Chapter 1 Report on the Source Reduction Grant X

Transcription

1 Chapter 1 Report on the Source Reduction Grant X A publication of the Louisville Water Company Wellhead Protection Plan, Phase III Source Reduction Grant # X

2

3 Chapter 1 Source Reduction Grant X Introduction In September 2006, Louisville Water Company, (LWC), in cooperation with the Louisville Metro Government, submitted a proposal to the US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, for a Source Reduction Assistance Grant. The project was slated to reduce lawn chemical usage, conserve energy and water, reduce air emissions by the use of native grasses, trees, and flowering plants, and restore open fields to prairie. The grants was also requested for use in developing educational materials, perform training sessions, conduct seminars, and perform a demonstration of the use of the native plants, as a homeowner would in their yard. The proposed area of study is within Louisville, KY. Information gathered during the grant, and results of the native gardens and conservation efforts are available to the US EPA Region 4 states, as well. Region 4 serves the states of Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina and North Carolina, as shown above. Chapter 1 Page 1

4 The project was a result from the use of a landscaping design that was slated to be implemented at the Louisville Water Company s B. E. Payne Plant in Prospect, Kentucky. The landscape design, and additional native gardens were to be used as a laboratory to demonstrate the effects of chemical reduction on ground and surface water, study the actual ease on no-mow or lowmaintenance lawn care, and to serve as a showcase for households, businesses, and other governmental agencies to demonstrate cost saving and labor-saving measures, while reducing the use of more environmentally-friendly products to be used where necessary, and demonstrating the long-term benefits of pollution prevention and water conservation. The landscaping design to be used as a basis for the project is a part of LWC s Phase III of the Wellhead Protection Program, (WHPP), an US EPA mandated and Kentucky Division of Water, (KYDOW), mandated program. Phase III includes the implementation of the plan developed in Phase II, which was submitted and approved by the KYDOW on November 23, The landscape design, which provided a basis for the project, included an area of restored prairie. In this picture, the prairie area is shown behind the fence, and has yet to be planted. LWC developed the landscape design as a part of the general improvements to the B. E. Payne Plant, which emphasizes reducing potential pollution, implementing cost/labor-saving practices, applying methods of conservation, and to act as a leader in pollution prevention to homes, businesses, and other governmental agencies within the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro area. On August 126, 2007, LWC received a copy of the grant award notice. Grant partners were notified immediately by that the grant had been awarded and accepted. Location of Study The grant study area is located at the Louisville Water Company s B. E. Payne Plant, near Prospect, Kentucky, which is located in the northeastern corner of Jefferson County, Kentucky. The study area, including the potential audience for training sessions, includes the Wellhead Protection Area. This area is located both in Prospect, KY, a small incorporated town within the Louisville/Metro area, and a portion of the Louisville/Metro area, bordering the Ohio River on the northwest, Oldham County, Kentucky in the northeast, and generally follows the boundary of US Highway 42 and Harrods Creek to the southeast and southwest, respectively. Immediately before the study, the City of Louisville and the Jefferson County governments merged into the Louisville/Metro government. While this created some confusion at the onset Chapter 1 Page 2

5 of the application and implementation of the grant, these difficulties were quickly overcome, as the new government merged and worked out various roles. The map above shows the location of the Wellhead Protection Area within Jefferson County, Kentucky. The study area is generally bounded by the Ohio River on the northwest side, Oldham County, Kentucky on the northeast side, US Highway 42 on the southeast side, and Harrods Creek on the southwest side. The Wellhead Protection Area, (WHPA), was designated as the area of highest priority for pollution prevention educational studies, as the groundwater in this area is a direct contributor to the Riverbank Filtration Well, located next to the Ohio River at the B. E. Payne Plant in Prospect, KY. Residents and commercial, industrial, agricultural, and government properties found within the WHPA have received educational materials pertaining to groundwater protection and pollution prevention, specifically tailored to discuss the potential contaminants found on site. Chapter 1 Page 3

6 Key Louisville Water Company Personnel Ms. Kay Ball served as the Project Administrator for the Source Reduction Grant. She has over 20 years of experience in the Louisville Water Company and is LWC s Manager of the Riverbank Filtration Project, (RBF). The RBF project is an estimated $150 million capitol program to provide advanced treatment processes to meet more stringent regulatory requirements and meet increased customer expectations. Duties of the RBF program management include managing and preparing budgeting, program planning, administrative contracts, managing project design and construction, acquisition of property, supervising and implementing the Wellhead Protection Program, and developing and executing a public information program. Ms. Ball was also Process Owner of the County-wide Extension Program, managing the $58.2 million dollar program as outlined by the Task Force Water Extension in Jefferson County. Her duties included managing, budget, design, construction, easement acquisition, and supervising the public process. Ms. Ball just completed administration of an AWWA RF Tailored Collaboration project with an estimated budget of $340,000. This project was completed within the proposed schedule and under budget. She has also managed various research projects through the University of Louisville Speed Scientific School, Center for Infrastructure Renewal. Ms. Marsha Taylor Meyer served as the Project Coordinator for the Source Reduction Grant. Ms. Meyer is a Registered Geologist in the State of Kentucky, and has 28 years of experience as a hydrogeologist, including locating long-term, reliable groundwater supplies for municipalities and businesses, developing means and methods of protecting the groundwater supplies from potential contaminants, and contaminant release clean-up. Ms. Meyer has had 15 years of project management experience on projects throughout the Midwest, and has served on the Board of Registration for Geologists for the State of Kentucky. She is currently the Wellhead Protection Coordinator for LWC, and was instrumental in developing the WHPP for LWC, which included developing a management plan for inventoried potential contaminants. As the Coordinator for the WHPP, she has developed over 50 educational brochures, newsletters, fact sheets, and pamphlets, almost all of which are geared toward Pollution Prevention. The Louisville Water Company was awarded the Exemplary Source Water Protection Award for 2009 from the American Water Works Association. Dr. Jack Z. Wang, Water Quality Supervisor, has more than 15 years experience in water quality and water treatment research, and served as a source of advice and technical expertise about groundwater chemistry during the project. The combination of his academic research background and water quality experience has made him a significant contributor to the drinking water industry. His expertise includes source water quality monitoring, treatment process optimization, biological infiltration and riverbank infiltration, water quality management in distribution systems, laboratory management and water system operations and maintenance. Dr. Wang holds degrees in Environmental Engineering and Geochemistry. He currently serves as the Director of Water Quality and Production for LWC. Partnerships Chapter 1 Page 4

7 The partners on the Source Reduction Grant proved to be of invaluable help for expert advice, sounding boards, and encouragement. The Louisville Water Company would like to express our appreciation to the partners for their help during the project. Ms. Phyllis Croce, Metropolitan Sewer District, Landscape Restoration Specialist Ms. Croce currently works as a Landscape Restoration Specialist, and serves as the Coordinator for the Public Educational and Outreach/Beargrass Creek Watershed Council. Ms. Croce s knowledge of silviculture, soil bioengineering, and invasive plant species was of invaluable help in developing educational materials and training materials. Ms. Croce also provided information regarding rain gardens. Ms. Phyllis Fitzgerald and Mr. Shane Corbin, Metro Air Pollution Control District, Environmental Coordinator Ms. Fitzgerald and Mr. Corbin work to create and implement creative programs to reduce air pollution. They have developed displays, workshops, and tours for community groups, promoting energy and environmental stewardship. Mr. Corbin provided information about air pollution and gasoline powered lawn equipment, and promoted Lawn Care for Cleaner Air, Louisville/Metro Landscaping Awards Program. The Metro Air Pollution Control District s participation as a partner was very valuable in developing educational and training materials, as well as providing information about general research. The Louisville/Metro Air Pollution Control Board promotes a program called Lawn Care for Cleaner Air, and offers a Landscaping Awards Program that promotes the use of native species to reduce potential pollution. Ms. Donna Michael, Jefferson County Cooperative Extension Service, Horticulturist Ms. Michael is a horticultural agent with the Jefferson County Extension Service. Ms. Michael has worked with the Green Industry, home gardeners, and Master Gardeners programs. Ms. Michael s advice on native and low maintenance grasses, as well as her expertise on the Kentucky Pest Control program, entomology, and common weeds has proved to be invaluable. Ms. Michael also reviewed specific sections of the guidebook for accuracy. Mr. John Addington, ASLA, and Mr. John Pacyga, Gresham Smith and Partners, Civil and Site Planning Services Mr. Addington is the principal landscape architect at GS&P. For the past 22 years, he has worked in the Louisville region, and has been involved from early planning stages, through rezoning and community meetings, to final design and construction supervision. Mr. Addington has developed landscape designs for various businesses, state, and local governments. Mr. John Pacyga offered expert advice on the use of specific native plants within the gardens. As a representative for Gresham, Smith, and Partners, he supervised the implementation of the landscape design at the B. E. Payne Plant in Prospect, KY. Chapter 1 Page 5

8 Mr. Bruce McKinney, KY Division of Water, (DOW), Coordinator, Wellhead Protection Mr. McKinney is the Coordinator for the KY Wellhead Protection Program since1998. As such, he promotes pollution prevention programs and will be able to contact many other municipal governments and utilities for distribution of educational materials. Ms. Judy Nielsen, Deputy Director, Ms. Kelly Monohan, Environmental Health Manager, Metro Health Department Ms. Monohan currently oversees the environmental health section for the Division of Environmental Health and Protection of the Louisville/Metro Health Department. She coordinates operations with other metro, state, federal, agencies and private organizations. Ms. Nielsen, Ms. Monohan, and the Metro Health Department were valuable partners in promoting the health aspects of the pollution prevention program, distributing education materials, and in facilitating cooperation with other Metro and government agencies. Mr. Win Bunton, President Bunton Seed Co. Mr. Bunton has a degree in turf grass management from the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Bunton was an excellent resource to determine potential costs of installing seeds and grasses, and offered valuable advice as to the hardiness of native plants. Mr. Bunton provided LWC with special seed mixes used on local golf courses, as a low-maintenance grass. Ms. Mary Carol Cooper, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife, Native Plant Program Ms. Cooper directs the Native Plant Division of the KY Department of Fish and Wildlife. She works at the Salato Nature Center, in western Franklin County, near Frankfort, Kentucky, and was an invaluable resource in obtaining native plants for the area. Native plants were purchased from this group at low costs. Ms. Cooper provided native flower seeds for use as give-aways for the training sessions, school groups, etc. Ms. Cooper also reviewed the native wildflower section of the guidebook for accuracy. Acknowledgements Louisville Water Company would also like to acknowledge the efforts of many individuals in the state that have provided specific expertise in the various areas discussed within the guidebook. These individuals include: Margaret Shea, Dropseed Native Plant Nursery Jim Busch, Jim Busch Landscape Mike Mudd, Brad Nation, Maria Bertdchi, YouthBuild Services Mike Unthank, USGS Louisville, KY Office Kathy Morris, Louisville Nature Center Dale Henderson, Dale Anderson, Connie Lashbrook, Steve Sims, KY Dept. of Agriculture Mark Johnson, Metropolitan Sewer District Katharine Heyden, David Jones, Wildlife Biologist, KY Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Ernie Ellison, KY DOW Dr. Jeff Marcus, Western Kentucky University, Kentucky Lepidopterist Society Steve Gray, Kentucky Division of Forestry Phyllis Fitzgerald, Kentucky Resource Center for Environmental Sustainability Chapter 1 Page 6

9 Cheryl Bersaglia, Jefferson County Soil and Water Conservation District Ron Crouch, Kentucky State Data Center Tim Sunkel, St. Matthews Feed and Seed Ann Simms, City Clerk, Prospect, Kentucky University of Kentucky, Entomology Department Project Goals The work plan included the use of an existing landscape design prepared for the B. E. Payne Water Treatment Plant to develop educational brochures and pamphlets, fact sheets, and training materials, and to perform training sessions, conduct seminars, and perform demonstrations on the reduction of potential pollutants released into the environment from normal lawn care practices. The original landscape design was promulgated by LWC s Wellhead Protection Program, for which the emphasis on potential contaminant management is Pollution Prevention. Additional garden areas were planned and executed in order to research the use of native and/or low-maintenance grasses for the area, as well as various native plant species. The project reduced lawn chemical usage, conserved energy, lowered maintenance costs, and reduced air emissions by the use of native grasses, trees, and flowering plants, and the restoration of open fields to the original prairie grasses and native wildflowers. Only organic fertilizers were used during the project, and the only pesticide used was glyphosate, as per the US EPA s recommendations. By using low environmental impact materials, which is readily available to homeowners and commercial properties, the garden plots helped to develop the guidebook as a tool for homeowners and other property owners. Natural, organic fertilizers were used to promote the growth of the native plants and low-maintenance grasses. The use of blood meal, which is a slow-release fertilizer, promotes the health and well-being of the environment. The landscape design at the B. E. Payne Water Treatment Plant was used as a laboratory to monitor the effects of chemical reduction on groundwater and surface water, study the actual ease of use for no/low maintenance lawn care, and to serve as a showcase for households, businesses, and other government agencies to demonstrate cost-saving and labor-saving measures while reducing the use of fertilizers and pesticides, reducing lawn mower air emissions from lawn care equipment, demonstrating the use of more environmentally friendly products to be used where necessary, and demonstrating the effects of pollution prevention techniques. Chapter 1 Page 7

10 The Louisville Water Company met the following goals of the EPA Source Reduction Assistance Grants: 1. Protection of the natural resources by conservation, which was accomplished by infrequent mowing, less water use, and the use of grasses and plants that reseed themselves, or are perennials; 2. Pollution prevention which was accomplished by the reduction of the use of hazardous lawn chemicals, pesticides, and other air pollutants which would normally be released into the environment; 3. Modifications of landscaping designs and maintenance procedures for homes, businesses, and government properties to reduce pollutants that would normally be released into the environment; 4. Modifications of procedures to maintain an attractive lawn or open area with cost/labor saving measures, thereby conserving energy, water, and materials; and 5. Improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, and training for property owners and government agencies within the city, state, and region. The proposed grant project also met regional-specific goals for the FY 2006 SRA Grants Program: 1. The project promoted integration of pollution prevention into regulatory programs through training activities of the Metro Government Agencies, which is on-going, as a part of the Wellhead Protection Plan. It also promoted the acceptance of pollution prevention regulations by the public through training and educational activities designed for home and business property owners; 2. The project helped instill a pollution prevention ethic into public, healthcare, and government agencies. By partnering with the Metro Health Department, educational opportunities were extended from those who can afford and use lawn care services, to lower income families and to various government agencies; 3. By partnering with existing environmental management systems at both the local and state levels, the project used environmental leadership programs to promote pollution prevention; 4. In partnership with the Jefferson County Extension Service, who manages the Master Gardner Program and serves the Jefferson County Area with horticultural advice and expertise, and with the Metro Health Department, specific programs can be developed for retired persons within the county, as volunteer educators, and through existing programs to promote pollution prevention. The development of specific programs will be an on-going benefit of the grant funds; 5. By developing methods of low/no maintenance lawn care, in conjunction with the Metro Air Pollution Control Board, the project supported development of pollution prevention Best Management Practices for the Clean Air Act s regionally selected area source categories, especially reduced emissions from lawn mowers; and Chapter 1 Page 8

11 6. The project supported the Waste Reduction Resource Center by reducing the amount of lawn wastes to be sent to landfills. The project was heavily skewed toward the homeowners in the area, while offering expertise for small business owners and larger commercial properties. However, the laboratory garden area was planned, executed, and maintained by using the same equipment and resources available to homeowners, i.e. home lawn and garden equipment and home lawn and garden supplies. This guidebook was developed primarily for homeowners, but may be modified for small businesses and larger commercial, industrial, agricultural, and government properties the principles are the same. This guidebook also offers identification tools for various weeds, and makes recommendations for their control, as available from the Kentucky Department of Agriculture. Results of the lawn kill in the lower right hand side, as compared to the buffalo grass plot in the upper portion of the picture. The lawn kill was accomplished by use of glyphosate, in the recommended percentage for weeds found within the experimental grass beds. The evaluation of the project was performed both by LWC and the Partners of the project, as well as other experts in various fields. Not only will the success or failure of various plantings be considered, but by using the reduced lawn maintenance schedule, the evaluation was based on real data, as well as professional judgments. Evaluation of the seminars was requested during the seminars, asking the attendees to rate the quality and applicability of the information presented. The results of this data are included within the final report to the Grant Administrator. The final report also addresses existing and potential problem areas, makes suggestions for improvement, and offers measurement standards to determine the effectiveness of the project. The evaluations performed by LWC and the Partners addressed this issue, and changes were implemented as necessary to fine-tune the development of the project and insure the overall success of the project. The Partners had an integral role in the evaluation of the results of the data measured, the expected outcomes of the project, and development of educational materials that promote pollution prevention through the use of native plantings. The Partners offered advice, using their expertise in the project subject area, compared cost savings, pollution prevention, and environmental conservation, served as seminar speakers, offered additional distribution outlets for educational materials to reach a larger, more regional area, and help to develop future specialized programs for citizens, businesses, agricultural areas, and government agencies. Partners to the project also provided reviews of the data presented in this guidebook. Chapter 1 Page 9

12 Grant Processes and General Findings The narrative description below details the activities and events of the Source Reduction Grant, X , from the award date to the final date of the grant. Additional pictures have been included, to include the last year s growing season, so that the complete progress of the grant may be noted. August, The Project Administrator and the Project Coordinator received a copy of the grant award notice on August 16, Grant partners were notified immediately via that the grant had been awarded in July and accepted. September December, Phase I Landscape Design Project is not a part of this grant, but was included in the grant as part of the information to be available for use during the course of the source reduction grant. Implementation of the project, originally scheduled to begin in 2006, was postponed, due to lack of funds. In 2007, funds became available, but the project scope had to be cut down in order to accomplish the majority of the goals of the project with the funds currently available. For these reasons, several changes were made from the original Landscape Design project. Phase I, Landscape Design Removal of existing trees and replacement with native trees. Several existing trees were removed from the River Road side of the property during Several older trees, that had been badly damaged in previous storms, or trimmed by Louisville Gas and Electric, (LG&E), to prevent interference with power lines, were removed as a part of the landscape project. The tree removed above was an older tree that had been badly damaged by previous storms and/or trimmed to prevent interference with power lines. Several citizens groups that act as watchdogs for environmental issues and property values in the area protested the removal of the older trees. Most of the trees on the B. E. Payne Property are mature, but still relatively young, healthy, and are attractive, even if not considered to be native to the state. To cut costs of the overall landscape project, replacement of the remainder of the trees on the front of the property will be left until a future date, when they may be replaced as they age, with native species, as they age. Trees currently planted along the front lawn along River Road will remain until a later date. Chapter 1 Page 10

13 May November, 2007 Prairie installation, and installation of landscape design. Several changes were made to the existing design in order to cut overall costs of the landscape project. These changes included planting a smaller area for the prairie portion of the design. The planted prairie will be reviewed at a later date, and a larger area, behind the plant next to the river, planted as a prairie, as funds The prairie was planted in the spring of 2007, and allowed to grow naturally through the summer and fall. The prairie area is located immediately behind the outer fence on the north side of the B. E. Payne Plant property. After planting in the spring of 2007, while rainfall was still average to above average, the prairie area thrived. Unfortunately, the summer of 2007 was unusually dry for many parts of the country, including the Louisville area. The drought did not encourage growth of the natural prairie. Wildlife in the area found it more difficult to find food, and much of the plants used in the prairie were eaten by the deer and other animals, also diminishing the growth of the prairie area. By the fall of 2007, the prairie had not grown as well as hoped, due to the factors described above. During the spring of 2008, the success/failure of the prairie area will be determined, and the area may be replanted in order to get a more accurate picture of the success of a prairie planting under more normal conditions. After a summer of drought, and foraging by wildlife, the prairie area was not thriving as hoped. The results of the plantings will be reevaluated in the spring of Implementation of the remaining plantings for the landscape project was completed in the fall of These plantings included planting native shrubs along the perimeter fence that surrounds the offices, the filter plants, the filters, and other buildings on the property, replacing dead shrubs and cleaning out the decorative plantings in front of the central offices, and landscaping the center island of the parking lot. These pictures may be seen below. Chapter 1 Page 11

14 Areas planted with native shrubs, wildflowers and native grasses include the shrub area in front of the main office building at the B. E. Payne Plant, an area the length of the outer fence facing River Road, around the generator building across from the main office, and the center median of the parking lot. The use of native shrubbery along the front offices at the B. E. Payne Plant should lower the amount of maintenance required to keep the buildings looking neatly at lower costs. This planting includes native wildflowers, as well August, 2007 April, 2008 Research of Native Plants and Grasses -- Research into Kentucky s native plants and grasses commenced immediately upon receiving the grant award. Research included developing lists of information about Kentucky s non-native, invasive species, common weeds, toxic plants, other unwanted plants, and a partial listing of Kentucky s wildflowers and native grasses. This information has been included within this Guidebook, which will serves as a helpful guide for designing native gardens. The information within the Guidebook was checked by both Donna Michael of the Jefferson County Cooperative Extension Service, Mary Carol Cooper of the Salato Center s Native Plant Program, and Jim Busch, of Jim Busch Landscaping. Other contributors include Margaret Shea of Dropseed Nursery, and University of Kentucky Department of Agriculture. Other references used in the research are referenced within the chapters. Fall Estimate of Priority Area, Wellhead Protection Area The Wellhead Protection Area, (WHPA), previously delineated during the development of the Wellhead Protection Plan, was selected as the priority area for the Source Reduction Grant. Currently, the existing WHPA extends from a point near the Jefferson County/Oldham County border to a point near Harrods Creek. The current WHPA includes approximately 900 homes and 250 businesses that would have the highest mailing priority, as these people live within the area where potential contamination is the more serious risk. Names and addresses of the property owners and lessees are updated approximated every six months from local Property Valuation data and LWC records. A mailing that details the general goals of the Source Reduction Grant was sent in the spring of 2008, to inform the residents of the project within the WHPA, and in the spring of 2009, to invite residents of the area to attend a seminar on lawn care. The seminar will be discussed more fully later. Chapter 1 Page 12

15 The current Wellhead Protection Area includes the Ohio River Valley Area near the City of Prospect, Kentucky, which is sharply defined on the west by the Ohio River and on the east by large bedrock hills. This area is currently considered to be our first priority for educational purposes on source reduction. The planned expansion of the well field southward toward Harrods Creek will expand the WHPA southward, downstream from the current area. Once data is available from the long-term pumping tests, Priority Area #1 will be expanded for future educational activities. Other priority areas include potential expansion area, the Louisville/Metro area in general, then, though our partners, expansion into other areas of the state and the southeaster region of the US. Fall, 2007 June, 2009 Location of Gardens -- After much consideration and input from LWC s facilities management and construction Project Managers, the gardens were located so as meet the following criteria: 1. Proximity to the existing buildings with downspouts, so that rain barrels that collect water from the roofs may be used for watering purposes; Chapter 1 Page 13

16 2. Location of existing underground storage and pipelines that transmit and store finished water supplies from the filter plant, so that they may be avoided; 3. Current pathways and driving areas, to prevent the beds from being disturbed; 4. Location of existing and on-going construction activities at the B. E. Payne Plant that may disturb the research beds to be avoided; and 5. Location of existing outdoor water faucets, so as to provide water necessary for the establishment of the plants. The final location for the experimental gardens is behind the filter building at the B. E. Payne Water Treatment Plant, in Prospect, KY. The gardens border the Prairie Area, and are near the maintenance building. This picture shows the three experimental grass plots, between the Rain Garden and the Native Plant Garden, the location of the compost bin, the rain barrels, and the organic vegetable garden. Chapter 1 Page 14

17 Fall 2007 Preparation of the Garden Beds -- The garden areas were prepared for spring planting in the fall of To prepare the gardens, newspapers were collected from LWC personnel at all of the various locations in the city. The newspapers were opened, glossy ads removed, and laid into 20 sheet thick barrier pads. The pads were folded for easier distribution and placement. This method was recommended to LWC by several partners of the project, as well as other sources that were consulted for research into native flowers and grasses. If the barrier pads are installed in the fall, the rigors of winter will break down the newspapers, forming a sort of mulch over the undisturbed dirt in the beds. Planting, which occurs in the spring, is accomplished through the barrier. The barrier will lower the potential for weed development, and some insect development. This lowers the amount of pesticides needed to maintain the health of the garden. As a part of the preparation of the flower beds, an organic fertilizer was applied at the recommended amounts on the beds. The fertilizer is known as Louisville Green, and was donated to the project by the Metropolitan Sewer District. It is widely used throughout the city as an organic fertilizer, and is often donated to city projects. LWC formed a partnership with YouthBuild Louisville, E-Corps Program, a program for local disadvantaged youths that provides the equivalency of a high school diploma and practical work experience. The E-Corps provided general laborers, who spread the newspaper barriers and put mulch over the barrier to hold it to the ground during the winter. Marsha Meyer, Project Coordinator provided training in unrolling and placement of the newspaper barrier on the flower beds near the plant. Rubber bands were collected throughout the process to prevent future injury to wildlife. The newspapers were spread directly over the grass, and mulch was put on top to prevent them from blowing away. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. Mulch was immediately spread over the layer of newspapers to prevent the barrier from blowing away. The mulch used was the standard mulch that LWC uses at all of the properties. All gardens were marked with a string barrier to prevent LWC vehicles from disturbing the beds. Fall, 2007 Virtual Tour A complete physical tour of the grounds for the project partners was not completed. A copy of the interim report, for February, 2008, was mailed to each partner, which served as a virtual tour of the grounds. At the time, and at the present time, a virtual tour was a safer and more comfortable option for the grant partners, many of whom must travel over one hour to reach the site, and who also have very busy schedules of their own. Some of the difficulties with conducting a physical tour include: Chapter 1 Page 15

18 1. On-going construction activities at the plant site have made it very difficult to transport partner members to the various sites in safety. Interference from construction equipment has also been a problem, as it is difficult to schedule a meeting in advance of construction equipment placement. 2. Traffic at the facility, due to construction activities, has been very heavy, and parking has been limited. 3. Collection and preparation of the newspaper barrier bundles took place in the fall while other scheduling difficulties with the flower bed preparations and construction activities made it difficult to schedule a tour during the fall and subsequent holiday season. 4. The weather has not been cooperative nor conducive to a tour of the property, owing to the changes in weather and violent storms throughout the state, and the constant changes in the construction activities at the plant. Fall, 2007 Summer, 2009 On-going Research Research was begun at the onset of the project and has continued throughout the project, until mid-august, Many subjects were researched for the development of this guidebook, including: Native wildflowers of Kentucky; Kentucky s native grasses; Low-maintenance grasses for the Kentucky transitional grasses zone; A more complete listing of native plants that are available for landscaping in Kentucky, developed from several listings, including the US Department of Transportation, cross-referenced; A partial listing of nurseries that sell native plants in Kentucky; A listing of the Non-native, invasive species found in Kentucky; Common weeds of Kentucky; Unwanted plants as listed by the Louisville/Metro Zoning Board; Garden designs and landscaping hints; Pesticide types, labels, application equipment, and laws; Integrated Pest Management, the basics, scouting, developing a strategy, and maintaining records; How to use pesticides safely, pesticide exposure, tips on protecting residents and wildlife from the overuse of pesticides; Calibrating applicator equipment, preventing pesticide fires, pesticide characteristics; Non-chemical pest controls; Wildlife pest control methods; Chapter 1 Page 16

19 Green lawn care, environmental stewardship; Soil, types of fertilizers, and preventative health care for your lawn; Types of turfgrass, organic lawn care, composting, lawn repair, renovation, or re-establishment; and Methods of landscaping for wildlife, butterfly, bird, mammal, reptile, and amphibian identification. These materials are included within this guidebook, or within the various education materials prepared for the Grant. Spring, Spring, 2009 Garden Design -- The designs of the various native plant gardens were based on several factors: 1. Purpose of the garden, i.e. species attraction, surface drainage control, etc.; 2. Garden conditions, i.e. sun and soil types, availability of water to the site, etc., and; 3. Native plant characteristics, i.e. height, bloom time, and spread. Plant selection was based on gardens located with full sun, attractive to birds, butterflies, or hummingbirds, a mix of clay/loam soil, and the desire for constant blooms. While the gardens were under design, a Garden Design chapter was written both for the final report and for use as educational materials. Step-by-step instructions were provided, so as to facilitate designing a native plant garden, as well as templates prepared for garden designs. This material has been included within Chapter 8 of the guidebook. The Bird Garden was designed to attract wild birds to the area, providing food and shelter for the birds. All plants used in the design were reported as having a high attraction to birds of the area. There is plenty of cover for nesting activities on the property at the B. E. Payne Plant. In addition to wild turkeys, buzzards, and hawks, there are doves, yellow finches, robins, cardinals, blue jays, and many other species within the area. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. The Butterfly/Hummingbird garden after planting. The Butterfly/Hummingbird Garden was designed to attract various long-tongued bees, butterflies, and hummingbirds. Several species of butterflies have been noted in the area. Moths are also found within the area, but have not been seen within the garden plot. Both the Bird Garden and the Butterfly/Hummingbird Garden were merged during the second year of the project to allow more room for plantings. The original designs were modified, and additional plants were added, based on availability of the plant from a more local source, a source of food for wildlife, and plant characteristics. Plants that survived were left in place from those gardens, and new plants were planted around the remains of those that did not survive the first winter. Chapter 1 Page 17

20 Many plants that had established themselves in the first year were left in place, and additional plants of many different varieties were planted around the original plants. The Rain Garden was moved to an area along the fence that experience showed was poorly drained, and the rain barrels moved to an area that was more convenient. Grass beds were also replanted, since the beds were eaten up by weeds the first year. Because of this, different seed mixes were used. The merged Wildlife Garden Plants used in the final plantings are listed below in Table I. Table I Kentucky Wildflowers Used in the Wildlife and Rain Gardens Plant Name Scientific Name Aromatic Aster Aster oblongifolius Crooked Stem Aster Aster prenanthoides Smooth Blue Aster or Stoke s Aster Aster laevis Foxglove Beardtongue Penstemon digitalis Wild Bergamot Monarda fistulosa Tiny-headed Blazing Star Liatris microcephala Eastern Bluestar Amsonia tabernaemontana Boneset or Thoroughwort Euphtorium perfoliatum Illinois Bundleflower Desmanthus illinoensis Yellow Coneflower Ratibida pinnata Mouse-eared Coreopsis Coreopsis auriculata Lanceleaf Coreopsis Coreopsis lancealata Tall Coreopsis Coreopsis tripteris Blue-eyed Grass Sisrinchinchium montanum Joe Pye Weed Eupatorium purpureum Great Blue Lobelia Lobelia siphilitica Butterfly Milkweed or Pleurisy Root Asclepias tuberose Slender Mountain Mint Pycnanthemum tenuifolium Chapter 1 Page 18

21 Table I Kentucky Wildflowers Used in the Wildlife and Rain Gardens, (con.) Plant Name Scientific Name Blue Mistflower Eupatorium coelestinum Missouri Primrose Oenothera missouriense Sundrops Oenothera fruiticosa Downy Sunflower Helianthus mollis Black-eyed Susan Rudbeckia hirta Rose Verbena, Vervain Verbena canadensis Plants used in the organic vegetable garden are also listed below in Table II. Specific varieties were written on labels, which, due to the inclement summer weather of 2009, washed away within one week. Therefore, general types of plants are noted below, not specific varieties. Plants were purchased at the local nurseries, and, where possible, were listed as organic. Table II Vegetables Used in the Organic Vegetable Garden Tomatoes, (10 different varieties, 10 plants) Yellow Squash, (2 varieties, 2 plants) Cucumbers, (2 varieties, 2 plants) Zucchini Cantaloupe Watermelon Cabbage, (3 plants) Green Peppers, (2 plants) Jalapeno Peppers, (2 plants) Eggplant, (1 white, 1 regular) Cauliflower, (3 plants) Spring, 2008 Spring, Native Plants and Low-Maintenance Grass Wildflowers were ordered from three nurseries in the area that specialize in live plants of species native to Kentucky. These nurseries are listed below: Salato Wildlife Center Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Game Farm Road Frankfort, KY (502) Shooting Star Nursery 160 Soards Road Georgetown, KY (502) Dropseed Native Plant Nursery 1205 Buckeye Lane Goshen, KY (502) ) Chapter 1 Page 19

22 Different types of low maintenance grass were researched via the internet, grant partners, and the Jefferson County Extension Office. Clockwise from the upper right hand corner in Figure 16, the seeds are a low maintenance grass recommended by a hardware store, Bunton Special Seed mix, Eco Lawn, and Buffalo Grass. These grasses were planted the first year. Unfortunately, weeds grew faster than the grasses, so the beds were killed, and new grasses were selected for the following spring, (2009) Of the grasses shown here, the Bunton Special Seed Mix was the most successful, and the most weed-free in Grasses planted in the Spring of 2009 were all mixes of tall fescue seeds, creeping fescue seeds, and KY Bluegrass what is available to a typical home owner. Four kinds of low maintenance grass were selected for planting in the experimental grass plots. Spring, 2008 Summer, 2009 Weed and Grass Removal Prior to planting the grass plots, the plot areas, and the areas around the various gardens were treated with Roundup, (glyphosate), which is recommended by the US EPA as having a low retention rate in the soils, (10 days). Roundup is a non-selective herbicide available for use by homeowners. During this experiment, recommended dosages of glyphosate were studied, both during research of the amount required killing the weeds and the recommended dosage on the bottle which is what a homeowner would use to mix the weed killer. Less than recommended dosages were prepared and applied, and then the recommended dosage was prepared and applied. Neither application was effective in killing the weeds. Many of the weeds listed within the Chapter 6, A Brief Guide to Kentucky s Non-native, Invasive Species, Common Weeds and Other Unwanted Plants, state that a 2% glyphosate solution will kill them. Other weeds require a 5% to 25% strength solution of glyphosate for removal. Some weeds require multiple treatments for removal, and others have special requirements for a total weed kill, such as digging, burning, or other methods. After the label recommended dosage failed to fully kill either the grass or the weeds, the project team determined that the recommended rate of application as stated on the bottles for Roundup is likely less than the EPA, or KY Dept. of Agriculture recommended 2% rate of application. The actual percentage of glyphosate used to treat the unwanted weeds and grass in the grass plot areas was calculated by means of a formula that compares the ounces of pesticide to the gallons of water used, divided by the percent of the solution of pesticide. The formula is listed Chapter 1 Page 20

23 below, as are the calculations of the percentage of glyphosate actually used during the treatment process. %P = A/g X p where: %P = Percent of the pesticide solution used A g p = Amount, in ounces of the pesticide product used, per gallon = one gallon of water, in ounces = Percent of pesticide in the solution Treatment #1 2 oz. of 18% glyphosate, per gallon of water Treatment #2 6 oz 128 oz, (1 gal.) =.016 X.18 (percent of solution) =.0028 or.28% 4 oz of 18% glyphosate, per gallon of water Treatment #3 4 oz 128 oz, (1 gal.) =.031 X.18 (percent of solution) =.006 or.6% 6 oz. of 18% glyphosate, per gallon of water, (label recommended rate of application) 6 oz 128 oz, (1 gal.) =.047 X 18 (percent of solution) =.0084 or.84% Treatment #4 Plot #4, around plots, gardens, and fence line only 4 oz of 50% glyphosate, per gallon of water, (label recommended rate of application) 4 oz. 128 oz. (1 gal.) =.031 X.50 (percent of solution) =.016 or 1.6% solution As may be seen from these calculations, the percentage of glyphosate used was much lower than the 2% recommended by the EPA and the KY Dept. of Agriculture. Nor were the treatments effective, despite the dead appearance of the grass. Weeds and grass returned immediately. For this reason, each bottle of glyphosate, (under different brand names), were carefully checked for the percentage of glyphosate of the materials within the bottle. Then, the actual ounces of the glyphosate required to mix a 2.0% or slightly less, (i.e. 1.8%), were calculated by means of the formula above. When this mixture was used, the solution actually killed the weeds and grass in the beds, and did not return immediately. Chapter 1 Page 21

24 Spring, Native Plant Gardens - Native flowers were picked up by project personnel from the nurseries listed and delivered to the site, in order to maintain the plant s integrity prior to planting. The plants were placed exactly in the planned locations, and planted the next day by E-Corps and LWC personnel. As the ground was very wet from previous rains, the plants were not watered, to prevent drowning. Garden plantings occurred June 4, 2008, and June 20-24, None of the native plant nurseries were open prior to May 1. The time chosen to plant the wildflowers was within the nursery s recommended planting season, between spells of inclement weather, and after other scheduling difficulties was met. Holes were dug large enough for the native flower s biodegradable peat pots, through the newspaper barrier into the soil beneath the barrier, and the soils were carefully replaced around the plants, along with the mulch. The original plantings were placed according to the design of the garden. Plantings of the next spring, in 2009, were placed to expand the original garden area, and replace plants that didn t survive the winter. The newspaper barrier that had been placed on the flower gardens made it more difficult to dig and plant the flowers. However, if the barriers lower the potential for weed development, and some insect development, it is certainly worth the extra difficulty in planting. In addition, the barrier should reduce the amount of pesticides needed in the long term to maintain the health of the gardens. Especially when compared to the grass plots, the project team found the newspaper barrier to be effective, as long as at least twenty sheets of newspaper were placed over the grass. Grass and weeds came up in narrow strips, where the overlapping newspapers did not reach the twenty-ply thickness. However, as the project has progressed, the mulch overlying the beds has sprouted weeds also, whose seeds were carried into the garden either by wind or some other means. Chapter 1 Page 22

25 Boneset or Thoroughwort, located in the Butterfly/Hummingbird garden attracted many bees, wasps, and butterflies. This proved to be an unusually hardy plant in the Butterfly garden, and was quite beautiful in September, 2008, before the hurricane hit. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. Boneset in the Butterfly/Hummingbird Garden. The Blue Mistflower attracted many different varieties of butterflies. Here, at right, is a Great Spangled Frittilary, (yellow), and a Cabbage White, (white). Blue Mistflower attracted many butterflies. Although it appears, from these pictures, that the same butterfly is moving from frame to frame, it is different butterflies, just the same species. The Aromatic Aster also attracted many butterflies and were an attractive addition to the garden. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. Aromatic Aster and butterfly Chapter 1 Page 23

26 Three Rose Verbena plants created a large mound of flowers that attracted butterflies and bees. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. Rose Verbena The Great Blue Lobelia was also a favorite of the butterflies and bees. The Great Blue Lobelia Other plants were somewhat slower growing over the summer of The Downy Sunflower, pictured at the right did not appear to have done much besides live, over the summer. Surprisingly enough, the following spring of 2009, they were almost invasive in the garden. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. Downy Sunflowers, Summer 2008 Chapter 1 Page 24

27 By the spring of 2009, while the newspapers were still in place over much of the area, it had degraded with the mulch into a compost type of material over the soils. There were still areas where planting was difficult, but it was much easier to plant through the composted newspapers, than through the newspapers that had not composted. There were very little differences in the amount of weeds noticed as compared with 2008, as well. In addition, small weeds and grass sprouted around the edges of the native plant biodegradable peat pots, where the soil has been disturbed for planting, or the peat pots contained some weed seed. The gardens are weeded by hand, in order to prevent further spread, and not damage the native plants. Some weeds that have sprouted in the mulch and at a distance from the plants have been spot treated with the 1.8% glyphosate solution. Weeds noted during weeding activities are primarily Plantains, (Blackseed, Broadleaf, and Buckthorn), Crabgrass, Curly Dock, Dandelion, Johnson grass, Nimblewill, Mouse Ear Chickweed, and Quackgrass. Other weeds that could not be identified at the time were also seen. By the September 10, 2008, the Bird Garden, the Hummingbird/Butterfly Garden, and the Rain Garden had grown successfully, and both the Bird and Butterfly Gardens had attracted many birds and butterflies to the area, as well as bees and other nectar sipping beneficial insects. The Rain Garden had, by the first of September, not grown as successfully as hoped, even with the installation of rain barrels. By the time the rain barrels were installed, seasonal rains had diminished to the point that the barrels were unable to collect significant amounts of rain water from the roofs of the buildings. Also, at the time the pictures were taken, the organic vegetable garden was at the end of the productive season. The high winds of the hurricane destroyed many of the remaining plants in the vegetable garden, as well as plants in the native plant gardens. The rain garden had been placed within an area that was between the filter plan offices on the lower floor and the clear well. The garden had been positioned so as to avoid underground pipelines leading to and from the clear well, in order to prevent vehicular traffic from collapsing the lines, and to prevent tearing up the gardens during construction work. Unfortunately, the soil was so compacted from vehicular traffic that the plants were unable to thrive in the heavy wet clay soil. Even weeds had a hard time in the soil. The rain garden, September Chapter 1 Page 25

28 Fall, 2008 Winter, 2009 Inclement Weather -- On September 14, 2008, Hurricane Ike swept through Louisville, KY. This storm produced 75 mph winds and played havoc with the garden, which is unsheltered. Many plants were twisted, broken off, or uprooted and blown away. No plants were removed from the garden, (except by the wind), in order for the plants to provide shelter and food for the birds during the winter, and to see which plants would return the following spring. On January 26 through 28, 2009, Louisville endured an unusually bad ice storm, which was immediately followed by high winds. Trees were severely damaged by the ice and snow, and then by the wind. In the gardens, plants that had survived the hurricane were further damaged by the weight of the ice, and the subsequent wind storm. Nothing was disturbed within the gardens by human hands, as this was nature s way of testing the native plants snow and ice are a part of Kentucky s weather patterns. Spring, 2009 Recovery -- In the spring, 2009, dead plants were trimmed, and the stalks, leaves, or other debris were laid upon the garden to add to the natural mulch. Weeds were removed, and new grass beds were planted. Then, the rain began. The weather turned unseasonably warm, and, between rain showers, it was difficult to schedule meeting times with the E Corps, to perform the work needed to maintain the gardens. New plants were not planted until the end of June, as several scheduled sessions were missed due to the bad weather. Since this is a fairly open area, it was deemed unwise to subject the crews to lightning. The gardens were redesigned somewhat, based on the success/failure of the previous year s gardens, to additional construction activities, and further developed knowledge of soils of the area. The organic vegetable garden was moved from across the street, where construction activities had cut the water line to the generator building, was moved to the location of the main native garden area. The rain garden, which had been located at the side of the filter plant, was also moved back to the other grass plots with the main garden area, and placed on the former Grass Plot #1. Spring, 2009 summer, 2009 Garden Activities -- As previously discussed, the organic vegetable garden was moved to an area near the Maintenance Building, behind the filter plant. Wooden 8 X 4 X 4 treated posts were installed in a 16 X 8 garden area. The soil within the plot was turned over and covered with over 80 bags of topsoil and humus. Louisville Green Fertilizer was mixed in with the topsoil and humus at the recommended rate. Louisville Green fertilizer was donated by MSD for use in the native plant gardens, the vegetable gardens, and the grass plots. Louisville Green is produced by MSD from disinfected sludge from the sewer treatment plants. Louisville Green was applied to all of the garden areas in the spring of 2008, the summer of 2008, and the spring of Louisville Green fertilizer. Chapter 1 Page 26

29 This picture depicts the new location of the organic vegetable garden, the rain barrels, behind the maintenance building, and the E-corps group helping to spread mulch and install stakes and baskets around the tomato plants. The prairie area is in the background. Due to inclement weather, the gardens were not planted until the 3 rd week of June, so at this juncture, July 17, 2009, the plants have not grown very well. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. The organic vegetable garden. In early-july, 2009, organic blood meal was applied to all of the gardens and the grass beds, to facilitate growth. Blood meal is a slow release fertilizer, and offers high nitrogen content. Organic blood meal was also used as a fertilizer. In addition to the new placement of the organic vegetable garden, the rain garden was moved to Grass Plot #1. The soil in that area is primarily clay, poorly drained, and the area is out of the way of construction activities. Approximately 80 bags of top soil and humus were added to this area, to build it up somewhat to improve drainage. Some plants from the original rain garden had survived both the exceptionally poor drainage, bad weather, and the construction activities. These plants were transplanted to the new rain garden, located near the native plant gardens. Crooked Stem Aster had survived and was transplanted. To fill in with additional plants, some were transplanted from the prairie behind the garden area, and included Wild Bergamot, Brown-eyed Susan, and Tall Coreopsis. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. The new rain garden. Chapter 1 Page 27

30 The Crooked Stem Aster, planted within the rain garden had very pretty blossoms, but the foliage was curling and brown all summer long, both this year and last year. Perhaps a better soil would be more suitable for this plant, even though it is recommended for use in a rain garden. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. Crooked Stem Aster blooms. All grass clippings, weeds, and other paper or plant debris was placed into the compost bin, for use on the native plant gardens and the organic vegetable garden next year. Mulch was placed around all the native flower beds, grass beds, rain garden, organic vegetable gardens and pathways. The mulch used was produced by the Louisville Water Company from storm debris on the properties. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. Compost bin. Additional plants were ordered and planted within the native flower beds. The bird garden and the hummingbird/butterfly garden were joined, and expanded to allow more room for flowers. Plants that survived from the previous year were incorporated into the new design. Additional flowers available locally, from the Dropseed Nursery, in Goshen, Kentucky, were purchased and planted so that more species could be tested. The plants easily seen here are those that survived the hurricane and the winter ice storm. These existing plants were incorporated into the new design, and additional flowers were purchased and planted to test a wider variety of species. All the plants were listed as attractive to wild birds, butterflies, hummingbirds, or bees. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. Grass Plot #3 and the expanded gardens. Chapter 1 Page 28

31 This picture shows the bird garden of 2008, with the additional plants added to the garden. The grass in the background of the garden is Switchgrass, a native grass from the original rain garden that survived the bad weather. In the center, the Downy Sunflowers that had barely survived the previous summer had become almost invasive. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. The bird garden area, July, Despite the beauty of the previous year s butterfly garden, little survived the hurricane and the winter. Boneset, on the right hand side, and the Yellow Coneflowers, in front of the Boneset, both survived well. Many native flowers were replaced, and many more added. The Missouri Primrose, seen in the front, was relocated. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. The hummingbird/butterfly garden area, July, Many of the flowers that survived the past year s weather bloomed in Those that survived and were very pretty this year include the Foxglove Beardtongue on the right. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. Foxglove Beardtongue. The brown seed pods behind it are a wonderful wild bird seed. Chapter 1 Page 29

32 The Downy Sunflowers that had looked so small and pitiful in the fall of 2008, had grown and bloomed most of July and August. Yellow Finches, Sparrows, Chickadees, and other birds were seen in these flowers all summer. No pictures were made, because the were not fond of human intruders. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. Downy Sunflower The Yellow Coneflowers, located in front of the Boneset in the hummingbird/butterfly area was quite attractive against the back drop of the Boneset greenery. These were survivors of the bad fall and winter weather. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. Yellow Coneflower Additional flowers were transplanted from the prairie area behind the gardens, to fill in spots of both the rain garden and other gardens. These Black-eyed Susans were transplanted, and bloomed for awhile, but it will remain to be seen if they survive this winter, ( ), and bloom again next year. These flowers will provide wild bird seed, however. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. Black-eyed Susans in the rain garden. Chapter 1 Page 30

33 Unfortunately, more bad weather was to come. Winter weather, after the ice storm of January, was warmer than normal, which may have helped those plants that survive the ice storm, survive the remainder of the winter. In May, there was no rain, but in early June, unusually heavy rains began. While the weather was unseasonably warm for late May and Early June, the weather turned cooler than is normal for Kentucky s growing season, and rainfall greatly exceeded the normal monthly average. While the weather did not seem to have such a detrimental effect on plants established from the previous year, it did not allow the newer plants to grow in either height or fullness, and many never bloomed at all. Table III 2009 Rainfall and Temperature VS Averages of Rainfall and Temperature Month Average Rainfall 2009 Rainfall Average Temperature 2009 Temperature Jan o 29.9 o Feb o 40.2 o Mar o 50.4 o Apr o 58.3 o May o 66.8 o Jun o 75.5 o Jul o 73.4 o Aug o 75.7 o Total/Ave o 58.8 o In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. Average Annual Precipitation Compared to 2009 Precipitation Chapter 1 Page 31

34 In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. Average Monthly Temperature Compared to 2009 Temperature Pictures were taken one year after the end of Year 1 pictures were made, on September 10, As may be seen below, plants established last year are much hardier than their 2009 counterparts. The Aromatic Aster, Blue Mistflower, and the Tiny-headed Blazing Star bloomed at the same time in mid-september. Not as many butterflies were found this year as last year, possibly because they are not in the same stage of development as last year. All three plants, once established, grew well and would be recommended for planting in a native plant garden. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. Aromatic Aster, Blue Mistflower, and Tiny-headed Blazing Star Chapter 1 Page 32

35 The Boneset, which bloomed most of the summer attracted many bees, wasps, and a few butterflies. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. Boneset Although hardy, the foliage of the Crooked Stem Aster was not pleasing. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. Crooked Stem Aster By the end of August, the Foxglove Beardtongue had gone to seed and was a very pretty dried flower against the Downy Sunflowers. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. Foxglove Beardtongue Chapter 1 Page 33

36 The Butterfly Milkweed was a very attractive plant that did well this year. This was planted in the spring of In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. Swamp Milkweed The Rose Verbena, which was replanted in the spring of 2009, did not fare as well with the cooler weather as last year. While still a very pretty plant, it did not spread, nor were the plants as robust. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. Rose Verbena Chapter 1 Page 34

37 Another planting for 2009, the Slender Mountain Mint grew, but not well. However, the plant produced some very pretty blooms. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. Slender Mountain Mint Summer, 2008 Landscape Project The native plant landscaping project was also planted in the early summer of Unfortunately, many of the plants did not survive due to the lack of rainfall during the summer. Native plants were planted along the fence at the front of the property. A mixture of native grasses, Cardinal Flowers, Blazing Stars, Black-eyed and Brown-eyed Susans and Tall Coreopsis was planted along the front fence. The plants did very well at first, but once the heat of summer hit, many of them did not survive. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. Native plants along the front fence. Additional plantings were made in the generating building across from the filter plant, inside the outer fence. Again, had rain been available, these plots would have survived and likely thrived. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. Native plants along the generator building. Chapter 1 Page 35

38 The center median was also planted with native flowers. This area was watered on occasion during the summer, as there were outside faucets nearby. As a result, more of these plants survived the heat of the summer of 2008, and by summer, 2009, were quite attractive. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. Center median native planting. The prairie area was planted in the spring of By June of 2008, it was doing very well, prior to the dry weather of the summer of In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. Prairie native grasses. Chapter 1 Page 36

39 Summer, 2009 Landscape Project Native flower plantings along the generator building did not survive the summer of But many flowers planted in the median area were quite beautiful this summer and were successful plantings. The native flowers that not only survived the heat of the summer of 2008, but the hurricane, ice storm, and rains of 2009, these bloomed and will likely become prettier next year: Prairie Blazing Star, Liatris pycnostachya Bradbury s Monarda, Monarda bradburnia Illinois Bundleflower, Desmanthus illinoensis Glade Coneflower, Echinacea simulata Lanceleaf Coreopsis, Coreopsis lanceolata Poppy Mallow, Callirhoe papaver Brown-eyed Susan, Rudbeckia triloba Many of the flowers listed above also survived within the prairie area. Native grasses also survived within the prairie area, including those listed below: Big Bluestem, Andropogon gerardi Indian Grass, Sorgastrum nutans Prairie Dropseed, Sporobolus heterolepsis Frank s Sedge, Carex frankii Switchgrass, Panicum virgatum Spring, 2008, and Spring, 2009 Planting activities Grass Plots -- Grass plantings have taken place from mid June, 2008, following three treatments of glyphosate, were reseeded in late June, 2008, and were killed in September, in order to remove weeds, again, and reseeded again in October, Following the third treatment, at least fifteen days elapsed before the grass plots were planted. Additional reseeding may be necessary in the future to thicken the grass plots. Planting of the grass seed for Plots #2, #3, and #4, was accomplished by use of a specialized cultivation tool purchased at the suggestion of Bunton Seed Company. This tool is a garden cultivator, and consists of four wheels, each turning into each other, that breaks up the surface soil. The cultivator was used on the surface of the beds, and the grass seed broadcast by hand over the plot area. Grass seed was spread so that there was space between the seeds, but with a good coverage. Once spread, the seed was turned just barely under the soil with a quick run of the cultivator over the surface. Buffalo grass seeds were individually placed, root down, and covered with soil to promote growth. Chapter 1 Page 37

40 In 2008, grass was planted in four plots, along the fence line, near the bird and butterfly gardens. In fall of 2008, three of the plots were re-planted with different types of grass. The four original grass seeds planted in the spring of 2008 included: Buffalo Grass a specific grass species native to the great plains states; In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. Eco-Lawn a tall fescue mix designed to be low maintenance; Bunton Special Mix a speciallyprepared mix by a local nursery, who specializes in golf course lawns, and uses cool-season, drought resistant grasses, and; Low Grow Mix a lowmaintenance grass available to homeowners from the local hardware store. The Buffalo Grass in Plot #1 is an excellent example of the results of the original, spring 2008, planting. Weeds returned before the grass was able to germinate. The small grass spikes seen in the upper left hand corner are the Buffalo Grass, while the rest are weeds that returned after the original kill. Plot #1, was reserved for the Buffalo Grass. An information kit, which was included with the seed, indicated that the plot required more preparation of the bed in order to be successful. The E-Corps group dug approximately six inches down into the soil, and turned the soil over, breaking up soil chunks and clots with the shovels and garden rakes. The soil was then evened out, the seed hand set at 1 intervals or less, and the cultivator was used to barely cover the seeds. The literature also indicated that the success of the seed depended on the degree of cultivation of the bed, and the lack of residuals in the soils. On the day of planting, the cultivator was used on top of the prepared bed to help break up the top of the soil further, and additional weeds were removed by hand. Unfortunately, the plot is located within a particularly clayey area of soil, so the grass did not thrive and prosper, as it prefers a loamy soil. Addition observations throughout the summer were made, and constant weeding occurred to determine the success of the planting. By fall, 2008, it was determined that the grass bed plot would not support much but weeds. The existing weeds were killed by a 1.8% glyphosate mixture, and the plot was left fallow until the following spring, when it was turned into the Rain Garden. Chapter 1 Page 38

41 Plot #2 was planted with Eco- Lawn, a tall fescue, lowmaintenance mix purchased for the project via the internet and available to homeowners. Again, weeds sprouted before the grass, and choked out most of the special grass seed. Despite fertilization of the grass plot and watering, the Eco-Lawn seed was not a success in this area of the garden, although it may have been under different conditions. For the homeowner, one must remember that these are grasses designed to be slowgrowing. A good kill is essential prior to planting. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. The Eco-Lawn, tall fescue mix was not a great success in this plot in Plot #3 was planted with the special seed mix provided by the Bunton Seed Company. Even though it had plenty of weeds, due to the poor kill before planting, it came up more quickly, and was more robust for the garden area, as may be seen in the picture to the right. Another factor in the over abundance of weeds is that this area had not been cultivated prior to planting. A more normal lawn, that has had grass and composting of grass clippings, would likely have had more success, than in this area, a construction zone. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. The Bunton seed mix was the most successful at germination of all the grasses planted in the spring of Chapter 1 Page 39

42 Plot #4, the hardware store mix, was a low maintenance grass purchased from the local hardware store. This plot was also not a great success, as may be seen in the picture at the right. While not as weedy as the other beds, it still did not sprout very well. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. The low maintenance grass purchased at the local hardware store and planted in Plot #4, was also not very successful. A very important factor in the success/failure rate of the original grass plots is the soil at the sites. Soils within the specialized beds and grass plots range from clay/loam to clay. The soils at the Butterfly/Hummingbird garden have more loam, while the soils have much more clay toward the Buffalo Grass plot. The B. E. Payne Plant was constructed during the 1970 s, and at that time, soils dug for excavation were smoothed over at the completion of construction, without regard to maintaining soil layers. Therefore, very little topsoil is available in some areas. Spring, 2009 Grass Plots -- Grass plots were unaffected by the hurricane and were re-planted in spring, At this time, it was estimated, based on the slow growth rate of the grasses, that low maintenance grass, while difficult to establish, should require mowing approximately once per month, or twice per month, if the lawn is kept at a three inch, (3 ), to three and a half inch, (3.5 ) height. Again, as stated above, the four grass plots were subjected to a kill in late September, Three of the grass plots were re-planted in early October, 2008, approximately 15 days after the glyphosate was applied. This time, the area was cultivated with the special cultivator tool, grass seed was broadcast, and a very thin, (1/4 to 3/8 ), film of potting soil was sprinkled on top of the ground. The beds were not watered, or in any way disturbed. The grass seeds used were the Eco-Lawn mix, and two tall fescue mixes prepared by another local nursery, St. Matthew Feed and Seed. All grass seeds grew well during the spring, filling in nicely, and remaining healthy during the early spring and early summer. The grass was mowed once in early June, and once in early July, approximately 4 weeks later. Chapter 1 Page 40

43 The Eco-Lawn plot, shown in the picture at the right, maintained a good, thick stand. The brown spots seen on the picture are from the wheels on the mower, and indicate that the grass should have been cut sooner. Despite the somewhat ratty appearance, the grass appears to be healthy. It should have been mowed every two weeks, rather than once per month. Another factor for the l9ong term success of this plot were the rains that began in May, 2009, and continued through August. Grass Plot #2 was planted with a tall fescue mix from St. Matthew s Feed and Seed. The un-mown portion had been left to grow for four weeks. The picture on the right depicts the contrast between the mown grass and the un-mown grass. Grass was trimmed to the highest height on the mower, about 3 ½. The grass was a very good grass for the area. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. Plot #2, Eco-Lawn grass plot. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. Tall Fescue Mix #1 The third bed looked the best the entire summer. This bed was mown twice, in July and in early September. Grass cuttings were left to act as compost for next year. The grass used in this plot was a special mix of tall fescue, creeping red fescue, and bluegrass. This is a very good mix for this area. Tall Fescue, cool season Mix #2 Chapter 1 Page 35

44

45 Lawn mowing activities were accomplished by using an inexpensive, (less than $100) push mower. When the grass is thick, it is more difficult to cut. However, the experiment was to see how long one could technically go between cuttings, and still have a good looking lawn. For Grass Plot #2 and Grass Plot #3, the plots should have been mown every two to three weeks, to keep it trim, but it did not look bad after four weeks. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. E Corps mowing the grass plots Spring, 2008 fall, 2009 Organic Vegetable Garden The organic vegetable garden was originally placed behind the generator building, across the street from the native flower gardens and grass plots. The location was not ideal, because in the heat of the summer, 2008, construction activities on site cut the water line to the generator building, rendering the outside faucet useless for watering purposes. Rain barrels were to be installed at the outside downspout on the back side of the generator building. However, modifying these proved to be impossible, due to building design features, where the real down spouts were located inside the building. The outer downspout was actually a downspout-shaped conduit that served the machinery inside the building. The organic vegetable garden was originally located behind the generator building, across the street from the native flower gardens. A 20-layer thickness of newspaper was put down in December, 2007, and covered with mulch. The area was marked off by stakes and string, and the area was left undisturbed until planting time in the spring of Mulch over newspapers in the organic vegetable garden, December, Chapter 1 Page 35

46 Vegetables planted in the organic garden included yellow squash, zucchini, tomatoes, green peppers, jalapeno peppers, broccoli, cucumbers, and red peppers. The plants were planted in early May, before the native flowers became available from the native plant nurseries. The plants used were listed as organically grown, and were purchased from various nurseries and stores nearby. Yellow squash plant growth by June, 2008 By mid-june, most of the plants were well-established, and were receiving water from normal rainfall. The only fertilizer used was Louisville Green, the fertilizer produced by the Metropolitan Sewer District. The tomato plants were growing well by mid-june, By mid-july, the rains had stopped and the normal heat of summer began. With no water from rainfall, the plants began to wilt and die. LWC personnel carried water to individual plants, but that proved to be impossible for any length of time. Squash plants in late July, 2008 Chapter 1 Page 36

47 Tomatoes, squash, and eggplants were harvested from the garden until the heat and dryness killed the plants. After the main growing season, the hurricane and the ice storm of January, 2009, took its toll on the garden. In order to maintain the garden more easily, and to more closely watch the effects of weather on the garden, the organic vegetable garden was moved to the garden area behind the filter plant. The organic vegetable garden was planted about one week before the remainder of the gardens. The late planting was due to the inclement weather, as field work days could not be scheduled in the stormy days that began in June, By the time these pictures were made, the garden had been planted about three weeks. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. Organic vegetables as of July 17, 2009 The tomatoes began to produce, even though the weather was unseasonably cool and very wet. The area had been fertilized with blood meal, but it is felt that the extreme rains and cooler weather did not help the growth of the vegetables. A baby tomato by August 4, 2009 Chapter 1 Page 33

48

49 Warmer weather returned to the area in later August, which helped to spur plant growth. This white eggplant is small, but at least healthy. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. White eggplant, August 24, 2009 Even plants that had not done at all well were blooming and producing vegetables. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. Strangely shaped cucumbers. The vegetable plants that had survived the poor growing season began to thrive again, once warmer weather occurred in late August, early September. Further success of the garden will likely depend on the warmth and rainfall that takes place through September and October. In order to reduce memory requirements for the PDF file, this picture has been removed from the web site version of the report. Yellow squash blooming Chapter 1 Page 45

50 Groundwater Quality Sampling A specialized groundwater supply pump, converter, and two plastic hoses were purchased from Proactive Environmental Products. The pump purchased was a one and three quarter inch diameter, PVC Mega-Monsoon monitoring pump, capable of pumping 1.75 gallons per minute, (gpm), at an eighty foot depth. A low-flow power booster was also purchased, which enabled the pump to run from a heavy duty battery. Static water levels in the wells currently monitored by the USGS range from approximately forty feet to fifty feet. In 2007, prior to the grant award, three existing monitoring wells were selected as offering the potential for monitoring purposes. These wells were M002WP2 A, M002WP2 B, and M002WP- 7. The location of these wells may be seen below. The three wells were drilled in the early 1990 s to determine the change in static water levels during the pumping tests performed on the Riverbank Infiltration Well. Since the wells had been installed at least ten years before, two of the wells were developed by air surge techniques during the summer of Wells M002WP-7 was not surged, as it serves as a USGS static water level monitoring point. Monitoring Well Location M 002 WP-7 was chosen as the best available monitoring point to check the potential for effects of the native plant gardens and grass plots on the groundwater. Attempts at well cleaning were made at Wells M002WP2 A and M002WP2 B. Well M002WP2 A produced water, indicating that the well was in connection with the aquifer. Well M002WP2 B has collapsed. Air surge efforts removed quite a bit of fill that has fallen into the well, from thirty-two feet of total depth to approximately fifty-eight feet of total depth. However, the well was not able to be cleaned further, and can not be used as a monitoring point during the study. The wells were likely drilled to a depth of approximately one hundred feet, and, it is assumed, equipped with five feet of #10 slot screen, as that is the standard practice of the drilling firm Chapter 1 Page 46

51 that installed them. Well logs and construction characteristics are not available to us at this time. The well development process consisted of placing an air hose approximately seventy-five feet into the well, and using an air compressor to evacuate the well. Well M002WP2 A was pumped for at least two hours, until the water was fairly clean. Other wells in the area were also cleaned, in the hopes that they may act as monitoring points some time in the future. Since the USGS is using M002WP-7 as a static water level monitoring point, it was assumed that the well was at least in some connection with the aquifer. Test pumping and sample collection took place on June 18, The USGS was contacted and requested to remove the static water level monitoring equipment installed in M002WP-7, in order to allow access of the pump. Static water level was measured by means of an electric tape, used to measure static water levels in wells. The static water level was forty-four feet, (44 SWL) at the onset of the sampling procedure. After measuring the static water level, the pump was attached to the one-half inch diameter tubing, (1/2 diameter), the power cord leading to the converter, and lowered into the well to the eighty foot mark on the power cord. When corrected for the height of the casing above ground level, the pump intake was set at feet. Well M002WP-7 Monitoring well #7 was used as a sampling point for groundwater quality analysis. The pump was turned on full volume, and it was expected to be able to pump for quite awhile, as there was plenty of water available in the well. However, the pump was able to pump for only a short time before stopping. It was attempted to measure static water level in the well, but the probe portion of the water level indicator became caught on the wiring of the pump, and pulled the end of the probe off, breaking the connection and disabling the indicator. The pump was removed from the well, and it was noted that the plastic tubing had unattached from the pump. The plastic tubing was re-attached, and the pump lowered to the same depth. The pump was turned on, but did not produce water from the well. The pump was shut off, lowered to eighty-five feet, and turned on. Again, the pump was not able to pump water from the well. MW002WP2 A represented the second attempt at groundwater sampling. It was noted prior to initiation of sampling that the well casing was leaning a small amount to the south. The pump Chapter 1 Page 47

52 would not fit into the casing, beyond the bend in the casing. For this reason, the sampling procedure was abandoned at that site. An additional attempt was made at M002WP-7, but the well had not recovered sufficiently to enable the pump to work. Approximately two hours later, another attempt was made, and the pump was able to evacuate water from the well, giving the best representative sample possible under the conditions described above. Samples were collected and sent to Underwriter s Laboratory for analysis. The results of the analysis may be seen below in Table 6, Results of the Groundwater Analysis. Table III Results of the Groundwater Quality Analysis Water Quality Analysis Constituent Tested Results MCL Chloride 44 mg/l 250 mg/l Sulfate 6.3 mg/l 250 mg/l Total Cyanide <0.02 mg/l 0.2 mg/l Nitrate <0.1 mg/l 10 mg/l Nitrogen, TKN <0.5 mg/l Not regulated Iron 42 mg/l 0.3 mg/l Sodium 25 mg/l 20 mg/l (optimal) Arsenic <2.0 ug/l 10 ug/l Manganese 230 ug/l 50 ug/l The constituents listed were selected based on specific concerns of potential contaminants found within the wellhead protection area. Chloride, sodium, and cyanide were selected based on the concern of potential contamination by road salt. Sulfate, nitrate, and Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, (TKN), were selected based on the concern of potential contamination by septic systems in the area. Arsenic, nitrogen, and Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, (TKN), were selected based on the concern of potential contamination by the use of fertilizers, and iron and manganese were selected based on a concern of general potential contamination from unknown sources. Of the constituents listed above, two were above the maximum contaminant level; iron and manganese. Sodium was above the optimal level, but was well within the range of uncontaminated groundwater. Iron and manganese may have been higher due to the testing procedure. The well was not cleaned prior to testing, nor was the well capable of producing groundwater in the quantities required to evacuate the well and collect a representative sample of the groundwater. Since the well is maintained by the USGS, (although owned by the Louisville Water Company), it was reported to the USGS, and that entity plans to develop the well further to insure good connectivity with the aquifer. No additional samples were gathered, due to the unsatisfactory results of the first sampling. Chapter 1 Page 48

53 Educational and Training Activities During the course of the grant, educational materials were developed and presentations made to different groups within the Louisville Metro Area. Citizen s Advisory Council, Louisville Water Company The Citizen s Advisory Council is a group of local citizens selected from the residents and businessmen of the Louisville Metro Area to advise and suggest means of improvement for the Louisville Water Company. The committee members are often presented with the plans that the Louisville Water Company has for future development and kept abreast of issues with current projects. In October, 2007, Marsha T. Meyer, Project Coordinator, gave a presentation to the Citizen s Advisory Council about the Source Reduction Grant. The power point presentation is shown in Appendix I. March, 2009 Groundwater Awareness Week Posters were sent to all Louisville Water Company offices in March, 2009, in conjunction with the announcement of the Seminar and the Brown Bag Lunches, discussed below. A copy of the poster may be seen in Appendix I. Spring, 2009 Seminar Plans were made in February, 2009 for a seminar to be held for the local residents of the City of Prospect, Kentucky. Notices were mailed out to the Wellhead Protection Area residents, in areas where lawn care may be an issue. A copy of the brochure that was hand-delivered to the Wellhead Protection Area is included in Appendix I. The seminar was held on March 11, 2009, at the Harrods Creek Fire Station, in Prospect, KY on Highway 42. Draft copies of the guidebook were given to the participants, as well as many different educational materials from the guest speakers. Guest speakers included: Ms. Marsha Meyer, Louisville Water Company, who discussed groundwater contamination and the use of native plants to reduce the sources of pollution; Mr. Shaun Corbin, Metro Air Pollution Control Board, who discussed the Lawn Care for Cleaner Air program; Ms. Margaret Shea, Dropseed Nursery, who discussed a variety of native wildflowers and grasses that do well in this area for plantings; Mr. Wayne Long, Jefferson County Cooperative Extension Service, who discussed Integrated Pest Management; and Ms. Cheryl Bersaglia, Jefferson County Soil and Water Conservation District, who discussed the characteristics of soils in Jefferson County, composting for better soils, and building better soils. Participants were invited to plant a small native tree seedling to take home. Native tree seedlings were ordered from the Kentucky Division of Forestry, and were delivered, ready to plant, the week before the seminar. Copies of the Seminar Agenda, copies of the groundwater presentation, and other information distributed may be seen in Appendix I. Spring, 2009, Brown Bag Lunch at the Louisville Water Company A brown bag lunch training session was held for Louisville Water Company personnel on May 5, Copies of the draft of Chapter 1 Page 49

54 the Guidebook were distributed, as well as additional information. A copy of the presentation may be seen in Appendix I of this chapter. Spring, 2009 Water Festival The Louisville Water Company sponsors a water festival for school children every year. In May, 2009, the source reduction grant sponsored a booth for the school children. Four hundred tree seedlings were ordered from the Kentucky Division of Forestry, and were delivered approximately three weeks before the Water Festival. Since three weeks without water would likely kill the young seedlings, they were heeled in by burying the tree roots into temporary beds at the native plant gardens. E Corps dug the holes and helped with the planting of the seedlings. Heeling in tree seedlings to keep them alive until the Water Festival. Seedlings included White Pine, Red Bud, Flowering Dogwood, and Silky Dogwood trees. The seedlings were placed in the ground and watered to keep them alive. Seedlings are in the ground, safe. Three hundred eighty students attended the booth at the Water Festival. Activities included a brief overview of groundwater facts, groundwater protection, and the use of native trees and plants to reduce the sources of pollution. A groundwater model was used to depict the hydraulics of water movement within the aquifer. Chapter 1 Page 50