Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
Exhibit MSD 37G - MSD Stormwater Facility Planning Final Report 2010
STORMWATER FACILITY PLANNING FINAL REPORT MSD Project Number 2005122 Oracle Number 10133 Prepared for December 2010 Prepared by PARSONS WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE INC. STORMWATER FACILITY PLANNING FINAL REPORT MSD Project Number 2005122 Oracle Number 10133 Prepared for "LI Date l Z L E tt) Edward M. Sweet, Jr., P.E. Civil Engineer License # E-17987 Parsons Water & Infrastructure Inc. 400 Woods Mill Road South, Suite 330 Chesterfield, Missouri 63017 Phone: 314-819-5058 Certificate No. 20030259 F-, EDWARD M. :ram z:"F SWEET JR. :era w NUMBER `�i E-179874 1#;i:11aati TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 SECTION 1.0 PRIMARY SERVICES 1 1.1 Detention Basin Inventory 1 1.2 Analysis of Prioritization System 3 1.3 Review and Analysis of Existing Complaint Data 4 1.4 Review and Analysis of Existing Identified Projects 4 I.4.1 Conceptual Cost Curve Development 4 1.4.1.1 Pipe Cost Curve Development 4 1.4.1.2 Bank Stabilization Cost Curve Development 5 1.4.2 Identified projects 8 1.4.3 Review and analysis of existing identified projects not funded 11 1.4.4 Review and analysis of municipal identified projects not funded 13 1.4.5 Database Documentation 15 1.5 Development of Project Definitions and Preliminary Studies for the CIRP 16 1.5.1 Preliminary Studies 16 1.5.2 Pepperdine Court — Fishpot Creek Preliminary Study 17 1.5.3 Preliminary Studies for Municipalities 18 SECTION 2.0 SECONDARY SERVICES 18 2.1 Regulatory Issues/Coordination 18 2.2 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling 19 2.3 Water Quality Issues and Modeling 19 2.4 Rainfall/Radar/Hydrology Development 19 2.5 Preparation of SSMIP for Additional Watersheds 19 2.6 Geomorphologic Stream Assessment and Analysis 19 2.7 Capital Improvement and Replacement Program (CIRP) 20 2.8 Public Education/Relations 20 2.9 Other District Departments & Divisions Support 20 2.9.1 LID Review 20 2.9.2 Green Roof Analysis. 20 2.10 Mapping/GIS 22 2.11 Grants/Loans 22 2.12 Financial Issue Support 22 2.13 Coordination with Other Consultants and Vendors 22 2.14 Review of Consultant Submittals 22 Stormwater Facility Planning i Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 APPENDIX A. APPENDIX B. APPENDIX C. APPENDIX D. APPENDIX E. APPENDIX F. APPENDIX G. TABLE OF APPENDICES Detention Basin Inventory Information Prioritization System Worksheets and Instructions Pipe Cost Curves Bank Stabilization Conceptual Costs Identified Projects Information Preliminary Study Information Secondary Services Stormwater Facility Planning ii Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1. Identified Project Status 9 Figure 2. Problem Categories Assigned to IPs 10 Figure 3. Cost by Problem Category for IPs 11 Figure 4. Identified Project Not Funded Status 12 Figure 5. Problem Categories Assigned to 1PNFs 12 Figure 6. Cost by Problem Category for 1PNFs 13 Figure 7. Municipal Identified Project Not Funded Status 14 Figure 8. Problem Categories Assigned to Municipal IPNFs 14 Figure 9. Cost by Problem Category for Municipal IPNFs 15 Stormwater Facility Planning iii Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On March 9, 2006, the District entered into a contract with Parsons Water & Infrastructure Inc. (Parsons) to provide 5 primary services and 13 secondary services that would encompass the Stormwater Facility Planning (2005122) project. These services were: Primary services: • Detention Basin Inventory • Analysis of Prioritization System • Review and Analysis of Existing Complaint Data • Review and analysis of existing identified projects • Development of Project Definitions and Preliminary Studies for the CIRP Secondary services: • GIS/Mapping • Regulatory Issues/Coordination • Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling • Water Quality Issues and Modeling • Rainfall/Radar/Hydrology Development • Preparation of SSMIPs for Additional Watersheds • Geomorphologic Stream Assessment and Analysis • CIRP support and coordination • Public Education/Relations support • Other District Departments & Divisions Support • Grants/Loans support • Financial Issues Support • Coordination with Other Consultants and Vendors A number of firms joined Parsons to provide specific technical services for both primary and secondary services. These firms, along with Parsons, are referred to as the Parsons Team in this document. The following three firms were major team partners: • Reitz & Jens • Engineering Design Source Inc. • ABNA Engineering Four other firms joined the Parsons Team to provide specialized technical services, and they were: • ADS Environmental Services • MS&T University • PMA Engineering • Hellmuth-Bicknese Stormwater Facility Planning ES-1 MSD Project 2005122 Final Report Dec 2010 The role of the Parsons Team was to act as an extension of the District's Stormwater Group by supplying resources and technical expertise to help the District document their existing stormwater infrastructure and define the projects for the Stormwater Capital Improvement and Replacement Program (CIRP). The Parsons Team was fully integrated with the District staff and worked together to analyze projects and develop the most cost effective, functional solutions. The Parsons Team and District staff met on a weekly basis for most of the life of the project to review and discuss issues so that both groups would approach issues in a common manner. The data included in this report covers the period from March 9, 2006 through June 30, 2010. Some of the summary tables and charts reflect the combined work effort of the Parsons Team and District staff, in order to present a big picture of the status of a particular system, while some data reflects only Parsons Team efforts. Most of the Parsons Team's effort was focused on the five primary services. The majority of team manhours were expended on the detention basin inventory, complaint data analysis, analysis of identified projects and preparing preliminary studies. The Parsons Team inventoried over 2,700 detention basins; reviewed and analyzed thousands of complaints; reviewed and analyzed over 1,200 identified projects and identified projects not funded; and prepared approximately 140 preliminary and special studies. Stormwater projects for several municipalities were reviewed and added to the District's CIRP when they were deemed valid projects that the District should construct. The design of the Pepperdine Court-Fishpot Creek Bank Stabilization project was a significant success story for this project and the District. The fast track design that the Parsons Team performed for the project enabled the District to quickly get the project under construction to protect the homes on Pepperdine Court and the Vance Road pavement. The project was a public relations success for the District and can be utilized as a prototype for other locations in the District where similar problems exist. The Parsons Team also performed a feasibility study for constructing a "green roof' for the District's headquarters building. A plan was developed to improve the balconies and the roof with plantings and other facilities to provide benefits such as reduced energy costs, extended roof membrane life and reduced urban heat island effects. Some key objectives achieved as a result of the Stormwater Facility Planning project are: • The District now has an accurate detention basin database that can be used by all departments. • The District has a prioritization system that reflects the primary goals and objectives of the CIRP. • The District has an updated set of conceptual cost curves for storm sewer projects, and a new set of conceptual cost curves for bank stabilization projects. • The stormwater CIRP has been more accurately defined as a result of the review and analysis of the identified projects and identified projects not funded. Stormwater Facility Planning ES-2 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 SECTION 1.0 PRIMARY SERVICES 1.1 Detention Basin Inventory The District did not have an accurate inventory of the detention/retention basins that currently exist within the District's boundaries. The main goal of this service was to develop an accurate inventory of the existing basins to determine their location, their components, and their condition. This data can be used by District staff in analyzing watershed stormwater systems and may be utilized for future Phase II water quality work such as retrofitting basins with water quality facilities to provide treatment. The District had a database that listed over 1,150 basins that was compiled around the year 2000. This database had not been updated since that date. The District provided this database to the Parsons team along with two additional files that listed all projects that were identified as having detention or a maintenance agreement. The Parsons Team took these databases and developed an overall database for surface and underground basins. Researched was performed for each project in the database to determine the components included in each project. Several District databases were utilized including File Tracker, PRECPTS, Iaser-fiche, and microfilm to gather as -built information where available or copies of construction plans for each basin. A meeting was held with District staff to identify the key features of each basin for which the field data would be obtained by the Parsons Team. These features included incoming pipe diameters, outgoing pipe diameters, orifice dimensions, weir dimensions, basin access, erosion, and condition of spillways and pilot channels. Field inventory was performed for all accessible detention basins, both surface and underground. Underground basins were inventoried by confined -space trained staff from ADS Environmental Services, a member of the Parsons Team. Critical data gathered included orifice dimensions, weir dimensions, incoming and outgoing pipe diameters, and underground chamber dimensions. Stormwater Facility Planning MSD Project 2005122 1 Final Report Dec 2010 Research was performed on 3,815 database entries. Of these, 2,404 surface basins were inventoried and 394 underground basins were inventoried. Many of the database entries were for modifications to existing basins and for basins that had been removed for redevelopment projects. See Appendix A for a map of all inventoried detention basins. The existing basins were not evaluated on their ability to provide future Phase II water quality treatment capabilities. However, a condition assessment was performed on each basin, using a rating form developed by Parsons and approved by the District. The rating form assigned various point values to the defects found in the basin, such as erosion of the berm and blockage of the outlet structure. The total points assigned to a basin then determined what condition category the basin fell into, which provides an indication of what type of maintenance is recommended for the basin. A sample detention basin rating form is included in Appendix A. Table 2 lists descriptions. these condition rating categories and Table 2. Detention Basin Condition Ratings Total Points Condition Rating Description 0-25 Good No Maintenance Required 26-49 Fair Minor Maintenance Required 50-99 Poor Major Maintenance Required 100+ Failing immediate Maintenance Required The condition assessment for the 2,763 aboveground and underground basins resulted in a total of 2,258 basins rated as "Good", 339 rated as "Fair", 136 rated as "Poor", and 30 rated as "Failing". See Appendix A for detailed condition rating results by sub - watersheds. The basins were separated into four groups based on the year that the construction plans were submitted for the basin. The four periods reflect when changes in detention basin design criteria were implemented by the District. See Table 3 on the following page for the total basins per time period and per major watershed. Storm water Facility Planning 2 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 TABLE 3. DETENTION BASIN CONSTRUCTION PLAN SUBMITTAL DATES Watershed Surface Underground Total Pre 1993 1993- 1996 1997- 2003 2004- Present Bissell Point 138 18 156 72 22 52 10 Coldwater Creek 201 46 247 , 114 28 99 6 Lower Meramec 768 104 872 422 122 317 11 Missouri River 882 83 965 516 157 274 18 River Des Peres 415 143 558 285 80 181 12 Total 2,404 394 2,798 1,409 409 923 57 See Appendix A for a list of basins that were not inventoried and the reasons they were not inventoried. 1.2 Analysis of Prioritization System The prioritization point system that was used by the District prior to the fall of 2006 was determined to be unrepresentative of the District's current and proposed spending priorities for their CIRP budget. Therefore, Parsons initiated the process to revise the prioritization point system by presenting a new 2-pronged approach to the key members of the Stormwater Planning team. The first prong consisted of a method for defining "Problem Points", and the second prong provided the opportunity to add "Solution Points". After the District staff approved this initial concept, Parsons produced a sample prioritization worksheet and conducted several brainstorming and discussion meetings with personnel from the District's Operations and Engineering departments. Feedback in these meetings included discussions of current and future District policy and responsibility, homeowner responsibility, and the appropriateness of weighting points to reflect ease of implementation, municipality participation, impact on sanitary sewer overcharging, infrastructure protection, and other factors. While differing views were presented, a consensus was reached on each issue and initial point values were assigned to the various problem and solution categories. A period of beta testing of the new prioritization system resulted in a few minor changes to the forms, after which Parsons held a training session at the District to explain how to use the new forms. Copies of these forms are included in Appendix B. Stormwater Facility Planning 3 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 The major changes between the previous prioritization point system used by the District and the new system are discussed as follows. The previous system revolved around the type of problem addressed by the project, specifically dividing it into structural flooding, roadway flooding, structural erosion, and roadway flooding categories. No weight was given to projects that include positive factors such as environmental and water quality benefits, public education and/or recreation benefits, regional watershed benefits, and ease of implementation. Therefore, "solution" categories were proposed as a means to give priority to a project that includes ancillary benefits to the public that exceed the minimum solution of addressing the flooding or erosion problem. This leaves the door open to use the same system for "Phase II" -driven water quality projects. The previous system also utilized two storms to categorize the severity of flooding problems. The 15-year storm, which is considered "frequent", and the 100-year storm, which is considered "infrequent" were utilized. This approach was revised to add a "chronic" flooding category to give more weight to the kind of frequent flooding that creates the most aggravation in the public eye. Also, in the previous system the severity of erosion was weighted strictly by distance from a structure or roadway, regardless of the actual danger represented by the erosion. The revised system incorporates the height of the eroding bank into the evaluation in order to capture an element of the actual severity of erosion. It was felt that the District would prefer to spend resources addressing capacity, functionality or condition problems in its existing infrastructure rather than in constructing new facilities, based on public perception of responsibility. Therefore, the revised system includes a small amount of benefit points for problems in areas where an existing system is already in place. 1.3 Review and Analysis of Existing Complaint Data The Parsons Team researched the Engineering Tracking and Hansen databases to compile and evaluate the relevant historical complaints for all identified projects and preliminary studies performed. These databases provided information that helped pinpoint the location and type of problem needing evaluation, and sometimes provided an indication of the frequency of occurrence which was helpful for prioritization purposes. 1.4 Review and Analysis of Existing Identified Projects 1.4.1 Conceptual Cost Curve Development It was decided that in order to accelerate the process of creating cost estimates for the approximately two thousand existing identified projects, a set of conceptual cost curves for storm sewer projects and bank stabilization projects should be utilized. 1.4.1.1 Pipe Cost Curve Development In 2006, the District provided Parsons a set of "cost per Foot" curves for reinforced concrete pipe construction that were based on FY2003 costs. Parsons was tasked with updating these curves and revising the project multiplier that represents the additional contingencies, engineering, legal and administrative costs related to the design and construction of a project. Stormwater Facility Planning 4 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 The original "Cost per Foot" graphs were updated based on the District's current preliminary unit costs (FY2005). Two sets of curves were developed, one to represent storm sewers constructed under paved surfaces and one to represent storm sewers constructed under sod. The range of pipe sizes included in the curves was from 12-inch to 72-inch diameter, and the pipe depths ranged from 4 feet to 25 feet deep. In order to determine the project multiplier, twenty-two recent storm sewer projects were reviewed and conceptual costs were developed for each. Data from these conceptual costs and the engineer's cost estimate for each project were graphed to develop the "conceptual cost vs. total project cost" graph. Multiple curve types were reviewed and it was determined that a linear solution with a 2.0 ratio between total project cost and conceptual cost represented the best fit. Using this multiplier, over 80% of the projects' total project costs met or exceeded the engineer's cost estimate. The conceptual pipe cost graphs are utilized to develop major component costs that represent the costs for each pipe diameter listed for that project. The major component conceptual cost for the project is obtained by multiplying these costs by the length of the reaches for each pipe diameter. Utility relocation costs are then added to the pipe major component conceptual cost for each project. Other major component items such as junction chambers, rock excavation or tunneling are also added to the conceptual cost as applicable. If box culverts or elliptical pipe are included, the conceptual cost of their major components must be estimated using District unit costs and then added to the total conceptual cost. The subtotal of major component costs is then multiplied by the 2.0 multiplier to obtain the total conceptual cost for a project. Conceptual cost curves were provided to the District both in electronic spreadsheet form and hard copy form for ease of application, and also in table form and graphically. The conceptual cost curves for Reinforced Concrete Pipe are included in Appendix C. 1.4.1.2 Bank Stabilization Cost Curve Development Since many of the identified projects required bank stabilization solutions, it was decided that an efficient way to estimate the construction costs for these bank erosion solutions would be to develop conceptual cost curves for the most commonly applied and accepted bank stabilization methods. After discussing the alternatives with District staff members from the Design and Planning divisions, the following bank stabilization methods were chosen to develop cost curves for: heavy stone revetment, gabion walls, modular block walls, reinforced concrete walls, and combination slope stabilization (which includes the potential for heavy stone revetment, composite revetment, and biostabilization). In order to develop curves for these five bank stabilization techniques, some general assumptions were agreed upon. These include the basic assumption that the proposed bank height will equal the existing bank height, the proposed toe of slope will be coincident with the existing toe of slope, and the natural ground beyond the existing top of slope is flat. These assumptions enabled Parsons to draw scenarios for varying heights (4' to 20' high) and side slopes (SS) from 0.5 horizontal: l vertical (0.5H:1 V) to 3H:1 V. Storinwater Facility Planning 5 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 Assumptions specific to each type of bank stabilization technique were also made in order to simplify calculations and limit the number of possible scenarios to a reasonable amount. These assumptions are listed at the bottom of the five Conceptual Cost Estimate worksheets, which are included in Appendix D. The conceptual costs were developed using 11/2005 preliminary costs provided by the District for excavation, additional fill and sod. Average clearing costs were estimated using engineer's costs estimates from recent bank stabilization projects. In order to estimate the additional cost for mobilization, utility relocation, protection and restoration of the site, contingencies, MSD Engineering, and Legal & Administration, a set of recent preliminary studies was evaluated and the proportion of the total cost represented by these factors was computed. It was determined that for projects with a subtotal cost less than or equal to $75,000, a multiplier of 2.0 should be applied to obtain the total conceptual cost. For projects with a subtotal cost greater than $75,000, a multiplier of 1.7 should be applied. A brief discussion of the five bank stabilization techniques and assumptions is also included below. Copies of the curves and worksheets are included in Appendix D. 1.4.1.2a Heavy Stone Revetment The minimum proposed SS required for this solution was I.5H:1 V, although 2H:1 V or milder is preferable if the horizontal space is available. Proposed SS of 2.5H:1 V and 3H:1 V were also included. Since the application for this solution was anticipated to be in areas of high velocity, the assumed D90 of the HSR was 2-foot and the corresponding thickness of the rock layer was estimated to be 3 feet. A 3'x3' rock key was also included as a typical feature at the proposed toe of slope. The cost for this solution also included 6 inches of bedding material and a layer of filter fabric. Quantities for all SS and height combinations within the given ranges were computed in CADD, and corresponding costs were calculated. Eight graphs were created, one for each of the following existing SS conditions: existing SS = proposed SS, existing SS = verticaI, existing SS = 0.5H:1 V, existing SS = 1H:1 V, existing SS = 1.5H: IV, existing SS=2.0H:IV, existing SS = 2.5H:1V, and existing SS = 3.0H: IV. Each graph has multiple curves, one representing each of the four proposed SS conditions. The average bank height is entered at the x-axis and extended vertically to the appropriate SS curve, then the cost per foot is read from the y-axis. 1.4.1.2b Gabion Walls It was agreed that gabion walls, modular block walls, and reinforced concrete walls would most likely only be used when existing banks were fairly steep already, so for these alternatives only three existing SS conditions were evaluated: vertical, 0.5H:IV, and 1 H:1 V. Conceptual costs were developed for a range of existing bank heights from 6'-15'. Assumptions included in the quantity estimate for various bank height conditions were that the excavation included an additional 1' behind the gabions, that the gabions were offset a full basket width (3') each layer, and that a 9'xl' reno mattress would lie under the bottom basket and extend 6' into the channel. A single graph with three curves representing the three existing slope conditions was created. The wall height is entered at Storm water Facility Planning 6 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 the x-axis and extended vertically to the appropriate SS curve, then the cost per foot is read from the y-axis. 1.4.1.2c Modular Block Walls It was assumed for conceptual cost calculations that Neptune blocks (or equivalent) would be used for bank stabilization applications. The depth into the slope for this size block is 1.5', and the batter of the blocks was assumed to be 20 degrees. A 1' thick drainage layer of crushed rock is included in the cost estimate, as well as a concrete bearing pad. It was also assumed that a grid would be used for all heights at a 2' vertical interval, extending from 2' above the bottom of the wall to within 2-3' from the top of the wall. The width of this grid was assumed to be 75% of the total wall height. Modular block walls were assumed to be applicable to vertical heights between 6'-15'. A single graph with three curves representing the three existing slope conditions was created. The wall height is entered at the x-axis and extended vertically to the appropriate SS curve, then the cost per foot is read from the y-axis. 1.4.1.2d Reinforced Concrete Walls Reinforced concrete walls were assumed to be applicable to vertical heights between 4'- 20'. A general relationship between wall height and footing size was developed; the depth to the bottom of the footing was assumed to be 30 inches below the toe of the existing slope and the average wall thickness was assumed to be 12 inches. For earthwork calculations, it was also assumed that excavation would extend one foot beyond the footing in front of and behind the wall. A single graph with three curves representing the three existing slope conditions was created. The wall height is entered at the x-axis and extended vertically to the appropriate SS curve, then the cost per foot is read from the y-axis. 1.4.1.2e Combination Slope Stabilization This alternative allowed the user to determine the intermediate heights of three types of treatment on a single bank slope: HSR (usually used at the toe), composite revetment (usually used above the HSR), and biostabilization (usually used above the composite revetment). Existing sides slopes could vary from vertical to 3.0H:1 V, and proposed bank slope was set by the type of treatment chosen. A SS of 2H: 1 V was used for HSR and composite revetment, and a SS of 3H: IV was used for biostabilization. Assumptions, costs and quantities for the HSR portion of the treatment were identical to those from the conceptual cost curve developed for HSR. Excavation, additional fill, and sod quantities were computed in a spreadsheet for the various height and slope combinations. Unit costs for these items, as well as for the HSR, composite revetment and biostabilization were obtained from the District. No graphs were produced for the combination slope stabilization alternative, because there were too many possible combinations of existing and proposed SS and intermediate heights of the three possible treatment types. In order to use this conceptual cost Stormwater Facility Planning 7 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 estimate, the data must be entered into the worksheet, where the formulas in the spreadsheet will yield the conceptual cost per foot for the combination slope stabilization. 1.4.2 Identified projects In general, the investigation of an Identified Project (IP) began with a review of the existing project information from the District. Existing information was usually in one of the following three forms: contained in a folder with documentation of field notes and/or a conceptual solution and cost estimate, included in one of the SSMIP reports as an exhibit and related tabular information about alternative cost comparisons, or included in an old District stormwater study as a line on a map with little or no other detail. Regardless of the amount of existing information, a checklist created by Parsons was used to make sure all the available information relative to the problem area was researched. Besides the District's complaints databases, project folders and plans in Central Files were researched, PRECPTS, Laserfiche and microfilm were used as needed, and FEMA flood maps were referred to. Other items on the checklist included aspects of the work to be documented such as field investigation memo and photos, hydraulic calculations, cost estimate and prioritization. A copy of this checklist is provided in Appendix E. In order to promote efficiency and uniformity in the treatment of Identified Projects by Parsons staff, their subconsultants, and District staff, Parsons prepared a document entitled Identified Projects Procedures For Research, Field Investigation and Report Preparation. This document provides a step-by-step description of the process of completing Identified Projects. A copy of this document is included in Appendix E. Each IP was assigned one of the following four status categories, based on the results of the research and field visit: 1) Completed, meaning the project was constructed by MSD; 2) Dropped, meaning the problem no longer exists or is not an MSD responsibility; 3) Valid/Update CIPRO, meaning the project is recommended to be added to C1PRO 4) Other, meaning the project was constructed by a municipality or other agency. Figure 1 on the following page illustrates the final status of IPs by number and percentage of the total as of June 30, 2010. Storm water Facility Planning 8 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 identified Project Status 165 90 11% 6% ■ Completed ■ Dropped a Valid/Update CI PRO o Other Figure 1. Identified Project Status Regardless of status, two data input forms provided by the District were filled out for each IP. One form was the Project Identification Information Sheet and the other was the Supplemental Identified Issue Fact Sheet. Several revisions were made to these sheets by the District over the course of the Stormwater Planning project; copies of the most current sheets are included in Appendix E. Each project to be added or updated in CIPRO was assigned a Problem Category, based on the available choices listed on the Supplemental Identified Issue Fact Sheet. These categories are listed as follows: Table 1. Identified Project Categories ID Category Description A Frequent structural flooding from creeks or rivers (floodplain) B Frequent structural flooding from overland flow (non-floodplain) C Frequent roadway flooding D Infrequent structural flooding from creeks or rivers (floodplain) E Infrequent structural flooding from overland flow (non-floodplain) F Infrequent roadway flooding G High risk structural erosion H High risk roadway erosion I Yard erosion .1 Moderate risk structural erosion K Moderate risk roadway erosion L Erosion or flooding of common ground or unmaintained area M Yard flooding N Flooding from inadequate sinkhole 0 FIooding from inadequate roadway drainage P Maintenance of stormwater system facilities Stormwater Facility Planning MSD Project 2005122 9 Final Report Dec 2010 A draft copy of the documentation for each IP was submitted to the District for review, organized in a folder that would eventually be used to house it in the District's Central Files. The folder was returned to Parsons with any comments, and a final copy was then submitted. Figure 2 shows a breakdown of the total number of IPs assigned to each problem category. Obviously, yard flooding was by far the most common problem. IP Problem Categories Number A Frequent structural flooding from creeks orrivers (floodplain) B Frequentstructural flooding from overland flow(non-ftoodplain) C Frequent roadway flooding D Infrequent structural flooding from creeks or rivers (floodplain) E infrequent structural flooding from overland flow (non-floodplain) F Infrequent roadway flooding c High risk structural erosion H High risk roadway erosion Yard erosion Moderate riskstructuraierosion K Moderate risk roadway erosion L Eroson ortlooding of common ground or unmaintained area M Yard flooding N Flooding from inadequate sinkhole O Flooding from Inadequate roadway drainage P Maintenance of stormwatersystem facilities 20 I l 62 11 34 10 23 25 20 7 37 INIS 46 13 • 7 9 22 I3 180 0 50 100 150 200 Figure 2. Problem Categories Assigned to IPs Figure 3 shows a breakdown of the total cost of the conceptual solutions proposed for IPs by category. Although there were only 20 projects whose problem was described as frequent structural flooding from creeks or rivers, this category carried the highest total price tag. Stormwater Facility Planning 10 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 70,000 6 60,000 50,000 N g • 40,000 O F ▪ 30,000 0 0 U 20,000 10,000 87 IP Problem Cost (in Thousands) 45,3924 33.26 7 7 3 2.104 22.775 7,396 9,632 7.793 12.596 0 D E F 5.495 1.614 r, H J Category 537 1.728 rI 5.353 6,736 IS L Nil 1' 1 0 Figure 3. Cost by Problem Category for IPs 1,270 1.4.3 Review and analysis of existing identified projects not funded Approximately 735 Identified Projects Not Funded (IPNFs) were found to be identified by Operations in the Hansen database. While the source of existing IPNFs was different than the Identified Projects already in CIPRO, the process of research and documentation was identical. All of the IPNFs compiled by the District and supplied to Parsons were evaluated. Figure 4 illustrates the final status of IPNFs by number and percentage of the total as of June 30, 2010. The IPNFs were first cross checked against CIPRO and the "all projects" map to determine which IPNFs are already covered by previously identified projects. This cross check revealed that 527 of the IPNFs were already covered by previously identified projects and/or were combined sewer or sanitary sewer issues. Of the remaining 208 IPNFs, 93 were researched, field investigated and conceptual studies were prepared. 87 IPNFs were researched, field investigated and dropped. 14 IPNFs were determined to be completed by MSD, and 14 were determined to be completed by others. Stormwater Facility Planning 11 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 Identified Project Not Funded Status 14 7% 7% n Dropped n Completed ❑ValidrAdd to CIPRO ❑Other Figure 4. Identified Project Not Funded Status Figure 5 shows a breakdown of the IPNFs by problem category. As with the IPs, the most common problem was yard flooding. IPNF Problem Categories Number A Frequent structural flooding from creeks or rivers (floodp1ain) B Frequent strLturat flood ngfrcm overland flow (non-floodplain) C Frequent roadway flooding D Infrequent structural flooding fremcreeks orrivers (floodplain) E Infrequent structural flooding f rom overland flow (non-flocdplain) F Int requent roadway f looting Cx High risk structural erosion H High risk roadway erosion Yard erosion J Moderate risk structural erosion K Moderate risk roadway erosion I. Erosion or flooding of common ground or unmaintained area M Yard flooding N Flooding from inadequate sinkhole O Flooding from inadequate roadway drainage P Maintenance of stormwater system facilities 0 0 II1 2 I1 2 0 10 11 16 0 MI 3 IN1 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 Figure 5. Problem Categories Assigned to IPNFs Figure 6 illustrates the total cost of the conceptual solutions for IPNFs by problem category. In this case, the frequent structural flooding from overland flow problem carried the highest total cost. Stonnwater Facility Planning 12 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 Cos (Thousands) 4500 - 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 IPNF Problem Cost (in Thousands) 4163 0 3216 845 0 res 300 -755 77r 730 545 0 a 30 a 140 • A BCDE F C H I Category J K L MN OP Figure 6. Cost by Problem Category for IPNFs 1.4.4 Review and analysis of municipal identified projects not funded The IPNFs that originated from municipal stormwater studies provided to the District were tracked separately for review. Stormwater studies from the following municipalities were evaluated by the Parsons Team: the City of Sunset Hills, the City of Frontenac, the Village of Twin Oaks, and the City of Clayton. Additional municipal studies were reviewed concurrently by District staff, including ones for the Cities of Crestwood, Warson Woods and Glendale. Projects identified in these studies that were not already addressed by an Identified Project in CIPRO were treated as an IPNF and followed the research and documentation procedures described above. All of the municipal IPNFs assigned to the Parsons team were evaluated. Figure 7 illustrates the final status of municipal IPNFs by number and percentage of the total as of June 30, 2010. Stormwater Facility Planning 13 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 Municipal Identified Project Not Funded Status 16 12% 511 37% 0 Dropped ❑ Completed 0 Valid/Add to Cl PRO ❑ Other 66 48% Figure 7. Municipal Identified Project Not Funded Status Figure 8 shows a breakdown of the municipal IPNFs by problem category. As with the IPs and [PNFs, the most common problem was yard flooding. Municipal IPNF Problem Categories A Frequent structural flooding from creeks or rivers (floodplain) B Frequent structural flooding from overland flow (non-floodplain) C Frequent roadway flooding p Infrequent structural flooding fromcreeks or rivers (floodplain) E Infrequent structural flooding from overland flow (non-floodplain) F Infrequent roadway flooding High risk structural erosion H High risk roadway erosion Yard erosion J Moderate risk structural erosion K Moderate risk roadway erosion L Erosion or flooding of common ground or unmaintained area M Yard flooding N Flooding from inadequate sinkhole a Flooding from inadequate roadway drainage P Maintenance of stormwater system facilities Number 1 10 3 2 0 0 = 2 1 0 0 6 0 I♦ 2 0 f 23 0 5 10 15 20 25 Figure S. Problem Categories Assigned to Municipal IPNFs Figure 9 illustrates the total cost of the conceptual solutions for municipal IPNFs by problem category. The yard flooding problems carried the highest total cost. Stormwater Facility Planning 14 MSD Project 2005122 Final Report Dec 2010 Cost+Thousands) 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Municipal IPNF Problem Cost (in Thousands) 5585 111 3235 1849_ 1509 1319 11 0 517 0 543 75 0 0 119 108 0 0 A BCDEF G H I J K L MN OP Category Figure 9. Cost by Problem Category for Municipal IPNFs On average, the review and analysis of IPs, IPNFs and municipal IPNFs required approximately 20 hours to complete. The average cost for conceptual design of these items was estimated to be $2,200 and the average conceptual construction costs including contingency and engineering was estimated to be approximately $470,000. The hours spent per project differs greatly because a large number of projects were dropped and dropped IPNFs and municipal IPNFs were never submitted for District review. The time spent to review all IPNFs to determine their status is also included in the average time and cost. 1.4.5 Database Documentation The original Identified Project database was provided to Parsons as a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The spreadsheet contained 1,741 entries, and included the CIPRO ID for each project, the name, watershed, District grid number, problem description, solution description, and projected cost. This list was reviewed for any duplicate entries and columns were added to track when the project was initiated. Once initiated, the project ID, name, and grid number were transferred to an individual watershed list and an "x" was placed in the "Proj Initiated" column_ The "Proj Initiated" column was Iater refined to include entries for projects removed as preliminary studies, projects in the combined service area, and projects initiated by District staff. This list was the basis for tracking all Identified Issues for the duration of the project and is referred to as the "Consolidated" list. As additional refinements were made, several columns were added to the original spreadsheet. As mentioned above, a "Proj Initiated" column was added, wherein the person initiating this project would add an "x". This would cause the project information Stormwater Facility Planning 15 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 to be shaded in green across the row as a flag that the project was initiated and removed to one of the individual tracking sheets. A letter "p" in this column indicated that the project had proceeded to preliminary study and was thus removed from the active list, a letter "c" indicated the project was in the combined sewer area and would not be reviewed, and the letter "m" indicated that the project had been initiated by a member of the District's staff, In order to help track who was handling a given project, an "Initiated by" column was added. The Consolidated list was further refined to include a column called "Watershed" that defined which of the 3 major watersheds the project fell under (Mississippi, Missouri, or Meramec), using the service area name provided. Another column concatenated the watershed name with the category that Iisted whether the project was storm or sanitary. This enables the user to sort by watershed and type together. The second database that was created and maintained to track the Identified Projects is the "Compendium" list (filename: 1800 STORMLIST MSD 2010-06-30.xis). This list is a compilation of all the information from the individual engineers' project progress lists, and lists only the projects that were initiated in some way. The individual project progress lists were used by both Parsons and District staff to track the progress on the identified projects they initiated. Once a new grid or other grouping of IP's was initiated by an engineer, those project names, CIPRO ID's, and grid numbers were copied onto that individual's project progress list. Columns were provided for each significant element of the project evaluation in order to facilitate tracking of weekly progress. Some categories required only an "x" to indicate the work had been done or an "n/a" if appropriate. These categories include: Initiated, Central Files, CIPRO Data, Eng. Complaints, Hansen, "all -projects" lists, GRF_Project numbers, Precepts, Photos, Field Notes, Interviews, Laserfiche, Filetracker, Microfilm, Floodplain, Drainage Map, Hydraulic Calc, Base Map Exhibit and Fact Sheet. Several categories, including Cost Estimate, Benefit Points, Problem Category, Action Required, and Basin/Enhanced Services, were populated with the corresponding information from the final IP. Remaining categories, including Internal Review, MSD Review, MSD Comments, and Complete, required only an "x" when those stages of the process were completed. This spreadsheet is useful not only to track progress, but to sort by column to create, for example, a Iist of projects in decreasing order of cost, or a list of all projects with a certain problem category. This database also contains summary tables and graphs showing the total IP Problems by Category and Cost. The databases summarizing the Identified Projects Not Funded (filename: IPNF Progress Checklist Compendium.xls) and the Municipal projects (filename: Municipal IPNF Progress Checklist Municipal Compendium MSD.xis), summarized the progress and information from the individual engineers' spreadsheets that were nearly identical to those described above for the identified projects. 1.5 Development of Project Definitions and Preliminary Studies for the CIRP 1.5.1 Preliminary Studies Stormwater Facility Planning 16 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 The Parsons team completed a total of 128 preliminary studies for the District to include in the FY2008 through FY2012 CIRP. In addition, 11 priority preliminary studies for the District and at the request of municipalities were completed. Each preliminary study consisted of research, field investigation, development of flows and alternatives, cost estimating and determination of prioritization points. A table summarizing these studies is included in Appendix F. On average, preliminary studies required approximately 115 hours to complete. The average preliminary design cost was estimated to be $11,000 and the average preliminary construction costs including contingency and engineering was estimated to be approximately $47 1,000. 1.5.2 Pepperdine Court — Fishpot Creek Preliminary Study After performing an initial field investigation for the Pepperdine Court preliminary study (2008157), the Parsons Team alerted the District as to the severity and immediacy of the threat to structures along Fishpot Creek at this location. The District requested that Parsons prepare a scope of work for the design of a bank stabilization solution_ In order to better assess the existing conditions, a geomorphic assessment and a geotechnical investigation of the project site were performed, and previous District studies and plans for the area were reviewed. The Parsons team also met with representatives of the St. Louis District of the Corps of Engineers and MoDNR at the site to discuss permitting requirements. Due to the urgent nature of the problem at this Iocation, the District proceeded with a fast -track design -bid process to first establish temporary measures to allow time for a more thorough design study, followed as soon as possible by installation of long term stabilization measures. Temporary measures consisted of restoring ground that had been most recently eroded away by grading and filling in and around the channel, Stonnwater Facility Planning 17 _ Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 while the long term bank stabilization consisted of approximately 1100 feet of Fishpot Creek using a combination of large riprap, grading and biostabilization of the banks, and construction of rock vanes in the channel. Flood Plain studies were performed by Parsons to assess impacts of both the temporary and long term designs. "No rise" certifications and COE permit applications were filed on behalf of the District. Parsons Team members ABNA Engineering performed the survey and Reitz & Jens performed the design of the temporary and long term solutions, as well as construction oversight. The project was completed on time and under budget. 1.5.3 Preliminary Studies for Municipalities Several municipalities requested special assistance from the District regarding stormwater problems within their boundaries. In each case, staff members from the District and Parsons met with city officials to identify the problem areas. In most cases, this led to Parsons being tasked with performing conceptual -level studies for the problem areas identified. Seven projects were analyzed and summarized in a report for the City of Ferguson. One project was evaluated for the City of Cool Valley, and two projects were evaluated for the Village of Marlborough. Three projects were evaluated for the City of Oakland, one of which was found to be a structural integrity issue rather than a pure stormwater problem related to an existing culvert. For this issue, a structural evaluation was performed and recommendations were summarized in a report called "Brent - Argonne Culvert Evaluation". The District enlisted the assistance of Parsons to help the City of Kirkwood investigate a resident's complaint about severe structural flooding at West Essex and Goethe. Parsons' staff accompanied District and City of Kirkwood staff to the field for an initial interview with the complainant, then Parsons followed up with field work and a preliminary study identifying a solution to the problem. Parsons and District staff also met with several City of Northwoods officials to discuss stormwater issues. The City was planning to collect stormwater complaint surveys in order to better locate and prioritize problems. Preliminary field investigations of several channels within the City boundaries were performed. However, the City surveys were never furnished to the District. Eventually the City received some money from an EPA 319 Grant to address the stormwater issues they deemed most crucial. SECTION 2.0 SECONDARY SERVICES 2.1 Regulatory Issues/Coordination Several meetings were held with District and Parsons Team staff at the USACE St. Louis District(Corps) regulatory department regarding their policy on mitigation requirements and how they may apply to District bank stabilization methods. Current and future average cost per mitigation credit was discussed. Several specific preliminary study projects were presented by Parsons for discussion in order to obtain some general opinions from the Corps on jurisdictional determinations and mitigation requirements based on the pictures and plans presented in the meeting. The Corps agreed that the Stormwater Facility Planning 18 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 District could develop a list of projects that have uncertain requirements and periodically go on field visits with the Corps to get jurisdictional determinations for each project. Reitz & Jens staff also coordinated with MoDNR about their anti -degradation requirements and development of a statewide general permit and its impact on District projects. Other coordination with MoDNR was necessary when attempting to get feedback on certain proposed repair techniques such as grout -filling the bottom of failing gabion baskets. The Parsons Team contacted or attempted to contact all of the municipalities within the District's boundary to determine which municipalities had stormwater master plans and/or detention basin ordinances. See Appendix G for table of the information obtained. The Parsons Team contacted the State of Missouri to obtain a list of the stormwater taxes that municipalities within the District's boundary have in place. See Appendix G for a table of these taxes and the OMCI District affected by these taxes. 2.2 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling Hydraulic modeling, using software programs such as Hydraflow, was performed to evaluate existing and proposed storm sewers for preliminary studies and some IPs and IPNFs. 2.3 Water Quality Issues and Modeling The District did not request any assistance relevant to this task. 2.4 Rainfall/Radar/Hydrology Development Parsons' subcontractor PMA Engineering provided oversight to Hydmet for the development of a HEC-1 processor customized to District needs and with the ability to import design storms from the St. Louis Static Design Storm Processor. Hydmet also prepared an initial setup of the Fishpot Creek Basin and documented the results in a report comparing the hydrologic results prepared by FEMA and Montgomery Watson's Stormwater Master Improvement Plan for Fishpot Creek. Hydmet conducted a workshop at the District's headquarters to demonstrate the HEC-1 Processor, Fishpot Creek model setup, model calibration, HEC-HMS interface, test runs and graphical and tabular results for various design storms. 2.5 Preparation of SSMIP for Additional Watersheds The District did not request any assistance relevant to this task. 2.6 Geomorphologic Stream Assessment and Analysis Under Parsons' contract, MS&T fine-tuned their Urban Stream Stability Expert System (USSES) for stream classification and evaluation. This effort included data collection in the field, input into the system, and revisions to the system itself and the corresponding user's manual. Parsons performed the data collection field work for this effort and Storm water Facility Planning 19 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 provided the data to MS&T for input into the system. MS&T developed the data input worksheets, user's manual and made modifications to the USSES program. 2.7 Capital Improvement and Replacement Program (CIRP) In response to District requests, the Parsons team performed site visits of several preliminary study projects with staff from the Engineering Department before requests for design proposals (RFPs) were prepared. These projects included Fair Oaks #33b, Cherry Tree Lane Storm Improvement, Diamond Head Dr. Storm Sewer, Linden #1064 Storm Sewer and Ridgemoor Drive Storm Improvements. Parsons also assisted the District with the preparation of revised exhibits for the Wise and Mabel and the Ridgemoor Drive projects to get them ready for RFPs. 2.8 Public Education/Relations While no official public education or public relations presentations were made by the Parsons Team, there were many opportunities for individual homeowner education while performing field work all over the District. Topics such as the deleterious effect of the disposal of yard waste on creek banks and presence of bush honeysuckle were addressed, as well as suggestions of homeowner solutions to minor problems such as extending or redirecting downspouts, keeping grated inlets clear, and constructing raingardens. The Parsons Team also encouraged homeowners to call Customer Service with stormwater complaints so that the District is made aware of them. Members of the Parsons Team also attended several meeting with individual property owners and some with neighborhood groups to assist District staff in presenting potential project solutions. 2.9 Other District Departments & Divisions Support 2.9.1 LID Review Parsons subconsultant Reitz & Jens, Inc. (RI) provided Low Impact Development support to the District for a period of approximately two years consisting of seminar support and general project review. The District held two one -day seminars titled "Water Quality Rules and BMP's" to help launch the District's Rules and Regulations involving water quality. Seminars were presented by staff from the District, Missouri Botanical Gardens, and RJ, covering: basic water quality issues, BMP selection, BMP Design (per Maryland Department of the Environment regulations) including design examples and basic calculations, and planting selection and science. RJ provided on -call LID review services associated with ten (10) private development permit applications submitted to the District for permit approval. Services included review of existing site constraints, proposed development activity, and proposed water quality treatment. Results of the review included recommendations for improving the water quality treatment concept and support of negotiations with permit applicants. 2.9.2 Green Roof Analysis. The District requested the Parsons Team to perform a study to determine the feasibility and the cost to install a "green roof' on their headquarters building at 2350 Market Street, Stormwater Facility Planning 20 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 St. Louis, Missouri. The Parsons Team led by Hellmuth-Bicknese attended several scoping meetings, investigated and evaluated the structural integrity of the existing roof, and performed a feasibility level design study. The study defined a scope of work for this "green roof' and estimated the design fees and construction costs to complete this project. A report was prepared that illustrated the structural issues, presented alternative designs for the green roof, identified typical plants and installation techniques and provided conceptual level construction cost estimates for the alternative plans. The study developed two options for green roof improvements for the six balconies and for the roof. Structural improvements required to support the additional roof loading were identified. The overall cost was estimated to be approximately $1.3 Million for the entire project. The "green roof' can provide multiple benefits to the District and the Community including: • Reduced Runoff Volume and Reduced Runoff Temperature: As best management practices get implemented across a watershed, there is increasing opportunities for reduction in infrastructure costs by reducing the required size of the stormwater piping systems. • Air Pollution Reduction: CO2 reduction from plant mass is an added benefit from a climate change perspective. • Reduction in Heat Island Effect: Since the building is located in a dense urban area of downtown St. Louis, the reduction in air temperatures above a green roof will aid in reducing the heat island effect. Through integrated monitoring, the difference in temperature can be demonstrated between the roof membrane with a green roof and the roof membrane underneath the green roof. • Reduction in the Cooling: A side benefit will be the reduction in cooling load and costs resulting from the shading of the roof membrane and the cooling effect of evapo-transpiration. • Increased Green Space: This is not only a symbolic environmental gesture but it also serves as an aid to migratory birds as more green space is created in our urban area. • Extension of Membrane Life: By protecting the roof membrane from UV radiation, the functional life of the membrane is extended thereby providing a lifecycle cost savings to the District and the public. • Education Program: This green roof can be used as an education tool to demonstrate to school children and the general public the benefits that a system like this can provide to the environment and the community. It was determined that funding was not available to proceed with this project so no further development of the green roof design was performed. Stormwater Facility Planning 21 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 2.10 Mapping/GIS As field work for detention basin inventory, identified projects, and preliminary studies was performed, errors and omissions on the District's facilities maps were identified. For each of these locations, a map correction was prepared and submitted in the format requested by District GIS staff. Parsons coordinated with Jacobs to help prepare project maps for the District for each fiscal year. Parsons located all of the stormwater projects identified in the District's budget supplement on a map for the fiscal years requested. This information was forwarded to Jacobs to be included on a map that would show all projects scheduled for the fiscal years in question. 2.11 Grants/Loans Parsons assisted the District with filling out the application for a grant for funding the "green roof" project for the District's headquarters building. 2.12 Financial Issue Support The District did not request any assistance relevant to this task. 2.13 Coordination with Other Consultants and Vendors When working on preliminary studies, there were numerous instances where the necessary stormwater work would be most logically done in conjunction with a sanitary project (for example Fair Oaks #33b Storm Sewer Improvements). In these cases, Parsons coordinated with Jacobs, the District's infrastructure planning consultant, to see what projects were already planned and for when. On several preliminary studies (for example Big Bend to Papin and Ridgemoor Drive), Parsons obtained inflow information from data collected by RJN Group, who was performing I&I work for the District. Where appropriate, additional inlets and stormwater infrastructure could then be proposed to help eliminate the need for private sources of I&I like yard inlets and downspouts connected to the sanitary system. 2.14 Review of Consultant Submittals The Parsons Team provided technical review services of other consultant reports at the request of the District on several occasions. Parsons performed a technical review of "Sappington Creek — 10501 Kamping Lane/10312 Meath Drive Bank Repair (2005043P) Preliminary Study" and "Sappington Creek -Meath to Gravois Preliminary Design" for the District. Parsons also provided review comments on the "Draft Geomorphic Reconnaissance of Sappington Creek" report related to this project. A technical review of the report "Pre -Design Study, Paddock to Waterford Storm Channel (2005099)" was performed by the Parsons Team. Stormwater Facility Planning 22 Final Report MSD Project 2005122 Dec 2010 APPENDIX A. Detention Basin Inventory Information Map of Inventoried Detention Basins Basin Condition Rating Form Table of Basin Condition Rating Summary Table of Basins Not Inventoried 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 18 19Z 197`, , 19X 20Z 20Y 21Z 22Z 23Z 2 Y WILD HORSE CK 23Y 17 w V U T 10 Q 6 7 P 0 M K J H 1K 1J 1H G 2K 2J r r 2H r 3K 3J MIS5lI-4 3H ,�. 2G 3G F 4K keliiIIILL CREEK 4J • 4H ■ 60 70 7N 6M 8P 9P r• 8N • 0 FP ❑ 8M • • 9M �;=1 ❑ V 100 • 110 R 1 12 13 S 15 12R 12Q 12P MISS-6. ON talc] n 1.171 6K v g ❑ 1 CSOLls>WA I ER 7M T, 7Lf�❑ f 7K LLI • 0 63La 8K ■ ii - ■■-.■ R, ❑ i . o 9K s° ❑. 5J 4G 4F 5G E 5E 5 D C B m v ®J on 6H 0 CREEKS' 7J• v v° L U v • v • nH AC ❑❑ 8J • 9J io3 v1 81 OE woo 76 ■ if ❑ ❑ ❑ ID pi]___._❑_ r, -r 1 l'` . LAME ❑ 11 0 i\ BT 1 ti 0 0 CIFT iff13 9G] ISR ItY ^H 9 can 10G e"1 PANISHI ❑ ❑ 6D D 9ENS 9D U'.. V�ATKIC EK ❑ � ❑ z a C7 10F� '� 0E i�� 1 QD ❑ _ �, 9,FEtc? ° 1 0 eJEEdq2te IT °rl 13R; 14 REVE �y 1 ■ IRPORT 14Q 13P 14P 130 ❑ ❑ 140 ❑ :roF ■ L■.■ 5 A OWHFAO ORT 15Q /'�`JP v •❑ S 16 X 16VV .. . 16V. 16U 16T 4!' -61: ;64. 17X 1 1W,!L 17V M.l$7 CI • •I' /� 5FI Al F 5 - • • \ ©c,, 18Y 18X : o a� 1j 0 ■4■ • _____--:,--, ., It - , •❑ bW 0 19V_ ® [_�t 9U ❑ 19T • 20X / / , y 20W . 20 , 2 . ou ° ° 20-1' 21X m 21W • ULP4 C K 21411r----D—th-----a-E % e o . o ;iv I, 22X BONHOI� L ❑' 3• 16S CREEK 23X __ _23W • .'U Em 24Z 25Z 24Y 24X AUGUSTA CREEK •�� 26Z 26Y 26 • 24W 25Wk 25 11AMILTON & CAfR CREEK c,26W f mr • n 24U I 111 -1 2 f ■■ r, ■ `os oe 16 R ❑ • i • L ■ ?S 21R ■ ■� u v mJ� 0 22R ❑n ° 23S Er • SPRING 25U KIEF121VCR 26U •• 26T °`\ 24S El ° ❑ ❑n r:l IIW .1 ,V ■ ■ • 141 1 7Q. ❑ +IN ■ - ■ LiFI • ar 26S _26R • ❑ v@ t-i •u ❑ 17P • P G?Evk a Q °1 P 2103 01P° GRA 1D GLQIZE CRCCK L. 22Q °❑ ❑ 2P®I°, ° •ill •{-_?] Pm - cif ❑Q �❑ �3 �`nn EJ 6Q 4P © ❑ P.- LMSA 2 26P sr' 27Z 27Y 27X 27V 27U 27T 27S 27R` �7Q • FOX CREEK 28Z 28Y F BY-CRf EK 28X f 28W 28V 280 ■ 28T 00 28S I+ /ILLaFAS CRE K28 0 n ❑� III • • 0 150 ❑ v,� 20 a. • ❑ 4 1pIN ❑ E� CREE •_ •❑ icev Di LE [i i,1K❑ 40%9 ./• r r. wraiL: T 1_ 1 13L 13 11J'❑ �� ❑ 11H 11G 11F 111 ❑x,: -'S 6C 7C 9C 6B TB 9B 12J 1 2H MALASEEK ❑ ❑. ❑13J I13H Dig 12G°( 12F 13G �`� 13F '3E El L 141!■ ❑ ■ 'I . 14L dtke 5L ❑ .in ❑ ❑: 61 jvm -. ❑ UM - ° v 1.-.6L RNER v0 ° :I 17� ❑ v • ri 19N ❑ €SON 2 RI E6 N,nn.. „Ay • Ill 'YIN 1®M: \_.. n 7 n ❑ 18L J [44K ❑• • •° 14J •/ �1K 15J hrn' V 16J ° tt INIV ERSITY CITY 1 7q ° v18 Li VEER CREEKS 0191�1i 19L.�,4 ❑ Qom 21M On LJT,n; 23N 23M N a_. w•,cREEK U 51/GAR I le 28PLA 1AQ ■ 0--I ❑° 2 - 1 • F▪ K❑Vv 29Z 29Y 29X • 29V 29 U 29MTIRERK - 29R 2 • MEM Tvi 24N J, v v'2 ,E1 ❑ ❑ 25N'%I r `LMSA4 u dv °® VGI° 28N 1=E7 20L 22Lv 23 20J 22K D 16 `El 7H 16 MI • 14E MISSISSIPP 13 14 15 12D 20 21G 21 21E 21 22D 24K • 26Kv • 27K ER44 • 24H 23G 24G 24 24E 25G EEK V Ti • El 29N— ;H f . 30Z 31Z 30Y 31Y FLAT CREEK 30X 30W 31X 31W 31V 30U 32Z 32Y 324 32W Z Y 33 33X 33W X w V 32 33 Legend ❑ Dry Detention Basin • Wet Retention Basin • Underground Basin PARSONS 30T T 31 S 30 SALINE CREEK i S,GPµ SUGAR CREEK 0 ROMAINE CREEK 2.5 N 30 22-0 0 MATTE D yip • • 7 E • classic 33 5 33N 32M 33M • 33L MI 34 36 37 • • 33K • 28J 26H 27 rav I=Pi) 6 26F 27F 29G mm • 3 • • 34 • • 30G 31 33H /34H 35H 36J 7 37J 10 Miles NOTE: Feb. 2nd, 2009 is the most recent construction approval date for the basins shown above. 36 37 32 33 34 35 31G 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 23 24 0 11 12 16 17 18 19 22 6 7 8 9 Detention / Retention Basins DETENTION BASIN CONDITION RATING 09/16/08 Dbase ID: Struct ID: Watershed: Condition Points Points Summary Berm: Pick more than one if applicable 2 Good Condition 0 Minor Erosion 5 ❑ Overgrown/Trees/Brush 5 ❑ Animal Burrows 5 U Major Erosion 10 ] Breached 100 Outlet Structure: Pick more than one if applicable Good Condition 0 ❑ Minor Debris Accumulation at orifice/weir 5 ❑ Low Flow Orifice Blocked 15 ❑ Emergency Overflow Blocked 20 ❑ Weir Blocked 25 [ Outlet Pipe Blocked 50 [ Collapsed/Destroyed 100 Incoming Pipes: Pick one H Good Condition 0 ❑ Partially Blocked 10 n Blocked 25 0 0 0 General Basin: Pick more than one if applicable 0 Good Vegetation and Mowed 0 0 ❑ Overgrown/Trees/Brush 5 Standing Water 5 ❑ Debris Accumulated other than at outlet 5 L Equipment Access Limited [ Equipment Access Blocked n Storage Volume Reduced by 20% or more Miscellaneous: Pick more than one if applicable ❑ Erosion at Incoming Pipe 5 n Erosion along Pilot Channel 5 n Sediment in Pilot Channel 5 Fence Damaged Allowing Access 5 ❑ Other TOTAL BASIN POINTS BASIN CONDITION RATING 5 10 50 Good Condition - No Maintenance Required Fair Condition - Minor Maintenance Required Poor Condition - Major Maintenance Required Failing - Immediate Maintenance Required 0 GOOD 0 - 25 Points 26 - 49 Points 50 - 99 Points 100+ Points BASIN CONDITION RATING SUMMARY Major Watersheds Failing A/G UIG Total A/G Poor UIG Total A/G Fair U/G Total A/G Good U/G Total Watershed Totals A/G U/G Total Bissell Point 1 0 1 7 1 8 21 2 23 109 14 123 138 17 155 Coldwater Creek 0 1 1 11 0 11 22 3 25 168 39 207 201 43 244 Lower Meramec 11 2 13 33 2 35 100 4 104 622 92 714 766 100 866 Missouri River 10 1 11 56 4 60 121 11 132 693 55 748 880 71 951 River Des Peres 3 1 4 16 6 22 49 6 55 345 121 466 413 134 547 25 5 30 123 13 136 313 26 339 1,937 321 2,258 2,398 365 2,763 Bissell Point Failing A/G UIG Total Poor A/G UIG Total A/G Fair U/G Total A/G Good U/G Total Sub -Shed Totals A/G U/G Total BADEN O O f 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O *- O O O O 1 0 0- 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 i 1 Q o O 1 0 1 5 0 5 6 0 6 HARLEM 1 1 2 17 3 20 19 4 23 MALINE CREEK 15 1 16 65 7 72 85 9 94 MISSISSIPPI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERVIEW 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 SPANISH LAKE 1 0 1 3 0 3 5 0 5 WATKINS CREEK 3 0 3 17 4 21 21 4 25 Watershed Totals 1 0 1 7 1 8 21 2 23 109 14 123 138 17 155 Coldwater Creek Failing A/G UIG Total A/G Poor UIG Total A/G Fair U/G Total A/G Good UIG Total Sub -Shed Totals NG U/G Total COLDWATER CREEK 0 1 1 10 0 10 21 3 24 162 39 201 193 43 236 MILL CREEK 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 5 0 5 7 0 7 MISS-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MOSA-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 atershed Totals 0 S:lmikelBasinsDoneQuanlityCheckldetention basins.xls 11 Item-11 BASIN CONDITION RATING SUMMARY Lower Meramec Failing AIG U/G Total A/G Poor UIG Total AIG Fair U/G Total A/G Good U/G Total Sub -Shed Totals AIG U/G Total ANTIRE CREEK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FENTON CREEK 1 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 7 40 5 45 48 5 53 FISHPOT CREEK 3 2 5 4 1 5 17 1 18 106 23 129 130 27 157 GRAND GLAIZE CREEK 3 0 3 9 0 9 21 2 23 133 38 171 166 40 206 KIEFER CREEK 0 0 0 8 0 8 10 0 10 42 2 44 60 2 62 LMSA 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LMSA 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 3 0 3 LMSA 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 3 LMSA 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 LMSA 6 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 0 3 15 1 16 19 2 21 LMSA 7 1 0 1 3 0 3 5 0 5 70 5 75 79 5 84 LMSA 8 1 0 1 2 0 2 8 0 8 21 0 21 32 0 32 LMSA 9 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 3 LMSA 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 MATTESE CREEK 1 0 1 3 0 3 16 0 16 113 9 122 133 9 142 SALINE CREEK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 3 0 3 WILLIAMS CREEK 0 0 0 1 0 1 6 0 6 21 0 21 28 0 28 YARNELL CREEK 0 0 0 1 0 1 6 1 7 51 8 59 58 9 67 Watershed Totals 11 Missouri River Failing A/G UIG Total A/G Poor UIG Total AIG Fair U/G Total AIG Good U/G Total Sub -Shed Totals A/G UIG Total BONFILS [COWMIRE] 1 0 1 7 0 7 14 1 15 71 4 75 93 5 98 BONHOMME CREEK 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 0 4 26 1 27 31 1 32 CAULKS CREEK 2 1 3 8 1 9 22 2 24 160 9 169 192 13 205 CREVE COEUR CREEK 3 0 3 9 1 10 38 5 43 225 25 250 275 31 306 FEE FEE CREEK 1 0 1 13 2 15 25 2 27 102 9 111 141 13 154 HAMILTON & CARR CREEK 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 MISS-5 0 0 0 5 0 5 5 0 5 38 1 39 48 1 49 MISS-6 0 0 0 5 0 5 8 0 8 36 0 36 49 0 49 M1SS-7 3 0 3 7 0 7 4 1 5 35 6 41 49 7 56 Watershed Totals 10 11 S:lmikelBasinsDoneQuantityCheckldetention basins.xls Item-11 BASIN CONDITION RATING SUMMARY River Des Peres Failing Poor Fair Good Sub -Shed Totals A/G U/G Total A/G U/G Total A/G U/G Total A/G U/G Total A/G U/G Total DEER CREEK 0 0 0 Cr) N O N O O N N C) N 0 0 0 O O r CO lf) O N O O N r (NJ r' N N O N O 0 0 0 rnrCr) CID arc'}m r- r 113 60 173 138 65 203 GRAVOIS CREEK 2 0 2 127 43 170 145 47 192 MACKENZIE CREEK 1 0 1 18 1 19 22 1 23 MARTIGINEY CREEK 0 0 0 28 6 34 36 8 44 MISS-1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 MISS-2 0 0 0 11 0 11 12 0 12 RIVER DES PERES 0 0 0 14 3 17 19 3 22 UNIVERSITY CITY 0 1 1 33 8 41 40 10 50 Watershed Totals 3 1 4 16 6 22 49 6 55 345 121 S:lmikelBasinsDoneQuantityCheckldetentian basins.xls 466 413 134 547 Item-11 Basin_ID 310 541 652 779 840 862 865 987 1005 1087 1111 1204 1295 1317 1371 1384 1407 1455 1467 1578 1734 1752 2394 2538 2600 3268 3367 3454 3482 3484 3553 3563 3575 3708 3719 3776 Project Number P001382800 P001544100 P001596200 P001672500 P000327302 P001709100 P001710300 P001784000 P000624404 P001848700 P001864800 P001913900 P001949600 P001961000 P001985000 P001989500 P001998000 P002021600 P002033100 P002105700 P001185103 P001288902 P002274600 P002368501 P002403500 P001288904 P002749800 PO01383805 P002451200 P002342100 P001979000 P002492500 P001185105 P001673400 P001621600 P001215700 Underground Underground Underground Aboveground Underground Underground Underground Underground Underground Underground Underground Underground Underground Aboveground Underground Underground Underground Underground Underground Underground Aboveground Underground Underground Underground Underground Underground Underground Underground Aboveground Underground Underground Underg round Aboveground Underground Aboveground Underground BASINS NOT INVENTORIED Notes Cars on Access MH's No Access Found Elec Hazard. Elderly couple repeatedly forgot appointments for ABNA crew to visit, Locked Surcharged/Clogged Surcharged/Clogged Surcharged/Clogged Surcharged/Clogged ADS left several phone messages, but no return calls, Surcharged/Clogged Surcharged/Clogged 5 ft - 7 in of mud Locked, need to make appointment with security. Surcharged/Clogged Surcharged/Clogged Surcharged/Clogged Surcharged/Clogged O.S. Access Buried Access Buried At Former Hazelwood Ford Plant; being Redeveloped O.S. Access Under Tile in Gazebo. Remainder of basin was checked. Surcharged/Clogged Locked - Surcharged/Clogged Surcharged/Clogged Surcharged/Clogged Surcharged/Clogged Surcharged/Clogged locked Surcharged/Clogged Access Blocked - Wooden Bridge Access not found (in Clayton Road) At Former Hazelwood Ford Plant; being Redeveloped Surcharged/Clogged locked Locked Watershed Coldwater Creek Missouri River Lower Meramec River Des Peres River Des Peres Coldwater Creek Coldwater Creek Missouri River River Des Peres Lower Meramec Lower Meramec River Des Peres River Des Peres Missouri River Lower Meramec Lower Meramec Missouri River Lower Meramec Missouri River Bissel Point Coldwater Creek River Des Peres Missouri River Missouri River River Des Peres River Des Peres River Des Peres Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River River Des Peres Missouri River Coldwater Creek Missouri River Lower Meramec Missouri River K:1MSD stormwater facility planninglcompendium reportldetention basins.xls Item-13 APPENDIX B. Prioritization System Worksheets and Instructions MSD Stormwater Projects Prioritization System Revised Benefit Points Allocation Schedule PROJECT NAME: DATE: PROBLEM SOLVED CATEGORY Note: Problem points are awarded only for those problems solved by the proposed solution. Chronic (<=2-Yr) Flooding Frequent (>2<=15-Yr) Flooding Infrequent (>15-Yr) Flooding Total Points Points per Category No. Lots Affected Points per Category No. Lots ffected Points per Category No. Lots Affected 1.0 STREAM 1.1. FLOODING 1 1.1. Structure Flooding Habitable 1st floor, residential; includes spaces with mechanical equipment (1 lot per structure) Address: 300 150 25 Basement (1 lot per structure) Address: 200 100 15 Attached Garage (1 lot per structure) Address: 100 50 8 Misc. structures including patio/decks, pools, sheds, tennis courts, detached garages, etc.(1 lot per structure) Address: 50 25 4 Industrial, office, commercial and warehouse (1 lot per 2,500 sf of floor space flooded) Address: 300 150 25 Yard Flooding (1 per lot) Address: 10 5 0 Roadway Flooding (allocate 1 lot per 250' of roadway 1.1.2. impacted & 2 lots per intersection impacted) Emergency Access restricted (>12" water over only access route to habitable structure), pts per structure Address: 200 100 15 Traffic obstruction (> 6" of water) on arterial street Address: 50 25 4 Traffic obstruction (> 6" of water) on collector street Address: 25 12 2 Traffic obstruction (> 6" of water) on residential street Address.' 10 5 1 1.2. EROSION 1.2.1. Threatening Structure (Ratio=Height of bank / distance from structure) Pts. for Ratio > 0.70 Na. Lots Pts. for Ratio 0.36 - 0.70 No. Lots Pts. for Ratio 0.15- 0.35 No. Lots Habitable structures, residential (1 lot per structure) Address: 300 200 50 Misc structures including pools, patio/decks, sheds, tennis courts, detached garages, etc.(1 lot per structure) Address: 150 100 25 Industrial, office, commercial and warehouse (1 lot per structure) Address: 300 200 50 1.2.2. No. of tots (from 1.2.1) on outside of bend lots 10 points per lot 1.2.3. Threatening Roadway (allocate 1 lot per 250' of roadway impacted & 2 lots per intersection impacted) Pts. for Ratio > 0.70 No. Lots Pts. for Ratio 0.36 - 0.70 No. Lots Pts. for Ratio 0.15- 0.35 No. Lots Arterial Road: Address: 75 50 12 Collector Road: Address: 35 25 6 Residential Road: Address: 20 12 3 10/01 /06 1 of 3 MSD Stormwater Projects Prioritization System Revised Benefit Points Allocation Schedule PROJECT NAME: CONTINUED: DATE: 2.0 STORM SEWER I OVERLAND FLOW 2.1. FLOODING I PROBLEM SOLVED CATEGORY, CONT. Note. Problem points are awarded only for those problems solved by the proposed solution Chronic (<=2-Yr) Flooding Frequent (>2<=15-Yr) Flooding Infrequent (>15-Yr) Flooding 1 Total Points 1 Points per Category Nffe Points per Category No. Lots Affected Points per Category rNo. Lots Affected 2.1.1. Structure Flooding Habitable 1st floor, residential; includes spaces with mechanical equipment (1 lot per structure)* Address: 350 250 65 Basement (1 lot per structure)* Address: 250 200 50 Industrial, office, commercial and warehouse (1 lot per 2,500 sf of floor space flooded)` Address: 300 200 50 If there is an existing public system and points are taken for any of the 3 items above, add 50 points. Existing System YIN Attached Garage (1 lot per structure) Address: 100 75 25 Misc. structures including patio/decks, pools, sheds, tennis courts, detached garages, etc.(1 lot per structure) Address: 50 35 12 Yard Flooding (1 per lot) Address: 10 6 0 2.1.2. Roadway Flooding (allocate 1 lot per 250' of roadway impacted & 2 lots per intersection impacted) Emergency Access restricted (>12" water over only access route to habitable structure), pis per structure Address: 200 150 25 Traffic obstruction (> 6" of water) on arterial street Address: 50 35 6 Traffic obstruction (> 6" of water) on collector street Address.' 25 15 2 Traffic obstruction (> 6" of water) on residential street Address.' 10 6 1 Ponding (per ponding area) Address: No. Ponds: Points/pond: 5 2.2. Moderate Risk Erosion of misc. structures Address: No. Lots: Points/lot: 20 2.3. Yard Erosion (1 per lot) Address.' No. Lots: Points/lot: 10 2.4. Age of Existing System Points for Age >50 yrs (30 pts) 26-50 yrs (15 pts) <25 yrs (0 pts) Note: Problem points are awarded only tor those problems solved by the proposed solution. TOTAL PROBLEM POINTS 10/01/06 2 of 3 MSD Stormwater Projects Prioritization System Revised Benefit Points Allocation Schedule PROJECT NAME: CONTINUED: DATE: SOLUTION BENEFIT CATEGORY 3.0 REGIONAL 3,1 Reduction of flowrate leaving site % reduction of peak flowrate : Max points: 1000 3.2. Combines smaller projects into regional solution (see note) No. Projeects:cts: Points per Add'I Proj.: 50 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL I WATER QUALITY 4.1. Addresses pollutants: No. Units Points per Unit Bioswales PER 100 LF 10 Forebays AC 200 Wet Ponds AC 100 Wetlands AC 50 Biostabilization of banks (per bank) PER 100 LF 10 Riffle Pool Complex PER 100 LF 10 4.2. Eliminates combined sewer (per project) EA 100 Eliminates inflow into sanitary system (1 each per basement 4.3. flooded, yard vent overtopped, street inlet or driveway drain connected to sanitary/combined system, etc.) EA 10 (} U) 2 o to 5.1. Ease of Implementation (No. of Easements) 0-5 (20 pts) 6-10 (10 pts) in N N d o in n Points for Easements 5.2. Recreational/Educational Yes = 100, no=opts TOTAL SOLUTION POINTS TOTAL BENEFIT POINTS Note: A regional solution combines several smaller projects into a watershed or subwatershed solution. TOTAL COST IN THOUSANDS= BENEFIT! COST RATIO= TOTAL POINTS! TOTAL COST IN THOUSANDS= Place "X" in one box below: MSD Project Project by Others 10/01 /06 3 of 3 Prioritization Worksheet -- Guidelines for Use The new prioritization worksheet is three pages long. Enter the project name and date at the top of each page. Assigning Problem Points (pages 1-2) Using information collected in the field and from complaint records, determine which of the two main Problem Categories the investigated problem falls under. If the source of the problem is a stream, use Category 1.0 on the first page to assign the "Problem points". If the source of the problem is overland flow or inadequate/nonexistent storm sewers, turn to Category 2,0 on the second page to assign the "Problem points". Category 1.0 is subdivided into 1.1 Flooding and 1.2 Erosion; if the project only deals with one or the other of these types of problems, go directly to that subcategory and then evaluate each line in light of the problem identified. Every line on this page utilizes three levels of severity to assign points (except line 1.2.2). For structure and roadway flooding, the minimum frequency of storm (2-, 15- or 100-year) causing the problem should be computed or estimated. The number of lots affected is then entered under that storm heading. For erosion, field measurements should be made to determine the ratio of height of eroded bank divided by distance from nearest structure. The number of lots affected should be entered to the right of the points shown for the appropriate ratio. Category 2.0 is used for flooding problems caused by overland flow or inadequate storm sewer systems. Category 2.1 utilizes the same three levels of severity as Category 1.1, and storm frequency should be computed or estimated in the same way. Erosion caused by overland flow is included as either as 2.2 "moderate risk erosion of miscellaneous structures" or 2.3 "yard erosion". Category 2.4 can be used to assign additional points to a problem if the age of the existing system is greater than 25 years. Using the approximate system age, enter the number of points indicated in the space below the corresponding age range. Include the address(es) of lots that are assigned points on the line provided under each subcategory. The total problem points from pages 1 and 2 are automatically summed at the bottom of page 2 and included in the total benefit points sum at the bottom of page 3. Assigning Solution Points (page 3) After filling out either page 1 or page 2, turn to page 3 to determine if any of the Solution Points can be applied. These points are given to projects whose solution achieves the benefits described in Categories 3-5. 1. Category 3.1, reduction of flowrate leaving the site, would most commonly be achieved by the addition of a detention feature. The pre- and post -project peak flowrates are computed to determine the percent of reduction. This percent is then multiplied by 1000 to obtain the total points awarded. This should only be used where the approximate reduction can be reliably estimated at the preliminary stage. 2. Category 3.2 points can by applied when a proposed solution combines several smaller projects (that are not immediately adjacent to one another) into a watershed or subwatershed solution. Enter the number of total projects combined less one: for example, if 3 projects are combined, enter 2 as the number of additional projects. 3. Category 4.1 points can be applied if the proposed solution includes any of the listed water quality features listed. These should only be used if the user has confidence that the feature will not be dropped during final design. For linear treatments, divide the total proposed length by 100 LF to obtain the number of units. For treatment areas, enter the number of acres. Round all quantities to the nearest whole number. 4. Category 4.2 points can be applied if the project eliminates a combined sewer system. A non -regional solution would get 100 points, while a regional solution could get 100 points per project that eliminates a combined sewer system. 5. Category 4.3, which addresses inflow into the sanitary system, can be applied where the proposed solution would eliminate the inflow. The total number of locations eliminated is entered by the user. 6. Category 5.1 assigns points for projects with fewer easements. The user's best estimate of the number of easements that will be required is used to determine how many points can be awarded. The user must enter the number of points (20, 10 or 5 points) appropriate for the number of easements estimated. 7. Category 5.2 allows the user to enter 100 points if the proposed solution will include recreational or educational benefits to the public. When all Problem and Solution Points are assigned, the total benefit points will be summed automatically. Divide the cost estimate for the project by 1,000 and enter it in the worksheet where indicated. The cost/benefit ratio will be automatically computed. At the bottom of page 3, indicate whether the project is likely to be performed by MSD or by others. This is normally dictated by MSD's policy, which outlines the District's maintenance responsibility and defines what constitutes their system. However, if the project is to be funded by OMCI money, other types of projects are sometimes included (e.g. culvert replacement). Congratulations, you have completed the prioritization worksheet! APPENDIX C. Pipe Cost Curves Instructions Pipe Curves Under Pavement Pipe Curves With Sodding Conceptual Cost Vs. Total Project Cost Curve " P A R S O N S M e m o r a n d u m D a t e : O c t o b e r 1 1 , 2 0 0 6 P a g e 1 o f 1 T o : G a r y M o o r e F r o m : E d S w e e t P a r s o n s - S t . L o u i s O f f i c e V o i c e : ( 3 1 4 ) 5 7 6 - 7 3 3 0 F a x : ( 3 1 4 ) 5 7 6 - 2 7 0 2 C o p i e s t o : M a r k K o e s t e r R e f e r e n c e d S u b j e c t : C o n c e p t u a l C o s t E s t i m a t e s P r o j e c t n a m e : S t o r m w a t e r F a c i l i t y P l a n n i n g ( 2 0 0 5 1 2 2 ) P r o j e c t N o : 2 6 0 2 2 9 T w e n t y - t w o r e c e n t s t o r m s e w e r p r o j e c t s w e r e r e v i e w e d a n d c o n c e p t u a l c o s t s w e r e d e v e l o p e d f o r e a c h . D a t a f r o m t h e s e c o n c e p t u a l c o s t s a n d t h e e n g i n e e r '