementation. Indeed, in 2005, a study
ranked Worcester as the worst-off city in Massachusetts in terms of Environmental Justice12
.
Although some local organizations build and advocate for green infrastructure, the city itself
only recently began to acknowledge it as a potential solution to stormwater and heat. Such an
unfriendly municipal environment makes it difficult for anyone to create green infrastructure
installations in Worcester.
City Approach to Stormwater Management
According to a project report by researchers under Robert Ryan, Professor of Landscape
Architecture and Regional Planning at UMass Amherst, Worcester’s “location at the
headwaters of the Blackstone River makes it geographically well-suited to implement green
infrastructure that would benefit the entire watershed and address water quality issues
exacerbated by stormwater runoff and combined sewer overflows” (Ryan 7)13
. However, for a
variety of reasons, Worcester has barely begun to integrate green infrastructure with their
existing stormwater system.
Like Providence, Worcester manages stormwater through a CSO that carries sewage and
stormwater to a private treatment plant, called the Upper Blackstone Water Pollution
Abatement District, which serves Worcester as well as several other municipalities. Only about
20% of the city is covered by the CSO; in the rest of the city, stormwater either infiltrates or
runs directly into streams and ponds. The CSO is under the direction of the Water/Sewer
Operations division of Department of Public Works, which is funded by a discrete utility fee on
taxpayers14
.
12 www.epa.gov/care/community2011.htm
13 Robert L. Ryan and students. “Greening Worcester: Planning and Designing Green Infrastructure
Networks for Habitat, Recreation, and Landscape Interpretation.” Landscape Architecture & Regional
Planning Graduate Research and Creative Activity (2014). Web. Accessed at scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=larp_grad_research.
14 CSO was ten years ago: they did a detailed analysis of how to keep water out of the CSO system, which is
the main important issue in downtown water. THey looked across the watershed to see how they could
divert water. May have considered GI, but figured it wouldn’t make a big enough difference. Instead, built a
big holding tank, changed a lake to go a different way. Installed permeable pavement, vortex separators.

1919
Meanwhile, as the city’s Sustainability Project Manager, Luba Zhaurova, explained, “green
infrastructure has not been a priority for the city.” Beyond DPW, sustainability efforts “are
kind of young,” and they focus on energy efficiency and renewable energy. In the most recent
Open Space Plan, published in 2013, the city finally recognized green infrastructure as “a
landscape approach that aims to integrate stormwater management and multifunctional space
design” in a very brief passage on the subject. Despite this mention, the city has no explicit
plans to expand their green infrastructure program beyond a pilot stage.
Green Infrastructure
Although Worcester features a few examples of green infrastructure, it has not been
implemented on a city-wide scale. Instead, DPW has engaged in several “pilot” projects. One
environmental engineer explains, “We try to look at different technologies and implement
them and see how they function and how useful they are.” Based on those results, the
department decides on practices going forwards. Green infrastructure appears to be mostly
distrusted as a solution. However, one individual from outside DPW responded, “DPW doesn’t
do rain gardens because they don’t want to maintain it. It’s not enough bang for their buck.”
Projects:
Several years ago, DPW installed permeable concrete blocks and swales to prevent
erosion on a beach.
About twelve tree boxes installed around the city; DPW is working to collect data on
how efficient the boxes are at filtering stormwater.
A rain garden address parking lot and roof runoff.
Possible (planning stage): linear rain gardens along streets to filter roadway runoff.
Other, non-governmental organizations have done other work with green infrastructure. The
Blackstone River Coalition has guided several small-scale, residential property installations.
This organization selects sites based on the presence of an involved and interested homeowner,
a good location, and good visibility.
A different coalition, the Blackstone Headwaters Coalition, in partnership with the Worcester
Tree Initiative, Worcester DPW and Forestry, Main South Community Development
Corporation, and others recently received a Healthy Communities grant from the EPA to
evaluate the value of urban trees. Their goal is to plant 100 trees, reach out to 200 households,
and host four meetings.
Barriers to Green Infrastructure
The principal barriers to green infrastructure in Worcester are space and funding. City
officials as well as academic experts all expressed concern that there isn’t enough room in the
dense urban core for installations. More significantly, neither DPW nor other organizations
have enough funding to research or implement green infrastructure on a large scale.
Worcester’s stormwater management system has also been held back by their EPA permits (at
least one of which is still from 1998). The city has been forced to comply with an unfunded
mandate that they reduce volume of stormwater and improve quality. Both conversations with
city employees and official city documents have reflected a frustration with the expensive gray

2020
infrastructure projects that must be undertaken to comply with the permits15
. The different
mandates—including a CSO permit and a Sanitary Sewer Overflow permit—have caused a
“silo effect” where different departments find themselves unable to work together to their
comparable ends. This reduces the amount of money and energy the city can put toward green
infrastructure.
Finally, DPW’s culture and “pilot project” approach to GI seems to hinder further innovation.
The department is based on engineering traditional solutions rather than championing green
infrastructure; thus, green infrastructure is not always considered as a frontline solution to
stormwater problems. For example, although the economic development department sees lots
of proposals for green infrastructure projects from corporate or residential applicants, the
projects often don’t materialize. Many applicants go forward with gray infrastructure after
discussing the project with DPW.
Other barriers identified by Professor Robert Ryan include concerns over safety, aesthetics,
and trash build-up.
Grants, Funding, Costs
Stormwater management is funded through the sewer and water utility fees, collected by DPW.
The department sets aside a small amount of money for green infrastructure but is reluctant
to spend more until new technologies are proven to be cost effective. Thus, grants can make a
big difference. In addition to the EPA Healthy Communities grant mentioned above, DPW has
received some smaller grants in the past to help with green infrastructure.
The city conducts public outreach with an intermittent newsletter updating readers on the
actions of the Water/Sewer Division. In addition, employees present at schools or attend
neighborhood or lake association meetings. Although the city makes an effort, this is a weak
area for them. Environmental organizations have a stronger connection with the public
through their membership.
Maintenance
Nonprofit organizations like Blackstone River Coalition rely on property owners or residents
to maintain the installation. The city maintains their own installations, although they may
occasionally receive volunteer help early on from a resident.
Acknowledgments
Thank you to the experts and officials in Worcester for their time and help with this research.
15 http://www.wrrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/EPA-stormwater-regulations-in-worcester.pdf

2121
HARTFORD, CT
Image credit: www.virtualtourist.com
Introduction
Hartford is the capital city of Connecticut and was chosen due to its proximity and comparable
size and demographics to the city of Providence. Hartford is a city of 17.3 square miles with
125,017 citizens (Providence: 18.4 and 177,994 respectively) and like Providence has a median
household income of around $33,000. As an old, New England city, Hartford also has the
same type of combined sewer system that Providence has, an attribute that is vital when
considering implementing green infrastructure.
The similarities between Hartford and Providence make it a perfect candidate for a
comparative case study on green infrastructure. An opportunity is presented to develop a
clear understanding of how these projects can/cannot work in similar socio-economic and
political contexts. Unlike other cities in the study such as Philadelphia and Lancaster, Hartford
is not particularly famous for its green infrastructure practices, however this provides ample
opportunity to explore the barriers that Hartford faces in implementing green infrastructure.
Hartford is currently in a critical stage of stormwater infrastructure development resulting
from a need to improve the combined sewer system and from multiple government and EPA
initiatives. Currently green infrastructure in Hartford is defined by the Greening America’s
Capitals initiative and the Clean Water Project, with major stakeholders being the City of
Hartford, the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), the Metropolitan
District Commission (MDC), the EPA and Knox Parks Foundation.

2222
Green infrastructure in Hartford exists on multiple levels, from small scale residential projects
to large, city funded projects. Green infrastructure is not unfamiliar to the city of Hartford,
mainly due to the existence of the EPA funded green capital retrofitting of Capital Avenue and
Hartford Capitol Building. Green infrastructure and Low Impact Development projects are
prominent in the discourse of the city, particularly within DEEP and within the city through
the Plan of Conservative Development (POCD). Green infrastructure is also a vital component
of the MDC’s Clean Water Project, particularly in their effort to reduce stormwater infiltration
from residential properties.
The real flagship green infrastructure project in Hartford is the Green Capitals Project, which
Hartford was selected for in 2010 through the EPA’s Greening America’s Capitals program.
This project acts as a pilot project for the city. By retrofitting the Capitol Building they are able
to publicly demonstrate what green infrastructure is and its associated benefits. Hartford’s
Capitol Building was retrofitted with rain gardens, pervious pavement, green roofs and
rainwater harvesting systems. The primary reason for this retrofitting was to create a public
display as opposed to actually mitigating effects in a more vulnerable area. However the logic
holds that by placing this is an accessible place it is easy for members of the community to see
green infrastructure and understand how it works. This project also includes the greening of
Capitol Avenue which runs in front of the capitol building.
The Clean Water Project one of the other government lead projects where green infrastructure
is involved. Hartford’s stormwater systems are overwhelmed after a quarter of an inch of
rainfall and hence it is necessary that Hartford is in violation of the clean water act, with
sewage and stormwater overflowing into natural water bodies over 50 times a year. Hartford’s
focus with this project is to mitigate the issue of stormwater overflow with five main focuses:
Inflow and Infiltration, Sewer Separation, Storage Tunnels, Interceptor Pipes and Treatment
Plant Improvements. The first focus, inflow and infiltration, has a green infrastructure
component directly relating to the fact that their main objective is to prevent stormwater from
entering the sewer system. In phase 1 they encouraged homeowner participation through
distribution of rain barrels, and education on disconnecting sump pumps and downspouts
from the sewer system.
Green infrastructure is also a core component of Hartford’s Plan of Conservation and
Development (POCD). In this plan the city outlines the things the city plans to do for greening
and sustainable development. Some of these intended actions include: providing incentives for
sustainable design, LEED certification requirements for buildings over 100,000 sf, developing
green building guidelines, completion of a tree canopy assessment and zoning revisions.
Knox Parks Foundation is also very involved in the implementation of green infrastructure.
Knox Parks is a green, community building organization that uses green space to create
healthy and safe and beautiful communities. Its not such about cleaning parks and planting
trees but also about community involvement and teaching people how to maintain the projects
and how to use them. Knox plants about 1000 trees per year and has many community
programs a lot of which are centered around environmental education and empowerment and
also community garden programs.

2323
The main sources of funding used for green infrastructure projects in Hartford include,
section 319 programs (Clean Water Act), Connecticut Fund for the Environment, Greening
America’s Capitals, Tiger IV, DOT/HUD and EPA grants, DEEP’s Clean Water Grant and SSSC.
The Green Capitals Project was funded by the Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection (DEEP) through their Clean Water Fund (50% fund 2%loan) which also provides
funding and assistance to a variety of other green infrastructure projects in the state.
The Clean Water Project was funded by a Special Sewer Service Charge which is a dedicated
fund with the sole purpose of funding this project. The rest of the project was funded by state
and federal grants, low interest state loans and by section 319 of the Clean Water Act.
Knox Parks gets their funding from governmental and federal funding, charitable gifts,
corporate donors and through the support of the regional water authority.
Much of the community outreach work in Hartford is done through organizations like Knox
Parks Foundations. Knox does door knocking and drop off flyers in the houses of residents and
found that establishing trust with community members was the best way to reach them. They
found that finding a person who knows the community and can help give you an idea of what
is happening there. These people might express enthusiasm and interest early on and can help
you with a lot of the organizing. Community members often assist in planning and planting
and can choose a tree species and planting location for themselves.
The Clean Water Project has also shown that community outreach is an aspect of their work.
This was done by encouraging homeowners to participate through the distribution of rain
barrels and by also providing education on how to disconnect sump pumps and downspouts
from the sewer system.
Maintenance and Stewardship
Knox Parks identified that with most of their projects they encourage community involvement
when it comes to maintenance, but the city has made promises to maintain some projects. In
any case they recognize that community buy in is vital to the survival of any project. Other
projects do not clearly outline who maintains them, nor was any information able to be found
regarding this issue.
Acknowledgments
The information above was collected from many sources, however much of it would not have
been found without the assistance of many people in the city of Hartford, including:
Ryan O’Halloran, Knox Parks Foundation
Chuck Lee, DEEP
Mary Pelletier, Parks Watershed
Ronnie Vasquez, Livable & Sustainable Neighborhoods Initiative

2424
Image credit: www.portlandmaine.gov
Portland was chosen as a case study city due to its size, age, and climate profile, which are all
fairly similar to Providence’s. It has been subject to water quality issues from its watershed
and mixed combined/separate sewer system, which like ours is located on an important ocean
access point, Casco Bay. In the past 10 years, the city has begun to install new projects to slow
runoff prior to entering its combined sewer system, in addition to filtering stormwater that has
already been collected by the system. The city has also recently approved a stormwater service
charge, which will replace some of the old sewer fee and channel funds toward improving the
stormwater management system.
PORTLAND, ME

2525
The vast majority of Portland’s green infrastructure projects are either tied into CSO
abatement projects or the construction of public facilities to meet current stormwater
standards. Project needs are usually evaluated on a street-by-street basis, as infrastructure
types vary widely throughout the city.-Examples of small-scale projects might include soil
filtration drainage channels along streets, while larger projects include underground retention
chambers, conservation of existing wetlands and forested areas, and a demonstration rain
garden capturing up to one inch of runoff from a parking lot near the Back Cove of Casco Bay.
Capital improvement plan (CIP) funding for CSO abatement projects comes from the sewer
assessment, while the cost of constructing stormwater management systems for new public
buildings & facilities comes from the general city fund. CIP funds are approved annually by the
City Council and then bonded for under the State Revolving Loan Fund, which provides low-
interest loans.
The separate stormwater service charge will include allocations for maintenance of existing
green infrastructure, construction of new green infrastructure associated with the municipal
separate storm sewer system (MS4) and watershed/water quality improvement projects.
Maintenance costs come out of the operating budget, while new green infrastructure projects
will be funded through the CIP.
The stormwater service charge aligns stormwater impacts (based on area, usage type, etc)
with costs to property owners, and allows property owners to earn tax credits if appropriate
mitigation steps are taken. The charges are $6 per month per 1200 sf of impervious surface,
with properties of 400 sf or less receiving no charge.
Public-private partnerships (PPPs) have also played a part in financing green infrastructure.
The previously-mentioned demonstration rain garden, for example, was funded through a PPP
between the City and a local consultant that wanted to see how challenging such installations
are to build and how effective they are at removing pollutants.
Another example of creative financing would be the Long Creek Watershed Management
Program, which uses economies of scale to reduce costs for about 300 landowners by treating
the watershed as a continuous entity rather than as many smaller land plots. In order to
remain in compliance with the Clean Water Act, the program instituted a fee to finance
large-scale projects; this was found to be less expensive overall than gray infrastructure or
individual-based alternatives.
In order to build support for the stormwater service charge, city departments and local groups
such as Friends of Casco Bay joined forces in talking to stakeholders. The groups decided
to emphasize a fair distribution of responsibilities and assurance of long-term security, in
addition to making personalized efforts to help the most-impacted property owners feel
supported rather than attacked. This was accomplished by providing initial consultation
resources and offering alternatives in the form of tax credits for the completion of stormwater
management projects. The outreach also emphasized the centrality of Casco Bay and its

2626
watersheds within the community.
The city has had a somewhat rough transition with maintenance, since it is a yearly cost that
requires highly trained staff members. Although meeting maintenance requirements has
been difficult at times, the managing departments have been learning more about how to plan
for this over the years. Since maintenance is a predictable annual cost, it begins to compare
favorably to the types of sudden gray infrastructure failures that often require huge outlays
for replacement and repairs. However, the long-term lifespans of many installations remain
unknown, so maintenance issues are expected to continue to need monitoring over the next
few decades.
Acknowledgments
Doug Roncarati, the city Stormwater Manager, was incredibly helpful in providing information
regarding the city’s infrastructural developments.

2727
PHILADELPHIA,
PA
Image credit: www.tunneltalk.com
Introduction
In comparison to Providence, Philadelphia is bigger in almost every respect. Philadelphia
is almost ten times larger in population and over seven times the land area. What makes it
relevant to our case study is its comparative location between two rivers and CSO system. All
cities are required by the EPA and Clean Water Act to have a plan to handle issues arising from
CSOs.
As a result, Philadelphia passed a 25-year plan, Green City, Clean Water, in 2011 with the
goal of improving the quality of the region’s waterways by managing stormwater runoff and
reducing the reliance on traditional, subsurface infrastructure. Progress towards meeting
this goal is tracked using two metrics: greened acres which are acres of land that manage
the first inch of stormwater using green infrastructure (goal: 10,000 acres which is ⅓ of the
impervious surface area of Philadelphia), and reduction in the number of overflows due to rain
events. The city has so far followed through on its plan for green infrastructure and is now a
model city for stormwater management.
In the past, Philadelphia has relied on its gray infrastructure for stormwater management.
This ecompases a large magnitude of traditional infrastructure, including approximately
3,000 miles of sewer piping, 79,000 stormwater inlets, 3 drinking water treatment plants, 3
sewage treatment plants, more than 25 pump stations, 175 CSO regulating chambers, 164 CSO
outfalls, and more than 450 stormwater outfalls. The CSO covers about 48% of Philadelphia
and serves ¾ of the city’s population.

2828
The switch to green infrastructure came after the EPA mandated that cities with CSOs develop
plans to reduce the occurrence of outflows. Philadelphia proposed a traditional plan involving
more gray infrastructure, however the cost was $10 billion - too great for a city where ⅓ of its
residents live below the federal poverty line. As a result the city created a new, more affordable
plan which prioritized green infrastructure instead. The plan, known as Green City, Clean
Water, aims to reduce stormwater pollution entering the waterways by 85% over 25 years.
The plans to accomplish this are already underway. Thus far the city has implemented or is
designing: 362 Stormwater Tree Trenches, 72 Stormwater Planters, 42 Stormwater Bumpouts,
98 Rain Gardens, 10 Stormwater Basins, 141 Infiltration/Storage Trenches, 35 Porous Paving
Projects, 21 Swales, 2 Stormwater Wetlands, 33 Downspout Planters, and 31 Other Projects.
The goal is to “green” at least ⅓ of the existing impervious cover in Philadelphia’s CSO
drainage areas by 2036; currently 54% of the city is impervious surfaces.
Philadelphia Water Department plans to invest approximately $2.4 billion by the 25 year
mark. These funds come through the general budget allotted to the department as well as
through the stormwater utility fee in place in Philadelphia. Less consistent funds come
through grants the city receives. The EPA has also pledged $3 million to the city to fund
projects which reduce stormwater pollution. Some of the cost for projects is also shared with
collaborating city departments, e.g. the Parks Department shares in the cost of planting trees
for green infrastructure projects in city parks.
Within the Philadelphia Water Department there is a Public Affairs Unit responsible for
engaging and educating the public. Outreach methods include: two websites (phillywatersheds.
org and phila.gov/water); social media (Facebook, Twitter, Vimeo, Instagram; Green City,
Clean Water newsletter); attending community meetings; community fairs and festivals;
Fairmount Waterworks Interpretive Center museum; hosting events such as tours of green
infrastructure project sites. There are also Ambassadors from each neighborhood who are
educated about green infrastructure and get their neighborhoods involved with Green City,
Clean Water programs. After the plan was announced, the Soak It Up initiative was created as
a public outreach campaign to raise awareness of GCCW and invite community participation.
Green infrastructure projects installed by PWD are also maintained by the department.
However, new construction which disturbs over 15,000 sf is required to implement green
infrastructure for the first inch of stormwater. The organization which implements the green
infrastructure then has to maintain it themselves.
Acknowledgments
Thank you to Christine Knapp, Deputy Chief of Staff for Director of Gov. Relations in PWD,
for taking the time to answer all my questions, and to Mike Roles, Program Organizer at the
Philadelphia office for Clean Water Action, for the connection.

2929
LANCASTER, PA
Image credit: City of Lancaster
Introduction
Lancaster is Pennsylvania’s 8th largest city and has made significant strides towards a
comprehensive Green Infrastructure Plan that was completed in April 2011. Given its land size
is half of Providence and its population one-third, the city’s great strides towards a collective
civic effort to green infrastructure and better stormwater management has made it a leader for
other smaller-population cities to follow.
The city’s Department of Public Works (DPW) works with key stakeholders including the
Green Infrastructure Advisory Committee, Lancaster County Conservancy (LCC), Lancaster
Shade Tree Commission, and state departments like Department of Coastal and Natural
Resources (DCNR) and Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). In June 2014,
Lancaster implemented a city-wide stormwater management fee (SWMF).

3030
Lancaster has implemented a large amount of green infrastructure throughout the city with
support from city departments, county and state organizations, and community support.
This city-wide green infrastructure advancement is led by the DPW, in particular Charlotte
Katzenmoyer, current Director of Public Works through its publication of a comprehensive
plan and over 130 completed or ongoing projects to date. The 2011 Plan outlined existing
stormwater and flooding management issues and provided green infrastructure solutions,
policy-, and community-based actions for the city. Extracted from the Plan are the following 3
major sections:
1) Existing Conditions (gray infrastructure, land use, impervious surface),
2) Types of Green Infrastructure Programs, and
3) 20 Demonstration Projects and Example Project Costs.
The Plan projected—a 25-year plan starting 2011—an estimated implementation cost of $140
million, which covered construction and maintenance of 74 potential sites, 20 of which were
highlighted with more information like approximate costs, benefits, type of ownership, and
ratio of impervious surface to green infrastructure.
1) Existing Conditions
Lancaster has a combined sewer system (CSS) and a municipal separate storm sewer system
(MS4). CSS covers approximately 45% of the city and is the primary source of wet-weather
pollution to the Conestoga River. In the 1990s, Lancaster built a $300 million underground
storage tank and has spent approximately $750,000 per year on its maintenance. For the
Plan, the city used GIS inventory to analyze several plans to set the framework for green
infrastructure implementation: 1) Land Use, 2) Impervious Surfaces, 3) Open Space
opportunities, and 4) Residence Within County’s Hydrological Systems. For Impervious
Surfaces, this layer mapped Aerials, Buildings, Parking Lots, Roadways, Parcels, Sewershed
Areas, Inlets, Sewers, and Outfalls for a total of 2290 acres. This is a task that Providence
would greatly benefit from, as our attempts at consolidating various GIS layers were not
entirely successful.
2) Types of Green Infrastructure Programs
The Plan included fact sheets for eight types of green infrastructure projects across various
scales: green schools and city-owned sites, green parks, green streets and sidewalks, street
tree plantings, green sidewalks, green parking lots, green roofs, and rain gardens and barrels.
3) 20 Demonstration Projects and Estimate Costs
The following table lists 9 excerpts from the 20 recommended demonstration projects. The
master list contains 74 projects and cover both CSS and MS4 regions.
Site Green Infrastructure
Technologies
Green infrastructure /
Impervious sf
Approx.
Costs
6th Ward Park Planted curb extension, rain garden 16,000 / 78,000 $200,000
Brandon Park Porous paving, bioinfiltration 37,000 / 250,000 $776,000

3131
Site Green Infrastructure
Technologies
Green infrastructure /
Impervious sf
Approx.
Costs
Crystal Park Porous paving, green alley 7,500 / 37,000 $110,000
Triangle Park Infiltration bed, tree trench 2,000 / 6,600 $20,000
S. Plum St Parking Lot Porous paving, green alley 4,700 / 23,000 $90,000
E. Mifflin St Parking Lot Bioretention 1,300 / 13,000 $27,000
Hand Middle School Tree trenches, green roof 40,000 / 70,000 $825,000
Lancaster County Library Green roof, bioretention 12,000 / 35,000 $285,000
Green St and Prince St Tree trenches 11,000 / 64,000 $180,000
Funding for the Plan came from a DCNR CCPP Environmental Stewardship Fund grant, LIVE
Green, and a Capital Bond for a total of $140,000.
Primary sources of funding for Lancaster’s green infrastructure projects are federal, state,
and local, including PENNVEST, NFWF, DCED, DNCR, Lancaster County, local or private
funds, and the stormwater utility (implemented in June 2014). The SWMF is expected to raise
between $1.1 and $1.4 million annually to support green infrastructure projects in the future.
The fee is assessable on all property, city-owned, private, commercial, education, faith-based,
and governmental. Also, Lancaster established a Green Infrastructure Grant Fund and a credit
program, an incentive that covers the marginal cost of green infrastructure portions of a
project and allows a reduction of the fee on owners’ monthly assessment, respectively.
One of the best tools that the City of Lancaster uses to communicate green infrastructure to
a variety of audiences is an interactive educational website, Save it, Lancaster!. This website
contains very useful and accessible information like: how to take action (as a resident, or
school, or property owner, etc.); a gallery of existing green infrastructure projects with streets
and alleys to parking lots and curb cuts; and a resources library including basic information on
stormwater fees, credits, and city ordinances. In addition, it contains basic figures, statistics,
and principles of better water management, and also vidoes and links to community partners
for larger projects like installing a tree. This website is a very user-friendly and public-friendly
interface, and can be a good model for the Rhode Island Green Infrastructure Coalition
website.
To reach city residents and business owners, the City partners with LCC and its LIVE Green
division. The City and LIVE Green meet biweekly to discuss schedules and logistics. For
outreach to the community, there are two strategies, residential and commercial.
For residential, they does door-to-door and holds neighborhood meetings to review concepts
such as parks, green alleys, bioretention areas, etc. This is used to communicate initial ideas
and to provide more connected discussions regarding the issue of SW and green infrastructure
solutions. Also, LCC hosts green infrastructure tours across the County to demonstrate to
and educate residents about the values of green infrastructure. If a project is beyond one
household, like a green alley project, they meet with affected property owners, explain green

3232
infrastructure and its relevance to them (like SWMF credit), and develop community buy-in
through incentives, usually financial. In any project scale, landlords or households sign a letter
of agreement to maintain the green infrastructure project for the next 40 years. This type of
outreach often leads to many cases of “walk-in” projects, where property owners would contact
either the city or LCC to initiate a green infrastructure project.
For commercial, LCC and the City hold individual meetings with owners and businesses to
assess interest and communicate ideas. They would often use simple and direct language that
follows these steps: “Keep it Simple. Explain Problem. Propose Solution. Opportunity. Next
Steps”. Like residential outreach, a crucial part is also a signed letter of commitment.
DPW is primarily responsible for the maintenance of green infrastructure projects on public
property. Ruth Hocker, Stormwater Project Manager for City of Lancaster, stated that the
department does not feel overwhelmed in terms of staff and time. LCC also provides ample
maintenance for both urban projects and reserves. Positions at LCC like Education Specialist
would coordinate staff, owners, and volunteers to design and implement the project; create fact
sheets, visual displays, and short- and long-term management plans for all stakeholders; and
organize and conduct green infrastructure tours. Land Stewards build a volunteer platform
to manage and maintain projects, the primary public support for green infrastructure after
installation. This includes regular cleanup events and activities, Volunteer Land Steward
workshops, and networking opportunities. Also, annual picnics celebrate all volunteers.
For private properties, as mentioned above, owners sign a letter of agreement with the city to
bind maintenance responsibility for the following 40 years. If ownership is passed along, the
onus is on the leaving owner to communicate to the next one the commitment of the green
infrastructure project. Often times owners approach the city or LCC to start their own green
infrastructure project, whether they learned about it from a tour, presentation, neighbor/
friend, or the Save it, Lancaster! website.
At George Washington Elementary School, the students are directly involved in the
maintenance of a community garden. Students helped to build the garden, and also initiated
composting as a good practice to complement the gardening tasks. There are also dedicated
staff who use the garden as a part of lessons and classes, along with a garden committee of
four teachers who lead the overall efforts.
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to the following for their time and effort in providing very helpful information:
Jennifer Cotting, University of Maryland
Ruth Hocker, City of Lancaster
Lydia Martin, Lancaster County Conservancy
Arelis Perez, George Washington Elementary

i
APPENDIX
Using Device Magic
One of the many functions of Device Magic is form creation and use. Other approaches
may also be effective, but we found this app to be fairly easy to use and link to accessible
visualization platforms like Google Maps.
1. Open an account on the website. There are several account options in the app:
Create an individual account for free. Each account will have to create a form and
survey questions individually, and its data can only be downloaded per user, e.g. if you
have a team of five with five free accounts, you will have to create five separate forms
with exact same survey questions.
Create a linked account for multiple users for a fee of $10/device/month. The linked
account can create common forms, which the users can use to easily gather consistent
survey answers. Its data can be downloaded as a collection of all answers.
Request special pricing for nonprofits and academic organizations by contacting the
company at sales@devicemagic.com.
2. Create a form with specific questions for site details.
Establish desired answer values, for example:
Whole number
Decimal number
Multiple choice
Free text, etc.
Create form questions, for example:
Location coordinates (latitude, longitude)
Feature type (storm drain, curbside, sidewalk, etc)
Distance from storm drain (feet)
Time from last rain event (hours)
Length of last rain event (hours)
Amount of last rain event (inches)
Images (to be taken with a smartphone or similar device)
Questions can also be marked “required” or linked to show up only if a previous
question was answered in a certain way.
Processing Device Magic Data
We used Google Sheets to clean and analyze the data that we collected from storm drain
surveys using the Device Magic Forms app. Other approaches may work just as well, but
Google Sheets is easy to access, share, and understand.
1. Log in to your Device Magic account on the company website, and navigate to your form.
2. Click the “View” button next to the form.
At the bottom of this page, there are additional options to view all points on a map or
download them in various formats.
3. Download the data as an Excel file in order to organize and clean it.
Most additional columns that are generated automatically by the app can be deleted
(the first six columns in most Device Magic forms).
A1
A2

Example Canvassing Forms
1. Survey questions form with blank answer slots. Bring multiple copies when canvassing.

Address / Dirección:
1 Does your neighborhood flood
after rain? Where? / ¿Hay
inundaciones en este barrio
después de la lluvia? ¿Dónde?

2 Would you like to see a project
in your neighborhood to control
flooding? / ¿Le gustaría ver un
proyecto para reducir las
inundaciones en tu barrio?

3 Do you think more trees and
bushes would improve the
neighborhood? Where? /
¿Piensa que se puede mejorar
este barrio con más árboles y
arbustos? ¿Dónde?

4 Do you have front/back yard?
How do you use them? /
¿Tiene un patio delantero o
trasero? ¿Cómo lo usa?

5 Would you be open to a project
that removes pavement from
your yard? Why? / ¿Estaría
abierto a realizar un proyecto
que quita parte del pavimento
en tu patio?


ii
APPENDIX
A3

Clean Water Action and TRILab – Canvassing in the West End
Contact Sheet, dated:

Name Address Phone Number Email Follow up?






















iii
APPENDIX
2. Contact sheet with blank slots. Bring multiple copies when canvassing.

3. Quarter-sheets with details and contact information, in multiple languages. Bring multiple
copies when canvassing.
iv
APPENDIX
 Encuesta de inundación del barrio
Este verano, Clean Water Action (Acción para Agua Limpio) trabaja
para minimizar las inundaciones, aumentar el espacio verde, y mejorar
el bienestar en tu barrio.
El espacio verde es integral para un vecindario próspero:
•La tierra y las plantas absorben agua de lluvia
•Los árboles dan la sombra y reducen contaminación atmosférica
•Los jardines hacen que el barrio sea más hermoso
Nosotros exploramos el West End para encontrar donde se necesita el
espacio verde. Puede ayudarnos: si nota una área que se inunda
fácilmente, saque una foto y lo nos mande por correo electrónico.
Si le interesa realizar un proyecto de espacio verde en su propio patio
o cerca de su casa, podemos ayudarle! Diganos y le conectaremos con
recursos para hermosear tu barrio. No dude en ponerse en contacto
con nosotros con cualquier comentario o pregunta.
GIProv@cleanwater.org Clean Water Action Offices at 741 Westminster St # 3, Providence
 
GIProv@cleanwater.org Clean Water Action Offices, 741 Westminster St # 3, Providence
This summer, Clean Water Action is working to minimize flooding,
increase green space, and enhance quality of life in the West End.
Green space is vital to a healthy neighborhood:
• Soil and plants soak up stormwater to reduce flooding
• Trees provide shade and improve air quality
• Gardens make neighborhoods more beautiful
We’re scouting the West End to find where green space is needed
most. You can help: if you notice areas that flood easily or streets
that could use some trees, take a picture and email it to us.
If you’re interested in creating a green space project in your yard or
near your house, we can help! Let us know and we’ll connect you
with resources to make your neighborhood a more beautiful place.
Feel free to contact us if you have any questions or comments.
Neighborhood Stormwater Survey

v
APPENDIX
A4
A5
A6
Visualizing with Google My Maps
We used Google My Maps to visualize our data. My Maps is a simple and accessible way to
view point data geographically.
1. Create and upload your data into a Google Sheets file.
2. List these two columns, at a minimum: Latitude and Longitude, and Title. My Maps will use
Latitude and Longitude to create a pin on the map, and Title to label that pin. Any additional
data related to the pin can be seen when clicked.
3. Import the Sheets file into My Maps and identify Latitude and Longitude as “Position
Placemark”, and Title as “Marker Title”.
4. Edit the marker styles as appropriate for data ranges or text-based data.
Quantifying canvassing data
Canvassing neighborhood residents produced lots of anecdotal and qualitative data, but
qualitative data is difficult to understand en masse. We again used Google Sheets to quantify,
clean, and analyze the data. Note: any capitalized words in this appendix are functions in
Google Sheets, such as CONDITIONAL FORMATTING and DATA VALIDATION.
1. Enter all responses, in full, in a Google Sheets document.
2. Determine categories or summary types that fit the responses.
For each of our survey questions, we found that the responses could usually be categorized into
5-8 types. This figure may vary based upon question.
3. Create a new sheet, use DATA VALIDATION to quickly assign one of the categories to each
response.
4. If the data needs to be quantified, assign numerical scales to response categories that can be
measured along an ‘intensity’ or ‘agreement’ gradient.
This can be done by creating a numerical RANGE for each question (in a separate
sheet), and then using DATA VALIDATION to easily select numbers from said
range.
Examples of numerical assignments: 0–2 (0 = no, 1 = maybe, 2 = yes), 0–5 (paved,
partly paved and partly green, mostly paved, pervious surface, fully green).
5. Measure the average of the data range to determine general collective understanding of each
response. For example, 1.2 out of a perfect 2.
6. Use CONDITIONAL FORMATTING to assign color scales to the numerical ranges as well.
7. Export the Sheets document as a .csv file to use directly with other data layers in ArcGIS, if
necessary.
If the data is not to be shared with outside groups, exact locations may be plotted.
Otherwise, aggregate values may need to be used to protect the privacy of respondents.
Response types can then be assigned colors and other values in order to visualize
them more effectively.
Creating site visualizations
Reimagining sites through renderings or photo-montages is an effective way to communicate
ideas or stimulate discussion about the site. There are many options for creating visuals that
range in engagement methods, expertise required, and software needed:

vi
APPENDIX
A7
1. Use computer software such as Adobe Photoshop or Illustrator, which are useful for layering
site plans over existing photographs, if skills are available.
2. Conduct team drawing sessions. Recommended materials include:
Pens and markers, post-it notes, printouts of a site photos, and/or aerial maps to draw
directly upon the area.
Large tracing paper (to allow for multiple drawing sessions and interchangeable
options for any given site).
3. Organize and facilitate public charrettes and community design events, which are valuable
opportunities to receive resident input. A charrette could feature an overview of green
infrastructure, team drawing sessions, or focus groups.
4. Keep communication and intent clear to all intended audiences by:
Keeping any drawings understandable. This can include lines, colors, and/or patterns
to denote areas, zones, or materials, e.g. yellow for pedestrian only, gray for
vehicle traffic, or hatch for cobblestones or other forms of pervious pavement.
Working in perspective. Drawing from eye-level photos can help visualize the location.
Working in groups and sharing your work. If you have a large number of people, break
off into small teams and brainstorm before reconvening. Allow time for
sharing and discussion.
Case Study Cities – Contacts
Worcester, MA
Luba Zhaurova, Sustainability Project Manager, Department of Planning
508-799-1400 x 260
Robert Ryan, Professor, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
413-545-6633, rlryan@larp.umass.edu
Suzanne LePage, Lecturer, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
508-831-5598, slepage@wpi.edu
Peter Coffin, Coordinator, Blackstone River Coalition
508-753-6087 x 5024, peter.coffin@zaptheblackstone.org
Jonathan Gervais, Environmental Engineer, Department of Public Works
508-799-1484, gervaisjp@worcesterma.org
Hartford, CT
Ronnie Vasquez, Livable and Sustainable Neighborhoods Initiative
860-757-9592
Thomas Deller, Department of Development Services
860-757-9076, tdeller@hartford.gov
Chuck Lee, Department of Energy and Environmental Protection
860-424-3716, charles.lee@ct.gov

vii
APPENDIX
Mary Pelletier, Citizen Advocate, Parks Watershed
maryp@parkwatershed.org
Portland, ME
Doug Roncarati, Stormwater Program Coordinator
207-874-8848, dar@portlandmaine.gov
John Emerson, Utility Coordinator
jwe@portlandmaine.gov
Nancy Gallinaro, Water Resources Manager
neg@portlandmaine.gov
Ian Houseal, Sustainability Coordinator
ihouseal@portlandmaine.gov
Philadelphia, PA
Roxanne Gregorio, GIS Manager, PWD
215-685-6333, roxanne.gregorio@phila.gov
Mike Roles, Program Organizer, Clean Water Action
215-545-0250 x207, mroles@cleanwater.org
Christine Knapp, Deputy Chief of Staff for Director of Government Relations, PWD
215-685-6111, christine.knapp@phila.gov
Lancaster, PA
Charlotte Katzenmoyer, Director of Public Works
717-291-4739, ckatzenm@cityoflancasterpa.com
Ruth Hocker, Stormwater Project Manager
717-291-4711, rhocker@cityoflancasterpa.com
Fritz Schroeder, Director, LIVE Green
717-392-7891 x 207, fschroeder@lancasterconservancy.org
Lydia Martin, Director of Education, LIVE Green
lmartin@lancasterconservancy.org
Jennifer Cotting, Environmental Finance Center, University of Maryland
301-405-5495, jcotting@umd.edu
Arelis Perez, George Washington Elementary School
717-291-6275 x 1 0, ajperez@lancaster.k12.pa.us

final_final_draft_aug12

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (16)

Similar to final_final_draft_aug12

Similar to final_final_draft_aug12 (20)

final_final_draft_aug12