Connecting Local Gray and Green Infrastructure with the Regional Blue: Field Assessment of Hydrologic Capacities in Detroit MI USA

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

I read your article on topic "Connecting the regional blue with the local gray and green: 2
field assessment of hydrologic capacities in post-urbanized 3
landscapes and signaling their status (Detroit MI)". This research utilize two methodologies for assessment of soils drainage and infiltration through-out the Detroit MI to create stop-light approach signals.

Overall, the research is good, but requires some improvements. Here, I will mention only the main points, the rest will be in attached PHD file.

1. In introduction section. I suggest clearly highlight the purpose of the research and its aim.
2. Site Description and Methods. I suggest to improve methodology descriptions. Add more citations and divide the section of sub-sections.
3. Result and Discussion section. This section is not finished. Add a sub-section with recommendations (basically your conclusion), limitation of your research, and further development of this methodologies.
4. Conclusion section. Is bad. It is not a conclusion, it better fits Discussion.
5. Figures. All of them can be improved as you have a lot of description in the text, which can be expressed on the figures.
6. Plus more citations.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Comments, Shuster et al. Connecting with the Regional blue…

We appreciate the insightful comments from both reviewers. This has guided us in the process of revision, which we hope satisfies the reviewers.

Reviewer 1

I read your article on topic "Connecting the regional blue with the local gray and green:
field assessment of hydrologic capacities in post-urbanized landscapes and signaling their status (Detroit MI)". This research utilize two methodologies for assessment of soils drainage and infiltration through-out the Detroit MI to create stop-light approach signals.

Overall, the research is good, but requires some improvements. Here, I will mention only the main points, the rest will be in attached PHD file.

1. In introduction section. I suggest clearly highlight the purpose of the research and its aim.

We agree. We present the research with these objectives:

To meet these management challenges in extensive urbanized landscapes, our research objectives are to leverage parcel-level hydrologic data to establish a range of variability in stormwater runoff potential, translate this data into the stoplight visual forum for effective communication, and simultaneously offer data-driven guidance on whether post-urban parcels should be: conserved because they render hydrologic ecosystem services at a high level; managed according to specific deficiencies in services (i.e., low infiltration, drainage rate); or redeveloped (i.e., parcel is essentially impervious area) with contemporary low-impact development standards.

1. Site Description and Methods. I suggest to improve methodology descriptions. Add more citations and divide the section of sub-sections.

We agree. Consequently, we have added citations that refer directly to the methods used, and divided this section in sub-sections to organize and clarify the work process.

1. Result and Discussion section. This section is not finished. Add a sub-section with recommendations (basically your conclusion), limitation of your research, and further development of this methodologies.

We agree. The section has been separated into Results then Discussion sections, each with their own sets of sub-headings.

1. Conclusion section. Is bad. It is not a conclusion, it better fits Discussion.

We agree and thank you for this practical guidance. The discussion section is much more robust for this recommendation.

 

1. Figures. All of them can be improved as you have a lot of description in the text, which can be expressed on the figures.

We’ve attempted to clarify how the information in the Figures is applied to understand the results and their meaning.

1. Plus more citations.

We have added citations to address gaps in support of our methods, results, and discussion. We have removed papers with Shuster as the primary author. The remaining papers may feature Shuster as a co-author, yet they contribute unique, novel, and pertinent information that informs the analysis and discussion of the results.

Title: added “infrastructure” as suggested: Connecting local gray and green infrastructure with the regional blue: field assessment of hydrologic capacities and connectivity (Detroit MI)

Reviewer 1 provided a mark-up of the manuscript in PDF format. We accepted and corrected each edit suggested. Despite our best efforts to understand and correct these requests, our responses were more nuanced:

Figure 1. The overview map is comprehensive, and after trying some new images, these appeared too dense with information. We could remove the identification of the specific neighborhoods that we worked in, and just generalize to the west, east sides of Detroit. Please give further guidance on this matter.

Line 144, original manuscript. The Windshield Survey was done to efficiently visit each site to ensure that it was available, accessible, and safe. Sites were accepted or discarded based on these criteria.

Figure 1. Neighborhood locations. We again for that the density of information presented tradeoffs in the overall visual presentation. We are open to specific suggestions on how to remedy this. Reviewer 2 had indicated that Figure images were not clear enough, and we are attempting to balance between reviewer requests.

Line 167. As far as we know, it is sufficient to give equipment manufacturer name of business and location (and website if available).

Lines 172-175. Sentence regarding post-demolition turf establishment has been simplified and shortened.

Figure 1. Submaps b, c are given to illustrate the nominal extents of west, eastside catchments and clarify the distances between sites on each side of Detroit.

Line 188. As far as we know, it is sufficient to give equipment manufacturer name of business and location (and website if available).

Line 201. We have detailed this borehole depth that we used for K(0) measures by supplying the average 1.2 +/- 0.1 m depth (+/- std. error of the mean).

Lines 212-215. We detail this methodology (soil color under temporarily or persistently wet soil water regime) by citing two relevant peer-reviewed papers, which also verify, support our interpretations of soil color data.

Lines 231 – onwards. We have divided methods, results, discussion into sub-sections. We have attempted to provide some sense of workflow.

Line 260. Figure 2, “quality of red is very low”. We are unsure if this is a comment about the red category, or something in its visual presentation in the figure. Please let us know.

Line 284-290, we have changed number of sites at each stoplight coloe to the suggested 1-green, 3-yellow, etc.

Lines 287-290. Based on comments from Reviewers 1, 2, we have deleted the 2023 data, which detracted from the main points of the paper, and led to speculation.

Lines 355-365. We have added citations to explain the process and verify these observations in common practice.

Unnecessary spaces have been search and replaced to the best of our detection.

Discussion section created, Conclusion section rewritten.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper, titled “Connecting the regional blue with the local gray and green: field assessment of hydrologic capacities in post-urbanized landscapes and signaling their status (Detroit MI),” primarily investigates the connectivity between “gray,” “green,” and “blue” infrastructure within urban hydrological systems through field assessments of Detroit's abandoned plots. The study employs an innovative “stoplight” method to classify soil infiltration and drainage data. However, the paper has room for improvement in research rigor. Its novel aspects—such as the quantitative standards and practical application of the stoplight classification system—could be more clearly articulated to better highlight its scientific contributions. Therefore, the authors are advised to conduct a major revision to strengthen the logical correspondence between research objectives and results, explicitly articulate the scientific value of the innovative contributions, and enhance the rigor of inferences by supplementing additional evidence before considering resubmission for review.

1. The abstract section lacks a description of the study's main findings.
2. The introduction lacks a description of the study's innovative aspects: Compared to existing infrastructure models, what is the unique value of this research?
3. Provide a detailed explanation of the classification criteria for “ stoplight ,” supplemented by supporting literature or experimental data.
4. The images in the article are not clear enough.
5. Regarding sample size, the distribution density was uneven between the western and eastern sides, and the final sample size was relatively limited, which may affect the generalizability of the conclusions.
6. Clarify the comparability of sampling across different years (2013, 2016, 2023): whether it was conducted under identical conditions and whether there might be errors.
7. The article mentions that drainage rates at three sites retested in 2023 were higher than in 2013 and speculates on possible reasons. However, speculation based solely on three sample points may lack rigor.
8. Results and Discussion section: Results and Discussion can be presented separately for greater clarity.
9. In the Conclusion section, highlight the core research findings and contributions.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

This paper, titled “Connecting the regional blue with the local gray and green: field assessment of hydrologic capacities in post-urbanized landscapes and signaling their status (Detroit MI),” primarily investigates the connectivity between “gray,” “green,” and “blue” infrastructure within urban hydrological systems through field assessments of Detroit's abandoned plots. The study employs an innovative “stoplight” method to classify soil infiltration and drainage data. However, the paper has room for improvement in research rigor. Its novel aspects—such as the quantitative standards and practical application of the stoplight classification system—could be more clearly articulated to better highlight its scientific contributions. Therefore, the authors are advised to conduct a major revision to strengthen the logical correspondence between research objectives and results, explicitly articulate the scientific value of the innovative contributions, and enhance the rigor of inferences by supplementing additional evidence before considering resubmission for review.

1. The abstract section lacks a description of the study's main findings.

We agree. The Abstract has been rewritten.

1. The introduction lacks a description of the study's innovative aspects: Compared to existing infrastructure models, what is the unique value of this research?

We give examples of how current models of spatially-explicit hydrologic modeling lack the sort of resolution and definition that only comes with a consistent field assessment protocol.

1. Provide a detailed explanation of the classification criteria for “stoplight ,” supplemented by supporting literature or experimental data.

In our reading, we have supplied rationales we have provided the classification criteria for the different stoplight colors, and based our bins for quantitative infiltration and drainage rate data on our data and supporting literature (e.g., Herrmann et al. 2017).

1. The images in the article are not clear enough.

Our understanding is that the journal will supply full-size images with the on-line version of the paper. We have maximized the size of Figure images, though are constrained by the format of the journal.

1. Regarding sample size, the distribution density was uneven between the western and eastern sides, and the final sample size was relatively limited, which may affect the generalizability of the conclusions.

Yes, and we have corrected the sample sizes as a total of 36 parcels, with 17 assessed on the Westside, and 19 on the Eastside. We used Moran’s I to test for spatial autocorrelation among parcel surface soil textural class (both west, eastsides) and failed to reject the null hypothesis of sample points having an random spatial arrangement. This suggests that our site selection process led to a random sample of sites. This is a high level of effort and despite other sources of uncertainty and variance, these sites may represent with an  enhanced level of generalizability or results, at least for other sites in Detroit MI.

1. Clarify the comparability of sampling across different years (2013, 2016, 2023): whether it was conducted under identical conditions and whether there might be errors.

We have eliminated the 2023 data, as we agree that it does not add anything substantive – beyond speculation – to our results and discussion. The 2013 and 2016 assessments were conducted in the same warm-season time frames (May-June), and under full canopy leaf-out.

1. The article mentions that drainage rates at three sites retested in 2023 were higher than in 2013 and speculates on possible reasons. However, speculation based solely on three sample points may lack rigor.

We have eliminated the 2023 data, as we agree that it does not add anything substantive – beyond speculation – to our results and discussion.

1. Results and Discussion section: Results and Discussion can be presented separately for greater clarity.

We agree, and have separated these sections.

1. In the Conclusion section, highlight the core research findings and contributions.

Yes, we agree that it is deficient, and have rewritten the Conclusions to address these issues

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper tackles a relevant and timely question and the field-based approach is a valuable addition compared to the many model-only studies. The “stoplight” framework is intuitive and has potential as a management tool, however, the manuscript suffers from imbalance. At time there are too much details, like in the background geology, climate, and procedural steps, while key elements like sampling strategy, threshold definition, and statistical treatment are thin or completely missing. Several claims rely on qualitative reasoning without quantitative support, which weakens the main findings. Important terms (blue infrastructure, CSO, PGI) need clearer definitions, and the conclusions sometimes drift into vague or speculative territory rather than focusing sharply on what was learned and how it applies. Overall, there’s a somewhat strong framing and an important contribution, but it needs restructuring, clearer terminology, and more rigorous data support to fully demonstrate its impact and credibility.

 

Abstract/Intro

 

Line 13 – The verb rely on is a bit strong, consider “depend on” or “require”

Lines 38 and 49 – “hydrologic processes” instead of “hydrologic losses”?

Lines 55-56 – I’d define blue earlier in the paragraph to make it flow more smoothly

Line 73 – Miller?
Line 79 – spell out CAN

Line 84 – define CSO

Line 100 – “render a high level hydrologic services” reads weird

 

Site Description and Methods

 

I find this portion a bit too detailed on geological/climate/catchment-specific data. Also, the small sample size is concerning, and authors don’t really explain much about the sampling strategy in the methods. They used the centroid only? Why? Just one sample at the centroid?

 

Lines 142-144 – could be simplified to something like “We initially identified 180 potential sites provided by the City of Detroit and then narrowed them based on access and safety.” Then authors proceed to give details up to line 153. These type of info, just like the extra details on the study area could be moved to Suppl Materials. Then, down to line 165, authors describe communities and number of parcels, which is helpful context, but could be simplified, for example: “In 2013 we assessed 37 sites across westside and eastside neighborhoods; 6 additional sites were added in 2016, and 3 revisited in 2023.”

Lines 166-218 - a lot of procedural detail could be shortened, relying on citations and/or moved to Suppl Materials

Lines 219–231 – similar to the above… do we need soil color descriptions for hydrology readers? Focus on things that affect hydrologic response, to give the reader context

 

Results and Discussion

 

Line 241 – septic gives the idea of septic tank, I believe the authors refer to “sanitary sewage”

Line 244 – how did you establish that that connection remains?

Line 246-259 – sounds very theoretical, no thresholds were given to establish these classes, nor how they were established.

Figure 2 – this type of info should be in the Methods, not results

Line 272-274 – I wonder what the range was, but I have no idea…

Line 283-285 – fix how numbers are shown, it would be good to see more numbers as changes in magnitude mentioned are subjective (from 0.1 to 0.2? 20 to 60?)

Line 291 – the way it’s written is not very clear what those numbers are; 23.5 “than” 2.5? 23.5 in 2023 and 2.5 in 2013? Not sure.

Line 296 and 297–307 – any data collected that supports these claims?

Line 209 – define what PGIs are

Line 314 – did the authors do a weed survey to specify the weeds to be controlled?

Line 392-401 – A lot of the arguing many times sounds like assumptions, like the ones we see here.

Lines 405-408 – good citation, but it’s only helpful if that was for an extended period of years (mention it in the text), otherwise directions might just vary seasonally/annually

Lines 409-419 – this is a good synthesis, but again, I don’t see official numbers, statistical analysis or anything to back these up. Fisher’s exact test or odds ratio could support this.

 

Conclusion

 

Line 421 – suddenly referring to 1950 is a bit odd, what’s the relevance for the present/future?

Line 424 – “properly leverage this land mass” sounds odd, maybe “strategically use vacant land to enhance hydrologic connectivity”?

Lines 426-427 – “conservative thresholds”? Are they conservative in terms of hydrologic design standards? percentiles? rainfall abstraction assumptions?

Lines 428-429 – “no discernable pattern”? Again, any quantitative data or test? Spatial autocorrelation? Otherwise soften it to “no consistent pattern observed”.

Lines 430-432 – “conserve-preserve”, use one

Lines 432-433 – split sentences for clarity

Lines 434-437 – it would be helpful to connect the sample size to this comparison to justify efficiency

Lines 438-443 – the discussion of failed GSI leading to pests/odors is relevant but very detailed for a conclusion, make it more straightforward

Overall, the closure sounds a bit vague, like with the use of a broad sentence at the end, instead of focusing on what was learned, how it applies and what comes next.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Thank you for your comments.

This paper tackles a relevant and timely question and the field-based approach is a valuable addition compared to the many model-only studies. The “stoplight” framework is intuitive and has potential as a management tool, however, the manuscript suffers from imbalance. At time there are too much details, like in the background geology, climate, and procedural steps, while key elements like sampling strategy, threshold definition, and statistical treatment are thin or completely missing. Several claims rely on qualitative reasoning without quantitative support, which weakens the main findings. Important terms (blue infrastructure, CSO, PGI) need clearer definitions, and the conclusions sometimes drift into vague or speculative territory rather than focusing sharply on what was learned and how it applies. Overall, there’s a somewhat strong framing and an important contribution, but it needs restructuring, clearer terminology, and more rigorous data support to fully demonstrate its impact and credibility.

Abstract/Intro: These have been fixed in the revision

Line 13 – The verb rely on is a bit strong, consider “depend on” or “require”

Lines 38 and 49 – “hydrologic processes” instead of “hydrologic losses”?

Lines 55-56 – I’d define blue earlier in the paragraph to make it flow more smoothly

Line 73 – Miller?
Line 79 – spell out CAN

Line 84 – define CSO

Line 100 – “render a high level hydrologic services” reads weird

Site Description and Methods

Got it – we can develop a supplementary notes section.

I find this portion a bit too detailed on geological/climate/catchment-specific data. Also, the small sample size is concerning, and authors don’t really explain much about the sampling strategy in the methods. They used the centroid only? Why?

Just one sample at the centroid? Yes

We estimated infiltration as hydraulic conductivity (K) measured with a tension infiltrometer (Mini-Disk Infiltrometer, metergroup.com). This measurement was made in at least four locations in each vacant parcel, along a transect from the front to rear of the parcel, with assessment within and outside of the demolition envelope. The tension infiltrometer was set to a pressure head of -2 cm, placed on the soil surface (coarse organic matter brushed away, if necessary), and a time series of inflow rates were recorded at 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 15, 20 minutes, or until a consecutive three equal drops in water level at equal time intervals indicated the quasi-steady infiltration rate (cm hr^-1) at the specified tension. We used recommended manufacturer procedures to calculate K(-2 cm).

Measurement of subsurface saturated K in the centroidal, backfilled area of a parcel employed a constant head permeameter (Amoozemeter, ksatinc.com) set to maintain a 15-25 cm depth of water in a borehole at slightly less than 1.2 +/- 0.1 m (~ 4 ft) below ground surface, which is the average (+/- std. error of the mean) depth to the observed shallowest restrictive soil layer. Inflow to the borehole was observed at 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 15, 20 min., or until a quasi-steady inflow rate (cm hr^-1) was reached, which was then transformed to saturated K(0 cm) to estimate drainage rate [13].

Lines 142-144 – could be simplified to something like “We initially identified 180 potential sites provided by the City of Detroit and then narrowed them based on access and safety.” Then authors proceed to give details up to line 153. These type of info, just like the extra details on the study area could be moved to Suppl Materials. Then, down to line 165, authors describe communities and number of parcels, which is helpful context, but could be simplified, for example: “In 2013 we assessed 37 sites across westside and eastside neighborhoods; 6 additional sites were added in 2016, and 3 revisited in 2023.”

We agree, though other reviewers asked for the same details to be retained. Perhaps the Associate Editor could provide some guidance?

Lines 166-218 - a lot of procedural detail could be shortened, relying on citations and/or moved to Suppl Materials

We have not published much with MDPI, but we are attempting to maintain as much procedural detail as possible that would be found in JAWRA, J. Hydrology, ASCE journals, etc. We can see what you are saying.

Lines 219–231 – similar to the above… do we need soil color descriptions for hydrology readers? Focus on things that affect hydrologic response, to give the reader context

Herein lays the dilemma. Soil color, saturated soil layers are each important to the presentation. I have four piezometers in Detroit, and these are arguably the only ones that exist here. An indirect approach to observation-estimation of groundwater is necessary. One reviewer was not familiar with these assessments and their grounding in clay minerology, soil hydrology. We elect to keep these details.

Results and Discussion

 Line 241 – septic gives the idea of septic tank, I believe the authors refer to “sanitary sewage” Done

Line 244 – how did you establish that that connection remains? Changed this to “may”

Line 246-259 – sounds very theoretical, no thresholds were given to establish these classes, nor how they were established. Between Bell et al. and Herrmann et al., our thresholds we would disagree with your note.

Figure 2 – this type of info should be in the Methods, not results Done

Line 272-274 – I wonder what the range was, but I have no idea… We refer the reader to Figures 3, 4

Line 283-285 – fix how numbers are shown, it would be good to see more numbers as changes in magnitude mentioned are subjective (from 0.1 to 0.2? 20 to 60?) This 2023 assessment was deleted – not enough samples, too speculative.

Line 291 – the way it’s written is not very clear what those numbers are; 23.5 “than” 2.5? 23.5 in 2023 and 2.5 in 2013? Not sure. Same as above

Line 296 and 297–307 – any data collected that supports these claims? Yes, we tested for spatial autocorrelation among surficial soil textural class data.

Line 209 – define what PGIs are. Deleted

Line 314 – did the authors do a weed survey to specify the weeds to be controlled? Deleted

Line 392-401 – A lot of the arguing many times sounds like assumptions, like the ones we see here. Perhaps a Too Much (qualitative-handwaving) Information matter? We’re also making the point that there is a dearth of monitoring data for groundwater dynamics, here and elsewhere.

Lines 405-408 – good citation, but it’s only helpful if that was for an extended period of years (mention it in the text), otherwise directions might just vary seasonally/annually. Fixed

Lines 409-419 – this is a good synthesis, but again, I don’t see official numbers, statistical analysis or anything to back these up. Fisher’s exact test or odds ratio could support this. Revised in new version of manuscript, though an odds ratio is a good suggestion.

Conclusion – We’ve completely revised this section.

Line 421 – suddenly referring to 1950 is a bit odd, what’s the relevance for the present/future?

Line 424 – “properly leverage this land mass” sounds odd, maybe “strategically use vacant land to enhance hydrologic connectivity”? We like this

Lines 426-427 – “conservative thresholds”? Are they conservative in terms of hydrologic design standards? percentiles? rainfall abstraction assumptions? Recontextualized this presentation in the Discussion.

Lines 428-429 – “no discernable pattern”? Again, any quantitative data or test? Spatial autocorrelation? Otherwise soften it to “no consistent pattern observed”. We think we’ve addressed this with an assessment of Moran’s I for surficial soil textural class. Thinking through the utility of the same for infil, drainage rates. Your thoughts?

Lines 430-432 – “conserve-preserve”, use one Done

Lines 432-433 – split sentences for clarity Modified

Lines 434-437 – it would be helpful to connect the sample size to this comparison to justify efficiency. Good comment. Hanging a lot on the random selection of sites and potential for generalization (at least within Detroit).

Lines 438-443 – the discussion of failed GSI leading to pests/odors is relevant but very detailed for a conclusion, make it more straightforward. Moved this to Discussion. Edited in an attempt to rationalize its inclusion.

Overall, the closure sounds a bit vague, like with the use of a broad sentence at the end, instead of focusing on what was learned, how it applies and what comes next. Yes, deleted.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made proper revisions according to the review comments and provided necessary explanations regarding the recommendations from reviewers. Overall, the modifications made by the authors are acceptable, indicating that the study has scientific value and credibility. As such, I am recommending it for publication.

Author Response

Thank you to Reviewer 2 for follow up comments.

We have edited content to clarify the general presentation, and according to the general comments (yes, Can be Improved, etc.). We understand that we have made proper revisions according to the review comments and provided necessary explanations regarding the recommendations from reviewers.

Further, R2 remarked that: Overall, the modifications made by the authors are acceptable, indicating that the study has scientific value and credibility. As such, I am recommending it for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the extra analyses done, they strengthened the discussion.

I agree with the authors on keeping details that they find important, considering the lack of data, it's indeed good to have extra information.

I just remain concerned about the subsurface (saturated) K measurement, if I understand it correctly, it was taken only once at the centroid of each parcel. Given the known heterogeneity of urban backfilled soils, with varying levels of compaction, fill material, and disturbance across short distances, a single borehole may not adequately represent parcel-scale subsurface conditions. Unless there is evidence that within-parcel variability is low (for example, from preliminary testing or prior studies), this approach could limit the spatial representativeness of the results. If that's the case, I would just recommend that the authors explicitly acknowledge this limitation in the Methods and/or Discussion, and, if possible, justify why the centroidal measurement was considered representative (e.g., due to uniform fill practices or previous variance testing) or acknowledging the uncertainty this introduces. Clarifying this would strengthen the credibility and transparency of the sampling design.

Author Response

Thanks to R3 for the inspiring comments and suggestions

I appreciate the extra analyses done, they strengthened the discussion. Check

I agree with the authors on keeping details that they find important, considering the lack of data, it's indeed good to have extra information. Check

I just remain concerned about the subsurface (saturated) K measurement, if I understand it correctly, it was taken only once at the centroid of each parcel. Given the known heterogeneity of urban backfilled soils, with varying levels of compaction, fill material, and disturbance across short distances, a single borehole may not adequately represent parcel-scale subsurface conditions. Unless there is evidence that within-parcel variability is low (for example, from preliminary testing or prior studies), this approach could limit the spatial representativeness of the results. If that's the case, I would just recommend that the authors explicitly acknowledge this limitation in the Methods and/or Discussion, and, if possible, justify why the centroidal measurement was considered representative (e.g., due to uniform fill practices or previous variance testing) or acknowledging the uncertainty this introduces. Clarifying this would strengthen the credibility and transparency of the sampling design.

Thank you for this comment. By way of reiteration, we sampled in the backfilled area of the vacant lot, which reflects spatial averaging in K(0 cm) at the finer spatial scale of a parcel, which is about 300 m^2; the vast majority of this area is in backfill. This parcel level data is novel, as it is a highly spatially-resolved measurement, at least given what is usually available, which are measurements made at larger scales of investigation with inconsistent methods. Lack of spatial structure in backfill soil textural class suggests that there is high variation in the sourcing of backfill material, and higher between-parcel variability in soil texture. Within a given parcel, the fill material is admittedly assumed homogeneous, and its method of placement, too. Based on the similarities in measuring the hydrologic process at the scale of its relevance, we see this as a representative value of K(0 cm).