HomeMy Public PortalAboutExhibit MSD 84M - St. Louis County Phase II Stormwater Management Plan
+
ILLICIT
AND ELIMNATION
ST. LOUIS COUNTY
PHASE II
STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN
PREPARED FOR ST. LOUIS COUNTY MUNICIPALITIES
BY
THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY PHASE II STORMWATER PLANNING COMMITTEE
Fall 2012
T HIRD
TERM
PERMIT
2013-2018
PUBLIC EDUCATION
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
ILLICIT DISCHARGE
DETECTION
CONSTRUCTION SITE
CONTROLS
POST-CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION
PREVENTION
Exhibit MSD 84M
i
i
St. Louis County Phase II Stormwater Management Plan
Prepared by
The St. Louis County Phase II Stormwater Planning Committee
Matt Wohlberg, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Creve Coeur
Tim Barrett, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Florissant
Tom Schneider
Mayor
City of Florissant
Ed Blattner, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Manchester
Pat Detch
Planner
St. Louis County
Mike Zeltmann
Planning Supervisor
St. Louis County
Paul Andrew
Engineering Supervisor
St. Louis County
Stephen O’Conner
Operations Manager
St. Louis County
Cliff Baber, P.E.
Construction Manager
City of Maryland Heights
Michael McDowell
City Manager
City of Olivette
Anne Lamitola, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Sunset Hills
Jay Hoskins, P.E.
Principal Engineer
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Sue McCrary, P.E.
Senior Civil Engineer
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer
Melantha Norton, P.E.
Civil Engineer
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Steve Nagel
Director of Planning
East-West Gateway
Michael Buechter, P.E.
Principal Engineer
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Angie Weber
Community Conservation Planning
Missouri Department of Conservation
Mark Koester, P.E.
Principal Engineer
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Tom Siegel, P.E.
Environmental Engineer
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
William Allen, P.E.
Principal Engineer
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Jeff Bohler, P.E.
Project Manager
Missouri Department of Transportation
Derrick Madej, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Green Park
Gail Choate
Land Use Manager
St. Louis County
Ray Gawlik, P.E.
Stormwater Manager
St. Louis County
Bruce H. Litzsinger, P.E.
Environmental Compliance Manager
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Dona Anderson
Office Associate
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Roland Biehl
Environmental Specialist
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
FALL 2012
ii
iii
Executive Summary
The Phase II Stormwater Regulations were promulgated to provide appropriate
stormwater management for political subdivisions in urbanized areas which were
exempted under the 1990 (Phase I) regulations. Exemption of certain urbanized areas
because of the size of the political subdivisions created so -called “donut holes” in the
national stormwater program. Appendix 6, Governmental Entities Located Fully or
Partially Within an Urbanized Area, of the preamble to the USEPA’s December 8, 1999
rule listed nearly all of the political subdivisions in St. Louis County as entities requiring
a Phase II NPDES Permit. The St. Louis metropolitan area may have been the largest
“donut hole” in the nation because of exempted combined sewers serving the City of St.
Louis and the numerous small political subdivisions in St. Louis County.
Missouri’s Phase II Stormwater Regulations for small MS4s (municipal separate storm
sewer system) are contained in 10 CSR 20-6.200. The statute allows regulated Small
MS4s to seek coverage under a general permit or under a site -specific permit. In either
case, they can apply individually as an entity or co-permittee. It is emphasized in the
regulations at (5)(C)1 that:
“the department encourages cooperation between potential small MS4 applicants
when addressing application requirements and in the development,
implementation and enforcement of the six minimum measures under issued
permits.”
It is also stated that:
“applicants within one urbanized area…should consider applying as co -
applicants…to become co-permittees under an issued permit.”
There is a “patchwork” of political jurisdictions in St. Louis County connected by shared
streets and highways. Utilities are provided on a regional basis by both private and
public entities. The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD) provides collection and
treatment of wastewaters generated by residential, commercial and industrial
activities. MSD is also responsible for operation and maintenance of the separate storm
sewer systems serving all of the municipalities in the St. Louis County area, except for
the cities of Eureka and Pacific.
Many communities provide municipal operations and public services that impact
stormwater management. Permitting each municipality separately under the Phase II
Regulations did not seem appropriate or administratively feasible because of service
overlap. The topography of the area suggested individual municipal permits with
respect to stormwater conveyance identification would be overly complex with possible
jurisdictional disputes. Natural watercourses often leave one municipality, enter the
jurisdictional boundaries of a second or third municipality and re -enter a portion of the
first municipality. Individual municipal permits were not considered a viable means of
ensuring control of stormwater pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.
iv
St. Louis County stormwater drains into three major watersheds: the Mississippi River,
the Meramec River, and the Missouri River. All stormwater runoff from the County
ultimately enters the Mississippi River. The Mississippi River forms the eastern
boundary of the southernmost and northernmost portions of the County with the
remainder entering the western boundary of the City of St. Louis and its combined
sewer system. The Meramec River generally forms the southern boundary of the
County except for a portion in the west of the County where the border includes land
south of the Meramec River that is drained by its tributaries. The Missouri River forms
the northern boundary of the County. Many small tributaries located within the County
feed into each of these three major rivers.
MSD has been given the responsibility for providing adequate sewer and drainage
facilities within its boundaries by its Charter. Under the Phase II Stormwater
Regulations, MSD was recognized as the coordinating authority under the St. Louis
Metropolitan Small MS4 Stormwater Permit, MO-R040005, issued by the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Water Pollution Control Program. Sixty
additional co-permittees were named under the permit. Under the second term permit
for the period June 13, 2008 through June 12, 2013 (herein “second term permit”), the
St. Louis County Phase II Stormwater Management Plan, Summer 2007 has been
implemented. The first permit term Plan covered the period of March 10, 2003 through
June 12, 2008.
Public education activities addressing water quality in urban runoff under Minimum
Control Measure (MCM) 1 have been implemented, including various methods such as
printed materials, videos, internet, and presentations. During the first two permit terms,
MSD has developed over 15 printed materials and distributed over 4.5 million
copies. During the first term permit, a total of four infomercials were aired on cable TV
3,200 times, and a 10 minute pollution prevention video aired 730 times. Radio public
service announcements about rain gardens, yard waste, pet waste, kitchen grease, and
salt deicing aired 810 times during the second term permit An internet web presence
was developed in the first term, resulting in thousands of downloads. Finally, over
1,000 public presentations were given by MSD and its partners to educate the public
over the two permit terms. Public involvement and participation activities under MCM 2
have progressed under all the programs in the first and second te rm permits. Over
eight years, MSD and its community partners have held 71 clean-up events, and placed
about 14,000 storm drain markers on inlets. Under MCM 3, MSD surveyed nearly 2,300
stream miles to identify illegal discharges, walking all the named minor watersheds
identified in the Plan.
All co-permittees have reported achieving the program development goals under the
first term Plan that were requirements under the MCMs 4 through 6. Under MCM 4, all
co-permittees have reported having a Phase II land disturbance program to control
construction site runoff. Under post-construction stormwater management, all co-
permittees have reported having at least one ordinance addressing post-construction
run-off under MCM 5. Structural and non-structural BMPs are required throughout the
v
Plan Area for all new development and redevelopment under MSD’s new Rules and
Regulations. Educational information on planning and zoning strategies to protect water
quality and post-construction BMP guidance, including an on-line BMP Toolbox, have
also been developed. Under good housekeeping for municipal operations in MCM 6,
all co-permittees have reported implementing an operation and maintenance program.
In 2011, the Plan Area experienced its first Phase II audit. The audit was conducted by
the Missouri Department of Natural Resources and thoroughly reviewed how the St.
Louis County Plan Area implements the MCMs. The final audit report did not require
corrective actions, but, provided recommendations for consideration and included very
positive feedback on the implementation on MCM 5 stating, “Continue the excellent
work of implementing this MCM.” Audit report recommendations were considered
during the development of this Plan.
This revision of the Stormwater Management Plan for the third term permit term
incorporates the implementation of the first two Plans, and discusses ongoing and new
goals for improving the effectiveness of the activities. The 2002 and 2007 Plans will be
maintained as resources, and will not be duplicated. The Phase II Stormwater Program
is a regulatory issue that is conducive to forming partnerships to achieve a common
goal. Therefore, the emphasis in this third Plan will continue to focus on education with
the goal of improving partnerships and communication.
vi
vii
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................................................... 1-1
Phase II Plan Coordination .................................................................................................................... 1-1
Plan Coverage .......................................................................................................................... 1-1 A.
Major W atersheds .................................................................................................................... 1-4 B.
Minor Watersheds .................................................................................................................... 1-5 C.
Permitting Strategy ................................................................................................................... 1-6 D.
Selection of a Coordinating Authority ....................................................................................... 1-7 E.
Establishing a Planning Committee .......................................................................................... 1-7 F.
Keeping the Community Informed ......................................................................................... 1-10 G.
Plan Revisions ........................................................................................................................ 1-11 H.
CHAPTER 2 ............................................................................................................................................... 2-1
Demographics of the St. Louis Area ...................................................................................................... 2-1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 2-1 A.
The region is getting more dispersed. ...................................................................................... 2-1 B.
St. Louis City and St. Louis County have lost population. ....................................................... 2-2 C.
There are some areas of growth. ............................................................................................. 2-3 D.
Potential new development, St. Louis County. ......................................................................... 2-5 E.
CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................................................... 3-1
Water Quality in St. Louis County Streams ........................................................................................... 3-1
A. Missouri Water Quality Standards ............................................................................................ 3-1
Impaired Waters ....................................................................................................................... 3-5 B.
Water Quality Monitoring .......................................................................................................... 3-5 C.
Identification of Area Stormwater Pollution Problems/Sources ............................................... 3-7 D.
CHAPTER 4 ............................................................................................................................................... 4-1
Public Education and Outreach (MCM 1) .............................................................................................. 4-1
A. MS4 Permit Requirements ....................................................................................................... 4-1
B. General Pollution Prevention Compliance Activities ................................................................ 4-1
C. Compliance Activities using Printed Material ........................................................................... 4-2
D. Compliance Activities using Presentations .............................................................................. 4-2
E. Compliance Activities using Other Media ................................................................................. 4-2
F. Rationale for New Goals ........................................................................................................... 4-3
CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................................................... 5-1
Public Involvement and Participation (MCM 2) ..................................................................................... 5-1
A. MS4 Permit Requirements ....................................................................................................... 5-1
B. Public Involvement in Stormwater Plan Development ............................................................. 5-1
C. Public Participation Programs .................................................................................................. 5-2
D. Pet Owner Responsibilities ...................................................................................................... 5-3
E. Rationale for New Goals .......................................................................................................... 5-3
CHAPTER 6 ............................................................................................................................................... 6-1
Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (MCM 3) ............................................................................. 6-1
A. MS4 Permit Requirements ....................................................................................................... 6-1
C. Illicit Discharge Enforcement Mechanism ................................................................................ 6-5
D. Illicit Discharge Detection/Elimination ...................................................................................... 6-7
E. Publicizing Hazards Associated With Illicit Discharges ............................................................ 6-9
F. On-site sewage disposal systems ............................................................................................ 6-9
G. Rationale for New Goals ........................................................................................................ 6-10
CHAPTER 7 ............................................................................................................................................... 7-1
Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control (MCM 4) ........................................................................ 7-1
A. MS4 Permit Requirements ....................................................................................................... 7-1
B. Land Disturbance Requirements .............................................................................................. 7-1
C. Land Disturbance Activities ...................................................................................................... 7-2
1. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District ........................................................................................ 7-2
2. St. Louis County ........................................................................................................................ 7-2
viii
D. MDNR Land Disturbance Permit Requirements ...................................................................... 7-3
E. Plan Area Land Disturbance Programs .................................................................................... 7-4
1. St. Louis County ........................................................................................................................ 7-4
2. Municipalities ............................................................................................................................ 7-6
3. Other Entities ............................................................................................................................ 7-6
F. Rationale for New Goals ........................................................................................................... 7-6
CHAPTER 8 ............................................................................................................................................... 8-1
Post-Construction Stormwater Management in New Development and Redevelopment (MCM 5) ..... 8-1
MS4 Permit Requirements ....................................................................................................... 8-1 A.
Program Intent .......................................................................................................................... 8-2 B.
Flood Control ............................................................................................................................ 8-8 C.
Rationale for New Goals ........................................................................................................ 8-10 D.
CHAPTER 9 ............................................................................................................................................... 9-1
Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations (MCM 6) ..................................... 9-1
A. MS4 Permit Requirements ....................................................................................................... 9-1
B. Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Ac tivity ...................................................... 9-2
C. Stormwater Conveyance Construction and O&M .................................................................... 9-2
D. Operation and Maintenance Program ...................................................................................... 9-4
E. Municipal Employee Training Program .................................................................................... 9-8
F. Trash and Pet Waste ................................................................................................................ 9-8
G. De-icing Operations ................................................................................................................. 9-9
H. Rationale for New Goals .......................................................................................................... 9-9
CHAPTER 10 ........................................................................................................................................... 10-1
Record Keeping and Reporting ........................................................................................................... 10-1
A. MS4 Permit Requirements ..................................................................................................... 10-1
B. Record Keeping ...................................................................................................................... 10-2
C. Reporting ................................................................................................................................ 10-3
CHAPTER 11 ........................................................................................................................................... 11-1
BMP Goals, Measurements, and Responsibilities .............................................................................. 11-1
A. Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 11-1
B. BMP Implementation Information ........................................................................................... 11-1
C. Effectiveness of BMPs ......................................................................................................... 11-10
D. Funding ................................................................................................................................ 11-11
APPENDICES
Water Quality ............................................................................................................................................. A-1
Outlets ...................................................................................................................................................... A-73
Phase II Plan Coordination
1-1
CHAPTER 1
Phase II Plan Coordination
A. Plan Coverage
The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD) is a regional sewer district, formed in
1954, under the provisions of Article 6, Section 30(a) of the Missouri constitution. Under
these provisions, voters in the City of St. Louis and in the portion of St. Louis County
roughly east of current Interstate 270, adopted a plan proposed by a board of
freeholders. The size of the district was increased in 1977 through a voter-approved
annexation of most of the rest of St. Louis County east of Highway 109. The
boundaries of MSD and land area covered by MSD are shown in Figure 1.1.
This Plan is intended to cover the portion of St. Louis County that is included within the
MSD boundaries, excluding those county municipalities which are served by combined
sewers or have populations less than 1000. Of the 90 municipalities in St. Louis
County, two municipalities, the City of Pacific and the City of Eureka, are located
outside of MSD’s service area. MSD’s boundaries cover approximately 525 square
miles, and will henceforth be referred to as the “Plan Area.”
Although there are 88 municipalities located within MSD’s county service area, only 58
will be co-permittees under this Plan. The original list of 61 co-permittees contained 59
municipalities, St. Louis County and MSD. However, St. George disincorporated in
November 2011. Of the 88 municipalities, 11 are largely served by combined sewers
and are, therefore, exempt pursuant to Section (1)(C)16.C of the Missouri stormwater
regulation 10 CSR 20-2.600. One municipality was previously listed as exempt due to
combined sewers; however, in response to an April 5, 2011 request from the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) to re-evaluate, the City was determined to
no longer be exempt. An additional 18 municipalities are waived under the provisions of
Section (1)(C)24.A of the regulation based on EPA criteria and having populations less
than 1000. These 18 municipalities can be viewed as “donut holes” within the overall
Plan Area. While these communities will not be co-permittees, they will benefit from
some of the activities proposed within this Plan. In addition to the 18 previously
population exempt municipalities, one co-permittee’s population dropped below 1000 in
the 2010 census; however, this co-permittee will remain in the program until studies can
indicate they do not significantly contribute to urban runoff pollution. Figure 1.2 shows
the St. Louis County municipalities and the City of St. Louis.
Of the 58 municipalities that are co-permittees, 57 lie wholly within the Plan Area.
About 61% of the City of Wildwood, on the western edge of the MSD boundary, lies
outside the Plan Area, but it is anticipated that the city will apply all elements of this Plan
to its entire corporate area. Likewise, St. Louis County will apply all elements of the
Plan to its entire area of jurisdiction. MSD’s western boundary may change slightly as
small voluntary annexations occur. As new areas are annexed into the MSD service
area, they will be fully covered by all elements of the Plan for which MSD and others
have responsibility.
Phase II Plan Coordination
1-2
Figure 1.1: Map showing MSD boundaries
Phase II Plan Coordination
1-3
Figure 1.2 Locations of Incorporated Places in St. Louis County
Phase II Plan Coordination
1-4
B. Major Watersheds
St. Louis County stormwater drains into three major watersheds: the Mississippi River,
the Meramec River, and the Missouri River as illustrated in Figure 1.4. All stormwater
runoff from the Plan Area ultimately enters the Mississippi River. The Mississippi River
forms the eastern boundary of the southernmost and northernmost portions of the Plan
Area with the remainder of the Plan Area entering the western boundary of the City of
St. Louis and its combined sewer system. The extent of the combined sewer area is
shown in Figure 1.3. The Meramec River, tributary to the Mississippi River to the south,
forms the southern boundary of the Plan Area except for a portion of the Plan Area in
which tributaries to the Meramec drain from the south to the north into the Meramec
River. The Missouri River, tributary to the Mississippi on the north, forms the northern
boundary of the Plan Area. Many small tributaries located within the Plan Area feed into
each of these three major rivers.
Figure 1.3: Location of combined sewer area
Phase II Plan Coordination
1-5
C. Minor Watersheds
Stream tributaries to the three major watersheds in the Plan Area were studied using
detailed methods by FEMA for the St. Louis County Flood Insurance Study. The
tributary streams within each major watershed are identified and described below.
Figure 1.4 shows the location of the tributaries within the major watersheds and Plan
Area.
Figure 1.4: Stream tributaries within the Plan Area
Phase II Plan Coordination
1-6
D. Permitting Strategy
The State’s Phase II Stormwater Regulations for Small MS4s are contained in 10 CSR
20-6.200. The regulated Small MS4s must seek coverage under a general permit or
under a site-specific permit. In either case, they can seek individual or co-permittee
coverage. It is emphasized in the regulations at (5)(C)1 that:
“the department encourages cooperation between potential small MS4 applicants
when addressing application requirements and in the development,
implementation and enforcement of the six (6) minimum measures under issued
permits.”
It is also stated that:
“applicants within one (1) urbanized area…should consider applying as co -
applicants…to become co-permittees under an issued permit.”
The Planning Committee agreed with the State’s regulatory recommendations and has
promoted utilization of the general permit and co-permittee option to encourage
cooperation among municipal governments, and so that legal, financial and
administrative responsibilities can be shared.
The 2002 Planning Committee decided to pursue one Phase II Stormwater
Management Plan and one NPDES general permit for the entire area of St. Louis
County under MSD’s jurisdiction. The topography of the area suggested individual
municipal permits with respect to stormwater conveyance identification would be overly
complex with possible jurisdictional disputes. Natural watercourses often leave one
municipality, enter the jurisdictional boundaries of a second or third municipalit y and re-
enter a portion of the first municipality. Individual municipal permits were not
considered a viable means of ensuring control of stormwater pollutants to the maximum
extent practicable. The St. Louis County urbanized area is complex from a juri sdictional
viewpoint.
The one plan and permit approach simplified the overall administration of the program
and avoided many of the problems associated with permits issued on the basis of
watersheds or the five MSD service areas. Each municipality (including MSD and
unincorporated St. Louis County) is a co-permittee operating under one permit
regardless of service area location. Best management practices (BMPs) selected will
be applicable to MSD, all of unincorporated St. Louis County and their regulated
municipalities. One stormwater management plan with one annual reporting obligation
has been developed. Cooperation is encouraged among all municipalities, regional
authorities and state agencies in the development, implementation and enforcement of
the plan provisions.
Each co-permittee has been assigned responsibilities related to their obligation to
comply with the six MCMs. For example, since MSD already has responsibility to
operate and maintain the separate storm sewer systems in the county, it has
responsibility to comply with the requirements of MCM 3, Illicit Discharge Detection and
Elimination to regulate illegal discharges into the storm sewer system . St. Louis County
and the municipalities with their land disturbance programs control pollu tion from land
Phase II Plan Coordination
1-7
disturbance activities to comply with the requirements of MCM 4, Construction Site
Stormwater Runoff Control. Because MSD is the recognized continuing authority for
sewer extensions within its jurisdictional boundaries and has plan review responsibilities
for stormwater control, it is responsible for BMPs in stormwater facility design to comply
with MCM 5, Post Construction Stormwater Management in New Development and
Redevelopment. St. Louis County and the municipalities control the land use aspect of
MCM 5 and therefore their ordinances need to be implemented in conjunction with
MSD’s to ensure program compliance. All co-permittees are responsible for complying
with requirements under MCM 6, Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for
Municipal Operations. Public Education and Outreach (MCM 1) on stormwater impacts
and Public Involvement and Participation (MCM 2) can best be coordi nated by the MSD
with municipal support because of its various educational activities already in place and
its policy to work with community groups in cleaning up streams impacted by pollution.
Eighty-eight (88) municipalities exist in the Plan Area. Eighteen (18) of the
municipalities are exempt from the Phase II Regulations because of the application of
EPA waiver criteria, including populations less than 1,000. An additional co-permittee
has been notified to petition to the State to be removed from the permit due to their
population dropping below 1000 and demonstration that the waiver criteria applies as a
result of the 2010 census. Eleven (11) additional St. Louis County municipalities within
the Plan Area are exempt because of combined sewer se rvice. A complete list of
municipalities within the Plan Area is provided in Table 1.1. The location of a listed
municipality can be determined by using the “map reference number” included in the
Table and the map of municipalities in Figure 1.2.
Selection of a Coordinating Authority E.
Under its charter, MSD has been given the responsibility for providing adequate sewer
and drainage facilities within its boundaries. For the St. Louis County Plan Area, MSD
is the obvious agency of choice to coordinate compliance activities associated with the
Phase II Stormwater Regulations. However, the Phase II Regulations were specific in
naming cities that must be issued permits under the program and must meet applicable
minimum control requirements, e.g. municipal operations, such as vehicle maintenance,
and salt storage. MSD has been recognized as the coordinating authority for
development and implementation of the St. Louis Area Phase II Stormwater
Management Plan by St. Louis County, co-permittee municipalities and the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources.
Establishing a Planning Committee F.
The third St. Louis Municipalities Phase II Stormwater Planning Committee was formed
in February 2012 and held monthly planning meetings through November 2012 to
evaluate best management practices, and make decisions regarding goals for the
second permit term. Membership of the committee is identified at the beginning of this
Plan (on page i), and includes a number of municipal representatives from small and
large cities, and representatives from local and state agencies. The evaluation process
was divided up into two sub-committees, made up by planning committee members, to
specifically address MCMs 1 through 3 and 4 through 6.
Phase II Plan Coordination
1-8
Table 1.1: Land Area and Population of Municipalities in MSDs Service Area
MUNICIPALITY MAP
REF*
AREA** 2010
POP
EXEMPTION
BASIS*** TOTAL BIS CWC LOM MOR RDP
Ballwin 93 7.74 6.76 0.98 30404
Bella Villa 2 0.13 0.13 729 Waiver Criteria
Bellefontaine Neighbors 88 4.36 4.36 10860
Bellerive 3 0.34 0.34 188 Waiver Criteria
Bel-Nor 4 0.63 0.09 0.54 1499
Bel-Ridge 5 0.78 0.78 2737
Berkeley 7 4.96 1.73 3.23 8978
Beverly Hills 8 0.10 0.10 574 Comb Sewer
Black Jack 103 2.61 0.75 1.86 6929
Breckenridge Hills 84 0.80 0.80 4746
Brentwood 9 1.95 1.95 8055
Bridgeton 10 14.32 1.96 12.36 11550
Calverton Park 12 0.42 0.15 0.27 1293
Champ 102 0.80 0.80 13 Waiver Criteria
Charlack 13 0.27 0.27 1363
Chesterfield 105 32.21 0.03 32.18 47894
Clarkson Valley 87 2.73 0.02 2.71 2632
Clayton 14 2.51 2.51 15939
Cool Valley 96 0.46 0.46 1196
Country Club Hills 15 0.17 0.17 1274 Comb Sewer
Country Life Acres 79 0.12 0.02 0.03 0.07 74 Waiver Criteria
Crestwood 69 3.58 3.58 11912
Creve Coeur 82 10.25 4.90 5.35 17833
Crystal Lake Park 16 0.10 0.10 470 Waiver Criteria
Dellwood 95 1.03 1.03 5025
Des Peres 17 4.29 2.75 1.54 8373
Edmundson 73 0.27 0.27 834 Waiver Criteria
Ellisville 19 4.19 3.23 0.96 9133
Fenton 21 6.35 6.35 4022
Ferguson 22 6.17 6.03 0.14 21203
Flordell Hills 23 0.12 0.12 822 Comb Sewer
Florissant 24 11.42 0.20 10.39 0.83 52158
Frontenac 25 2.89 2.89 3482
Glendale 26 1.30 1.30 5925
Glen Echo Park 27 0.03 0.03 160 Waiver Criteria
Grantwood Village 29 0.81 0.81 863 Waiver Criteria
Greendale 86 0.19 0.19 722 Waiver Criteria
Green Park 106 1.31 1.31 2622
Hanley Hills 76 0.35 0.35 2101
Hazelwood 80 15.04 5.71 9.33 25703
Hillsdale 68 0.34 0.34 1478 Comb Sewer
Huntleigh 30 0.98 0.98 334 Waiver Criteria
Jennings 31 3.77 3.77 14712
Kinloch 74 0.72 0.61 0.11 298 Waiver Criteria
Kirkwood 32 9.19 5.43 3.76 27540
* In Figure 1.2 from St. Louis County
** Areas are in square miles
BIS=Bissell CWC=Coldwater Creek LOM=Lower Meramec MOR=Missouri River RDP=River Des Peres
*** Municipalities exempt or waived from Phase II requirements
Combined sewer systems, exempt per 10 CSR 20-6.200(1)(C)16.C.
Populations less than 1000 and EPA waiver criteria, waived per 10 CSR 20-6.200(1)(C)24.A.
Phase II Plan Coordination
1-9
MUNICIPALITY MAP
REF*
AREA** 2010
POP
EXEMPTION
BASIS*** TOTAL BIS CWC LOM MOR RDP
Ladue 33 8.55 8.55 8521
Lakeshire 70 0.21 0.21 1432
Mackenzie 34 0.02 0.02 134 Waiver Criteria
Manchester 94 5.00 5.00 18094
Maplewood 35 1.56 1.56 8046 Comb Sewer
Marlborough 37 0.24 0.24 2179
Maryland Heights 104 22.09 22.09 27472
Moline Acres 81 0.57 0.57 2442
Normandy 39 1.86 1.52 0.34 5008
Northwoods 40 0.67 0.67 4227
Norwood Court 77 0.13 0.13 959 *****
Oakland 41 0.61 0.61 1381
Olivette 42 2.76 2.76 7737
Overland 43 4.40 0.19 1.76 0.05 2.40 16062
Pagedale 85 1.21 0.21 1.00 3304
Pasadena Hills 45 0.21 0.21 930 Comb Sewer
Pasadena Park 46 0.30 0.30 470 Waiver Criteria
Pine Lawn 48 0.61 0.61 3275 Comb Sewer
Richmond Heights 49 2.29 2.29 8603
Riverview 89 0.84 0.84 2856
Rock Hill 50 1.10 1.10 4635
St. Ann 72 3.15 2.73 0.42 13020
St. John 51 1.43 1.03 0.39 0.01 6517
Shrewsbury 53 1.44 1.44 6254
Sunset Hills 101 9.04 7.83 1.21 8496
Sycamore Hills 54 0.13 0.10 0.03 668 Waiver Criteria
Town & Country 63 11.55 3.45 6.63 1.47 10815
Twin Oaks 55 0.26 0.26 392 Waiver Criteria
University City 57 5.88 5.88 35371 ****
Uplands Park 56 0.07 0.07 445 Comb Sewer
Valley Park 58 3.16 3.16 6942
Velda City 59 0.17 0.17 1420 Comb Sewer
Velda Village Hills 60 0.12 0.12 1055 Comb Sewer
Vinita Park 61 0.73 0.06 0.67 1880
Vinita Terrace 62 0.06 0.06 277 Waiver Criteria
Warson Woods 68 0.57 0.57 1962
Webster Groves 64 5.89 5.89 22995
Wellston 78 0.93 0.31 0.62 2313 Comb Sewer
Westwood 97 0.62 0.62 278 Waiver Criteria
Wilbur Park 65 0.06 0.06 471 Waiver Criteria
Wildwood 107 25.02 3.87 21.15 35517
Winchester 66 0.25 0.25 1547
Woodson Terrace 67 0.78 0.78 4063
St. Louis County, Unicp NA 158.72 26.43 26.08 71.01 9.99 25.21 321027
Total 448.36 54.87 56.51 119.42 125.41 92.15
* In Figure 1.2 from St. Louis County
** Areas are in square miles
BIS=Bissell CWC=Coldwater Creek LOM=Lower Meramec MOR=Missouri River RDP=River Des Peres
*** Municipalities exempt or waived from Phase II requirements
Combined sewer systems, exempt per 10 CSR 20-6.200(1)(C)16.C.
Populations less than 1000 and EPA waiver criteria, waived per 10 CSR 20-6.200(1)(C)24.A.
**** Combined sewer exemption no longer applies, MDNR notified the City on November 8, 2012.
***** Population less than 1000 due to 2010 census, waiver contingent upon MDNR action.
Phase II Plan Coordination
1-10
Keeping the Community Informed G.
To keep the community informed of Planning Committee activities and progress being
made on developing this Plan, three newsletters entitled the Cloud Burst were published
by MSD’s Division of Environmental Compliance. The newsletter was mailed to
municipal officials, the stakeholder group, the MDNR, and provided to other interested
parties such as members of the East West Gateway Regional Water Resources
Advisory Council. Also, presentations about the third term Plan development process
and proposed goals updates were provided at two Regional Water Resources Advisory
Council meetings and the 7th annual co-permittee administrator’s workshop.
The MSD Strategic Business Plan called for obtaining input and feedback from public
stakeholders for the Planning Committee on the third term Plan proposed goals. An
MDNR 2011 audit report also recommended involving public stakeholders in developing
future goals. A Stakeholder Group was formed in May 2012. Over a series of three
meetings, stakeholder comments were presented to the Planning Committee and
Planning Committee responses were discussed with the stakeholders providing a two
way dialogue. Nearly 30 stakeholder organizations were invited to participate and
represented many diverse interests including community associations; census
designated places; contractors; designers; developers; environmentalists; industry; local
and state agencies; small and large cities; and watershed groups. The meetings were
well attended and stakeholders were very engaged. Representatives of the following
organizations attended at least one of the three stakeholder group meetings:
AARP Home Owner Association
American Public Works Association Missouri Chapter League of Women Voters of St. Louis
American Planning Association St. Louis Metro Section City of Maryland Heights
American Society of Civil Engineers St. Louis Section Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
St. Louis Audubon Society Missouri Botanical Garden
BMP Maintenance Contractors Missouri Department of Conservation
City of Crestwood Levee Districts
Council of Construction Consumers North County Incorporated
Deer Creek Watershed Alliance City of Olivette
East West Gateway Council of Governments Partnership for Tomorrow
City of Ellisville River Des Peres Watershed Coalition
City of Frontenac SITE Improvement Association
U.S. Green Building Council - Missouri Gateway Chapter Spanish Lake Community Association
City of Green Park St. Louis County
Home Builders Association St. Louis Soil and Water Conservation District
A draft Plan was placed on public notice for comments on the MSD web site . All co-
permittees were notified of the draft plan and it was also promoted by an MSD blog, St.
Louis County Municipal League newsletter, and the East-West Gateway Council of
Governments newsletter.
Phase II Plan Coordination
1-11
H. Plan Revisions
This Phase II Stormwater Management Plan is written for submittal with the co -
permittees’ MS4 permit application in December 2012. Regulatory circumstances may
change prior to the completion of this five-year Plan in 2018. For example, if the
Missouri 303(d) list of impaired streams is revised and TMDLs are approved, additional
MS4 permit conditions may become applicable. Likewise, this Plan may need to be
revised, however, not to exceed the requirements of the Clean Water Act to implement
controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.
Also, MDNR may designate additional cities subject to MS4 permitting. The new cities
would need to be included in the Plan and a goal timeline established for them to
implement the program, if they apply to MDNR as a co-permittee. MSD, as the
coordinating authority, would need to consult with the MDNR, and revise the Phase II
Stormwater Management Plan accordingly.
Phase II Plan Coordination
1-12
Demographics of St. Louis Area
2-1
CHAPTER 2
Demographics of the St. Louis Area
A. Introduction
St. Louis is a slow growing region. Between 2000 and 2010, the population of the
region grew about 4 percent. Neighboring peer regions such as Louisville, Kansas City
and Indianapolis grew at more than twice that rate.
Despite the low population and employment growth, the region continues to spread out.
Between 1950 and 2010, the urbanized area for the St. Louis region more than
quadrupled. By contrast, the population of the 16 county regions grew only 47%.
Within the region, the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County have been losing
population. Still, there are some areas of population growth in both the City and
County, and in the County there are areas of new development. Some of the most
ecologically significant land in St. Louis County lies near areas experiencing new
development.
The following maps and tables within this chapter provide additional detail on these
demographic trends.
The region is getting more dispersed. B.
Figure 2.1 on the next page shows the expansion of urbanized area1 in St. Louis region
between 1950 and 2010. In 1950, the St. Louis urbanized area covered 240 square
miles comprised of the City of St. Louis and adjacent suburbs. In St. Louis County, the
boundary of the urbanized area was almost entirely within the loop defined by Lindbergh
Boulevard. By 2010, the urbanized area expanded farther west to include Wentzville in
St. Charles County, farther south to Festus in Jefferson County, and farther east to
O’Fallon/Scott Air Force Base in St. Clair County, encompassing 978 square miles.
1 Urbanized Area: According to the Census Bureau, an urbanized area is a land area
comprising one or more places — central place(s) — and the adjacent densely settled
surrounding area — urban fringe — that together have a residential population of at
least 50,000 and an overall population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile.
Demographics of St. Louis Area
2-2
Figure 2.1: Change in urbanized area between 1950 and 2010
St. Louis City and St. Louis County have lost population. C.
Table 2.1 shows population counts from the decennial Census for the years 1950 -2010.
The City of St. Louis has been losing population since 1950, although the population
loss between 2000 and 2010 was the smallest in the last 60 years. St. Louis County
grew rapidly from the 1950s to the 1970s. Population growth leveled off between 1980
and 2000, before declining in the most recent period, 2000 - 2010.
Table 2.1: Population, St. Louis City and St. Louis County, 1950-2010
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
St. Louis city 856,796 750,026 622,236 453,085 396,685 348,189 319,294
St. Louis County 406,349 703,532 951,353 973,896 993,529 1,016,315 998,954
Total 1,263,145 1,453,558 1,573,589 1,426,981 1,390,214 1,364,504 1,318,248
Demographics of St. Louis Area
2-3
Although the number of persons in St. Louis County declined between 2000 and 2010,
the number of households increased slightly, a reflection of declining household sizes.
Table 2.2 shows the number of households for St. Louis City and St. Louis County for
the years 1990-2010:
Table 2.2: Number of Households, St. Louis City and St. Louis County, 1990-2010
1990 2000 2010
St. Louis City 164,931 147,076 142,057
St. Louis County 380,110 404,312 404,765
Total 545,041 551,388 546,822
D. There are some areas of growth.
Although the population of City of St. Louis and St. Louis County as a whole declined
between 2000 and 2010, there were areas within City of St. Louis and St. Louis County
where population grew during this period. The map in Figure 2.2 on page 2-5 displays
the population changes between 2000 and 2010 in areas within the St. Louis region.
In the City, the central corridor saw strong population growth, from Downtown through
the Central West End. Neighborhoods just north and south of Downtown, including
Soulard and Old North St. Louis, also saw population increases.
In St. Louis County, there were many pockets of population growth between 2000 and
2010. Table 2.3 on the next page shows 20 municipalities and unincorporated
communities that experienced some population growth. Much of the new development
in the last 10 years has been in the vicinity of Eureka and Wildwood. However,
redevelopment and infill development occurred throughout the county.
Demographics of St. Louis Area
2-4
Table 2.3: Population Growth, St. Louis County, 2000-2010: Top Twenty Places
Place 2000 2010 Change Percent
Change
Clayton 12,825 15,939 3,114 24.3
Wildwood 32,884 35,517 2,633 8.0
Eureka 7,676 10,189 2,513 32.7
Maryland Heights 25,756 27,472 1,716 6.7
Florissant 50,497 52,158 1,661 3.3
Pacific 5,482 7,002 1,520 27.7
Creve Coeur 16,500 17,833 1,333 8.1
Oakville CDP 35,309 36,143 834 2.4
Chesterfield 46,802 47,484 682 1.5
Valley Park 6,518 6,942 424 6.5
Brentwood 7,693 8,055 362 4.7
Olivette 7,438 7,737 299 4.0
Sappington CDP 7,287 7,580 293 4.0
Sunset Hills 8,267 8,496 229 2.8
Kirkwood city 27,324 27,540 216 0.8
Glasgow Village 5,234 5,429 195 3.7
Glendale 5,767 5,925 158 2.7
Black Jack 6,792 6,929 137 2.0
Cool Valley 1,081 1,196 115 10.6
Lakeshire 1,375 1,432 57 4.1
Note: CDP=Census Designated Place, an unincorporated area
recognized by the Census Bureau as a discrete community.
Demographics of St. Louis Area
2-5
Figure 2.2: Population change between 2000 and 2010
E. Potential new development, St. Louis County.
Much of St. Louis City and St. Louis County is already built out. Thus, new construction
in much of the area will take the form of redevelopment or infill development. However,
areas in the southwest portion of St. Louis County remain attractive for new
development. Some of the potentially developable areas include patches of land with
high ecological significance.
The Missouri Resources Assessment Partnership (MORAP) was commissioned by the
East-West Gateway Council of Governments to assess the ecological significance of
land in the eight county metropolitan planning region. The map in Figure 2.3 on the
next page shows the results of this assessment. Red hues in the map indicate areas of
relatively low ecological significance, while greens show areas with higher significance;
a darker green means greater significance.
Demographics of St. Louis Area
2-6
Most of the land in City and County is urbanized, and hence considered to have
relatively low ecological significance. The largest patches of highly significant land are
in the far southwest portion of St. Louis County. Much of this area is protected land,
including Rockwood Reservation, Rockwood Range and Greensfelder County Park.
However, there remains developable land around Wildwood and Eureka where, as
noted above, some new development has o ccurred in the last 10 years.
Below are examples of some of the types of vegetation found in areas of high ecological
significance in the vicinity of Wildwood:
Ozark highlands: chert backslope, white oak/black oak - dogwood woodland
and forest
Ozark highlands: loess and til backslope, white oak/black oak - hickory
woodland and forest
Bottomland forest
Ozark highlands: limestone/dolomite upland glade/chinquapin oak woodland
complex
Other patches of highly significant ecological resources lie along the Missouri River,
including some significant wetlands. There are several recent examples of floodplain
development, indicating that these areas may not be immune from development
pressures.
Figure 2.3: Ecological significance of land
Water Quality in St. Louis County Streams
3-1
CHAPTER 3
Water Quality in St. Louis County Streams
A. Missouri Water Quality Standards
The water quality standards for Missouri waters are set forth in Missouri regulation 10
CSR 20-7.031. This regulation identifies various general categories of waters;
establishes classifications and designates beneficial uses for some waters; establishes
general water quality standards that must be met for all waters; and establishes specific
water quality criteria that must be met for classified waters. The general categories of
waters identified in the regulation include:
Metropolitan No-Discharge
Outstanding National Resource Waters
Outstanding State Resource Waters
Losing Streams
Classified Streams and Classified Lakes
Unclassified Streams and Unclassified Lakes
Groundwater
There is overlap among these categories with some water bodies falling into more than
one category. Except for Outstanding National and State Resource Waters, all of these
categories are represented within the St. Louis County Plan Area. Unclassified lakes
and streams make up the majority of water bodies in the Plan Area. Table 3.1 on page
3-3 lists streams and lakes in the Plan Area and identifies the applicable category and
classification information from the Missouri Water Quality Standards.
Sections (3) and (4) of the regulation lists general and specific criteria, which apply to all
waters of the state at all times and are included in the permit:
The following general water criteria shall be applicable to all waters of the state at
all times including mixing zones. No water contaminant, by itself or in
combination with other substances, shall prevent the waters of the state from
meeting the following conditions:
Waters shall be free from substances in sufficient amounts to cause the
formation of putrescent, unsightly or harmful bottom deposits or prevent full
maintenance of beneficial uses;
Waters shall be free from oil, scum and floating debris in sufficient amounts to
be unsightly or prevent full maintenance of beneficial uses;
Waters shall be free from substances in sufficient amounts to cause unsightly
color or turbidity, offensive odor or prevent full maintenance of beneficial
uses;
Waters shall be free from substances or conditions in sufficient amounts to
result in toxicity to human, animal or aquatic life;
Water Quality in St. Louis County Streams
3-2
There shall be no significant human health hazard from incidental contact with
the water;
There shall be no acute toxicity to livestock or wildlife watering;
Waters shall be free from physical, chemical or hydrologic changes that would
impair the natural biological community; and
Waters shall be free from used tires, car bodies, appliances, demolition
debris, used vehicles or equipment and solid waste as defined in Missouri’s
Solid waste Law, section 260.200, RSMo, except as the use of such materials
is specifically permitted pursuant to section 260.200-260.247.
Subsequent sections of this Plan describe how the co-permittees will protect the quality
of stormwater runoff within the Plan Area.
Water Quality in St. Louis County Streams
3-3
Table 3.1 Water Bodies in the St. Louis County Phase II Plan Area
(that are listed in the Missouri Water Quality Standards 10 CSR 20-7.031 as amended 5/31/12)
Water Body1 Location Classification2 Designated Beneficial Uses3 Metro
ND4 Losing5 MSD
Service
Area8 From Mouth or Segment Class Length IR LW AQ CF WB SC DW IN Length Length
Mississippi River Meramec R. to N. Riverfront
Park P 28.3 X X X X X X 6
Meramec River 18,44N,5E P 22.8 X X A X X X LOM
Meramec River 18,44N,5E to Big R. P 15.7 X X X A X X X LOM
Bee Tree Lake 03,42N,06E L3 10 ac X X B X LOM
Mattese Creek 15,43N,6E P 1.1 X X B X LOM
Fenton Creek 35,43N,05E P 0.5 X X B LOM
Grand Glaize Creek 9,44N,5E C 4.0 X X B All LOM
Fishpot Creek 13,44N,04E P 3.5 X X B All LOM
Fishpot Creek NW,NE,SW,01,45N,04E to
NE,NE,SW,13,44N,04E All 5.0 LOM
Un-named Tributary NW,NW,SE,03,44N,04E to
NW,NW,NW,13,44N,04E 2.0 LOM
Williams Creek SUR 880,44N,5E P 1.0 X X B LOM
Kiefer Creek 15,44N,04E P 1.2 X X A LOM
Kiefer Creek NE.NW,NW,04,44N,04E to
NW,SE,SE,14,44N,04E 3.0 LOM
Un-named Tributary SE,NE,NE,05,44N,04E to
NW,SW,NE,09,44N,04E 1.0 LOM
Hamilton Creek7 SW,SW,SE,10,44N,03E to
NE,NW,NW,14,44N,03E 0.5 LOM
Un-named Tributary7 SW,NE,NW,12,44N,03E to
SE,SE,NE,14,44N,03E 1.0 LOM
Antire Creek 34,44N,4E P 1.9 X X B LOM
River des Peres SUR1359,44N,6E P 2.6 X X X RDP
River des Peres SUR1359,44N,6E to
Sur2037,45N,6E P 3.7 X X X RDP
Gravois Creek 24,44N,6E P 2.3 X X B All RDP
Gravois Creek 24,44N,6E to16,44N,6E C 6.0 X X B All RDP
Deer Creek 1930,45N,6E P 1.6 X X A X RDP
Black Creek 21,45N,6E P 1.6 X X B X RDP
Maline Creek 3125,46N,7E C 0.5 X X X BIS
Maline Creek SUR3125,46N,7Eto9,46N,
7E C 0.6 X X B X BIS
Watkins Creek Hwy . 270 C 1.4 X X B BIS
1 Water Bodies are arranged in ascending order from the lowest point in the Plan Area. An indented water body is tributary to the on e above it.
All stream lengths are in miles.
2 Classified Waters Classifications:
L3 = Private and public lakes other than major reservoirs and other than lakes used primarily for water supply.
P = Streams that maintain permanent flow even in drought periods.
C = Streams that may cease flow in dry periods but maintain permanent pools that support aquatic life.
3 Beneficial Uses:
IR = Irrigation; LW = Livestock & wildlife watering; AQ = Protection of warm water aquatic life and human health --fish consumption;
CF = Cool water fishery; WB = Whole body contact recreation (A or B); SC = Secondary contact recreation; DW = Drinking water supply;
IN = Industrial
4 Metropolitan No-Discharge Streams:
These streams may only receive uncontaminated cooling water, permitted stormwater discharges and wet weather bypasses that do not
interfere with beneficial uses. The no-discharge condition applies to the entire watershed of the stream, including all tributaries.
5 Losing Streams: Streams that lose a significant portion of their flow during low-flow conditions via permeable geologic materials into aquifers.
6 Parts of the Mississippi River are included in the BIS, RDP and LOM service areas. Parts of the Missouri River, in the BIS, CWC and MOR.
7 The main stem of Hamilton Creek is outside the Plan Area. However, the upper reach of the losing tributary is within the Plan Area.
8 LOM=Lower Meramec RDP = River Des Peres BIS = Bissell
Water Quality in St. Louis County Streams
3-4
Table 3.1 Water Bodies in the St. Louis County Phase II Plan Area (continued)
(that are listed in the Missouri Water Quality Standards 10 CSR 20-7.031 as amended 5/31/12)
Water Body1 Location Classification2 Designated Beneficial Uses3 Metro
ND4 Losing5 MSD
Service
Area9 Mouth or Start of Segment Class Length IR LW AQ CF WB SC DW IN Length Length
Missouri River Gasconade R. P 104.5 X X X B X X X 6
Sunfish Lake SUR 3097,I55,1840 47N
07E L3 27 ac X X B X MOR
Coldwater Creek 13,47N,7E C 6.9 X X B X All CWC
Creve Coeur Creek Below lake 6,45N,5E P 2.1 X X B All MOR
Creve Coeur Lake 20,46N,05E L3 327ac X X B X All MOR
Creve Coeur Creek Above lake 6,45N,5E C 3.8 X X B MOR
Fee Fee Creek (new) Sur 992,46N,5E P 1.5 X X B All MOR
Fee Fee Creek (old) 1 Mi. above Hwy. 70 P 1.0 X X B All MOR
Bonhomme Creek 2031,45N,4E C 2.5 X X B MOR
Bonhomme Creek 8 SE,NW,NE,11,44N,03E to
SE,SW,NE,02,44N,03E 0.7 MOR
Caulks Creek NE,SW,NE,06,44N,04E to
NE,NE,SW,31,45N,4E 0.5 MOR
Caulks Creek NW,NW,SW,06,44N,04E to
NE,SE,SE,13,45N,3E 3.0 MOR
Un-named Tributary NW,SW,NW,32,45N,04E to
NW,SE,SW,30,45N,04E 1.0 MOR
1 Water Bodies are arranged in ascending order from the lowest point in the Plan Area. An indented water body is tributary to the one above it.
All stream lengths are in miles.
2 Classified Waters Classifications:
L3 = Private and public lakes other than major reservoirs and other than lakes used primarily for water supply.
P = Streams that maintain permanent flow even in drought periods.
C = Streams that may cease flow in dry periods but maintain permanent pools that support aquatic life.
3 Beneficial Uses:
IR = Irrigation; LW = Livestock & wildlife watering; AQ = Protection of warm water aquatic life and human health--fish consumption;
CF = Cool water fishery; WB = Whole body contact recreation (A or B); SC = Secondary contact recreation; DW = Drinking water supply;
IN = Industrial
4 Metropolitan No-Discharge Streams:
These streams may only receive uncontaminated cooling water, permitted stormwater discharges and wet weather bypasses that do not
interfere with beneficial uses. The no-discharge condition applies to the entire watershed of the stream, including all tributaries.
5 Losing Streams: Streams that lose a significant portion of their flow during low-flow conditions via permeable geologic materials into aquifers.
6 Parts of the Mississippi River are included in the BIS, RDP and LOM service areas. Parts of the Missouri River, in the BIS, CWC and MOR.
7 The main stem of Hamilton Creek is outside the Plan Area. However, the upper reach of the losing tributary is within the Plan Area.
8 The losing upper reach of Bonhomme Creek is outside the Plan Area. However, parts of the Plan Area drain to this reach.
9 CWC = Coldwater Creek MOR = Missouri River
Water Quality in St. Louis County Streams
3-5
B. Impaired Waters
Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires states to identify water bodies
that do not meet water quality standards after applying the existing regulations. For
waters on this list (impaired waters), a plan must be developed to fix the problem . Such
plans will include a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) calculation of the maximum
amount of a pollutant a water body can absorb without being impaired.
At the time this Plan was developed and written, EPA had not approved any TMDLs to
address pollutants from the St. Louis MS4. Table 3.2 identifies the water bodies located
within the Plan Area on the 2012 303(d) list:
Table 3.2: 2012 303(d) listing
Water Body
Parameter
Bacteria
(E Coli) Chloride Dissolved
Oxygen Lead Mercury pH
Antire Creek X X
Black Creek X X
Bonhomme Creek X X
Coldwater Creek X X X
Creve Coeur Creek X X X
Deer Creek X X
Fee Fee Creek (New) X X
Fenton Creek X
Fishpot Creek X X
Grand Glaize Creek X X X
Gravois Creek X X
Kiefer Creek X X
Maline Creek X X X
Meramec River X X
Missouri River X
River Des Peres X X
Watkins Creek X X X
Williams Creek X X
C. Water Quality Monitoring
Stream monitoring is useful for a variety of purposes, one of which is to evaluate efforts
under the Phase II Stormwater Regulations. The analytical data collected on streams
and rivers allows current stream conditions to be defined, the development of program
practices for reducing sources of pollutants, and measuring water quality improvements.
Data from water quality monitoring will be used to understand the streams as a whole
and to educate the region’s residents about water quality. As monitoring continues into
the future, changes in water quality over time will be tracked. The data will show the
overall condition of stream water quality so that future plans for the region may be made
based on sound scientific information. Stream sampling events are conducted on pre -
Water Quality in St. Louis County Streams
3-6
scheduled days at monthly intervals. The MSD sampling locations are shown in Figure
3.1. Basic statistics and historical sample data graphs (for the listed impaired streams
in the above table) for samples collected from June 2009 through August 2012 are
provided in the Water Quality Section at the Appendices. This data is the most
representative data available for characterizing these streams due to the consistent
monthly sampling methodology used and serve as an indicator of potential water quality
issues, and are not intended to duplicate Missouri’s 303(d) listing methodology that
requires a different statistical analysis. Previous permit term Plans contained sample
results that emphasized wet weather conditions to evaluate pollutant levels in
stormwater runoff.
Figure 3.1: Sampling locations
Water Quality in St. Louis County Streams
3-7
D. Identification of Area Stormwater Pollution Problems/Sources
The data resulting from the sampling efforts and MDNR’s 303(d) listing process
described above were reviewed to identify specific concerns that would need to be
addressed in the implementation of the Phase II Stormwater Management Plan. Table
3.3 shows the percentage of the dissolved oxygen, chloride, and bacteria samples
collected between June 2009 through August 2012 in small streams that exceeded the
values listed in the water quality regulations. Bacteria samples were collected during
the recreational season April through October. Table 3.3 is simply an indicator of water
quality issues by comparing results with values listed in the regulations and does not
attempt to duplicate the detailed methodology and 303(d) listing process conducted by
MDNR under the water quality regulations to determine compliance with the Water
Quality Standards.
Table 3.3: Samples exceeding water quality limits
Parameter
Sampling Results (June 2009 - August 2012)
Total Samples
Exceeds Water Quality Limits
Acute Chronic
Number % Number %
Bacteria (E.coli) 133 - - 91 68%
Chloride 1332 20 2% 132 10%
Dissolved Oxygen 1568 - - 67 4%
pH 1605 - - 123 8%
The following limits are listed in the Missouri Water Quality Standards (10 CSR 20-7.031 as
amended 05/31/12):
Dissolved Oxygen water quality limit = 5 mg/L
Bacteria (E. coli) whole body contact class B water quality limit = 206/100 mL geometric mean
Chloride water quality limits = 860 mg/L acute and 230 mg/L chronic
pH shall not be outside the range of 6.5 to 9.0
Specific sources contributing to the dissolved oxygen and pH exceedances have not
been identified at this time. The pollutants and sources that have been identified are
described below.
1. Suspended Solids
The Missouri Water Quality Standards do not contain numerical criterion for suspended
solids. However, the general criteria, as enumerate above, require that waters be free
from substances that cause unsightly or harmful bottom deposits, unsightly color or
turbidity or prevent full maintenance of uses. Suspended solids in excessive amounts
can contribute to all of these water quality problems. A particular cause is sediment
discharged from land areas disturbed by construction activities including but not limited
Water Quality in St. Louis County Streams
3-8
to subdivisions, shopping centers, and road projects. Excessive stream velocities
influenced by impervious areas can erode stream banks and beds adding to suspended
solids.
Base flow total suspended solids (TSS) levels are generally in the single to low double
digit figures while storm event (first flush) results range from ten to two-hundred times
the base flow levels. The results show considerable variation in TSS level s from storm
to storm at the same station. There is no apparent, direct correlation based on stream
flows or storm intensity at the time of sampling.
Field observations of streams after storm events have noted deposition of sediments
downstream from land disturbance sites. Runoff from the highly developed, and
therefore more impervious county areas, coupled with stream channelization in those
areas also promotes greater erosion of stream banks, which contributes to elevated
solids levels.
Land disturbance site problems have been addressed through enactment of appropriate
ordinances in implementing MCM 4 requirements as described in the previous two
Plans with adequate enforcement and through increased public education as discussed
in other sections of this Plan.
2. Bacteria
Bacteria criteria in Missouri’s Water Quality Standards (WQS) are tiered based on two
categories of whole body contact recreation (WBCR): 1) WBCR Category A (WBCR -A);
and 2) WBCR Category B (WBCR-B). WBCR-A waters were assigned an E. coli
criterion of 126/100 mL, and WBCR-B waters were assigned an E. coli criterion of
206/100 mL. The secondary contact recreation (SCR) criterion is 1,134/100 mL.
Missouri E. coli criteria are expressed as a recreational season (April 1 to October 31)
geometric mean. Although no longer applicable, prior to 2009 Missouri’s WQS included
a fecal coliform WBCR of 200/100 mL. Most classified stream segments within the
MSD Plan Area are designated as WBCR-B.
A 2012 Geosyntec Consultants data trend report prepared for MSD states that in
general, bacteria levels peak during late spring/early summer and in early fall; although
fall peaks appear much less pronounced in the small streams. This peaking pattern is
closely mirrored by precipitation data from the St. Louis Lambert Airport weather station
(2004-2010), suggesting small stream bacteria levels are driven by stormwater runoff
events. As local precipitation patterns are generally mimicked at the watershed scale,
big river peaking patterns also appear to be runoff influenced. Bacteria levels in big
rivers also follow flow patterns, which peak during the late spring/early summer based
on flow data from USGS stations Missouri River at Hermann and Mississippi River at St.
Louis.
Water Quality in St. Louis County Streams
3-9
EPA’s Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) study found high levels of fecal
coliform in urban runoff and concluded that levels can be expected to exceed water
quality criteria during and immediately after storm events in many surface waters, even
those providing high degrees of dilution. As shown in the previous Plan, fecal coliform
levels, at the St. Louis County sampling stations, during periods of stormwater runoff,
typically exceed the recreational-use standard by several orders of magnitude. Other
studies have reported that primary sources of pathogens in urban stormwater runoff are
animal wastes (including pets), failing septic systems, and illicit sewage connections. In
recent years, the increasing use of DNA technology to identify specific sources appears
to be strengthening the case for animal wastes being a more significant source of fecal
coliform than previously thought. A review of the data indicates that a significant source
of fecal coliform in the Plan Area streams is animal wastes.
As stated in EPA’s BMP guidance information on pet waste collection for municipal
operations, “According to recent research, nonhuman waste represents a significant
source of bacterial contamination in urban watersheds. Genetic studies by Alderiso et
al. (1996) and Trial et al. (1993) both concluded that 95% of fecal coliform found in
urban stormwater were of nonhuman origin.”
The increasing evidence that wild and domestic animals are significant contributors to
high levels of E. coli in stormwater runoff adds to the difficulty of reducing this pollutant
in water bodies. E. Coli from wild animals is somewhat beyond local governments’
ability to control. On the other hand, BMPs that can be effective in reducing fecal
coliform from domesticated animals, particularly household pets, can be instituted.
Such BMPs typically include appropriate enforceable ordinances such as those listed in
the model Operation and Maintenance program document to comply with MCM 6 and
public education as discussed in other sections of this Plan. With regard to reducing E.
coli from human sources, MSD is working on a multiple decade, multiple billion dollar
capital improvement program to improve the area’s sanitary collection system in
addition to implementing BMPs to address illicit discharges.
3. Chloride
The Missouri Water Quality Standards currently set a chloride chronic criterion of 230
mg/L for streams and lakes designated for protection of aquatic life. MDNR’s analysis
of the chloride concentrations for the Missouri 303(d) list provides evidence for concern
regarding this nonpoint source pollutant.
Significant contributions of chloride to the water bodies is expected to be from snow and
ice removal through the use of salt application on roads, parking lots and driveways.
The higher chloride values observed during the winter months supports this conclusion.
As in the second term Plan, winter salt application and salt storage BMPs will continue
to be implemented under this Plan in Chapters 4 and 9 to increase awareness among
co-permittees and the public about this problem.
Water Quality in St. Louis County Streams
3-10
4. Trash
One of the general criteria in the Missouri Water Quality Standards requires waters to
be free from floating debris in sufficient amounts to be unsightly or prevent full
maintenance of beneficial uses. Items discarded in or near streams can consist of
anything from simple waste paper and plastics to used oil filters and toxic chemicals.
Trash discarded in a stream can contribute to violations of any of the general criteria
enumerated earlier.
Trash has been identified as a significant problem based on direct observations of
streams, roadsides, and other areas including: residential, industrial, and commercial
sites. Roadside litter and overflowing trash containers have been observed in many
areas of the county. Trash containers at industrial and commercial sites are often either
undersized or are not emptied frequently enough. Employees of such establishments,
when faced with this situation, typically leave the lids open and stack additional trash
well above the sides of the container or simply pile it on the ground next to the full
container. Much of this material ends up scattered about the landscape and is
eventually blown or washed into nearby streams. It is not uncommon to see debris,
from these and other sources, caught up in the branches of stream bank vegetation,
carried in storm-swollen streams, or heaped in stream channels after storm-induced
flows have subsided. These problems are being addressed through enactment of
appropriate ordinances such as those listed in the model Operation and Maintenance
program document to comply with MCM 6, with adequate enforcement and through
increased public education and involvement as discussed in Chapter 4, 5, and 6 of this
Plan.
5. Lead
Within the Phase II Plan Area, the Meramec River is the only water body listed as
impaired due to lead. The lead impaired segment is between the Mississippi confluence
and Highway 141. The lead source has been identified to be from lead mining tailings
and is not addressed as a non-point source pollutant in this Plan.
6. Mercury
The main source of the mercury has been identified as atmospheric deposition. The
Grand Glaize Creek mercury listing in table 3.2 is based on the levels of mercury in fish
tissue. As a result of the Grand Glaize listing and Missouri fish consumption advisories,
mercury is a pollutant of concern under this Plan. It should be noted that Grand Glaize
Creek is not unique in exhibiting a mercury problem. Increasing mercury levels have
been found in fish statewide and the Missouri Department of Health and Senior
Services currently has an advisory against consumption of certain fish from all Missouri
waters due to mercury contamination.
Other sources of mercury in the environment result from mercury containing products
that are improperly disposed. These products include household hazardous waste and
electronic devices, which will be addressed along with the public education and public
participation efforts related to trash in Chapters 4 and 5 of this Plan.
Public Education and Outreach
4-1
CHAPTER 4
Public Education and Outreach (MCM 1)
A. MS4 Permit Requirements
Section 4.2.1.1 of the general MS4 permit requires the perm ittee to implement a public
education program to distribute educational materials to the community or conduct
equivalent outreach activities about the impacts of stormwater discharges on water
bodies and the steps that the public can take to reduce polluta nts in stormwater runoff.
The permit requires inclusion of the following elements in this program:
Identification of the target pollutant sources the permittee’s public
education program is designed to address;
Identification of target audiences for the permittee’s education
program who are likely to have significant storm water impacts
(including commercial, industrial, and institutional entities);
Plans to inform individuals and households about the steps they can
take to reduce storm water pollution;
Plans to inform individuals and groups on how to become involved
in the SWMP (with activities such as local stream and lake
restoration activities);
An outreach strategy, including the mechanisms (e.g., printed
brochures, newspapers, media, workshops, etc.) that will be used to
reach the target audiences and the number of people this strategy is
expected to reach;
Plans to evaluate the success of this minimum control measure.
B. General Pollution Prevention Compliance Activities
MSD will have the overall responsibility for coordinating the public education and
outreach efforts described in this Plan. Programs will include, but are not limited to, the
distribution of educational materials and promotion of outreach activities. Programs will
be implemented throughout the Plan Area to the maximum extent practicable using a
variety of approaches, and will consider the various needs of the community.
Depending on the type of pollution contained in stormwater runoff, the impact on natural
watercourses can be cumulatively severe. It is readily recognized that runoff pollution is
the major cause of water quality problems in most urban watersheds. It must also be
recognized that each individual is personally responsible for the pollutants in the runoff
from his or her occupied land area. It is obvious that we can never meet our water
quality goals for streams and lakes until we convince owners and land users to change
behaviors and become better watershed stewards. Ordinary citizens must also be
Public Education and Outreach
4-2
conscious of their responsibility for proper handling of trash, pet wastes, and other
sources of pollution wherever they are located.
The basic implementation approach will be to seek out and form partnerships with
municipalities, civic organizations, educational institutions, watershed groups, and
businesses to assure the water quality needs of the community are met. Education and
information will address general pollution prevention goals plus specific pollution
problems identified through previous field investigations as having a significant impact
on Plan Area water quality, i.e., trash, animal waste, soil solids, chloride, and mercury.
Where possible, the program design will utilize and promote the use of educatio nal
materials found to be effective previously or by other metropolitan areas, states, or
organizations. Educational materials will offer options and alternatives for prevention
and proper disposal of pollutants that could be discharged in stormwater. Emphasis will
be given to the economic importance and community benefits of pollution prevention,
proper waste disposal, and resource management activities.
C. Compliance Activities using Printed Material
MSD and partners developed, printed, and distributed numerous brochures and other
educational materials dealing with various topics, and continues to distribute various
brochures, fact sheets and booklets on an ongoing basis using establ ished outlets
D. Compliance Activities using Presentations
MSD presents stormwater quality educational information to grade school classrooms,
plus various industry, community groups, and professional workshops. Most of the
classroom presentations involve the presentation of a nonpoint source pollution model.
Booths at public events are another method MSD uses to present information to the
public
E. Compliance Activities using Other Media
The Plans’ distribution process will utilize several approaches to reach target audiences.
A variety of mechanisms will continue to be used to deliver programs throughout the
Plan Area, including websites, fact sheets, newsletters, utility bill inserts, speak ing
engagements , brochures, school curricula, and seminars.
The MSD web site was completely re-organized during the second term Plan. The new
web site is easier to navigate and includes a stronger presence in social media with a
calendar of events, an MSD blog, and a presence and links to Twitter, Facebook, and
YouTube. MSD’s re-organization of its web site has resulted in the water quality
information being integrated better within the site overall, and particularly the plan
review information and BMP Toolbox for post-construction BMP selection and design
information under MCM 5. The National Association of Clean Water Agencies, awarded
the BMP Toolbox the 2013 National Environmental Achievement Award for the Public
Information and Education Award (E-Media) category.
Public Education and Outreach
4-3
MSD continues to support the airing of the pollution prevention videos, developed under
the first Plan, on Youtube through the MSD web site, such as responsible winter salt
usage, kitchen waste grease management, pet waste disposal, and rain barrel
installation. Also from previous mass media distribution of messages, MSD has
available an impervious surface video, three cartoon videos (on grease, pet waste and
salt), and 5 radio spots developed during the second Plan.
The communication committee, implemented in the second term Plan, developed an
outdoor rain garden sign template that anyone may use to explain what is a watershed,
what is stormwater, what is a rain garden, why plant a rain garden, and why use native
plants.
F. Rationale for New Goals
The success of MSD’s education outreach efforts during the first and second term Plans
has been through the development and distribution of several printed educational
materials. The 2012 MSD Stormwater Education Survey identified that brochures is
one of the best ways to provide information to residents about water quality. Nearly
fifteen (15) active education materials developed since the 2002 Plan are available for
distribution. MSD and partners will evaluate each of these publications and update the
material as applicable to ensure the material includes the latest BMP strategies and
contact information. Brochures will be published in two formats; One based on the MSD
standardized format for distribution by MSD and another without the MSD logo for
distribution by others. A new brochure to specifically address individual sewage
disposal system operation and maintenance responsibilities will be developed under a
MCM 3 goal.
During the third term planning process, there was consensus that educating young
people about nonpoint source pollution and its influence on water quality can encourage
future generations to better understand and appreciate the value of protecting and
improving water quality. Although MSD presents stormwater quality educational
information to school classrooms, a large number of students are not reached and
nonpoint source pollution is not a required curriculum. A work group will be formed to
evaluate nonpoint source pollution education in the St. Louis County Plan Area. Work
group members will include educators and youth group (i.e., cub scouts and girl scouts)
leaders.
The 2012 MSD Stormwater Education Survey stated that the percent of residents who
reported they had seen or heard MSD sponsored information about water quality or
stormwater pollution increased significantly from 2007. However, there were significant
decreases in the percent of residents who reported they had seen co-permittee
sponsored information from 2007, as well as an overall decrease in those who reported
seeing or hearing water quality information. A 2011 MDNR audit report recommends
that co-permittees develop ways to ensure as many residents as possible are aware of
the MS4 program. The 2012 MSD Stormwater Education Survey indicated that the
Internet has become an increasingly effective way of reaching residents . A review of
Public Education and Outreach
4-4
the Internet found that nearly all co-permittees have web sites. In response, co-
permittees will be asked to develop and maintain a web site, o r link to a regional web
site, with educational resources on stormwater impacts and ways to improve water
quality. As part of the goal, MSD will develop a model template of what to include in the
web page.
Another method chosen to increase resident and elected official awareness of the MS4
program in the third term Plan is to develop specific water quality messages for co-
permittees. Messages may cover updates on local impaired streams and addressing
individual sewage disposal systems. A 2011 MDNR audit report recommends reaching
residents using city specific messages. Although MSD will be responsible for
developing messages, co-permittees may develop their own messages. Co-permittees
will be responsible for distributing messages, such as through mailers or the internet.
Specific goals for each year of the permit are presented as follows:
Annually
MSD will report the number of brochures and other educational materials distributed to
improve water quality.
MSD will report the number of presentations on water quality and nonpoint source
pollution education.
MSD will maintain its web site with educational materials on stormwater impacts and
ways to improve water quality, and will report the number of Phase II web page visits.
MSD will distribute educational materials on a relevant topic throughout the District
using bill inserts (distributed to all customers) or cable (distributed to all subscribing
households) or other mass media.
Year 1
No new goals planned
Year 2
A work group will be formed to evaluate nonpoint source pollution education in schools.
The evaluation will consider past efforts, and may include a survey to determine the
number of schools and students reached and how. Findings and recommendations to
enhance education efforts will be established.
Year 3
A work group will be formed to review and update the existing inventory of educational
materials to improve water quality.
Public Education and Outreach
4-5
Year 4
MSD will develop specific water quality messages for co-permittees that are particularly
relevant to the area.
Year 5
MSD will ask co-permittees to develop and maintain a web site, or link to a regional web
site, with educational resources on stormwater impacts and ways to improve water
quality.
The specific co-permittee water quality messages developed by MSD in Year 4 will be
distributed within the population, or co-permittees may also develop their own
messages.
To test the public’s knowledge of stormwater issues a questionnaire will be developed
and a telephone survey conducted. The information will be used to analyze the impact
of MSD’s educational activities on making the public more aware of stormwater quality
issues and needs. Effective actions will be continued but subject matter may be revised
and expanded.
Public Education and Outreach
4-6
Public Involvement and Participation
5-1
CHAPTER 5
Public Involvement and Participation (MCM 2)
A. MS4 Permit Requirements
Section 4.2.2.1 of the general MS4 permit requires the permittee to implement a public
involvement/participation program that complies with State and local public notice
requirements, and involve the public in the development and oversight of the Plan,
policies and procedures. The permit requires inclusion of the following elements in this
program:
Involvement of the public in the development and submittal of the
permit application and storm water management program;
Plans to actively involve the public in the development and
implementation of the public involvement/participation program;
Identification of the target audiences, including the types of ethnic
and economic groups engaged;
Identification of the types of public involvement activities to be
included with the following mandatory (where appropriate):
Citizen representatives on a storm water management panel
Public hearings
Working with citizen volunteers willing to educate others about the
program
Volunteer monitoring or stream/beach clean-up activities
B. Public Involvement in Stormwater Plan Development
As part of the third term Plan development, three public stakeholder meetings were held
to obtain input and feedback on all of the proposed goals. Over this series of meetings
in June, August and September 2012, stakeholder comments were presented to the
Planning Committee and Planning Committee responses were discussed with the
stakeholders providing a two way dialogue. Over 30 stakeholder organizations
participated and represent many diverse interests including community associations;
census defined places; contractors; designers; developers: environmentalists; industry;
local and state agencies; small and large cities; and watershed groups. The meetings
were well attended and stakeholders were very engaged.
For ongoing public involvement, the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District has the overall
responsibility for coordination of the public participation and involvement activities
described in this Plan. The St. Louis Metropolitan area benefits from a number of
different environmental groups, stream teams, and other organizations concerned with
various aspects of environmental protection. MSD participates in a number of public
environmental initiatives, involving watershed coalitions, partnerships, etc., upo n
Public Involvement and Participation
5-2
request. These groups assist in promoting public awareness and serve as volunteers to
participate in activities to reduce the impact of stormwater pollution in the Plan Area.
As part of managing the stormwater system, MSD utilizes strategic planning initiatives,
implements a Community Outreach program and builds relationships with stakeholders.
A public Rate Commission is used for addressing MSD’s funding needs and making
recommendations for the revenue needed.
C. Public Participation Programs
Citizens are encouraged to partner with MSD on a number of programs to educate the
community or participate in clean-up projects to remove trash from area streams. The
programs include:
Storm Drain Marking Program – This educational program involves working with groups
to install four inch diameter plastic markers on storm drain inlets with the message, “No
Dumping, Drains to Stream”. This is an ongoing communication at the source of
discharge informing the public not to use storm drains for dumping waste. Educat ional
outreach extends further when the groups use door hangers, as instructed, explaining
the purpose of the markers to the community. In all new construction, MSD’s Standard
Construction Specifications for drainage facilities requires precast concrete inlet covers
to contain the “No Dumping, Drains to Stream” message.
Stream Clean-ups – MSD partners with community groups in being an enabler to help
them accomplish a successful stream clean-up effort. Depending on the group involved
and the need, MSD has provided: trash disposal, glove and bag supplies, flyer printing,
press release, volunteer labor, paid labor, and heavy equipment, such as trucks and
tractors.
The MSD sponsored third annual 2011 “Confluence Trash Bash” was selected to
receive the 2011 Missouri Attorney General’s Justice Award for demonstrating an
extraordinary commitment to justice in the Environmental Protection Category.
Nonpoint Source Pollution Education – A network of teachers and community group
leaders help MSD educate the public on nonpoint source pollution. The main vehicle
used is a nonpoint source pollution model with script provided by MSD.
Household Hazardous Waste Collection – St. Louis County Department of Health is
responsible for engaging the public in participating in household hazardous waste &
recyclables collection days. St. Louis County is developing a permanent drop -off
program for household hazardous waste, evolving the program from periodic one -day
events to permanent, fixed drop-off locations. The first permanent site will be located at
291 Hoffmeister, St. Louis on the grounds of MSD’s Lemay Wastewater Treatment
Plant.
Public Involvement and Participation
5-3
D. Pet Owner Responsibilities
E. coli levels in Plan Area watercourses have been found to be elevated, and animal
sources contribute significantly. Groups that include pet owners, pet stores,
veterinarians, humane societies, and members of the community were asked to help
address pet waste management, and continue ongoing distribution of public educational
materials. Communities have addressed pet owner responsibilities in the development
of ordinances or other enforcement mechanisms and means to ensure proper pet waste
disposal.
E. Rationale for New Goals
A new goal to report on participation activities to promote stormwater management
public involvement programs that reduce the volume and/or rate of discharges of
stormwater will be implemented. This activity is related a second term Plan goal that
was met through MSD rain barrel sales and the ShowMe Raingardens (SMRG) program
web site that contains information about the benefits of rain gardens and links to native
landscaping, plant lists, and plant retailers. In the third term Plan, MSDs’ report will
include the number of participation activities, such as the number of SMRG web page
views and number of rain barrels sold by MSD, as applicable, to promote public
involvement programs. Stakeholders comments during the planning effort
demonstrated interest toward tracking the number and location of rain gardens installe d.
With a number of groups interested in pursuing a database of this nature, partnerships
will be pursued.
A new goal will be implemented to accommodate environmental stewardship and
recognize co-permittees, business and organizations progressive participation in the
MS4 program. This goal would be carried out by a work group to identify and develop a
list of incentives and awards (i.e., certifications, yard signs, nursery coupons for native
plants), and other ways citizens and organizations can particip ate in the MS4 program
and be recognized. The work group will identify existing awards programs and will
consider developing an annual certificate award program that honors corporations,
schools, and municipalities that implement nonpoint source pollution control projects.
An award program can broaden the visibility of these projects, recognize good work,
and gain a variety of advocates for the MS4 program.
MSD will continue to sponsor Plan Area clean-up activities, such as the increasingly
popular “trash bash" events. To enhance activities, address solid waste problem areas
referenced in MCM 6, and address a 2011 MDNR audit report recommendation to
develop new and additional ways to get citizens involved with the MS4 program, MSD
and partners will train co-permittees on how to select clean-up sites, help team lead
MSD sponsored clean-up events, and how to solicit volunteers. Based on MSD’s
experience in working with various groups on community and stream clean-up events,
public participation activities will be enhanced through an intentional, coordinated clean-
up effort attempting to involve all co-permittees in participating in a clean-up event and
planning events targeted throughout the Plan Area .
Public Involvement and Participation
5-4
Specific goals for each year of the permit are presented as follows:
Annually
MSD will report on the number of volunteer presentations supported.
MSD will report on the number of storm drain marking projects supported.
MSD will report on the number of volunteer neighborhood and stream clean-ups
supported.
St. Louis County will report on the amount of household hazardous waste collected.
MSD will organize with partner organizations one or more annual stream or
neighborhood clean-up events to cover the Plan Area. Each co-permittee will
participate with a planned event, or participate in their own stream or neighborhood
clean-up activity in the community.
Report on public participation activities to promote stormwater management public
involvement programs that reduce the volume and/or rate of discharges of stormwater.
Year 1
A work group will be formed to identify and develop a list of incentives and awards (i.e.,
certifications, yard signs, nursery coupons for native plants), and other ways citizens
and organizations can participate in the MS4 program .
Year 2
Distribute a report listing incentives and awards (i.e., certifications, yard signs, nursery
coupons for native plants) and other ways citizens and organizations can participate in
the MS4 program
Year 3
No new goals planned
Year 4
No new goals planned
Year 5
MSD, supported by citizen volunteers, will publish a report of their activities, including
outcomes and recommendations for future volunteer activities.
Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
6-1
CHAPTER 6
Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (MCM 3)
A. MS4 Permit Requirements
Section 4.2.3.1 of the general MS4 permit requires the permittee to develop, implement
and enforce a program to detect and eliminate illicit discharges (as defined in 10 CSR
20-6.200) into the permittee’s small MS4.
10 CSR 20-6.200(1)(C)7 defines an illicit discharge as “any discharge to a
municipal separate storm sewer that is not composed entirely of storm
water, except discharges pursuant to a state operating permit, other than
storm water discharge permits and discharges from firefighting activities.”
The program must include development and implementation of, at a minimum:
A storm sewer system map showing the locations of all outfalls and
the names and location of all waters of the State that receive
discharges from those outfalls;
An ordinance or other regulatory mechanism to effectively prohibit
non-storm water discharges into the permittee’s storm sewer
system, with appropriate enforcement procedures and actions;
A plan to detect and address non-storm water discharges, including
illegal dumping, to the permittee’s system. The plan shall also
address on-site sewage disposal systems that flow into the
permittee’s storm drainage system;
Plans to address the thirteen categories of non-storm water
discharges or flows, identified in Section 4.2.3.1.4 of the permit, only
if the permittee identifies any of them as significant contributors of
pollutants to the permittee’s small MS4;
A list, subject to the conditions in Section 4.2.3.1.5 of the permit, of
other similar occasional incidental non-storm water discharges that
the permittee has determined will not be addressed as illicit
discharges; and
Inventory, inspect and have enforcement authority for industries and
commercial enterprises within their boundary that may contribute
pollutants via storm water to the MS4
The Planning Committee has not identified any listed category of non-stormwater
discharge in Section 4.2.3.1.4 of the permit which significantly contributes pollutants to
St. Louis County water bodies. Should any of the listed categories or other similar
occasional non-stormwater discharges be found to contribute significant pollutants,
action will be initiated to effectively prohibit or control such discharges using existing
ordinance provisions and enforcement actions. The Planning Committee does not
Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
6-2
believe there is a need to develop a list of allowable incidental non-stormwater
discharges at this time. Under the existing program implementation, any incidental non-
stormwater discharge that is identified as a potential source of significant pollutants,
appropriate local controls or conditions will be placed on such discharges.
B. Identification of Storm System Components
For many years MSD has utilized “facilities maps” which show the location, size, depth,
material of construction, and other useful information to identify sanitary sewers,
combined sewers, storm sewers and their appurtenances. These maps are used by
MSD staff engineers, maintenance personnel, private contractors, and others to “locate
and tie into” for collection and transport of wastewater and/or stormwater from
commercial, industrial and residential properties.
Originally these facilities maps were sepia drawings that were copied and provided to
users in an indexed paper format. All maps have now been digitized and are accessible
in the office or field by computer. All MSD collection system maintenance personnel
have mobile computers that contain the most up-to-date versions of these maps.
When the second term Plan was produced, MSD used Intergraph Corporation’s
Microstation GIS (graphical interface system) Environment (MGE) as the mapping
software of choice. In 2008, MSD migrated to an Enterprise Geographic Information
System based on Environmental Sciences Research Institute’s (ESRI) ArcGIS platform
that gave MSD the following capabilities:
Enabled map viewing, inquiry and geoprocessing using browsers to access
published web map services removing the need for specialized software on each
computer;
Mobile applications allowing creation and editing of features by field crews.
(GPS, Photo capture);
Tight integration with IBM’s Maximo asset management system used by MSD;
and
Spatial analysis using ArcGIS desktop with future analysis available using
published Web applications.
The coordinate system used in the ESRI ArcGIS at MSD is NAD 1983 State Plane
Missouri East FIPS 2401(Feet).
A schematic diagram depicting the process of locating and identifying sewers and
structures is presented in Figure 6.1 along with an abbreviated key of symbols and
numbering system utilized for structure identification.
Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
6-3
Figure 6.1: Schematic of Sewer and Structure Location Procedure
MSD has identified 17,591 storm sewer outfall structures, either owned by MSD or other
entities, of various sizes and configurations in St. Louis County. MSD defines these
storm sewer outfall structures as the “end of pipe” or the downstream end of every
enclosed storm sewer pipe or tunnel structure in the MSD GIS system that discharges
to daylight. They may discharge drainage from a single lot or from several city blocks.
Designation of these outfalls and other stormwater conveyances for permitting purposes
would create a heavy administrative burden with little increase in pollution control.
When the number of outfall structures increases from construction in undeveloped
areas of St. Louis County, or when changes are made to existing systems, MSD’s maps
are updated. Because of MSD’s GIS mapping capabilities, updating the separate storm
sewer system is a continuing and routine task.
The Missouri Small MS4 general permit application Form L requires outlets, along with
their receiving waters to be listed. The Form L instructions indicate that these outlets
may be the point(s) where stormwater leaves the municipality/area. Since St. Louis
Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
6-4
County and its numerous incorporated municipalities were included in a single Plan, it
was determined that only the stormwater outlets discharging stormwater into the
Mississippi, Missouri, and Meramec Rivers needed to be identified. Figure 6.2 shows
the multitude of stormwater outlets which discharge stormwater from the boundaries of
the Plan Area. The insert enlargement on the figure focuses on six such outlets
denoted by “red stars.” The map legend shows how each outlet has an identification
number assigned to it. “SWO” is an acronym for “stormwater outlet,” the following
single letter denotes the MSD service area, the next four characters indicate on which
facilities map the outlet appears, and the last three digits denote the outlet number
assigned to it. As noted in “red,” many of the drainage channels upstream of the outlets
have been enclosed. Also, the location of the outlets is typically where a tributary
stream leaves the Plan Area and meets a major River.
Figure 6.2: Stormwater Outlets from Land Areas in St. Louis County
Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
6-5
MSD has identified 217 stormwater outlets exiting the Phase II Plan Area. These
outlets have been identified by designated numbers as explained above, the MSD
service area, the municipality where located and the major natural watercourse
receiving the discharge. The location of each specific point of discharge has been
identified by state coordinates, longitude and latitude and by Township, Range and
Section. A complete listing of all identified stormwater outlets from the Phase II Plan
Area is presented in the Outlet Appendix.
Since the selected discharge points are natural drainage topography, updating of these
outlet’s locations and physical configurations will not be a major task. For inclusion in
this Plan, the MSD has also prepared maps to visuall y associate each listed outlet with
roadways and receiving streams. These maps are presented in the Outlets Appendix
with the first map serving as the Plan Area index for the more detailed outlet maps.
Missouri regulations define an “outfall” as a point source, defined by 10 CSR 20-2.010,
as the point where a municipal separate storm sewer discharges and does not include
open conveyances connecting two (2) municipal separate storm sewers, pipes, tunnels
or other conveyances which connect segments of waters of the state and are used to
convey waters of the state. The MSD stormwater outlets identified in this Plan do not
meet the Missouri definition of an outfall for purposes of legal enforcement. The outlets
are identified for administrative purposes to avoid the vanity of identifying tens of
thousands of actual MS4 outfalls. Also, the list of outlets does not include any outlets
discharging stormwater within the combined sewer system area.
C. Illicit Discharge Enforcement Mechanism
Since the late 1960s, MSD has utilized provisions in its sewer use ordinances to prohibit
illicit discharges into the separate storm sewer system. Currently, MSD Ordinance No.
12559 adopted December 13, 2007, is used as the legal enforcement tool to control
such discharges. Article IV of this Ordinance, “Control of Pollutant Discharges to
Separate Storm Sewers and Watercourses,” contains the following statement:
“Discharges to the District’s separate storm sewers enter waters of the
State directly or after conveyance through the District’s system and are
subject to NPDES permit regulations.”
It is further stated in the ordinance that:
“All users shall comply with the provisions of this article to ensure that
discharges from the District’s separate storm sewers do not violate
conditions of any of the District’s NPDES permits or of any NPDES permit
regulations, including stormwater discharge regulations, or cause any
violations of State or Federal water quality standards.”
Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
6-6
A specific provision (Article IV, Section One, Paragraph A) requires NPDES permits for
discharges to separate storm sewers:
“No person shall discharge any wastewater treatment plant effluent,
cooling water, unpolluted water or any other water that is not composed
entirely of stormwater as defined in Article II into any separate storm
sewer or watercourse unless such discharge is authorized by an NPDES
permit or is exempt from NPDES permit regulations, is not otherwise
prohibited by this Ordinance, and the discharge is in compliance with all
provisions of any NPDES permit authorizing the discharge, and does not
cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards or cause or
contribute to a violation of any of the District's NPDES permit conditions or
constitute a nuisance or hazard to the public.”
Stormwater associated with industrial activity is prohibited unless certain criteria are met
as described in Article IV, Section One, Paragraph B:
“No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged into any separate
storm sewer or watercourse any stormwater associated with industrial
activity as defined in 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14) or any stormwater associated
with small construction activity as defined in 40 CFR 122.26(b)(15) or any
other wastewater discharge subject to NPDES permit regulations unless
the discharge is in compliance with all applicable provisions of the NPDES
stormwater regulations in 40 CFR 122.26 and any applicable State
regulations”
As noted in Chapter 9, the St. Louis County area has a trash and litter problem that will
require greater attention under Phase II Regulations. Provisions are contained in Article
IV, Section Two, Paragraph B that can be cited to prohibit trash discharges into area
watercourses:
“No person shall place or deposit into any outfall, drainage facility,
separate storm sewer or watercourse within the District any garbage,
trash, yard waste, animal waste, soil, rock or similar material, or any other
substance which obstructs flow in the system or damages the system or
interferes with the proper operation of the system or which negatively
impacts water quality or constitutes a nuisance or a hazard to the public or
which causes or contributes to a violation of water quality”
Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
6-7
Appropriate enforcement procedures and actions are contained in the ordinance to deal
with violators and to mitigate the effects of illegal discharges. Article IX - Enforcement,
lists various enforcement actions that can be initiated against a violator such as:
Section One - Notification of Violation (verbal and written)
Section Two - Administrative Orders (to include cease and desist order,
compliance order, show cause order and consent order)
Section Three - Emergency Action (mitigative action taken by MSD)
Section Four - Legal Action and Penalties (to include injunctive relief,
consent decree, and fines and imprisonment)
Section Five - Liability Due to Violations (violator liable for expenses and
damages)
Section Six - Recovery of Costs (MSD’s costs are reimbursable)
Depending on the severity of the violation, the response of the violator, and other
incident specific conditions, any and all of these enforcement tools are available to the
MSD.
Also available to the MSD is the authority to prohibit or regulate discharges by means
presented in Article VI, Section One under the heading “control alternatives.” In order to
ensure compliance, the MSD may take one or more of the following actions:
1. Prohibit the discharge;
2. Require pretreatment or treatment to a condition acceptable for discharge;
3. Require controls on the quantities and rates of discharge;
4. Require payment to cover added costs of handling and treating;
5. Require the development of compliance schedules;
6. Require the submission of reports necessary to assure compliance;
7. Require discharge permits;
8. Conduct inspections, surveillance and monitoring;
9. Require submission of management plans;
10. Require sampling and analysis of discharges;
11. Terminate service.
MSD has the necessary legal authority already in place to enforce provisions of the
Phase II Regulations at the local level in its role as coordinating authority. No additional
legal authority is considered necessary. Because of MSD’s existing legal authority and
experience in enforcing ordinance provisions, enforcement of Phase II regulatory
requirements was simply an expansion of normal business activities.
D. Illicit Discharge Detection/Elimination
Within St. Louis County, the MSD has 3,217 miles of separate storm sewers and
17,591 identified outfalls. There are also 1,380 miles of surface streams, which
includes open natural and constructed drainage ditches and channels. MSD’s program
to detect and address illicit discharges to the stormwater system, including illegal
Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
6-8
dumping, involves a detection team of two people that will inspect the streams during
dry weather conditions. The primary focus is to look for potentially illicit discharges,
such as dry weather flows, and evidence of pollution in the stream from illicit
discharges. The capability for field screening exists through test kits for parameters
such as pH and chlorine, plus sampling containers are carried for collecting samples for
laboratory analysis. Illicit discharges are also identified through various engineering
studies of the collection system, and illegal connections are reported to MSD’s
emergency response unit for investigation of responsible parties and to initiate
enforcement action.
As potentially illicit discharges are identified, a referral is made to investigate the finding.
The referral is made to MSD’s pretreatment unit to investigate regulated industrial
sources, the MSD emergency response unit to investigate all other discharges, and/or
to MDNR for non-compliant discharges from NPDES permitted facilities. As appropriate
after source confirmation, illegal discharges are referred to St. Louis County Department
of Health regarding solid waste issues and private laterals. The MSD investigation
procedure involves sewer map review, identification of possible sources of the pollutant
in the area, site inspections of probable facilities, covert sampling activities if needed,
and confirmation dye studies. Once the source or sources of the pollutants have been
identified, then the ordinance enforcem ent tools described earlier will be utilized to
mitigate the situation.
The team’s mission is to identify and document, not only illicit discharges to MSD storm
sewer systems, but also illegal dumping and infrastructure needs; such as, sanitary
sewer structures exposed by stream erosion. Such visual documentation and corrective
actions will help prevent spills of wastewater from sanitary sewers that are structurally
threatened. Problems are identified that also impact others, such as stream crossings,
erosion, or problems with debris buildup. The information obtained is shared with
municipalities and highway departments concerned with bridge protection; with sewer
district maintenance personnel concerned with collection system integrity and stream
blockages that could cause flooding; with engineering design staff concerned with
prioritizing capital projects involving sanitary and storm sewer systems; and others
assigned responsibility for erosion control.
The team uses mobile computers that allow them to locate themselves via GPS on a
map in the field. This tool is extremely helpful to identify facilities properly since there
are no markers or location indicators on structures. Findings are recorded directly into
the GIS database as feature attributes.
MSD’s inspection schedule will ensure the entire Plan Area’s 1,380 miles of streams will
be inspected within a 5-year permit period. MSD’s stream mileage is calculated from
the GIS and includes all open channels, streams, creeks and observable ditches to any
depth. The inspection mileage reported annually is tabulated daily, based on
inspections looking for outfalls and other concerns identified above. Recording the
findings from the inspections involves the use of a mobile computer with a screen map
and GPS that records the findings with the GPS coordinates. In the office, the data is
Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
6-9
downloaded into MSDs GIS and can be viewed on a map. The MSD Engineering
Department, Division of Environmental Compliance administers the stream survey
program.
E. Publicizing Hazards Associated With Illicit Discharges
Pollutants from point and nonpoint sources that impact stream water quality are usually
conveyed to the stream by stormwater runoff. It must also be recognized that each
individual is personally responsible for the pollutants in the runoff from his or her
occupied land area. The public education measures of this Plan have addressed this
issue from the public’s perspective by informing individuals and households on the
proper application of lawn fertilizers and pesticides, pet waste control, car washing,
waste management, and automotive fluid changing plus others. The educational
programs developed for illicit discharge hazards will continue to be promoted with
brochures and public service announcements under MCM 1. MSD’s web site lists
MSD’s 24 hour customer service line for reporting illegal discharges, plus other agency
contact information for spills, dumping, and other environmental reporting.
Education can also raise awareness of water quality needs and pollution prevention
techniques for industry. Through the MSD Industrial Pretreatment Program and
associated facility inspections, industrial customers are given brochures explaining the
best practices for material handling and storage, fleet maintenance, and general waste
control practices. Where discharges are found to violate MSD’s ordinance or NPDES
permit regulations, the pretreatment enforcement response plan and procedures will be
followed. The MSD Division of Environmental Compliance will be responsible for such
information dissemination.
F. On-site sewage disposal systems
Individual sewage disposal systems when not properly designed, installed and
maintained can impact water quality with elevated E. coli levels. The magnitude of the
impairment related to these systems is unknown at this time. In the second term Plan, a
Plan Area work group developed a document titled Addressing Individual Sewage
Disposal Systems in the Stormwater Phase II St. Louis County Plan Area-Existing
Activities and Recommendations Report, May 2012. The report addresses activities
related to educating the public on septic systems, promoting system maintenance, and
providing tools to assist homeowners in maintenance. To address failing individual
sewage disposal systems and facilitate better cooperation and understanding, St. Louis
County and MSD enforcement roles and responsibilities were defined . The report was
distributed to the co-permittees and local sewage system service providers, who were
encouraged to consider implementing recommendations in the report.
Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
6-10
G. Rationale for New Goals
MSD survey of all the Plan Area stream areas will continue with 1,380 miles of open
channel inspection reported during the permit term, averaging 280 miles of streams
surveyed per year over 5 years. In response to a 2011 MDNR audit report
recommendation, MSD will report IDD and waste finding reports to co-permittees to
improve communications in detecting and eliminating illicit discharges. Reports will
include stream miles inspected, the findings of the inspections, and the MSD actions
taken within the co-permittee boundaries. Although MSD will continue to enforce its
sewer use Ordinance to address IDDs, co-permittees will be encouraged to use the
findings to enforce their applicable ordinances and codes related to IDDs caused by
improper management of land disturbance activities, yard waste, and solid waste,
particularly trash and litter. Co-permittees can address waste findings by organizing a
clean-up event to meet the MCM 2 clean-up event annual participation goal.
The planning committee agreed to develop and distribute a brochure to address
individual sewage disposal systems in response to a recommendation in the Addressing
Individual Sewage Disposal Systems in the Stormwater Phase II St. Louis County Plan
Area-Existing Activities and Recommendations Report. The brochure will be
developed by a work group and modeled after the second term East-West Gateway
Council of Governments Homeowner’s Guide to Septic System Maintenance brochure
for residents living in the Lower Meramec Watershed. The brochure will describe the
elements of an individual sewage disposal system, how it operates, homeowner
maintenance responsibilities, signs of a malfunctioning systems, enforcement, and
resource information. Distribution of the brochure will be implemented through the
assistance of partners and co-permittee by posting it on web sites and as a specific
message under MCM 1 goals.
The Addressing Individual Sewage Disposal Systems in the Stormwater Phase II St.
Louis County Plan Area-Existing Activities and Recommendations Report reveals that
the Plan Area lacks a comprehensive inventory of individual sewage disposal system.
To assist with developing an inventory for the future, a new goal to identify sources that
are tracking individual sewage disposal system data, including, but not limited to
installations, repairs, and enforcement actions will be implemented.
Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
6-11
Specific goals for each year of the permit are presented as follows:
Annually
Survey 1,380 miles of area streams for illicit discharge over permit term, averaging 280
miles per year over 5 years. MSD will report stream miles inspected, the findings of the
inspection, and the actions taken.
MSD will inspect outdoor waste handling areas at restaurants and other facilities as part
of the interceptor/grease trap inspections, and report the numbers of inspections and
violations.
MSD will distribute illicit stormwater discharges brochure to the industrial customers
inspected by the pretreatment unit each year.
MSD will report IDD and waste finding reports to co-permittees to improve
communications in detecting and eliminating illicit discharges. Reports will include
stream miles inspected, the findings of the inspections, and the MSD actions taken
within the co-permittee boundaries.
Year 1
No new goals planned.
Year 2
No new goals planned.
Year 3
MSD in coordination with St. Louis County will develop a brochure to address individual
sewage disposal systems. The brochure will describe the elements of an individual
sewage disposal system, how it operates, homeowner maintenance responsibilities,
signs of a malfunctioning systems, enforcement, and resource information.
Identify sources that are tracking individual sewage disposal system data, including, but
not limited to installations, repairs, and enforcement actions will be implemented.
Year 4
MSD, partners, and co-permittees will distribute the brochure to address individual
sewage disposal systems. Distribution may include web site posting.
Year 5
No new goals planned.
Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
6-12
Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control
7-1
CHAPTER 7
Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control (MCM 4)
A. MS4 Permit Requirements
Section 4.2.4.1 of the general MS4 permit requires the permittee to develop, implement
and enforce a program to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff from construction
activities that result in a land disturbance of greater than or equal to one acre.
Reduction of stormwater discharges from construction activity disturbing less than one
acre shall be included in the program if that construction activity is part of a larger
common plan of development or sale that would disturb one acre or more. The program
must include development and implementation of, at a minimum:
An ordinance or other regulatory mechanism to require erosion and
sediment controls, as well as sanctions to ensure compliance, to the extent
allowable under State or local law;
Requirements for construction site operators to control construction –site
waste such as discarded building materials, concrete truck washout,
chemicals, litter, and sanitary waste at the construction site that may cause
adverse impacts to water quality;
Procedures for site plan review which incorporate consideration of
potential water quality impacts;
Procedures for receipt and consideration of information submitted by the
public; and
Procedures for site inspection and enforcement of control measures.
B. Land Disturbance Requirements
Within the Plan Area, construction and land disturbance activities are performed by
private entities, as well as by MSD, St. Louis County, and many of the municipal co -
permittees. Land disturbance activities conducted by the co-permittees are handled in-
house or with the use of a contractor. These activities fall under the land disturbance
permitting requirements of the MDNR’s Water Protection Program for projects disturbing
one acre of more of land.
As a result of the first Phase II permit, each Plan Area co -permittee has amended its
existing construction and land disturbance program or developed a new program, which
includes adoption of appropriate Phase II compliant policies, procedures, and
ordinances to reduce pollutants from construction activities that result in a land
disturbance of equal to or greater than 1 acre in size. Activities conducted by private
entities are subject to the land disturbance permitting requirements of the co-permittee,
depending upon the governmental jurisdiction within which the site is located. In
Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control
7-2
addition to any local approvals, every construction site operator must also obtain a
separate state permit for any land disturbance activities affecting an area of one acre o r
more. Regardless of the status of local approvals, land disturbance activities on such
sites may not commence prior to the issuance of a state land disturbance permit.
C. Land Disturbance Activities
The co-permittees and their areas of responsibility include:
1. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
MSD has primary responsibility and authority to review and approve plans and
specifications for sewerage and drainage works within the Plan Area. Any public or
private sewerage or drainage works proposed to be constructed, altered or
reconstructed by any person or corporation, public or private, within the District
boundaries, must be reviewed by MSD. This review incorporates the post-construction
stormwater management controls required by MCM 5, as discussed in the next chapter.
MSD does not review and approve land disturbance projects, except when the District
performs or contracts for its own land disturbance activities.
2. St. Louis County
Two departments within St. Louis County government are involved in the authorization
and inspection of construction and land disturbance activities:
Department of Public Works (DPW)
As per Section 4.310 of the St Louis County Charter, effective November 6, 1979, the
DPW issues permits and performs inspections of all construction activities on private
property within the unincorporated areas of Saint Louis County. In addition, the DPW
issues permits and provides inspection services on all county government owned
projects and also provides inspection services for grading permits issued by the St.
Louis County Department of Highways and Traffic on private property. The DPW also
provides, by contract, permitting and inspection services to most of the municipal
governments in the county, and to many governments specifically on the land
disturbance code. As per Section 1101 of the St. Louis County Revised Code, the DPW
serves as the coordinator of major development projects, acting as the central control
on permit issuance. The DPW holds issuance of any permit until all other County
departments have signed off on the project: Zoning, Highways, and Health. The County
also coordinates with MSD to ensure that planning for stormwater management has
begun prior to land disturbance.
Department of Highways and Traffic (H&T)
As per Section 1105 of the St Louis County Revised Code, the H&T Department issues
permits and performs inspections of all projects in county righ t-of-ways. The H&T
Department also performs land disturbance stormwater pollution prevention plan
reviews and issues permits for all projects within the flood plains of the unincorporated
area of the county. The H&T Department also issues permits for gra ding required on
Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control
7-3
subdivision developments. In addition, the H&T Department also performs or contracts
for its own land disturbance activities while performing maintenance, repair, or
construction of county roadways.
Two other county government departments own and operate facilities in the Plan Area
and may be involved in land disturbance activities:
Aviation Department
The Spirit of St. Louis Airport in Chesterfield is wholly owned by the St. Louis County
government. The Airport serves as the landlord for a major industrial park, out-leasing
buildings and land to business activities both associated with flight operations at the
airport and activities completely independent of flight operations.
Parks Department
This department owns and operates 70 county parks throughout St. Louis County both
in the unincorporated areas and in the municipal areas. The Parks Department may
perform land disturbance activities within these facilities either with in-house personnel
or by contract.
D. MDNR Land Disturbance Permit Requirements
The Missouri Department of Natural Resources has two general land disturbance
NPDES permits to cover varying situations throughout the state:
General permit MO-R100 covers land disturbance activities conducted
by a city, county or other governmental jurisdiction.
General permit MO-RA00000 covers land disturbance activities
conducted by any entity.
Each of these general land disturbance permits apply specifically to land disturbance
conducted by or under contract by the co-permittees, and contain additional
requirements not specifically identified within the MS4 permit requirements. Since some
of the co-permittees subject to this Plan currently utilize these general permits and since
any co-permittees may utilize them, the additional requirements of these permits are
addressed in this Plan. The MDNR conditions contained in the Requirements section of
these permits are:
Site operators must develop Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP)
specific to each site and must amend the plans whenever certain conditions
occur. The required contents of a SWPPP and the conditions which would
trigger SWPPP amendments are identified in the permit Requirements
section;
Good housekeeping practices shall be maintained to keep waste from
entering waters of the state;
Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control
7-4
All fueling facilities on site must adhere to applicable federal and state
regulations concerning storage (underground and above ground) and
dispensers;
Hazardous wastes that are transported, stored or used on site must be
managed according to the provisions of the Missouri Hazardous Waste Laws
and Regulations;
Site operators must designate individuals with overall responsibility for
environmental matters;
Paint, solvents, petroleum products and petroleum waste products and the
containers for these materials must be stored according to BMPs and be
inspected for leaks and spills weekly;
Quarterly reporting of the list of active land disturbance sites to MDNR;
Site operators must inspect outfalls and any structures or BMPs at the site
provided to prevent pollution of stormwater or to remove pollutants from
stormwater to ensure all BMPs are continually implemented and are effective.
Inspections must be scheduled at least weekly and within 48 hours after a
rainfall, that causes runoff, has ceased during a normal workday and within
72 hours if the rain event ceases during a non-workday such as a weekend or
holiday, and the observed conditions noted in weekly reports. Deficiencies
must be corrected within seven days of the report;
Site operators must post a copy of a public notification sign, as required by
MDNR.
E. Plan Area Land Disturbance Programs
As required by the Phase II permit, co-permittees have implemented programs that
require erosion and sediment controls for construction site operators. Activities
conducted by private entities are subject to these land disturbance permitting
requirements of the applicable co-permittee, depending upon the governmental
jurisdiction within which the site is located.
1. St. Louis County
St. Louis County adopted a Land Disturbance Code (LDC) in October of 2003 and
modified the Administrative provisions of that Code in September of 2005. This was
accomplished under County Ordinances 21,578 and 22,468. The technical provisions
of the County's LDC are virtually identical to the provisions contained in the Model
Ordinance in Appendix A12-1 of the 2002 Plan. St. Louis County enforces the LDC in
unincorporated St. Louis County and in many municipalities in the County that have
contracted for the enforcement of the LDC.
The LDC separates land disturbances into two basic categories: Major Land
Disturbances for land disturbance activities involving 1 acre or more of land or a site
involving less than 1 acre as part of a proposed development that will ultimately disturb
1 acre or more; and Ordinary Land Disturbances for land disturbance activity involving
less than 1 acre of land. The County currently issues approximately 30 major land
Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control
7-5
disturbance permits annually for residential developments and approximately 50 major
land disturbance permits for commercial developments.
The County's system of enforcement is outlined in the LDC, as it follows the provisions
of the Model Ordinance contained in Appendix A12 -1 of the 2002 Plan. For Major Land
Disturbances, this involves the following primary elements:
Submission of land disturbance plans and SWPPP for review, approval and
permit issuance by the County.
Assignment of a Special Inspector who is supplied by the permittee and
approved by St. Louis County. The Special Inspector is required to inspect
the site weekly, after heavy rains and inspect related to complaints. This
Inspector is required to report on each inspection to the Department of Public
Works. If the Special Inspector finds deficiencies, he is required to call for the
deficiencies to be corrected and to reinspect the site to confirm that the
deficiencies have been corrected. In the event they are not corrected, the
Special Inspector is to request the assistance of the County in causing the
deficiencies to be corrected.
The inspectors in the residential and commercial inspection sections of the
County's Code Enforcement Division also inspect Major Land Disturbance
sites for compliance with the LDC including BMP's. This is done in
conjunction with permits to construct facilities on these sites.
The residential & commercial inspection sections of the County's Code
Enforcement Division also have Senior Site Development Specialists who
assist inspectors in these sections in resolving major issues or
concerns. These Senior Site Development Specialists also review the reports
of the Special Inspectors for discrepancies and other problems and inspects
Major Land Disturbance Sites, as necessary to assure that discrepancies are
corrected and problems resolved.
The County also supplements, as necessary, Code Enforcement
Division inspections with inspections performed by inspectors from other
Departments.
The County Code Enforcement Division maintains records of weekly inspections by
Special Inspectors, complaints investigations by Special Inspectors and Code
Enforcement Division Inspectors, inspections after heavy rains, escrow release
inspections, and formal written violation notices as well as further deficiency correction
action.
The St. Louis County LDC contains monetary penalties for not obtaining required
permits and for other violations of the Code to include possible imprisonment. The
LDC contains provisions that allows the code official to stop the work, when deemed
necessary.
Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control
7-6
2. Municipalities
Each incorporated municipality has the authority and responsibility to perform
construction permitting and inspection services as a basic element of the police powers
afforded municipal governments in Missouri, and under the 2002 Plan, has implemented
a Phase II compliance land disturbance program to regulate construction within their
jurisdiction. Some municipalities provide full permitting and inspection services with
their own resources. These municipalities have adop ted the model procedural guidance
manual and ordinance as is or as it deems appropriate to meet its specific community
needs. These municipalities have implemented the project reviews, permitting,
inspection, complaint response, and other activities needed to implement the Phase II
land disturbance program.
A second option many municipalities have taken is to adopt St. Louis County’s
ordinance and contract with St. Louis County for Code Enforcement. The County
contracts for permitting (including plan review and construction authorization
documents) and code enforcement, including periodic and critical event inspections.
The County contract requires the construction site operator to gain zoning approval from
the municipality for a project before a county permit is issued. In addition, the
municipality issues its final occupancy permits only after the Department of Public
Works has completed all construction inspections. In all cases the ordinance authority
and any penalties for non-compliance are the responsibility and authority of the
individual municipal governments.
Finally, a third option implemented for those cities that are built out and have little
potential for land disturbance over one acre, was passing a resolution of no need,
prohibiting land disturbance over one acre, without a Phase II program in place.
3. Other Entities
In addition to the above local entities, the Missouri Department of Transportation also
engages in land disturbance activities within the Plan Area. As previously noted,
MoDOT’s activities, within the Plan Area, will be covered under a separate statewide
MS4 permit issued by MDNR to MoDOT, and the applicable stormwater land
disturbance permit.
F. Rationale for New Goals
With the continued implementation of Phase II compliant land disturbance programs
throughout the Plan Area for all public and private construction projects, goals will
continue to focus on ensuring effective implementation of the programs through training
and education. St. Louis County will continue to maintai n its on-line land disturbance
toolbox, developed in the second term, that contain several resources, including
inspection checklist templates, links to certification programs and organizations that can
help solve erosion and sediment control problems, and information on managing runoff
from small sites under St. Louis County Ordinary Permits.
Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control
7-7
A key element of an effective land disturbance program is the inspection process. To
assure the proper functioning of soil erosion and, sedimentation, and stormwater control
measures during permitted land disturbance activities and to address a 2011 MDNR
audit report recommendation, MSD and St. Louis County will develop and conduct a
staged land disturbance inspection training workshop for municipalities.
Specific goals for each year of the permit are presented as follows:
Annually
Municipalities and St. Louis County will report permits issued by name and area
disturbed. This information was requested by MDNR for coordination to ensure land
disturbance program compliance.
Municipalities and St. Louis County will report the number of formal, written notices of
violation and further enforcement actions taken, and the companies they were taken
against.
Year 1
MSD and St. Louis County will develop and conduct one staged inspection training
workshop for municipalities to improve implementation of their Phase II land disturbance
programs.
Year 2
No new goals planned
Year 3
MSD and St. Louis County will provide educational program or training for developers
and construction company employees, engineers, contractors, or local inspectors on
sediment and erosion control BMPs, and evaluate training effectiveness.
Year 4
No new goals planned
Year 5
No new goals planned
Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control
7-8
Post-Construction Stormwater Management in new Development and Redevelopment
8-1
CHAPTER 8
Post-Construction Stormwater Management in New Development and
Redevelopment (MCM 5)
MS4 Permit Requirements A.
Section 4.2.5.1 of the general MS4 permit requires the permittee to develop, implement
and enforce a program to address stormwater runoff from new development and
redevelopment projects that disturb greater than or equal to one acre, including projects
less than one acre that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale, that
discharge into the permittee’s regulated small MS4. The program must ensure that
controls are in place that will prevent or minimize water quality impacts by reasonably
mimicking pre-construction runoff conditions on all affected new development projects
and by effectively utilizing water quality strategies and technologies on all affected
redevelopment projects, to the maximum extent practicable. The permit requires that
this program include the following:
A strategy to minimize water quality impacts, by reasonably mimicking
pre-construction runoff conditions in affected new development and
incorporating water quality protection in affected redevelopment
projects to the maximum extent practicable, and include a combination
of structural and/or non-structural BMPs appropriate for the permittee’s
community;
Use of an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism to address post -
construction runoff from new development and redevelopment projects
to the extent allowable under State or local law;
Means to ensure adequate long-term operation and maintenance of
BMPs;
Policies and ordinances that provide requirements and standards to
direct growth to identified areas, protect sensitive areas such as
wetlands and riparian areas, maintain and/or increase open space
(including a dedicated funding source for open space acquisition),
provide buffers along sensitive water bodies, minimize impervious
surfaces, and minimize disturbance of soils and vegetation;
Policies or ordinances that encourage infill development in higher
density urban areas and areas with existing storm sewer infrastructure;
Education programs for developers and the public about project
designs that minimize water quality impacts; and
Other measures such as minimization of the percentage of impervious
area after development, use of measures to minimize directly connected
impervious areas, site designs that provide for integration of a variety of
infiltration practices, and source control measures often thought of as
good housekeeping, preventive maintenance and spill prevention.
Post-Construction Stormwater Management in new Development and Redevelopment
8-2
Program Intent B.
The preamble to the Phase II Rule states that the NPDES permit will require the
operator or regulator of a regulated MS4 to (1) develop and implement strategies which
include a combination of structural and/or non-structural BMPs appropriate for the
community, (2) use an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism to address post-
construction runoff, (3) ensure that controls are in place that would minimize water
quality impacts, and (4) ensure adequate long-term operation and maintenance of
BMPs. EPA went on to say that the post-construction BMPs chosen should (1) be
appropriate for the local community, (2) minimize water quality impact, and (3) attempt
to maintain pre-development runoff conditions.
Additionally, the Missouri Small MS4 General Permit requires the permittee assess site
characteristics at the beginning of the construction phase to ensure adequate planning
for stormwater program compliance. The permit states that the purpose of this upfront
planning effort is “to arrive at designs and practices that provide for the most effective
water quality treatment through infiltration, flow rates, and similar site- design
opportunities”. The intended result of this planning effort is captured well by a slogan
EPA developed, “Slow it Down, Spread it out, Soak it in”.
A cornerstone of the Phase II regulation is allowing the MS4 to craft a program that
meets these requirements, without dictating “how” these requirements will be achieved.
The “how” is outlined in the Plan, and detailed through the operating procedures,
ordinances, and rules that the MS4 follows. An outline of the efforts the St. Louis County
MS4 co-permittees will take to comply with the Missouri Small MS4 General Permit
follows.
1. Develop and implement strategies appropriate for the community
All of the natural watercourses within the Plan Area eventually flow into the Meramec,
Missouri, or Mississippi Rivers. Many of the natural watercourses within the Plan Area
are affected by the intense urbanization characterized by imperviousness exceeding
25%. Most streams within the Plan Area are used as conduits for conveying stormwater
flows from impervious area, and as a result, their ability to support a diversity of aquatic
life has been compromised. They have experienced and continue to experience
widening, down cutting and stream bank erosion. Also, some natural courses flow
through or around levee protected areas and have b een modified to minimize risk to
those areas.
Several streams within the Plan Area are currently listed on the 303(d) list of impaired
waters. Pollutants common to most impaired streams in the Plan Area include bacteria
and chloride. Stream bank loss, stream habitat degradation, and sedimentation are of
concern throughout the Plan Area.
Post-Construction Stormwater Management in new Development and Redevelopment
8-3
Both structural and non-structural BMPs have a role in effectively addressing stream
impairment and water quality. Plan implementation of structural and non -structural
BMPs must involve all the MS4 permittees because each has different regulatory
authority. St. Louis County and the municipalities have authority for planning and land
use, which are crucial to non-structural BMP implementation. MSD has authority for
reviewing storm drainage, including structural BMPs such as bioretention and pervious
pavement.
2. Use of ordinances or other regulatory mechanism to address post-
construction runoff
St. Louis County and Municipalities with Plan Area
St. Louis County and the municipalities within Plan Area also adopt land use and zoning
ordinances to establish requirements that are specific to their community and even each
development, as required. There are many planning and zoning strategies that can be
utilized to encourage growth in areas that can best support the type of growth desired
while maintaining overall integrity of the watershed.
Working in cooperation with St. Louis County government and the municipal
governments in the County, the MSD has developed and distrib uted educational
materials on planned growth and watershed protection to the co -permittees in the Plan
Area. An educational booklet, “Planning and Zoning Strategies for Water Quality
Protection”, March 2006 was disseminated to all co-permittees, engineers and
developers to promote water quality protection in planning and zoning regulations.
The Planning and Zoning booklet identifies the following eight land use strategies that
can be used to protect water quality:
1. Stream buffer,
2. Planned unit development (PUD) performance criteria,
3. Overlay zoning,
4. Conservation subdivision ordinance,
5. Infill redevelopment,
6. Tree preservation,
7. Flood plain protection, and
8. Conservation easement
Of the eight strategies, three clearly meet this goal: planned urban development (PUD)
ordinances with water quality based criteria (with standards for stream buffers, open
space, and impervious surfaces), overlay zoning requiring better site designs to protect
environmentally sensitive areas (like streams, wetlands and flood plains), and stream
setbacks with vegetated buffers. Three additional strategies also satisfy the permit
requirement: the conservation subdivision ordinance, the infill redevelopment strategy
(when the focus and effect protects green space), and the conservation easement
strategy (when a dedicated funding source exists and acquired property protects
streams, wetlands and flood plain areas).
Post-Construction Stormwater Management in new Development and Redevelopment
8-4
The tree preservation strategy is not a standalone water quality strategy, but can be a
component of a broader strategy focused on protecting natural resources (including
urban forests). Also, a flood plain protection strategy that only meets the minimum
standards of the National Flood Insurance Program does not satisfy this permit
requirement.
All co-permittees have reported adopting at least one land use strategy, and several
have adopted two strategies. Nearly all (95 percent) of co-permittees have adopted a
stream buffer ordinance. The following chart illustrates the land use strategies being
implemented, as of June 2012.
Figure 8.1: Co-permittee reported planning and zoning strategies to protect water
quality
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
56
15 12 7
17 13 18
To help the St. Louis MS4 ensure that post-construction BMP planning begins early on
development projects, the MS4 steering committee developed Site Design Guidance –
Tools for Incorporating Post-Construction Stormwater Quality Protection into Concept
Plans and Land Disturbance Permitting, April 17, 2009 . This document presented a
process that plan review officials in planning and zoning and public works should use to
evaluate whether development plans address MS4 Permit requirements. St. Louis
County and the municipalities within the Plan Area must follow the Site Design
Guidance document, or an equivalent procedure, to comply with the MS4 permit
conditions. MSD assists them with implementing that process, when requested.
Post-Construction Stormwater Management in new Development and Redevelopment
8-5
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
In the Plan Area, all stormwater facilities and controls on development projects over 1
acre must be reviewed and approved by MSD. MSD requires all such facilities to be
provided and designed in accordance with provisions contained in the “Rules and
Regulations and Engineering Design Requirements for Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater
Drainage Facilities”, dated February 2006, as amended. These Rules and Regulations
include requirements for BMPs for stormwater control and watershed protection to be
incorporated into the project design. These rules and regulations are implemented
under the authority of MSD Ordinance 9030, and the Rules and Regulations
implementing the Phase II BMPs were adopted by the MSD Board of Trustees in
Resolution 2630. Additionally, St. Louis County and each municipality has passed an
ordinance or implemented a procedure that requires all applicable development projects
comply with Phase II stormwater permit requirements.
The Rules and Regulations include stormwater design criteria for:
Water quality treatment of the project disturbed area, or equivalent, using the 90th
percentile daily rainfall depth or continuous simulation modeling indicating 90% of
all annual rainfall is treated by the BMP.
Reducing runoff volume to pre-construction levels on new development sites.
This requirement was specifically added to capture the Phase II permit’s
requirement to mimic pre-construction runoff conditions and recognizes that
runoff volume is an important component of the runoff condition. New
development sites include those with less than 20% impervious area and/or
where prior land use activities have not impaired the site and utilization of natural
processes like infiltration are still possible. A BMP’s ability to adequately reduce
runoff is assessed based on average annual rainfall or continuous simulation
modeling over a typical year. Runoff is defined as water discharged to the MS4
by overflow (bypass) and/or by underdrain piping (e.g., treated water that does
not infiltrate).
Extended detention storage and release of the 1 -year 24-hour storm to reduce
channel erosion, as appropriate for the site.
MSD applies these water quality design criteria on projects within the Phase II Plan
Area that discharge to waters of the state or drainage areas tributary to a stormwater
outlet, as indicated in the Outlet Appendix. MSD does not apply water quality
requirements on projects tributary to permitted combined sewer overflow outfalls or
located within the combined sewer system area.
MSD applies the water quality design criteria on projects within the flood control levee
districts. Projects located within flood control levee districts may utilize regional water
quality plans approved by MSD. These regional plans may adopt a modified 3-pronged
approach: at the source, in master channels and in flood storage basin structures, as
reviewed and responded to by MDNR in a letter dated May 10, 2011.
Post-Construction Stormwater Management in new Development and Redevelopment
8-6
MSD will continue to require flood volume detention in the Phase II Plan Area as
discussed below, when it believes it is appropriate to do so, although it does not
recognize flood volume detention as a water quality strategy.
To be considered an effective BMP for stand-alone treatment of the water quality
volume, the BMP shall demonstrate removal of 80% TSS and have an acceptable
longevity rate in the field (i.e., be maintainable). MSD maintains an online BMP Toolbox
on its website for developers and engineers who submit post -construction BMP plans to
MSD and co-permittees. The Toolbox helps navigate a user through the technical and
procedural paths to post-construction stormwater BMPs design, installation and
maintenance.
Through July 2012, 630 projects representing 1,718 BMPs have been constructed or
permitted for construction by MSD. The most frequent of the structural BMPs used is
bioretention, representing 45% of the BMPs, followed by permeable pavement
representing 14% of the BMPs. In total, over 80% of the BMPs used in site designs
utilize a BMP strategy that incorporates a runoff volume reduction benefit in addition to
water quality treatment to remove pollutants from runoff. MSD believes this trend is a
positive for the region because runoff reduction can help address specific pollutants
(e.g., bacteria) as well as channel erosion, and many of these BMPs serve multiple
uses (e.g., bioretention that serves as landscaping as well as a BMP).
Figure 8.2: Project BMPs permitted for construction between October 2006 and July 2012
MSD will continue to offer a paid conceptual review service that will evaluate a
project’s storm water requirements early in the design phase of the project. As
needed and as requested by St. Louis County and Plan Area municipalities, MSD also
performs unpaid conceptual reviews during the project’s zoning and/or concept phase.
Post-Construction Stormwater Management in new Development and Redevelopment
8-7
MSD will continue to report the number of projects using the paid conceptual review
service.
3. Ensuring controls are in place that minimize water quality impacts
MSD, St. Louis County, and the Plan Area municipalities will continue to approve
development plans only after ensuring the development meets all applicable
requirements. St. Louis County and municipalities enforce ordinances related to land
use BMPs in their planning and zoning function. St. Louis County and each municipality
has implemented procedures to ensure that all applicable private and public
development projects involving stormwater management are reviewed and approved by
MSD. MSD enforces sewer and drainage design requirements mandating structural
and non-structural post-construction BMPs. MSD will continue to issue permits for and
inspect the construction of all structural BMPs.
4. Ensuring adequate long-term operation and maintenance of BMPs
An executed maintenance agreement is required with all projects where BMPs are
required to comply with the permit, and where MSD is not performing BMP
maintenance. All structural BMPs located on private property (i.e., all parcels that are
assigned a locator identification number by the St. Louis County assessor’s office) will
be maintained by the property owner(s), and MSD will enforce the maintenance through
a Maintenance Agreement that is recorded with the property deed. MSD will also
require a maintenance agreement be executed for BMPs located within right-of-way and
for which MSD is not performing routine maintenance, although these agreements
cannot be recorded with the right-of-way property.
MSD maintains responsibility under the Plan to ensure BMPs are maintained and MSD
will continue to inspect BMPs to ensure adequate operation. MSD has enforcement
authority to ensure owners maintain their post construction BMPs in MSD Ordinance
12559, Article IV, Part C. MSD BMP inspections will be conducted at a minimum of
once every three years for each BMP, or an alternate frequency deemed appropriate for
the BMP type, and MSD will continue enforcement compliance using MSD Ordinance
12559.
BMP owner education is key to ensuring proper operation and maintenance of BMPs.
The third term Plan will address owner education with the goal of gaining acceptance of
BMPs in the community, and to explain owners’ responsibilities concerning
maintenance requirements.
Missouri Department of Transportation
The Missouri Department of Transportation (MODOT) is subject to a MS4 General
Operating Permit issued by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Water
Pollution Control Program. Because MODOT’s stormwater discharges are covered
under another permit, projects performed by MDOT and its contractors projects will not
be subject to the St. Louis County Phase II Stormwater Management Plan.
Post-Construction Stormwater Management in new Development and Redevelopment
8-8
Flood Control C.
The MSD has been involved with flood control since its inception. The MSD has
constructed numerous channel improvement projects to alleviate flooding and erosion,
and also constructed many storm sewer projects to alleviate localized street and
backyard flooding. These projects are located within the original boundaries of the
District where capital improvement projects are supported by ad valorem taxes.
Outside the original boundaries, St. Louis County and the municipalities have also
constructed channel improvement projects and storm sewer projects. Inadequate
culverts and bridges have been replaced by the agencies that are responsible for the
road and highway maintenance.
In 2000 the MSD completed a Stormwater System Master Improvement Plan (SSMIP)
to provide a comprehensive and coordinated plan for resolving stormwater problems
throughout the District. Many flood control projects were identified in the SSMIP, of
which a number contained non-structural solutions. Because structural solutions to
flooding and erosion problems are often very costly, acquisition of the affected
properties is sometimes a more cost-efficient approach. The MSD recently purchased
several flood prone houses in the River Des Peres watershed. The SSMIP also
identified numerous locations where flood proofing could be a viable alternative to
traditional structural flood control methods that may not be suitable or cost effective.
The MSD has developed a flood proofing program, and flood proofing is one of the
options considered when evaluating stormwater solutions on projects.
The Plan Area has several flood control levee districts along the Missouri River. These
include the Monarch – Chesterfield Levee District, the Howard Bend Levee District,
Riverport, and the Earth City Levee District.
The local municipalities and St. Louis County have primarily managed floodplain
requirements because it is an issue closely related to zoning and land use restrictions.
A list of flood prone communities is provided in Table 8.1 from the St. Louis County
Flood Insurance Study. These local governments have ordinances that fulfill the
minimum requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program administered by
FEMA, and some include slightly more restrictive requirements. Most of the
municipalities listed are co-permittees and are involved in this Plan. Only ten of the
municipalities on this list are exempted from Phase II compliance due to combined
sewers or population served.
Floodplain studies are required for new development to insure the new structures are
protected from the 100-year flood. MSD requires a floodplain study for any
development that is to be in the 100-year floodplain. In addition, a 100-year hydraulic
study is required if any watercourse exceeds flows which could be contained in a 60-
inch pipe for the 15-year event. MSD Rules and Regulations require the lowest floor of
any structure to be at least one foot above the 100 -year flood elevation, and the low sill
must be two feet above the 100-year flood elevation. Floodplain filling is subject to state
or local government restrictions, and thus MSD has no requirements for compensatory
storage when development takes place in the floodway fringe. St. Louis County
Post-Construction Stormwater Management in new Development and Redevelopment
8-9
requires compensatory storage except in the floodplains of the Mississippi, Missouri and
Meramec Rivers.
Since the early 1970’s, stormwater detention has been required for new development to
control flooding of downstream properties. The MSD currently requires stormwater
detention for new developments that have a differential runoff of two cubic feet per
second or greater between pre- and post-development flow. Detention may also be
required when special conditions or problems exist downstream of a new development.
The post-developed peak flows are limited so that downstream peak flows and stages
are not increased above pre-development conditions for the 2-year and 100-year, 24-
hour events.
Table 8.1 Flood-Prone Communities
FLOOD-PRONE COMMUNITIES
Ballwin Florissant Olivette
Bella Villa* Frontenac Overland
Bellefontaine Neighbors Grantwood Village* Pagedale
Bel-Ridge Green Park Richmond Heights
Berkeley Hanley Hills Riverview
Black Jack, City of Hazelwood Rock Hill
Breckenridge Hills Huntleigh* Shrewsbury
Brentwood Jennings St. Ann
Bridgeton Kinloch* St. John
Charlack Kirkwood Sunset Hills
Chesterfield Ladue Town and Country
Clarkson Valley Lakeshire University City**
Clayton MacKenzie* Valley Park
Cool Valley Manchester Velda Village Hills*
Crestwood Maplewood* Webster Groves
Creve Coeur Maryland Heights Wellston*
Des Peres Moline Acres Westwood*
Ellisville Northwoods Wildwood
Fenton Norwood Court Winchester
Ferguson Oakland St Louis County,
Unincorporated Area
* Exempt from Phase II Regulations. See Table 1.1 in Chapter 1 for additional information
** Combined sewer exemption no longer applies, MDNR notified the City on November 8, 2012.
Post-Construction Stormwater Management in new Development and Redevelopment
8-10
Rationale for New Goals D.
Previous sections of this chapter have dealt with activities carried out by co-permittees
in the implementation of the post-construction stormwater program. The goals for this
Plan involve ongoing reporting of program measures and significant educational
efforts to enhance compliance with these existing programs.
The third term Plan will address several goals related to education, a key element for
maintaining an effective post-construction BMP program. In the development
community, educational efforts will continue to promote the use of structural and non-
structural BMPs and the benefits of stormwater management planning prior to land
disturbance. In the third term, MSD will distribute educational material to additional
target audiences, including home owner associations, school districts and fire districts.
MSD will continue to promote and maintain its on-line post-construction BMP Toolbox
that addresses BMP planning, design, and maintenance. To improve the design,
selection and performance of BMPs with regard to local water quality impairments (i.e.
bacteria and chloride), MSD will review post construction stormwater BMP
selection/performance data.
To ensure the proper operation and maintenance of BMPs, education of the public will
focus on the responsibilities of homeowners and subdivision trustees and the required
maintenance of BMPs. The public understanding of the important role BMPs perform to
protect water quality, as well as the expectations of how they perform in managing
stormwater, will be key to ensuring the public acceptance of BMPs and ensuring they
are well maintained and continue to function properly.
During the second term Plan, a work group reviewed legal impediments to the
installation of post-construction BMPs within St. Louis County. Recommendations were
assembled in a report titled Stormwater Best Management Practices Post-Construction
Recommendations – Addressing Legal Impediments and Mandated Impervious Areas,
February 2011. This report is a move forward in design innovation and government
acceptance of green infrastructure within the Plan Area. It encourages reductions in
impervious areas and the use of BMPs in commercial and residential parking areas, in
residential streets, and in building site design. The report also provides a model parking
ordinance and a model weed ordinance.
In the third term SMWP, MSD will review land use data within the plan area to
determine which co-permittees may benefit most from a review of parking ordinances
that impact development projects. MSD will discuss findings with the specific co -
permittees that appear to benefit most from parking ordinance revisions, and they will
be asked to revise their parking ordinances as applicable.
Post-Construction Stormwater Management in new Development and Redevelopment
8-11
Streets account for a significant portion of the Plan Area environment. In St. Louis,
public streets account for over 25% of impervious areas. Many of these streets were
constructed without sidewalks, with open drainage, or with street lanes that are
narrower than warranted by current traffic load. The MS4 has learned in recent years
that implementing post-construction BMPs on these types of projects is challenging. To
better address how BMPs can be incorporated into street redevelopment projects,
ensure consistent application of design requirements, and address long-term
maintenance needs, MSD will coordinate a work group of co-permittees and
stakeholders to evaluate parameters and technology. Then intent of the work group is to
develop guidance for meeting the “maximum extent practicable” standard for post-
construction BMPs within roadway projects where property boundaries are fixed and
utilities already exist.
Specific goals for each year of the permit are presented as follows:
Annually
MSD will report the number of post-construction BMPs constructed and approved, and
the number of BMPs inspected as part of long term operation and maintenance.
MSD will report the number of developments that are charged for utilizing the
conceptual review service.
Year 1
MSD will develop standardized checklists and reporting procedures for post -
construction BMP owners to assist in ensuring proper maintenance of the BMPs.
Information will be distributed to audiences using the BMP Toolbox website.
MSD will coordinate a work group of co-permittees and consultants to evaluate
parameters and technology related to guidance for post-construction BMPs on roadway
redevelopment projects within the District.
Year 2
MSD and partners will develop or update educational materials for municipal public
works officials, developers, and engineers. The materials will promote the use of non -
structural BMPs and the benefits of stormwater management planning prior to land
disturbance.
MSD will review land use data and identify the co-permittees that appear to benefit most
from review of parking ordinances. MSD will discuss these findings with all co -
permittees and develop a list of co-permittees subject to the Year 3 goal to review
parking and weed ordinances. Appropriate stakeholders will be included at the Cities’
request.
Post-Construction Stormwater Management in new Development and Redevelopment
8-12
Year 3
MSD will develop educational materials on stormwater BMPs in the community and
distribute them to specific audiences. MSD may provide workshops for these specific
audiences, as necessary. Examples of specific audiences include homeowner
associations, school districts and fire districts.
Municipalities listed under the Year 2 land use data review and St. Louis County will be
asked to review the model parking and weed ordinances presented in the Stormwater
Best Management Practices Post-Construction Recommendations – Addressing Legal
Impediments and Mandated Impervious Areas, February 2011 report, compare these
models to their current ordinances, and consider whether any revision to current
ordinances is appropriate. (Only co-permittees that were listed in Year 2 will be required
to perform this goal.)
Year 4
MSD will ask the co-permittees listed in Year 2 to consider revising their parking and/or
weed ordinances based on the reviews performed in Year 3. Co-permittees will also be
asked to report on what actions, if any, they took as a result of the review. (Only co-
permittees that were listed in Year 2 will be required to perform this goal.)
Year 5
MSD will review post construction stormwater BMP selection and pollutant removal
performance with regard to local water quality impairments, including bacteria and
chloride.
Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
9-1
CHAPTER 9
Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
(MCM 6)
A. MS4 Permit Requirements
Section 4.2.6.1 of the general MS4 permit requires the permittee to develop and
implement an operations and maintenance program that includes a training component
and has the ultimate goal of preventing or reducing pollutant runoff from municipal
operations. The program is required to specifically address the following areas:
Maintenance BMPs, maintenance schedules and long term
inspection procedures for controls to reduce floatables and other
pollutants to the permittee’s MS4;
Controls for reducing or eliminating the discharge of pollutants from
streets, roads, highways, municipal parking lots, maintenance and
storage yards, waste transfer stations, fleet or maintenance shops
with outdoor storage areas and salt/sand storage locations and snow
disposal areas the permittee operates;
Good housekeeping practices to keep solid waste from entry into
waters of the state to the maximum extent practicable;
Adhere to all applicable federal and state regulations concerning
underground storage, aboveground storage, and dispensers,
including spill prevention, control, and counter measures at all
fueling facilities;
Manage RCRA and CERCLA regulated substances according to
RCRA and CERCLA regulations when transported, stored, or used
for maintenance, cleaning, or repair;
Procedures for the proper storage of all paints, solvents, petroleum
products and petroleum waste products (except fuels) so they are
not exposed to storm water;
Procedures for the proper disposal of waste removed from the
permittee’s MS4 and area of jurisdiction, including dredged
materials, accumulated sediments, floatables and other debris;
Procedures to ensure that new flood management projects are
assessed for incorporation of additional water quality protection
devices or practices; and
Section 4.2.6.1.1 of the general MS4 permit requires the permittee to specifically list all
of its municipal operations which are impacted by the above listed requirements.
Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
9-2
Section 4.2.6.1.7 of the general MS4 permit requires the permittee, using training
materials that are available from EPA, State, or other organizations, to develop
employee training to prevent and reduce stormwater pollution from activities such as
park and open space maintenance, fleet and building maintenance, new construction
and land disturbances and stormwater system maintenance.
B. Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity
Section (2)(B)3.F of the Missouri Stormwater Regulations (10 CSR 20-6.200) requires
that municipalities obtain separate state NPDES permits for stormwater discharges from
certain “industrial” facilities that are municipally owned or operated if the stormwater
discharges from those facilities are not already covered under other NPDES permits.
Section (1)(B)16 of the regulations provides for a certification of “no exposure” in lieu of
a permit if the “industrial” activities are protected from rain, snow, snowmelt and/or
runoff and the operator meets certain other requirements.
Section 4.2.6.1.1 of the MS4 permit requires the permittee to include a list of such
“industrial” facilities, along with the NPDES stormwater permit number for each facility
or a copy of the current NPDES stormwater permit application. The regulations contain
an extensive listing of “industrial” facilities subject to this requirement. From that
extensive listing, only the following few are typically under municipal ownership and/or
operation:
Transportation, including Airports Solid Waste Transfer Facilities
Landfills Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Hazardous Waste Treatment/Storage/Disposal Recycling Facilities
Vehicle Maintenance Facilities Yard Waste Compost/Mulch Facilities
Vehicle Washing Facilities Warehousing and Storage Facilities
A separate municipal stormwater permit is only required if stormwater from any of these
“industrial” facilities discharges directly to waters of the state and the stormwater
discharge is not already covered under another NPDES permit. Each co-permittee will
supply the required information for any “industrial” facilities they own or operate as part
of their individual MS4 permit applications.
C. Stormwater Conveyance Construction and O&M
The MSD charter authorizes MSD to construct or reconstruct (by contracts or otherwise)
any improvements, extensions or additions to provide adequate stormwater drainage.
Capital improvements are the structural solutions to alleviate specific drainage problems
or to prevent them from occurring in the first place. Typical examples include replacing
an undersized culvert to pass greater flows or repairing a channel reach that is suffering
from extreme erosion. The MSD presently undertakes a very limited amo unt of
stormwater capital improvement projects that fall into three categories:
Operation, Maintenance and Construction Improvement (OMCI)
Replacement/Renewal Projects
Emergency Projects
Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
9-3
1. Operation, Maintenance and Construction Improvement (OMCI) Fund Projects
Certain watersheds in the Plan Area have a specially assessed ad valorem tax used for
capital projects that benefit the particular area. These capital improvements are only
done in watersheds that requested an OMCI tax. These project s are generally
designed and managed by the MSD Engineering Department with private contractors
performing the construction. From 2008 to 2010, MSD removed the tax in OMCI areas
when it implemented an impervious based stormwater charge meant to cover the
maintenance and capital improvement needs of the entire Plan Area. However, when
MSD lost the ability to collect this charge under a court ruling, the OMCI tax was
reinstated in 2011. See Chapter 11 Section D for additional information about funding
stormwater activities.
2. Replacement/Renewal Projects
Over time, drainage infrastructure may become degraded to the point of needing
replacement or substantial repair. Typical Replacement/Renewal activities include:
routine inlet repair/reconstruction, sewer replacement/rehabilitation, culvert
improvements, and improved stream bank repairs. These projects are currently only
done within the original boundaries of the District, and they are completed by the MSD
Operations Department or private contractors when deemed more appropriate. Various
municipalities also have capital improvement programs that include stormwater projects.
Some have a sales tax that is dedicated for stormwater improvements.
3. Emergency Projects
The MSD charter explicitly gives MSD maintenance authority over all drainage facilities.
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) includes those activities required to run the District
stormwater facilities on a daily basis and to keep the drainage system functioning as
designed. stormwater O&M includes the following services: operation of flood gate and
floodwall pump stations, emergency response to major rainfall or flooding events, inlet
cleaning, sewer cleaning, debris removal from culverts and open channels, erosion
repair, and complaint response.
4. Detention Basins and Post-construction BMPs
The responsibility for maintenance of detention basins and BMPs is currently placed on
the property owner or homeowner associations who have been required by covenant to
sign a maintenance agreement.
5. Roadway Culverts
Roadway culverts are currently maintained by the agency or individual responsible for
the road. The MSD will provide emergency services to remove significant blockages.
6. Storm Sewers, Inlets, and Catch Basins
Storm sewers within the original boundaries of the District are routinely maintained by
the MSD. In the annexed area, the MSD will only provide emergency service, and the
routine maintenance is either done by the municipality or is not done at all. The MSD
does not maintain Missouri Department of Transportation storm sewers.
Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
9-4
7. Improved Channels
The MSD will remove significant obstructions to flow and also undertake measures to
assure the structural integrity of the channel sides and bottom. This maintenance
includes any fences installed by the MSD that are integral to the improvements.
8. Natural Channels
Natural Channels are not routinely maintained by the MSD, but significant obstructions
to flow will be removed. Priority is given to blockages that cause major flooding. The
MSD will also undertake emergency control measures when there is a significant threat
from flooding or erosion, or to protect its sanitary facilities.
9. Trench Drains, Swales, Roadside Ditches, and Gutters
The MSD does not maintain any of these drainage components. Instead, these items
are the responsibility of the property owners or public entity with jurisdiction.
MoDOT has received a statewide MS4 permit, and will be solely responsible for meeting
all of the requirements of MCM 6 for its facilities and activities within the Plan Area.
These facilities include state and federal roads and highways, including stormwater
conveyances located on the right of ways, parking and maintenance facilities for
vehicles and equipment, and storage facilities for salt and other materials.
D. Operation and Maintenance Program
The scope of municipal operations varies widely among the 60 entities involved in this
Plan. Municipal operations range from very small municipalities, having no municipal
facilities other than a few blocks of local streets, to the county government, having
responsibility for regional highways, parks, high rise municipal buildings, major
construction activities, fleet maintenance operations, airport and all the other various
and sundry operations of a major county government. Because of this broad variation
in activities, selection of appropriate BMPs to satisfy the permit requirements to the
maximum extent practicable will vary considerably among the co-permittees. Training
programs will be similarly varied. Each co-permittee has identified and listed their
operations that are impacted by the MS4 permit requirements referenced in Section A
above and have supplied the required information as part of their MS4 permit
application. Implementation of an Operation and Maintenance Program , using the 2005
program model described in the 2007 Plan, has been reported by each co-permittee.
Table 9.1 lists a summary of the commonly implemented BMPs applicable to municipal
pollution prevention.
Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
9-5
Table 9.1 Summary of BMPs Used for Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Pet Waste Controls
Pooper scooper ordinance
Ordinances addressing pet wastes on owner's property
Provide pet waste signs and stations in public parks, etc.
Vehicle/Equipment Maintenance & Parking
Minimize solvent use
Use safer alternatives & recycled products
Clean up spills promptly & w/minimal use of water
Practice good housekeeping
Properly store & dispose of hazardous wastes
Recycle used oil, antifreeze, batteries, solvents, etc.
Provide & maintain traps for drips from parked equip
Vehicle Washing
Use commercial facilities
On-site, capture, treat & dispose washwater to sanitary sewer
Illegal Dumping Control
Public Education Programs
Ordinance & enforcement against illegal dumping
Install/maintain structural controls for trash at outfalls
Recycling Facilities
Control & properly dispose runoff
Practice good housekeeping
Landscaping & Lawn Care
Employ planning & design using natural property conditions
Utilize soil analyses
Select plants appropriate to the region
Use non-turf plantings wherever possible
Irrigate efficiently
Use mulches & compost effectively
Minimize use of fertilizers, herbicides & pesticides
Pest Control
Employ integrated pest management program for municipal facilities
Perform Street/Parking Lot Cleaning
Road & Bridge Maintenance
Calibrate deicer applicators to prevent over-application
Minimize maintenance activities during wet weather
Capture paint/rust particles during cleaning/painting
Perform Storm Drain System Cleaning
Properly Manage Municipal Swim Pool Backwash/Drainage
Materials Management
Use Alternatives to Toxic Substance
Properly Store Hazardous Substances
Safely Store Road Salt & Other Deicing Materials
Have a Spill Prevention & Control Program
Maintain Regular Material Inventories
Identify hazardous & non-hazardous substances
Properly label all containers
Note materials requiring special handling/storage/disposal
Employee Education/Training
Provide education and training in pollution prevention
Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
9-6
1. General Housekeeping and Operation and Maintenance
This is the largest category of municipal operations since it incorporates general
practices that can apply to most municipal operations, from custodial activities in
municipal offices to operation and maintenance activities in shops, on streets and at
satellite facilities. BMPs, under this category include those dealing with materials
management and storage, e.g. salt, compost, etc., safe material substitutions, spill
plans, establishment of standard O&M procedures, scheduling, community regulation,
record keeping and housekeeping practices in general. Under community regulation,
model ordinance language to address various solid waste issues such as trash, litter,
and pet waste was also included in the model program. Some of the BMPs in this
category will apply to every co-permittee.
2. Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance Operations
In addition to the applicable practices from general category #1, BMPs under this
category address such things as preventative maintenance and drainage from fleet
parking areas. Many of the small municipal co-permittees do not engage in these
operations and will not need to address them within their programs. The BMPs in this
category will apply to MSD, St. Louis County and those municipal co-permittees that
engage in such activities.
3. Vehicle/Equipment Washing
BMPs under this category address drainage from washing areas and use of commercial
facilities. As in category #2, many of the small municipal co -permittees do not engage
in these operations and will not need to address them within their programs. The BMPs
in this category will apply to MSD, St. Louis County and those municipal co-permittees
that have vehicles/equipment that is washed.
4. Facility Repair, Remodeling and Construction
Repair, remodeling, and construction activities at municipal facilities can generate
wastes similar to those identified in MCM 4 for construction and land disturbance
activities. BMPs under this category address erosion and sediment control,
minimization of impervious areas and the applicable general practices from
housekeeping and O&M practices. MSD, St. Louis County, and several of the larger
municipal co-permittees routinely engage in such activities. Even the smallest co-
permittee has the potential to engage in such activity. The BMPs in this category can
apply to every co-permittee.
5. Cleaning and Maintenance of Roadways, Highways, Bridges, and Parking
Facilities
Each of the co-permittees has some responsibility for roadway maintenance. Only St.
Louis County is involved with highway maintenance. The responsibilities of the other
co-permittees vary considerably, depending on their size and the extent of their
infrastructure. BMPs under this category address such things as pavement cleaning,
deicing material storage and use, erosion, and sediment control and capture of
pollutants during maintenance work. Some of the BMPs in this category will apply to
every co-permittee.
Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
9-7
6. Maintenance of Parks, Green Spaces, Trails, and Landscaping
Except for some of the smaller municipalities all of the co-permittees have
responsibilities under this category. These responsibilities vary greatly from maintaining
only a small green space around a village hall to maintenance of regional parks and
public recreation areas. BMPs under this category address such things as good
planning and design, integrated pest management, effective irrigation and smart usage
of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. The BMPs in this category will apply to MSD, St.
Louis County and those municipal co-permittees that have such land areas to maintain.
7. Cleaning and Maintenance of Drainage Channels, Storm Sewers, and Inlet
Structures.
The MSD has the major responsibility for this activity within the Plan Area. MSD
cleaning operations for enclosed conveyances typically involve flushing to a point of
collection and use of a vactor truck to remove the materials for proper disposal. Other
co-permittees are responsible only for public stormwater conveyances that have not
been dedicated to MSD. These include conveyances that do not meet MSD standards
for acceptance, conveyances that are contained entirely within a municipal complex or
facility area and crossroad culverts under municipal roadways. Such conveyances
remain the responsibility of the owner/operator co-permittee. BMPs under this category
address such things as proper scheduling and employment of non-polluting cleaning
methods. The BMPs in this category will apply primarily to MSD but will also apply to a
lesser extent to many of the co-permittees.
8. Operation and Maintenance of Recycling Facilities
Only a small number of the co-permittees currently operate permanent recycling
facilities where citizens can drop off recyclable materials such as glass, plastic, paper
and similar items. A greater number of co-permittees operate facilities for recycling of
landscape wastes (leaves, clippings, tree trimmings, etc.), from municipal operations or
collections. These facilities process such materials into mulch and/or compost which is
then used for municipal operations as well as made available to the community’s
citizens. BMPs under this category address such things as proper physical siting to
minimize stormwater contact and routing of any runoff to proper disposal. The BMPs in
this category will only apply to those co -permittees that operate recycling or composting
facilities.
9. Water Quality Impact Assessment of Flood Management Projects
Responsibilities for this activity fall most heavily upon MSD, St. Louis County and those
municipal co-permittees bordering the major rivers or located in the lower reaches of
major watersheds. However, all co-permittees, even the smaller municipal co-
permittees, can be involved in managing localized flooding situations when using their
funds for stormwater projects. BMPs under this category address procedures to review
new and existing flood management programs/facilities to minimize impacts on water
quality. The BMPs in this category will apply, to a greater or lesser extent, to many of
the co-permittees.
Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
9-8
E. Municipal Employee Training Program
The MS4 permit requires that the operation and maintenance program include a training
component. The education and training of municipal employees is necessary to
effectively implement this program. The training of municipal employees was employed
early in the Phase II process under the first term Plan to accomplish immediate benefits
through municipal good housekeeping. MSD continues to provide annual refresher
training on BMPs for the operation and maintenance program. Training addresses
specific issues as needed. For example, in response to a 2011 MDNR audit statement
that salt and mulch storage is a top concern, salt and mulch storage BMPs were a focus
at the following municipal operation training events. MSD also makes other information
available to co-permittees, including a training DVD and a “Working Together to
Manage Stormwater Pollution” brochure available for employees and the public
summarizing the BMPs implemented under the program.
Many of the larger co-permittees have developed in-house training geared to their
specific needs and activities. Co-permittees are required to keep records and track their
training activities to document and ensure that all current employees received initial
training applicable to their job responsibilities and that new or re-assigned employees
receive training applicable to their new job responsibilities within a specified period of
time after employment. Provisions will be included for refresher training or training in
new procedures to ensure employee knowledge and skills are maintained and updated.
Materials produced for distribution to the public under MCM 1 are also provided to
municipal employees engaged in the types of activities to which those materials apply.
Municipal employees are encouraged to actively participate in the public education
efforts and public involvement activities discussed under MCM 1 and 2.
F. Trash and Pet Waste
Under the Plan, traditional municipal functions dealing with trash, litter and pet waste
were addressed through a specific initial effort, and then included as part of the
operation and maintenance program. Co-permittees evaluated their trash and pet
waste control ordinances, and the need to modify or pass new ordinances. Model
ordinance language was developed and submitted to co-permittees for implementation
to address the need. The model ordinance language has also been incorporated into
the good housekeeping provisions of the operation and maintenance program model.
Those co-permittees that lacked adequate ordinances amended existing ordinances or
adopted new ones under the first permit term.
In November 2009, MSD and St. Louis County developed and distributed a guidance
document titled Identifying and Addressing Solid Waste Problem Areas due to Illegal
Dumping and Littering which provides instruction and tools on how to identify problem
areas due to reoccurring illegal dumping, clean-up efforts, and how to prevent sites that
have been cleaned-up to returning back to problems areas.
Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
9-9
To further address pet waste, the Plan requires co-permittees to post pet waste signs in
parks.
G. De-icing Operations
To address chloride levels in streams due to winter salt usage as a priority pollutant, the
Plan focuses on winter salt usage and storage BMPs. In the second term Plan,
numerous activities to address chloride were implemented. A work group was formed
in 2008 and developed the salt usage report forms that co -permittees use to collect and
report salt usage data. In 2009, MSD and the City of West Des Moines Publics Works
staff hosted a Winter Maintenance Salt Usage workshop for the co-permittees. During
the 2011 MSD BMP municipal operation training session, an expert spoke on the
benefits of using fabric structure systems for salt storage. In 2011, all co-permittees
were mailed a brochure about the benefits of using fabric structure systems for salt
storage. Through the 2010 – 2012 winter seasons, local area radio stations played 60
second public service announcements on sensible winter salt usage. A short video
about sensible salt application is available on the MSD web site. In June, 2012, using
the salt usage data reported by the co-permittees, MSD and St. Louis County
developed and distributed a report titled Winter De-icing in the Stormwater Phase II St.
Louis County Plan Area - Salt Usage Evaluation and Best Management Practices. The
report encouraged co-permittees to implement BMPs by municipalities that have
accurately reported the lowest salt usage application rate (pounds of salt used per lane
mile). The BMPs practiced by municipalities were found to be recommended by
professional groups, including the Federal Highway Administration, The Salt Institute,
American Public Works Association, and The National Cooperative Highway Research
Program. The salt usage section of the report concluded that co -permittees salt usage
application rates are decreasing. To address a 2011 MDNR audit comment that salt
storage is a number one priority, the salt report also provided salt storage BMPs.
H. Rationale for New Goals
As described earlier, all co-permittees have reported achieving an operation and
maintenance program under the first term Plan goal by implementing applicable
elements of the February 2005 dated Operation and Maintenance Program model
template for co-permittees. To support co-permittees on maintaining their programs,
MSD will ask co-permittees to review and update their operation and maintenance
programs, as needed. MSD will first organize a work group to update the Operation and
Maintenance Program model template based on more recent guidance material
published on how municipal pollution prevention/good housekeeping practices can be
used to address water quality issues. This update will also address a 2011 MDNR audit
report recommendation and provide additional information on ways to improve
stormwater quality on municipal property using green infrastructure and low impact
development. Part of the work group efforts will be to develop a staged inspection
training workshop to assist co-permittees to meet the Permit’s long term inspection
requirement in Section 4.2.6.1.2. The program will use the municipal facility inspection
checklist developed and distributed to co-permittees in the second term Plan. This
Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
9-10
checklist will also be added to the Operation and Maintenance Program model template
update.
Trash and litter in our communities and the stormwater system is still a priority pollutant
under this plan. During the second term Plan, a municipal work group developed a
guidance document titled Identifying and addressing Solid Waste Problem Areas due to
Illegal Dumping and Littering that included a menu of approaches to address problem
areas for illegal solid waste disposal. Clean-up days are addressed in this guidance as
a successful approach in ridding communities of trash and litter. MSD, St. Louis
County, municipalities and the Missouri Stream Team program have provided Plan Area
communities assistance (i.e., providing trash dumpsters, gloves, bags, and tools) with
clean-up efforts. To promote continue successful clean-up activities and also assist co-
permittees to meet the goal of participating in an annual clean-up event in MCM 2,
MSD and St. Louis County will update the Problem Area guidance document to include
a checklist on how to host a clean-up event. A new goal to promote the updated
guidance document and train co-permittees on the checklist will be implemented.
St. Louis County and municipalities began tracking and reporting winter salt usage in
the first year of the second term Plan to address elevated chloride levels in the Plan
Area Streams. Forms were developed to track and report snow and ice removal
methodologies from roadways: such as product (i.e., salt) usage per lane mile, the
application equipment and method used, and the application rate(s) selected and the
selection methodology used. During the second term Plan, reported data was
evaluated and revealed decreasing application rates and a decreasing trend in chloride
levels in streams. Addressing winter salt usage in the third term will continue to be
tracked and reported along with goals to evaluate and update BMP train ing and perform
a data evaluation report. The US EPA recognizes winter salt application tracking and
reporting as an ideal MCM 6 goal on their web site.
In the February 2005 dated Operation and Maintenance Program model template,
Chapter 5 recommends municipalities consider designing municipal facilities for “Low
Impact Development” to reduce the volume and rate of stormwater runoff from
impervious areas to improve water quality. Examples of such projects could be a
porous sidewalk or rain garden. MSD and partners have also provided numerous
training opportunities promoting low impact development and green infrastructure since
the operation and maintenance model was implemented. The Missouri Department of
Natural Resources recently published and promoted the Missouri Guide to Green
Infrastructure, that provides municipalities green infrastructure implementation guidance
and sustainable benefits of green infrastructure. In response to these efforts, MSD will
survey the number of co-permittees that have implemented BMP projects at their
municipal facilities that reduce the volume and rate of stormwater runoff. MSD will
share the survey information and provide resource information, such as funding
sources, with the co-permittees.
In the second term Plan, MSD and partners distributed short educational information
and case studies on pollution prevention and stormwater runoff reduction BMPs to the
Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
9-11
co-permittees. As the number of both structural and non -structural BMPs in the area
grow, sharing BMP design considerations, costs, lessons learned and maintenance
information is key. Therefore, MSD will continue to distribute BMP educational and
case study information.
Pet waste is one of many bacteria pollutant sources in stormwater run-off. Residents
and municipalities are both responsible for ensuring that pet owners pick up after their
pets and properly dispose of the waste. Pet owners must pick-up their pet waste and
Municipalities must enforce pet waste ordinances. Co-permittees have implemented a
variety of BMPs to address pet waste in the Plan Area since the first term Plan;
Brochures and pet waste ordinances were addressed in the first term Plan and pet
waste signs and radio public service announcements were addressed in the second
term Plan. The 2012 MSD Stormwater Education Survey reveals a 7% increase in dog
ownership and 2% decrease in picking up after dog waste on walks since the 2007
survey. To continue addressing pet waste, the Planning Committee agreed to
specifically address pet waste stations as a goal. A pet waste station is a
recommended BMP in the February 2005 dated Operation and Maintenance Program
model template, Chapter 7. Other MS4s throughout the country address pet waste
stations as a BMP and the US EPA recognizes identifying the number of pet waste
stations as a worthy MS4 Phase II program measurable goal. MSD will implement a
new goal to survey municipality and St. Louis Count y parks with pet waste stations and
distribute pet waste station BMP resource information.
Specific goals for each year of the permit are presented as follows
Annually
MSD and partners will identify and develop educational information or a case study, and
distribute to co-permittees to encourage implementation of BMPs.
Training in BMPs will continue as refresher seminars and workshops, and as BMP
introduction for new employees as co-permittees implement their ongoing employee
training programs. MSD will provide BMP refresher workshops for the co-permittees.
Co-permittees will report on the number of employees trained.
Co-permittees will inspect their facilities to ensure implementation of BMPs and report
the number of inspections annually. Inspection findings will be incorporated into the co -
permittee’s program review and employee training program.
Municipalities and St. Louis County will report salt usage per lane mile (as actual or
estimated), the application equipment and method used, and application rate(s)
selected and the selection methodology used in snow and ice removal from roadways.
Municipalities and St. Louis County will report the number of winter storms in each
season, the total salt usage in tons, and the total lane miles of roadway maintained .
Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
9-12
Year 1
MSD and St. Louis County will update the November 2009 guidance document titled
Identifying and addressing Solid Waste Problem Areas due to Illegal Dumping and
Littering to include a checklist on how to host a clean-up event.
Year 2
A municipal work group will be organized to update the February 2005 dated Operation
and Maintenance Program model template for co-permittees.
MSD will take the lead, and invite St. Louis County and partners, such as Missouri
Stream Team, to hold one training workshop for co-permittees on how to host a clean-
up event.
Year 3
MSD will distribute the revised Operation and Maintenance Program model template
and ask co-permittees to review and consider the need to update their operation and
maintenance programs.
MSD will survey the number of co-permittee BMP projects that reduce the volume and
rate of stormwater runoff implemented at municipal-owned facilities. The survey will
include both BMPs required under MCM 5 and voluntary type BMPs.
A work group will be formed to evaluate, and update as applicable, the guidance for
municipalities tracking snow and ice removal methodologies from roadways: such as
product (i.e., salt) usage per lane mile, the application equipment and method used, and
the application rate(s) selected and the selection methodology used. Consideration
will be given to include salt application training with a focus on application rates.
Year 4
MSD will develop and distribute a report on municipal operations BMP projects that
reduce the volume and rate of stormwater runoff and report number of projects
implemented at municipal-owned facilities. The survey will include both BMPs required
under MCM 5 and voluntary projects.
MSD and St. Louis County will evaluate data on salt usage per lane mile, application
equipment and method, and application rate goals used in snow and ice removal from
roadways, and distribute a report of the evaluation that makes recommendations for
best practices.
MSD will develop and conduct a staged inspection training workshop for municipalities
to improve implementation of their Phase II inspection programs.
Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
9-13
Year 5
MSD will survey municipality and St. Louis County parks with pet waste stations and
distribute pet waste station BMP resource information.
Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
9-14
Record Keeping and Reporting
10-1
CHAPTER 10
Record Keeping and Reporting
A. MS4 Permit Requirements
Several sections of the general MS4 permit contain requirements pertaining to permittee
record keeping and reporting. These requirements, as listed below, apply to each of the
60 co-permittees in the St. Louis County Plan Area.
Section 4.1 requires the permittee to designate individuals responsible for the
stormwater management program. This section also requires the permittee to inspect
any structures that function to prevent pollution of stormwater or to remove pollutants
from stormwater and of the permittee’s area of jurisdiction in general to ensure that any
BMPs are continually implemented and effective.
Section 4.4 requires the permittee to do an annual review of the permittee’s stormwater
management program in conjunction with preparation of the annual report required
under section 5.3. The permittee may update the program subject to the following
procedures as specified in the permit:
Changes adding (but not subtracting or replacing) components, controls or
requirements to the Plan may be made at any time upon written notification to the
MDNR.
Changes replacing an ineffective or infeasible BMP specifically identified in the Plan
with an alternate BMP may be requested at any time with the following information to be
supplied to the MDNR:
1. An analysis of why the BMP is ineffective or infeasible (including cost
prohibitive),
2. Expectations on the effectiveness of the replacement BMP, and
3. An analysis of why the replacement BMP is expected to achieve the goals of
the BMP to be replaced.
Section 5.1.1 requires the permittee to evaluate program compliance, the
appropriateness of identified BMPs, and progress toward achieving identified
measurable goals.
Section 5.2 requires the permittee to retain records of all activities requiring record
keeping by this Plan.
Section 5.3 requires the permittee to submit annual reports to the MDNR by July 28 of
each year of the permit term. The reports must include:
Record Keeping and Reporting
10-2
The status of the permittee’s compliance with permit conditions, an
assessment of the appropriateness of the identified BMPs, progress
towards achieving the statutory goal of reducing the discharge of
pollutants to the maximum extent practicable and the measurable goals
for each of the MCMs;
Results of information collected and analyzed, if any, during the reporting
period, including monitoring data used to assess the success of the
program at reducing the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent
practicable;
A summary of the stormwater activities the permittee plans to undertake
during the next reporting cycle (including an implementation schedule);
Proposed changes to the permittee’s Plan, including changes to any
BMPs or any identified measurable goals that apply t o the program
elements; and
Notice that the permittee is relying on another government entity to satisfy
some of the permittee’s permit obligations (if applicable).
B. Record Keeping
Each co-permittee will designate, on the co-permittee’s individual permit application, an
individual in overall charge of stormwater management activities within the co-
permittee’s area of jurisdiction. That individual will be responsible for ensuring tha t:
All elements of this Plan, pertaining to the identified co-permittee, are
effectively implemented;
Required inspections are made;
Required records are kept; and
Information required for inclusion in reports to MDNR is provided to the
coordinating authority (MSD) upon request or as scheduled.
The permit specifies certain actions, such as inspections, which each co-permittee must
perform. In addition, this Plan identifies actions that the co-permittees are committed to
take in order to comply with the requirements of the Phase II Stormwater Regulations
and the terms and conditions of the MS4 permit. Measurable goals and time frames for
achieving those goals have been established. Accurate and timely record keeping by
each co-permittee is essential in order to document the timeliness and effectiveness of
committed actions, to demonstrate compliance with the permit requirements and to
provide the basis for the annual reports. Co-permittees must maintain documentation
regarding the implementation of programs and the maintenance of the programs under
the MS4 permit. Records are required to be maintained by the co-permittee for a
minimum of three years.
Following are examples of the types of actions for which records should be kept. This
listing is not all inclusive:
Record Keeping and Reporting
10-3
Inspections as required by Section 4.1.10 of the permit (Record dates, areas
inspected, personnel involved, findings, follow-up actions, etc.). Each co-
permittee must conduct inspections within its area of jurisdiction for the
activities for which it is responsible under this Plan.
Annual program evaluations as required by Section 4.4 of the permit (Record
evaluation method and results. If changes are proposed in the Plan, record
the reasoning behind the changes).
Public information efforts under MCM 1 (Record dates, activity such as
brochure distribution, speaking event, etc.; type and number of people
reached, milestones in web site development, web site hits, results of public
knowledge surveys; etc.).
Public involvement efforts under MCM 2 (Record milestones in public
involvement activity dates, nature of activities; applicable statistics such as
numbers of volunteers, numbers of people reached, quantities of waste
collected or removed, miles of stream or road cleaned, number of inlets
marked, pet pledge cards signed; etc.).
Illicit discharge detection and elimination efforts under MCM 3 (Record
statistics such as miles of streams surveyed, number of illicit discharge
investigations initiated, number of stream problems identified; results of
investigations and problem identification; etc.)
Construction site stormwater control efforts under MCM 4 (Record milestones
in co-permittee program development, program modifications/adoptions;
statistics such as the number of permits issued; etc.).
Post-construction stormwater management in new development and
redevelopment efforts under MCM 5 (Record milestones in review and
modification of existing regulations, and MSD approval of BMPs; ensuring the
operation and maintenance responsibilities for residential structural BMPs;
etc.).
Pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations efforts
under MCM 6 (Record milestones in review and modification of existing
ordinances, training dates, locations and subject matter of training sessions;
statistics such as numbers of training sessions held, numbers of employees
trained/refreshed; etc.).
C. Reporting
As the coordinating authority for the Plan Area, the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
will compile the information provided by the individual co-permittees to satisfy the
permit’s annual review, program evaluation and annual report requirements. The
District’s Division of Environmental Compliance (DEC) will be responsible for
coordinating this activity and preparing and submitting the reports to MDNR.
Record Keeping and Reporting
10-4
The MSD DEC will develop appropriate standardized forms that co-permittees can use
to supply required information.
The MSD DEC will develop schedules for submittal of information required for reporting
purposes, including the annual reports.
BMP Goals, Measurements, and Responsibilities
11-1
CHAPTER 11
BMP Goals, Measurements, and Responsibilities
A. Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to summarize in one convenient location within this Plan
the various BMPs and goals selected each year of the permit period to comply with
requirements of the six MCMs. The entity within the Plan Area responsible for
implementation is also included. BMPs that are implemented as ongoing programs list
the permit year as “all” indicating the goal will be implemented in each year of the
permit. The information contained in this chapter summarizes what has been presented
in narrative format in each of the Chapters on MCMs for the convenience of readers.
B. BMP Implementation Information
MCM 1: PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
Permit
Year BMP Goal Selected Measurement
Method Responsibility
All
a. MSD will distribute educational materials on a
relevant topic throughout the District using bill
inserts (distributed to all customers) or cable
(distributed to all subscribing households) or
other mass media.
Message
delivered MSD
b. MSD will report the number of brochures and
other educational materials distributed to
improve water quality.
Number
distributed MSD
c. MSD will report the number of
presentations on water quality and nonpoint
source pollution education.
Number
presentations MSD
d. MSD will maintain its web site with
educational materials on stormwater impacts
and ways to improve water quality, and will
report the number of Phase II web page
visits.
Number web visits MSD
1 No new goals planned - -
BMP Goals, Measurements, and Responsibilities
11-2
Permit
Year BMP Goal Selected Measurement
Method Responsibility
2
A work group will be formed to evaluate
nonpoint source pollution education in
schools. The evaluation will consider past
efforts, and may include a survey to
determine the number of schools and
students reached and how. Findings and
recommendations to enhance education
efforts will be established.
Evaluation
performed MSD
3
A work group will be formed to review and
update the existing inventory of educational
materials to improve water quality.
Materials updated MSD
4
MSD will develop specific water quality
messages for co-permittees that are
particularly relevant to the area.
Message
developed MSD
5
a. MSD will ask co-permittees to develop
and maintain a web site, or link to a regional
web site, with educational resources on
stormwater impacts and ways to improve
water quality.
Web sites
developed Co-permittees
b. The specific co-permittee water quality
messages developed by MSD in Year 4 will
be distributed within the population, or co-
permittees may also develop their own
messages.
Message
delivered Co-permittees
c. To test the public’s knowledge of
stormwater issues a questionnaire will be
developed and a telephone survey
conducted. The information will be used to
analyze the impact of MSD’s educational
activities on making the public more aware
of stormwater quality issues and needs.
Effective actions will be continued but
subject matter may be revised
Number of
responses MSD
CONTINUE MCM 1
BMP Goals, Measurements, and Responsibilities
11-3
MCM 2: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND PARTICIPATION
Permit
Year BMP Goal Selected Measurement
Method Responsibility
All
a. MSD will report on the number of
volunteer presentations supported. Number supported MSD
b. MSD will report on the number of storm
drain marking projects supported. Number supported MSD
c. MSD will report on the number of
volunteer neighborhood and stream clean-
ups supported.
Number supported MSD
d. St. Louis County will report on the amount
of household hazardous waste collected. Waste volume St. Louis County
e. MSD will organize with partner
organizations one or more annual stream or
neighborhood clean-up events to cover the
Plan Area. Each co-permittee will
participate with a planned event, or
participate in their own stream or
neighborhood clean-up activity in the
community.
Number of events
and waste volume Co-permittees
f. Report on public participation activities to
promote stormwater management public
involvement programs that reduce the
volume and/or rate of discharges of
stormwater.
Number of
participation
activities
MSD
1
A work group will be formed to identify and
develop a list of incentives and awards (i.e.,
certifications, yard signs, nursery coupons
for native plants), and other ways citizens
and organizations can participate in the MS4
program.
Participation
activities identified MSD
2
Distribute a report listing incentives and
awards (i.e., certifications, yard signs,
nursery coupons for native plants) and other
ways citizens and organizations can
participate in the MS4 program
Report distributed MSD
3 No new goals planned - -
4 No new goals planned - -
BMP Goals, Measurements, and Responsibilities
11-4
Permit
Year BMP Goal Selected Measurement
Method Responsibility
5
MSD, supported by citizen volunteers, will
publish a report of their activities, including
outcomes and recommendations for future
volunteer activities.
Report prepared
and published MSD
MCM 3: ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION
Permit
Year BMP Goal Selected Measurement
Method Responsibility
All
a. Survey 1,380 miles of area streams for
illicit discharge over permit term, averaging
280 miles per year over 5 years. MSD will
report stream miles inspected, the findings
of the inspection, and the actions taken.
Miles surveyed MSD
b. MSD will inspect outdoor waste handling
areas at restaurants and other facilities as
part of the interceptor/grease trap
inspections, and report the numbers of
inspections and violations.
Inspections
performed MSD
c. MSD will distribute illicit stormwater
discharges brochure to the industrial
customers inspected by the pretreatment
unit each year.
Brochures
distributed MSD
d. MSD will report IDD and waste finding
reports to co-permittees to improve
communications in detecting and eliminating
illicit discharges. Reports will include
stream miles inspected, the findings of the
inspections, and the MSD actions taken
within the co-permittee boundaries.
Reports distributed MSD
1 No new goals planned - -
2 No new goals planned - -
CONTINUE MCM 2
BMP Goals, Measurements, and Responsibilities
11-5
CONTINUE MCM 3
Permit
Year BMP Goal Selected Measurement
Method Responsibility
3
a. MSD in coordination with St. Louis County
will develop a brochure to address individual
sewage disposal systems. The brochure will
describe the elements of an individual
sewage disposal system, how it operates,
homeowner maintenance responsibilities,
signs of a malfunctioning systems,
enforcement, and resource information.
Brochure
developed MSD
b. Identify sources that are tracking
individual sewage disposal system data,
including, but not limited to installations,
repairs, and enforcement actions will be
implemented.
Sources identified MSD
4
MSD, partners, and co-permittees will
distribute the brochure to address individual
sewage disposal systems. Distribution may
include web site posting.
Brochure
distributed Co-permittees
5 No new goals planned - -
MCM 4 CONSTRUCTION SITE STORMWATER RUNOFF CONTROL
Permit
Year BMP Goal Selected Measurement
Method Responsibility
All
a. Municipalities and St. Louis County will
report permits issued by name and area
disturbed. This information was requested
by MDNR for coordination to ensure land
disturbance program compliance.
Annual Report Municipalities &
St. Louis County
b. Municipalities and St. Louis County will
report the number of formal, written notices
of violation and further enforcement actions
taken, and the companies they were taken
against.
Annual Report Municipalities &
St. Louis County
1
MSD and St. Louis County will develop and
conduct one staged inspection training
workshop for municipalities to improve
implementation of their Phase II land
disturbance programs.
Workshop provided St. Louis County
and MSD
BMP Goals, Measurements, and Responsibilities
11-6
CONTINUE MCM 4
Permit
Year BMP Goal Selected Measurement
Method Responsibility
2 No new goals planned - -
3
MSD and St. Louis County will provide
educational program or training for
developers and construction company
employees, engineers, contractors, or local
inspectors on sediment and erosion control
BMPs, and evaluate training effectiveness.
Program or training
sessions provided
MSD and
St. Louis County
4 No new goals planned - -
5 No new goals planned - -
MCM 5: POST-CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Permit
Year BMP Goal Selected Measurement
Method Responsibility
All
a. MSD will report the number of post-
construction BMPs constructed and
approved, and the number of BMPs
inspected as part of long term operation and
maintenance.
Number of BMPs
installed and
inspected
MSD
b. MSD will report the number of
developments that are charged for utilizing
the conceptual review service.
Number of reviews MSD
1
a. MSD will develop standardized checklists
and reporting procedures for post-
construction BMP owners to assist in
ensuring proper maintenance of the BMPs.
Information will be distributed to audiences
using the BMP Toolbox website.
Material developed MSD
b. MSD will coordinate a work group of co-
permittees and consultants to evaluate
parameters and technology related to
guidance for post-construction BMPs on
roadway redevelopment projects within the
District.
Evaluation
complete MSD
2
a. MSD and partners will develop or update
educational materials for municipal public
works officials, developers, and engineers.
The materials will promote the use of non-
structural BMPs and the benefits of
stormwater management planning prior to
land disturbance.
Material distributed MSD
BMP Goals, Measurements, and Responsibilities
11-7
CONTINUE MCM 5
Permit
Year BMP Goal Selected Measurement
Method Responsibility
b. MSD will review land use data and identify
the co-permittees that appear to benefit
most from review of parking ordinances.
MSD will discuss these findings with all co-
permittees and develop a list of co-
permittees subject to the Year 3 goal to
review parking and weed ordinances.
Appropriate stakeholders will be included at
the Cities’ request.
Assessment
completed MSD
3
a. MSD will develop educational materials
on stormwater BMPs in the community and
distribute them to specific audiences. MSD
may provide workshops for these specific
audiences, as necessary. Examples of
specific audiences include homeowner
associations, school districts and fire
districts.
Material
distributed MSD
b. Municipalities listed under the Year 2 land
use data review and St. Louis County will be
asked to review the model parking and weed
ordinances presented in the Stormwater
Best Management Practices Post-
Construction Recommendations –
Addressing Legal Impediments and
Mandated Impervious Areas, February 2011
report, compare these models to their
current ordinances, and consider whether
any revision to current ordinances is
appropriate. (Only co-permittees that were
listed in Year 2 will be required to perform
this goal.)
Review completed
Listed
Municipalities
and
St. Louis County
4
MSD will ask the co-permittees listed in Year
2 to consider revising their parking and/or
weed ordinances based on the reviews
performed in Year 3. Co-permittees will also
be asked to report on what actions, if any,
they took as a result of the review. (Only co-
permittees that were listed in Year 2 will be
required to perform this goal).
Actions Reported
Listed
Municipalities
and
St. Louis County
5
MSD will review post construction
stormwater BMP selection and pollutant
removal performance with regard to local
water quality impairments, including bacteria
and chloride.
Review completed MSD
2
BMP Goals, Measurements, and Responsibilities
11-8
MCM 6 POLLUTION PREVENTION/GOOD HOUSEKEEPING FOR MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS
Permit
Year BMP Goal Selected Measurement
Method Responsibility
All
a. MSD and partners will identify and
develop educational information or a case
study, and distribute to co-permittees to
encourage implementation of BMPs.
Information
distributed MSD
b. Training in BMPs will continue as
refresher seminars and workshops, and as
BMP introduction for new employees as co-
permittees implement their ongoing
employee training programs. MSD will
provide BMP refresher workshops for the co-
permittees.
Workshops
provided MSD
c. Co-permittees will report on the number of
employees trained. Employees Trained Co-permittees
d. Co-permittees will inspect their facilities to
ensure implementation of BMPs and report
the number of inspections annually.
Inspection findings will be incorporated into
the co-permittee’s program review and
employee training program.
Inspections
performed Co-permittees
e. Municipalities and St. Louis County will
report salt usage per lane mile (as actual or
estimated), the application equipment and
method used, and application rate(s)
selected and the selection methodology
used in snow and ice removal from
roadways. Municipalities and St. Louis
County will report the number of winter
storms in each season, the total salt usage
in tons, and the total lane miles of roadway
maintained
Amounts and
BMPs reported
Municipalities
and
St. Louis County
1
MSD and St. Louis County will update the
November 2009 guidance document titled
Identifying and addressing Solid Waste
Problem Areas due to Illegal Dumping and
Littering to include a checklist on how to host
a clean-up event.
Document updated MSD and
St. Louis County
BMP Goals, Measurements, and Responsibilities
11-9
CONTINUE MCM 6
Permit
Year BMP Goal Selected Measurement
Method Responsibility
2
a. A municipal work group will be organized
to update the February 2005 dated
Operation and Maintenance Program model
template for co-permittees.
Model template
updated MSD
b. MSD will take the lead, and invite St.
Louis County and partners, such as Missouri
Stream Team, to hold one training workshop
for co-permittees on how to host a clean-up
event.
Workshop provided MSD
3
a. MSD will distribute the revised Operation
and Maintenance Program model template
and ask co-permittees to review and
consider the need to update their operation
and maintenance programs.
Model template
distributed MSD
b. MSD will survey the number of co-
permittee BMP projects that reduce the
volume and rate of stormwater runoff
implemented at municipal-owned facilities.
The survey will include both BMPs required
under MCM 5 and voluntary type BMPs.
Survey completed MSD
c. A work group will be formed to evaluate,
and update as applicable, the guidance for
municipalities tracking snow and ice removal
methodologies from roadways: such as
product (i.e., salt) usage per lane mile, the
application equipment and method used,
and the application rate(s) selected and the
selection methodology used.
Consideration will be given to include salt
application training with a focus on
application rates.
Evaluation
completed MSD
BMP Goals, Measurements, and Responsibilities
11-10
CONTINUE MCM 6
Permit
Year BMP Goal Selected Measurement
Method Responsibility
4
a. MSD will develop and distribute a report
on municipal operations BMP projects that
reduce the volume and rate of stormwater
runoff and report number of projects
implemented at municipal-owned facilities.
The survey will include both BMPs required
under MCM 5 and voluntary projects.
Report distributed MSD
b. MSD and St. Louis County will evaluate
data on salt usage per lane mile, application
equipment and method, and application rate
goals used in snow and ice removal from
roadways, and distribute a report of the
evaluation that makes recommendations for
best practices.
Report distributed MSD and
St. Louis County
c. MSD will develop and conduct a staged
inspection training workshop for
municipalities to improve implementation of
their Phase II inspection programs.
Workshop provided MSD
5
MSD will survey municipality and St. Louis
County parks with pet waste stations and
distribute pet waste station BMP resource
information.
Survey completed MSD
C. Effectiveness of BMPs
It is considered by the Planning Committee that the BMP goals and measurements
identified in this chapter comply with the requirements of the Phase II Regulations and
that when implemented the pollution of stormwater in the Plan Area will be prevented to
the maximum extent practicable.
BMP Goals, Measurements, and Responsibilities
11-11
D. Funding
The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District remains committed to permit compliance and
continuing to act as coordinating authority implementing the phase II Plan. However,
funding the Plan is a challenge and due to specific legislation explained in this section,
MSD no longer provides certain stormwater management services required under the
permit to specific areas covered under the phase II MS4 permit.
In the first term Plan, MSD referenced that an impervious charge could generate funds
to support implementation of the Plan. As reported in the Year 5 report of the first term
MS4 Annual Report, the MSD’s Board of Trustees adopted Ordinance 12560 on
December 13, 2007, which established a schedule of Stormwater User Charges based
on the area of impervious surfaces on property. All properties within MSD’s boundaries
were billed a monthly charge of $0.12 per 100 square feet of impervious area starting
March 1, 2008, which was later increased to $0.14 per 100 square feet. With the
implementation of a new stormwater impervious charge, the OMCI tax collected in some
taxing districts was reduced to zero in 2008. In the Year 1 report of the second term
annual report MDNR Addendum report, MSD identified that 100% of future funding
would come from the stormwater impervious fee.
However, in Year 3 of the second term annual report, MSD reported an interruption in
MSD’s stormwater funding. First, Missouri House Bill 661 was passed by the General
Assembly and signed by the Governor. House Bill 661 limited MSD’s ability to charge
certain properties for stormwater services. Therefore, on August 28, 2009, when House
Bill 661 went into effect, MSD ceased the stormwater user charge billing of
approximately 3600 properties to comply with the law. MSD also submitted a letter
dated August 31, 2009 to the Director of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources
stating MSD would not be able to perform plan review, permitting, and inspection of
development projects to ensure compliance with stormwater quality requirements under
MCM 5 on the affected parcels.
Secondly, on July 9, 2010, Circuit Judge Dan Dildine ruled against MSD in the ca se of
Zweig, et. al. vs. MSD. The suit was filed in St. Louis County Circuit Court by Dr.
William Zweig and others on behalf of a class of ratepayers over the validity of MSD’s
impervious stormwater user charge under Missouri’s Hancock Amendment. The
judgment meant MSD would lose its ability to collect funds for stormwater services
based upon the impervious fee. MSD appealed the Circuit Court ruling. The MSD
Board of Trustees suspended the collection of the impervious charge for stormwater
services in August 2010. As a result, the previous funding mechanisms, a system of flat
charges and property taxes both district-wide and in taxing sub-districts, was reinstated.
The Missouri Court of Appeals agreed in part with the Circuit Court ruling of 2010.
MSD has recently requested that the Missouri Supreme Court hear the case. A final
resolution is still pending at the time this Plan was written.
BMP Goals, Measurements, and Responsibilities
11-12
Water Quality
A - 1
APPENDICES
Water Quality
Water Quality
A - 2
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage10-Jun-0906-Jun-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3722413.9310-Jun-0906-Jun-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L374.3113.88.3310-Jun-0906-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L3724013.1610-Jun-0906-Jun-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU26697.1922-Feb-1106-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L150.5578.7706-Jun-1106-Jun-12Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N130.0250.07580.0322-Feb-1106-Dec-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L91.51.51.522-Feb-1106-Dec-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as90.2770.720.522-Feb-1106-Dec-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L90.1250.4890.1705-Apr-1106-Dec-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P80.0540.4780.1310-Jun-0906-Dec-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L31164.4344287.6610-Jun-0906-Dec-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.000150.150.0610-Jun-0906-Dec-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.00331.210-Jun-0906-Dec-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.00125.80.6310-Jun-0906-Dec-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.034012.9310-Jun-0906-Dec-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.000454.90.3210-Jun-0906-Dec-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.013513.55.3810-Jun-0906-Dec-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0105589.0910-Jun-0906-Oct-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL6592000858.1710-Jun-0906-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL23961001018.7813-Apr-1006-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL17101553485.7610-Jun-0906-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L371110334.4613-Apr-1004-Oct-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL14201076281.5Sample Summary and StatisticsAntire Creek near Lewis Rd
Water Quality
A - 3
Antire Creek
Note – Limit shown for comparative purposes only. MDNR determines compliance based on 303(d) listing
methodology
Water Quality
A - 4
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage22-Jul-0918-Jun-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3612613.4622-Jul-0918-Jun-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L363.9148.6422-Jul-0918-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L3668429.3622-Jul-0918-Jun-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU266.38.77.5815-Feb-1118-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L17223739.0616-May-1118-Jun-12Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N140.0250.1490.0915-Feb-1119-Dec-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L111.53.921.9415-Feb-1119-Dec-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as110.10.890.4115-Feb-1119-Dec-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L110.1250.5350.2809-Mar-1119-Dec-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P100.040.3070.1522-Jul-0919-Dec-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L3060688482.7122-Jul-0919-Dec-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.000150.150.0622-Jul-0919-Dec-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.00331.222-Jul-0919-Dec-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.001229.71.922-Jul-0919-Dec-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.0318826.122-Jul-0919-Dec-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.000450.450.1822-Jul-0919-Dec-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.013513.55.4122-Jul-0919-Dec-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.0105507.0122-Jul-0923-Sep-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL466016001057.522-Jul-0918-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL1915033000543004-May-1018-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL15189130003577.6722-Jul-0918-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L36281260143.8304-May-1017-Oct-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL1398362945866.23Sample Summary and StatisticsAubuchon Creek at Charbonier Rd
Water Quality
A - 5
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage07-Jul-0912-Jun-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3612715.1207-Jul-0912-Jun-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L363.33147.5307-Jul-0912-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L361518938.4207-Jul-0912-Jun-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU26687.1908-Feb-1112-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L170.512314.4409-May-1112-Jun-12Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N130.0250.2370.1108-Feb-1112-Dec-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L101.53.921.7408-Feb-1112-Dec-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as110.3431.570.8808-Feb-1112-Dec-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L110.1250.250.1407-Mar-1112-Dec-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P100.0150.170.0807-Jul-0912-Dec-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L30184.8600337.1207-Jul-0912-Dec-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.000150.150.0607-Jul-0912-Dec-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.003302.107-Jul-0912-Dec-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.001234.21.7307-Jul-0912-Dec-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.037213.4307-Jul-0912-Dec-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.000451.10.207-Jul-0912-Dec-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.013513.55.4107-Jul-0912-Dec-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.01055410.1807-Jul-0907-Oct-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL5460550001231007-Jul-0912-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL2236840006450.2707-Apr-1012-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL16145200002102.0607-Jul-0912-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L36682070264.4407-Apr-1010-Oct-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL146334501110.86Sample Summary and StatisticsBlack Creek at Manchester Rd
Water Quality
A - 6
Black Creek
Note – Limit shown for comparative purposes only. MDNR determines compliance based on 303(d) listing
methodology
Note – Limit shown for comparative purposes only. MDNR determines compliance based on 303(d) listing
methodology
Water Quality
A - 7
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage02-Jun-0913-Jun-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3512814.6302-Jun-0913-Jun-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L356.115.18.7402-Jun-0913-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L3546421.3402-Jun-0913-Jun-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU255.88.17.2124-Feb-1113-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L140.54314.6810-May-1113-Jun-12Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N120.0250.1010.0624-Feb-1114-Dec-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L91.51.51.524-Feb-1114-Dec-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as90.11.650.8824-Feb-1114-Dec-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L90.1250.8750.2808-Mar-1114-Dec-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P80.010.240.0902-Jun-0914-Dec-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L2994353.2239.5702-Jun-0914-Dec-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.000150.40.0702-Jun-0914-Dec-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.00331.2802-Jun-0914-Dec-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.001211.80.9902-Jun-0914-Dec-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.036714.4402-Jun-0914-Dec-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.000450.450.1902-Jun-0914-Dec-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.013513.55.7502-Jun-0914-Dec-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.0105729.9602-Jun-0912-Oct-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL61202200840.6702-Jun-0913-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL194592001530.7919-Apr-1013-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL12631150241.9202-Jun-0913-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L351921493.0319-Apr-1008-Aug-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL113198001629.91Sample Summary and StatisticsBonhomme Creek at Baxter Rd
Water Quality
A - 8
Bonhomme
Note – Limit shown for comparative purposes only. MDNR determines compliance based on 303(d) listing
methodology
Water Quality
A - 9
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage14-Jul-0913-Jun-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C35322.513.9514-Jul-0913-Jun-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L355.6212814-Jul-0913-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L3548520.3114-Jul-0913-Jun-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU2667.97.1324-Feb-1113-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L160.52910.7210-May-1113-Jun-12Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N140.0250.0920.0424-Feb-1114-Dec-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L111.53.361.6724-Feb-1114-Dec-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as110.412.31751.624-Feb-1114-Dec-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L110.1250.2750.1408-Mar-1114-Dec-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P100.030.120.0714-Jul-0914-Dec-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L29114355.6259.3714-Jul-0914-Dec-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.000150.150.0614-Jul-0914-Dec-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.00331.2414-Jul-0914-Dec-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.00126.80.6914-Jul-0914-Dec-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.0312015.5414-Jul-0914-Dec-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.000450.450.1914-Jul-0914-Dec-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.013513.55.614-Jul-0914-Dec-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.010510.54.3614-Jul-0912-Oct-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL51905600159614-Jul-0913-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL20100490004541.2519-Apr-1013-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL144164901179.7114-Jul-0913-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L3526262109.7119-Apr-1011-Oct-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL137448801391.31Sample Summary and StatisticsCaulks Creek at Wildhorse Creek Rd
Water Quality
A - 10
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage22-Jul-0919-Dec-11Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3012613.5122-Jul-0919-Dec-11Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L305.6148.1222-Jul-0919-Dec-11Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L3069234.5322-Jul-0919-Dec-11pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU206.18.77.4515-Feb-1119-Dec-11Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L11828747.7316-May-1119-Dec-11Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N80.0250.2430.1315-Feb-1119-Dec-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L111.55.62.2115-Feb-1119-Dec-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as110.10.760.4815-Feb-1119-Dec-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L110.12510.309-Mar-1119-Dec-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P100.0150.5420.1522-Jul-0919-Dec-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L3070.8539.2260.2322-Jul-0919-Dec-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.000150.150.0622-Jul-0919-Dec-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.00331.222-Jul-0919-Dec-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.0012334.216.1722-Jul-0919-Dec-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.033012.0522-Jul-0919-Dec-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.0004518.40.9322-Jul-0919-Dec-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.013513.55.4122-Jul-0919-Dec-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.010535021.1122-Jul-0918-Jan-11Aluminum, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L190.064512944.1622-Jul-0923-Sep-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL42201300632.522-Jul-0917-Oct-11Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL16110640006315.504-May-1017-Oct-11Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL1286242004210.1722-Jul-0919-Dec-11Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L3016750155.7304-May-1017-Oct-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL1352362944481.08Coldwater Creek at Hwy 367Sample Summary and Statistics
Water Quality
A - 11
Begin Date End Date Parameter Description Units Count Min Max Average
16-Jun-09 18-Jun-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius °C 37 -0.11 30.42 14.76
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Discharge, instantaneous, cubic feet per second cfs 31 1.27 2440 158.76
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Specific conductance, water, unfiltered, field, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius uS/cm at 25 °C 31 110 3006 764
16-Jun-09 18-Jun-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter mg/L 37 4.02 12.54 7.62
16-Jun-09 18-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter mg/L 37 1.6 89 23.56
16-Jun-09 18-Jun-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard units SU 37 6.83 8.17 7.68
16-Jun-09 18-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per liter mg/L 37 4 1200 63.59
18-Jan-11 13-Dec-11 Total nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter mg/L 12 0.00115 2.5 0.86
16-Jun-09 18-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L as N 25 0.0075 0.125 0.05
18-Jan-11 13-Dec-11 Ammonia, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L 12 0.0075 0.67 0.15
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L as N 19 0.001 0.18 0.03
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Nitrate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L as N 19 0.1 1.1 0.48
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L 31 0.56 2.8 0.93
18-Jan-11 13-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L as 12 0.2 0.82 0.44
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L as N 19 0.11 1.2 0.51
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorus mg/L 31 0.05 1.1 0.24
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorus mg/L as P 31 0.0025 0.41 0.13
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonate mg/L 31 37.9 540 201.51
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Calcium, water, filtered, milligrams per liter mg/L 19 11 100 46.63
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Magnesium, water, filtered, milligrams per liter mg/L 19 2.4 35 15.76
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Chloride, water, filtered, milligrams per liter mg/L 19 9.7 770 115.3
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Arsenic, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 1.3 3.5 2.19
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Arsenic, water, unfiltered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 1.8 8.5 2.71
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Beryllium, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.006 0.06 0.01
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Beryllium, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.006 0.78 0.07
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 0.00395 0.11 0.03
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Cadmium, water, unfiltered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.02 0.92 0.1
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 0.77 16 3.94
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Chromium, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 1.8 130 12.21
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 1.4 8.5 3.09
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Copper, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 2.7 36 6.62
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Iron, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 160 21000 1930.53
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 5.6 400 77.37
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 0.0016 0.93 0.17
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Lead, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.34 51 4.77
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Manganese, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 63 1100 258.68
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Manganese, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 27 720 160.05
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 1.5 6.8 4.22
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Nickel, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 3.1 30 7.06
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Silver, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.00475 0.18 0.03
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Silver, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.00475 0.14 0.04
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 0.0095 12 4.15
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Zinc, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 4.6 160 22.52
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Aluminum, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 99 15000 1403.11
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Aluminum, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 1.8 140 38.53
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Selenium, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 0.46 4 1.76
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Selenium, water, unfiltered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.33 6.2 2.01
16-Jun-09 15-Dec-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.45 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliters cfu/100mL 7 240 182000 45377.14
12-Apr-11 18-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliters cfu/100mL 10 90 78000 14438.9
19-Jan-10 18-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 22 20 38700 3825.64
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Mercury, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.0155 0.22 0.04
16-Jun-09 15-Dec-09 Escherichia coli, modified m-TEC MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliters cfu/100mL 7 160 92000 20531.43
18-Jan-11 18-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter mg/L 18 13 560 122.33
19-Jan-10 18-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 19 20 92100 7807.53
Sample Summary and Statistics
Coldwater Creek near Black Jack, MO
Water Quality
A - 12
Coldwater Creek, Hwy 367
Note – Limit shown for comparative purposes only. MDNR determines compliance based on 303(d) listing
methodology
Water Quality
A - 13
Coldwater Creek, near Black Jack
Note – Limit shown for comparative purposes only. MDNR determines compliance based on 303(d) listing
methodology
Note – Limit shown for comparative purposes only. MDNR determines compliance based on 303(d) listing
methodology
Water Quality
A - 14
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage22-Jul-0918-Jun-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C32126.513.4822-Jul-0918-Jun-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L33116.67.6322-Jul-0918-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L32196337.5322-Jul-0918-Jun-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU246.68.67.615-Feb-1118-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L16714937.6916-May-1118-Jun-12Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N130.0250.180.1115-Feb-1119-Dec-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L101.53.921.7415-Feb-1119-Dec-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as100.10.990.3615-Feb-1119-Dec-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L100.1250.4480.1709-Mar-1119-Dec-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P80.030.1110.0722-Jul-0919-Dec-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L261402904.4476.9622-Jul-0919-Dec-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L260.000150.150.0622-Jul-0919-Dec-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L260.00331.2722-Jul-0919-Dec-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L260.001258.7322-Jul-0919-Dec-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L260.0312016.2122-Jul-0919-Dec-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L260.000450.450.1922-Jul-0919-Dec-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L260.013513.55.7222-Jul-0919-Dec-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L260.010561029.9822-Jul-0923-Sep-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL413004100235022-Jul-0918-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL16110520005918.1204-May-1018-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL12107242005262.522-Jul-0918-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L32721640251.1204-May-1017-Oct-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL1086362949055.7Sample Summary and StatisticsCowmire Creek at Aubochon Rd
Water Quality
A - 15
Begin Date End Date Parameter Description Units Count Min Max Average
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius °C 31 0.37 27.98 13.99
17-May-11 13-Dec-11 Discharge, cubic feet per second cfs 4 8.4 112 42.35
16-Jun-09 13-Sep-11 Discharge, instantaneous, cubic feet per second cfs 27 1.5 1730 135.31
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Specific conductance, water, unfiltered, field, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius uS/cm at 25 °C 31 217 3921 997.97
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter mg/L 31 4.22 14.35 8.07
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter mg/L 31 1.6 82 18.22
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard units SU 31 6.92 8.17 7.63
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per liter mg/L 31 2 500 57.94
18-Jan-11 13-Dec-11 Total nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter mg/L 12 0.75 1.5 1.05
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L as N 19 0.0022 0.26 0.07
18-Jan-11 13-Dec-11 Ammonia, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L 12 0.029 0.22 0.09
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L as N 19 0.001 0.1 0.02
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Nitrate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L as N 19 0.06 1.4 0.5
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L 31 0.54 1.9 0.96
18-Jan-11 13-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L as 12 0.28 0.66 0.5
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L as N 19 0.061 1.45 0.53
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorus mg/L 31 0.05 0.64 0.2
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorus mg/L as P 31 0.01 0.21 0.1
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonate mg/L 31 57 430 239.74
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Calcium, water, filtered, milligrams per liter mg/L 19 17 120 63.84
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Magnesium, water, filtered, milligrams per liter mg/L 19 3.7 26 15.31
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Chloride, water, filtered, milligrams per liter mg/L 19 18 1100 165.05
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Arsenic, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 1 4.1 2.36
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Arsenic, water, unfiltered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 1.4 5.3 2.86
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Beryllium, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.00065 0.04 0.02
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Beryllium, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.006 0.41 0.06
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 0.00395 0.18 0.05
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Cadmium, water, unfiltered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.01 0.23 0.06
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 0.99 23 4.76
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Chromium, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 1.4 25 5.65
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 1.5 11 3.46
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Copper, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 2.3 14 5.39
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Iron, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 220 9300 1816.32
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 6.5 410 76.66
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 0.0016 0.5 0.09
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Lead, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.26 13 2.19
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Manganese, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 85 700 304.47
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Manganese, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 74 680 215.37
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 2.4 9.6 5.26
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Nickel, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 4.2 16 7.15
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Silver, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.00475 0.1 0.02
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Silver, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.00475 0.4 0.09
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 0.0095 68 6.33
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Zinc, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 3.7 42 15.09
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Aluminum, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 140 9200 1284.21
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Aluminum, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.03 250 53.81
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Selenium, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 0.49 7.2 1.86
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Selenium, water, unfiltered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.46 6.9 2.14
16-Jun-09 15-Dec-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.45 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliters cfu/100mL 7 210 50000 15298.57
12-Apr-11 18-Oct-11 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliters cfu/100mL 7 63 30000 5734.71
19-Jan-10 18-Oct-11 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 19 10 32800 2405.05
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Mercury, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.0155 0.1 0.02
16-Jun-09 15-Dec-09 Escherichia coli, modified m-TEC MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliters cfu/100mL 7 70 38000 9904.29
18-Jan-11 13-Dec-11 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter mg/L 12 29 500 163.58
19-Jan-10 18-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 19 10 32600 3006
Sample Summary and Statistics
Creve Coeur Creek near Creve Coeur, MO
Water Quality
A - 16
Creve Coeur Creek, near Creve Coeur
Note – Limit shown for comparative purposes only. MDNR determines compliance based on 303(d) listing
methodology
Note – Limit shown for comparative purposes only. MDNR determines compliance based on 303(d) listing
methodology
Water Quality
A - 17
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage15-Nov-1013-Jun-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C2013014.4515-Nov-1013-Jun-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L205.514.68.5615-Nov-1013-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L20196831.6510-May-1113-Jun-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU147.28.68.0109-Feb-1113-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L16210731.1910-May-1113-Jun-12Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N140.0250.2890.0709-Feb-1114-Dec-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L111.53.361.6709-Feb-1114-Dec-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as110.13.890.5409-Feb-1114-Dec-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L110.1250.1250.1208-Mar-1114-Dec-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P100.010.0870.0315-Nov-1014-Dec-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L14154.8436.4210.9415-Nov-1014-Dec-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L140.000150.00015015-Nov-1014-Dec-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L140.0030.005015-Nov-1014-Dec-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L140.00120.0027015-Nov-1014-Dec-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L140.030.50620.0715-Nov-1014-Dec-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L140.000450.00045015-Nov-1014-Dec-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L140.01350.020.0215-Nov-1014-Dec-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L140.01050.05440.0226-Apr-1113-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL109310132.410-May-1113-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL81022851.515-Nov-1013-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L2060277113.126-Apr-1111-Oct-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL710189101Sample Summary and StatisticsCreve Couer Creek at Maryland Heights Exp
Water Quality
A - 18
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage02-Jun-0904-Oct-10Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C1522717.1302-Jun-0904-Oct-10Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L155.1148.2402-Jun-0904-Oct-10Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L15214733.6702-Jun-0903-May-10pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU136.58.67.7502-Jun-0904-Oct-10Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L15119.6396.4200.402-Jun-0904-Oct-10Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L150.000150.150.1102-Jun-0904-Oct-10Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L150.00332.3302-Jun-0904-Oct-10Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L150.0012160.811.8502-Jun-0904-Oct-10Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L150.039934.2802-Jun-0904-Oct-10Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L150.000456.10.7302-Jun-0904-Oct-10Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L150.013513.510.502-Jun-0904-Oct-10Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L150.010514218.402-Jun-0912-Oct-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL752700468.2902-Jun-0904-Oct-10Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL10451500397.519-Apr-1004-Oct-10Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL452011.2502-Jun-0904-Oct-10Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L153124812019-Apr-1004-Oct-10Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL4524394.5Sample Summary and StatisticsCreve Couer Creek I at Missouri R. WWTP
Water Quality
A - 19
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage10-Jun-0914-Dec-11Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C31127.315.2710-Jun-0914-Dec-11Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L312.4136.9210-Jun-0914-Dec-11Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L31206132.7110-Jun-0914-Dec-11pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU215.77.97.2209-Feb-1114-Dec-11Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L1084221.210-May-1114-Dec-11Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N80.08260.2830.1709-Feb-1114-Dec-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L111.53.361.6709-Feb-1114-Dec-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as110.3121.320.7309-Feb-1114-Dec-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L110.1250.2980.1508-Mar-1114-Dec-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P100.0150.170.110-Jun-0914-Dec-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L31115.2528294.6810-Jun-0914-Dec-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.000150.150.0610-Jun-0914-Dec-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.00331.2610-Jun-0914-Dec-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0012795.526.2510-Jun-0914-Dec-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0324524.1710-Jun-0914-Dec-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0004534.61.2910-Jun-0914-Dec-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.013513.55.6710-Jun-0914-Dec-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.010567026.0910-Jun-0912-Oct-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL615086002116.6710-Jun-0911-Oct-11Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL1873210002300.8919-Apr-1011-Oct-11Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL121061301161.0810-Jun-0914-Dec-11Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L31251010163.2919-Apr-1011-Oct-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL1341141001479.62Sample Summary and StatisticsCreve Couer Creek II at Creve Coeur Mill Rd
Water Quality
A - 20
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage07-Jul-0912-Jun-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3712714.9407-Jul-0912-Jun-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L374.44137.5807-Jul-0912-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L371510236.8907-Jul-0912-Jun-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU266.28.27.2508-Feb-1112-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L170.528827.7409-May-1112-Jun-12Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N130.11.460.3808-Feb-1112-Dec-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L101.53.922.1108-Feb-1112-Dec-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as110.411.450.8408-Feb-1112-Dec-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L110.1250.2740.1507-Mar-1112-Dec-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P100.0410.20.1107-Jul-0912-Dec-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L31141480293.6607-Jul-0912-Dec-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.000150.150.0607-Jul-0912-Dec-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.00331.1607-Jul-0912-Dec-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0012122.34.4907-Jul-0912-Dec-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0311518.6507-Jul-0912-Dec-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.000453.40.2707-Jul-0912-Dec-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.013513.55.2407-Jul-0912-Dec-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.010522919.1707-Jul-0907-Oct-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL534025000633207-Jul-0912-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL223628000325307-Apr-1012-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL1641240002159.0607-Jul-0912-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L37432190215.5607-Apr-1010-Oct-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL14103870901.21Deer Creek at Big Bend BlvdSample Summary and Statistics
Water Quality
A - 21
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage02-Jun-0902-Jun-09Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C125252502-Jun-0902-Jun-09Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L15.75.75.702-Jun-0902-Jun-09Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L127272702-Jun-0902-Jun-09pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU18.28.28.202-Jun-0902-Jun-09Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L1311.2311.2311.202-Jun-0902-Jun-09Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L10.050.050.0502-Jun-0902-Jun-09Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L111102-Jun-0902-Jun-09Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L11.21.21.202-Jun-0902-Jun-09Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L164646402-Jun-0902-Jun-09Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L10.150.150.1502-Jun-0902-Jun-09Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L14.54.54.502-Jun-0902-Jun-09Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L137373702-Jun-0902-Jun-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL127027027002-Jun-0902-Jun-09Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL142042042002-Jun-0902-Jun-09Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L1108108108Sample Summary and StatisticsDeer Creek at Brechenridge Industrial Ct
Water Quality
A - 22
Deer Creek, near Big Bend
Note – Limit shown for comparative purposes only. MDNR determines compliance based on 303(d) listing
methodology
Note – Limit shown for comparative purposes only. MDNR determines compliance based on 303(d) listing
methodology
Water Quality
A - 23
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage07-Jul-0912-Jun-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3713015.0207-Jul-0912-Jun-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L37415.57.8407-Jul-0912-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L371111334.3207-Jul-0912-Jun-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU266.47.927.3508-Feb-1112-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L17310727.8209-May-1112-Jun-12Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N130.060.4040.1708-Feb-1112-Dec-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L101.51.51.508-Feb-1112-Dec-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as110.2321.10.7308-Feb-1112-Dec-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L110.1250.360.1707-Mar-1112-Dec-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P100.0150.2590.1407-Jul-0912-Dec-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L31162448290.2107-Jul-0912-Dec-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.000150.150.0607-Jul-0912-Dec-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.00331.1607-Jul-0912-Dec-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.001280.7907-Jul-0912-Dec-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.036012.6207-Jul-0912-Dec-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0004510.1907-Jul-0912-Dec-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.013513.55.2407-Jul-0912-Dec-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.01056911.407-Jul-0907-Oct-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL517065041007-Jul-0912-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL22330350004310.7707-Apr-1012-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL16318200004736.507-Jul-0912-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L3741940140.7307-Apr-1010-Oct-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL1418781603273.64Sample Summary and StatisticsEngelholm Creek at Kingsland
Water Quality
A - 24
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage02-Jun-0913-Jun-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3712815.0202-Jun-0913-Jun-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L374.114.57.9302-Jun-0913-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L37206133.7602-Jun-0913-Jun-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU276.28.17.5824-Feb-1113-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L160.54213.5910-May-1113-Jun-12Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N140.0250.1880.0924-Feb-1114-Dec-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L111.53.921.7224-Feb-1114-Dec-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as110.10.880.5624-Feb-1114-Dec-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L110.1250.3070.1408-Mar-1114-Dec-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P100.0150.150.0902-Jun-0914-Dec-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L31107.2531.2325.2802-Jun-0914-Dec-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.000150.150.0602-Jun-0914-Dec-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.00331.202-Jun-0914-Dec-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.001214.91.102-Jun-0914-Dec-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0318119.0702-Jun-0914-Dec-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.000450.450.1802-Jun-0914-Dec-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.013513.55.3802-Jun-0914-Dec-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0105397.7602-Jun-0912-Oct-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL691130003423.502-Jun-0913-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL2120180001845.3819-Apr-1013-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL134152801110.8502-Jun-0913-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L3748740216.0219-Apr-1011-Oct-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL1320241962630Sample Summary and StatisticsFee Fee Creek at Creve Coeur Mill Rd
Water Quality
A - 25
Fee Fee Creek
Note – Limit shown for comparative purposes only. MDNR determines compliance based on 303(d) listing
methodology
Note – Limit shown for comparative purposes only. MDNR determines compliance based on 303(d) listing
methodology
Water Quality
A - 26
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage12-Apr-1004-Jun-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C2022714.1812-Apr-1004-Jun-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L205.512.398.9912-Apr-1004-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L2024222.0512-Apr-1004-Jun-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU96.98.27.8416-Feb-1104-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L100.5279.7505-Dec-1104-Jun-12Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N70.0250.2790.1216-Feb-1105-Dec-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L41.51.51.516-Feb-1105-Dec-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as40.530.860.7116-Feb-1105-Dec-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L40.1250.1250.1201-Mar-1105-Dec-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P30.030.0550.0512-Apr-1005-Dec-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L14140532414.9712-Apr-1005-Dec-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L140.000150.150.0212-Apr-1005-Dec-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L140.00330.4312-Apr-1005-Dec-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L140.001223.61.7712-Apr-1005-Dec-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L140.03304.3112-Apr-1005-Dec-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L140.000450.450.0612-Apr-1005-Dec-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L140.013513.51.9412-Apr-1005-Dec-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L140.0105323.0512-Apr-1004-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL114522000041422.7312-Apr-1004-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL1152240002797.7312-Apr-1004-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L2130431165.7112-Apr-1006-Apr-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL852241963390.12Sample Summary and StatisticsFenton Creek at Hwy 141
Water Quality
A - 27
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage28-Jul-0917-Mar-10Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C1022312.628-Jul-0917-Mar-10Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L106.413.49.7828-Jul-0917-Mar-10Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L10133320.528-Jul-0917-Mar-10pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU106.17.76.9828-Jul-0917-Mar-10Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L10200568463.2828-Jul-0917-Mar-10Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L100.150.150.1528-Jul-0917-Mar-10Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L1033328-Jul-0917-Mar-10Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L101.21.21.228-Jul-0917-Mar-10Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L103016343.328-Jul-0917-Mar-10Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L100.454.50.8628-Jul-0917-Mar-10Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L1013.513.513.528-Jul-0917-Mar-10Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L1010.53512.9528-Jul-0921-Oct-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL5230140055228-Jul-0921-Oct-09Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL5500140091028-Jul-0917-Mar-10Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L1055229144.59Sample Summary and StatisticsFenton Creek at Winter Co. Park
Water Quality
A - 28
Fenton Creek
Note – Limit shown for comparative purposes only. MDNR determines compliance based on 303(d) listing
methodology
Water Quality
A - 29
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage29-Jul-0906-Jun-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3642413.9429-Jul-0906-Jun-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L36610.97.9329-Jul-0906-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L3674320.0329-Jul-0906-Jun-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU266.387.1822-Feb-1106-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L161155.1217-May-1106-Jun-12Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N140.0250.07680.0322-Feb-1106-Dec-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L101.51.51.522-Feb-1106-Dec-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as100.292.191.3422-Feb-1106-Dec-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L100.1250.1250.1205-Apr-1106-Dec-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P90.0530.10.0829-Jul-0906-Dec-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L302.8473.2273.1729-Jul-0906-Dec-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.000150.150.0629-Jul-0906-Dec-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.00331.229-Jul-0906-Dec-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.001210.60.9829-Jul-0906-Dec-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.033012.0229-Jul-0906-Dec-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.000450.450.1829-Jul-0906-Dec-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.013513.55.4129-Jul-0906-Dec-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.0105808.2829-Jul-0905-Jan-11Aluminum, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.064564.538.7329-Jul-0906-Oct-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL4180580001474529-Jul-0906-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL2227200002279.1806-Apr-1006-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL18524600748.0629-Jul-0906-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L36371140154.9406-Apr-1004-Oct-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL15312910766.27Sample Summary and StatisticsFishpot Creek at Vance Rd
Water Quality
A - 30
Fishpot Creek
Note – Limit shown for comparative purposes only. MDNR determines compliance based on 303(d) listing
methodology
Note – Limit shown for comparative purposes only. MDNR determines compliance based on 303(d) listing
methodology
Water Quality
A - 31
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage10-Jun-0906-Dec-11Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C2032713.3810-Jun-0906-Dec-11Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L205.713.38.7410-Jun-0906-Dec-11Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L201610937.5510-Jun-0906-Dec-11pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU14687.2322-Feb-1106-Dec-11Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L543212.207-Sep-1106-Dec-11Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N40.0250.1850.0922-Feb-1106-Dec-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L51.53.361.8722-Feb-1106-Dec-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as50.10.4490.3422-Feb-1106-Dec-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L50.1250.1250.1207-Sep-1106-Dec-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P40.010.0470.0310-Jun-0906-Dec-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L2081.2574235.5810-Jun-0906-Dec-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.000150.150.0710-Jun-0906-Dec-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.00331.410-Jun-0906-Dec-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.00121.20.610-Jun-0906-Dec-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.0317824.6310-Jun-0906-Dec-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.000450.450.2110-Jun-0906-Dec-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.013513.56.3110-Jun-0906-Dec-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.01056517.6810-Jun-0906-Oct-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL6272900004839610-Jun-0904-Oct-11Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL105540005605.615-Sep-1004-Oct-11Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL441487155.2510-Jun-0906-Dec-11Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L20181460213.9415-Sep-1004-Oct-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL430350155.75Grand Glaize Creek at Marshall RdSample Summary and Statistics
Water Quality
A - 32
Begin Date End Date Parameter Description Units Count Min Max Average
16-Jun-09 06-Jun-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius °C 37 0.34 28.71 13.92
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Discharge, instantaneous, cubic feet per second cfs 31 0.74 247 24.64
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Specific conductance, water, unfiltered, field, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius uS/cm at 25 °C 31 294 4912 1053.52
16-Jun-09 06-Jun-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter mg/L 37 3.43 15.09 8.71
16-Jun-09 06-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter mg/L 37 1.6 80 16.66
16-Jun-09 06-Jun-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard units SU 37 7.1 8.05 7.71
16-Jun-09 06-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per liter mg/L 37 0.5 440 32.24
18-Jan-11 13-Dec-11 Total nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter mg/L 12 0.00115 1.4 0.57
16-Jun-09 06-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L as N 25 0.0022 0.202 0.04
18-Jan-11 13-Dec-11 Ammonia, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L 12 0.0022 0.074 0.03
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L as N 19 0.001 0.1 0.01
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Nitrate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L as N 19 0.01 0.7 0.43
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L 31 0.36 1.8 0.7
18-Jan-11 13-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L as 12 0.12 0.79 0.42
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L as N 19 0.011 0.71 0.44
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorus mg/L 31 0.03 0.43 0.15
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorus mg/L as P 31 0.01 0.26 0.09
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonate mg/L 31 99 460 249.35
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Calcium, water, filtered, milligrams per liter mg/L 19 30 140 67.58
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Magnesium, water, filtered, milligrams per liter mg/L 19 6.2 26 15.85
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Chloride, water, filtered, milligrams per liter mg/L 19 21 1500 180.95
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Arsenic, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.9 2.8 1.64
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Arsenic, water, unfiltered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 1.1 6.1 2.03
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Beryllium, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.006 0.06 0.01
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Beryllium, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.006 0.44 0.05
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 0.00395 0.08 0.03
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Cadmium, water, unfiltered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.01 0.28 0.06
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 1.3 33 6.05
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Chromium, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 1.4 36 6.41
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 1.7 17 3.54
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Copper, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 2.6 20 5.13
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Iron, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 170 13000 1290.53
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 2.9 410 53.32
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 0.0016 0.55 0.07
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Lead, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.3 16 2.19
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Manganese, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 92 580 197.42
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Manganese, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 40 320 138.84
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 1.9 8.1 5.26
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Nickel, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 3.6 19 6.95
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Silver, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.00475 0.1 0.01
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Silver, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.00475 1.1 0.09
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 0.0095 41 3.49
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Zinc, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 3.3 57 12.14
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Aluminum, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 92 12000 1160.63
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Aluminum, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 1.3 200 36.13
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Selenium, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 0.56 2.7 1.46
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Selenium, water, unfiltered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.53 4.3 1.75
16-Jun-09 15-Dec-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.45 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliters cfu/100mL 7 420 87300 20237.14
11-Apr-11 06-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliters cfu/100mL 10 99 27000 3864.9
19-Jan-10 06-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 22 10 29100 2200.77
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Mercury, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.0155 0.11 0.03
16-Jun-09 15-Dec-09 Escherichia coli, modified m-TEC MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliters cfu/100mL 7 230 38000 8773.29
18-Jan-11 06-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter mg/L 18 27 550 165.61
19-Jan-10 18-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 19 20 41000 3352.74
Sample Summary and Statistics
Grand Glaize Creek near Valley Park, MO
Water Quality
A - 33
Grand Glaize Creek, Marshall Road
Note – Limit shown for comparative purposes only. MDNR determines compliance based on 303(d) listing
methodology
Grand Glaize Creek, Valley Park
Note – Limit shown for comparative purposes only. MDNR determines compliance based on 303(d) listing
methodology
Water Quality
A - 34
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage28-Jul-0904-Jun-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C2912912.128-Jul-0904-Jun-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L295.513.568.9828-Jul-0904-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L29155630.2128-Jul-0904-Jun-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU225.87.777.1816-Feb-1104-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L140.531333.9601-Aug-1104-Jun-12Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N110.0250.1830.116-Feb-1105-Dec-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L81.51.51.516-Feb-1105-Dec-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as80.10.950.5416-Feb-1105-Dec-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L80.1250.4750.1901-Mar-1105-Dec-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P70.050.1850.1128-Jul-0905-Dec-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L23116.4778.8275.0528-Jul-0905-Dec-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L220.000150.150.0728-Jul-0905-Dec-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L230.00331.4428-Jul-0905-Dec-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L230.001210.11.0528-Jul-0905-Dec-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L230.033014.3828-Jul-0905-Dec-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L230.000450.450.2228-Jul-0905-Dec-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L230.013513.56.4628-Jul-0905-Dec-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L230.01055212.928-Jul-0921-Oct-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL518580259.628-Jul-0904-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL1482340003015.2911-May-1004-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL974160002412.5628-Jul-0904-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L29381150185.3111-May-1003-Oct-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL6963450837.17Sample Summary and StatisticsGravois Creek at Weber Rd
Water Quality
A - 35
Gravois Creek
Note – Limit shown for comparative purposes only. MDNR determines compliance based on 303(d) listing
methodology
Note – Limit shown for comparative purposes only. MDNR determines compliance based on 303(d) listing
methodology
Water Quality
A - 36
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage29-Jul-0906-Jun-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3642414.1829-Jul-0906-Jun-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L366.1149.3329-Jul-0906-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L3623614.8129-Jul-0906-Jun-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU266.48.57.4422-Feb-1106-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L160.5144.2217-May-1106-Jun-12Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N140.0250.1180.0422-Feb-1106-Dec-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L101.51.51.522-Feb-1106-Dec-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as101.0653.651.6722-Feb-1106-Dec-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L100.1250.1250.1205-Apr-1106-Dec-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P100.040.1030.0629-Jul-0906-Dec-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L30174427277.6629-Jul-0906-Dec-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.000150.150.0629-Jul-0906-Dec-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.00331.229-Jul-0906-Dec-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.00125.10.6129-Jul-0906-Dec-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.033012.0329-Jul-0906-Dec-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.000450.450.1829-Jul-0906-Dec-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.013513.55.4129-Jul-0906-Dec-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.0105528.6829-Jul-0905-Jan-11Aluminum, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.064564.538.7329-Jul-0906-Oct-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL411054001527.529-Jul-0906-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL225180001343.506-Apr-1006-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL185150020729-Jul-0906-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L365227795.6906-Apr-1004-Oct-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL1510933240.8Sample Summary and StatisticsKieffer Creek at Kiefer Cr. Rd
Water Quality
A - 37
Kiefer Creek
Note – Limit shown for comparative purposes only. MDNR determines compliance based on 303(d) listing
methodology
Note – Limit shown for comparative purposes only. MDNR determines compliance based on 303(d) listing
methodology
Water Quality
A - 38
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage29-Jul-0906-Jun-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3612412.5829-Jul-0906-Jun-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L365.914.29.0329-Jul-0906-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L3622611.1929-Jul-0906-Jun-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU266.128.57.3322-Feb-1106-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L160.5389.1217-May-1106-Jun-12Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N140.0250.08030.0422-Feb-1106-Dec-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L101.51.51.522-Feb-1106-Dec-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as100.11.050.4822-Feb-1106-Dec-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L100.1250.1250.1205-Apr-1106-Dec-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P90.110.2460.1729-Jul-0906-Dec-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L30154301.2227.4929-Jul-0906-Dec-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.000150.150.0629-Jul-0906-Dec-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.00331.229-Jul-0906-Dec-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.001211.80.8329-Jul-0906-Dec-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.033012.0229-Jul-0906-Dec-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.000450.450.1829-Jul-0906-Dec-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.013513.55.4129-Jul-0906-Dec-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.010510.54.2129-Jul-0906-Oct-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL4120200005122.529-Jul-0906-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL2236220001838.8606-Apr-1006-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL1820730198.8929-Jul-0906-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L361032.916.5506-Apr-1004-Oct-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL15202098576.27Sample Summary and StatisticsLittle Antire Creek at Beaumont-Antire Rd
Water Quality
A - 39
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage03-Jun-0913-Jun-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C2912713.2403-Jun-0913-Jun-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L293.914.039.3603-Jun-0913-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L291612035.0303-Jun-0913-Jun-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU246.88.47.6408-Mar-1113-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L120.57618.2110-May-1113-Jun-12Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N110.0250.1590.0708-Mar-1114-Dec-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L71.54.482.1908-Mar-1114-Dec-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as70.10.520.3208-Mar-1114-Dec-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L70.1251.060.3308-Mar-1114-Dec-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P70.0150.2180.103-Jun-0914-Dec-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L23121.6484283.4903-Jun-0914-Dec-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L230.000150.150.0803-Jun-0914-Dec-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L230.00331.6103-Jun-0914-Dec-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L230.001239.42.403-Jun-0914-Dec-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L230.0318928.4203-Jun-0914-Dec-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L230.000450.450.2403-Jun-0914-Dec-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L230.013513.57.2503-Jun-0914-Dec-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L230.01054610.6603-Jun-0912-Oct-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL52004500214003-Jun-0913-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL1691160004953.1919-Apr-1013-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL973200004507.4403-Jun-0913-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L29211260163.3119-Apr-1013-Sep-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL8110241964846.75Sample Summary and StatisticsLouiselle Creek at Creve Coeur Mill Rd
Water Quality
A - 40
Begin Date End Date Parameter Description Units Count Min Max Average
16-Jun-09 18-Jun-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius °C 43 0.16 32.57 14.08
18-May-10 12-Jul-11 Discharge, cubic feet per second cfs 13 3.3 28 11.78
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Discharge, instantaneous, cubic feet per second cfs 18 0.47 1480 123.09
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Specific conductance, water, unfiltered, field, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius uS/cm at 25 °C 31 163 4398 957.77
16-Jun-09 18-Jun-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter mg/L 43 4.39 15.24 8.52
16-Jun-09 18-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter mg/L 43 1.6 120 26.11
16-Jun-09 18-Jun-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard units SU 43 6.7 8.16 7.6
16-Jun-09 18-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per liter mg/L 43 0.5 1100 52.15
18-Jan-11 13-Dec-11 Total nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter mg/L 12 0.00115 1.5 0.72
16-Jun-09 18-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L as N 31 0.0022 0.161 0.06
18-Jan-11 13-Dec-11 Ammonia, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L 12 0.0075 0.23 0.05
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L as N 19 0.001 0.15 0.03
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Nitrate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L as N 19 0.06 0.88 0.45
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L 31 0.1 2.6 0.82
18-Jan-11 13-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L as 12 0.069 1 0.35
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L as N 19 0.061 0.91 0.48
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorus mg/L 31 0.07 0.88 0.24
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorus mg/L as P 31 0.0025 0.32 0.13
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonate mg/L 31 44 400 214.32
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Calcium, water, filtered, milligrams per liter mg/L 19 13 110 54.32
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Magnesium, water, filtered, milligrams per liter mg/L 19 2.6 29 14.49
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Chloride, water, filtered, milligrams per liter mg/L 19 12 1300 171.95
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Arsenic, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 1.1 3.8 2.31
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Arsenic, water, unfiltered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 1.7 7.4 2.96
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Beryllium, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.006 0.06 0.01
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Beryllium, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.006 0.66 0.08
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 0.00395 0.14 0.03
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Cadmium, water, unfiltered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.02 0.51 0.09
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 1.2 25 5.33
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Chromium, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 1.7 29 6.46
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 1.8 14 3.73
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Copper, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 3.2 24 6.74
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Iron, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 280 16000 2005.79
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 6 340 64.47
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 0.0016 0.55 0.11
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Lead, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.38 39 4.7
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Manganese, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 100 1000 311.05
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Manganese, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 24 940 194.68
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 1.8 9.3 5.05
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Nickel, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 4.2 23 7.21
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Silver, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.00475 0.1 0.01
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Silver, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.00475 0.08 0.02
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 0.0095 17 3.76
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Zinc, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 5.1 97 19.93
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Aluminum, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 110 13000 1467.37
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Aluminum, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 2.4 190 46.2
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Selenium, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 0.38 3.8 1.54
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Selenium, water, unfiltered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.35 8.8 2.02
16-Jun-09 15-Dec-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.45 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliters cfu/100mL 7 340 210000 63390
12-Apr-11 18-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliters cfu/100mL 13 63 40000 6297
19-Jan-10 18-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 24 41 20000 2078.79
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Mercury, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.0155 0.11 0.03
16-Jun-09 15-Dec-09 Escherichia coli, modified m-TEC MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliters cfu/100mL 7 320 94000 22031.43
18-Jan-11 18-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter mg/L 24 2.5 670 167.65
19-Jan-10 18-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 19 20 24200 2543.21
Maline Creek at Bellefontaine Neighbors, MO
Sample Summary and Statistics
Water Quality
A - 41
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage22-Jul-0919-Dec-11Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C2012611.3122-Jul-0919-Dec-11Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L21114.59.4722-Jul-0919-Dec-11Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L201211040.422-Jul-0919-Dec-11pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU146.58.27.415-Feb-1119-Dec-11Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L698039.1719-Sep-1119-Dec-11Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N40.0530.1070.0815-Feb-1119-Dec-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L61.51.51.515-Feb-1119-Dec-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as60.10.70.4115-Feb-1119-Dec-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L60.1250.2710.1509-Mar-1119-Dec-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P50.0840.170.1222-Jul-0919-Dec-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L20104.4545.6311.5122-Jul-0919-Dec-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.000150.150.0722-Jul-0919-Dec-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.00331.522-Jul-0919-Dec-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.00121.20.622-Jul-0919-Dec-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.033015.0622-Jul-0919-Dec-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.000450.450.2322-Jul-0919-Dec-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.013513.56.7622-Jul-0919-Dec-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.010523126.3722-Jul-0923-Sep-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL41101300862.522-Jul-0917-Oct-11Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL7181900002747808-Sep-1017-Oct-11Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL3974160155322-Jul-0919-Dec-11Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L20361190254.5408-Sep-1017-Oct-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL352130004399.33Sample Summary and StatisticsMaline Creek at Riverview Drive
Water Quality
A - 42
Maline Creek, near Riverview
Note – Limit shown for comparative purposes only. MDNR determines compliance based on 303(d) listing
methodology
Note – Limit shown for comparative purposes only. MDNR determines compliance based on 303(d) listing
methodology
Water Quality
A - 43
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage28-Jul-0903-Nov-10Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C1312211.9228-Jul-0903-Nov-10Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L136.2139.0428-Jul-0903-Nov-10Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L13910127.6928-Jul-0911-May-10pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU116.17.8728-Jul-0903-Nov-10Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L13219.6604.8422.3628-Jul-0903-Nov-10Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.000150.150.1228-Jul-0903-Nov-10Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.00332.5428-Jul-0903-Nov-10Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.00128.41.6828-Jul-0903-Nov-10Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.033025.3928-Jul-0903-Nov-10Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.000450.450.3828-Jul-0903-Nov-10Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.013513.511.4328-Jul-0903-Nov-10Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.01053112.9328-Jul-0921-Oct-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL5271200643.428-Jul-0911-Oct-10Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL73807300011338.5711-May-1011-Oct-10Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL28364884286028-Jul-0903-Nov-10Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L13691820277.2211-May-1011-Oct-10Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL2166064904075Sample Summary and StatisticsMartigney Creek at Koch Rd
Water Quality
A - 44
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage01-Dec-1004-Jun-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C1942813.2501-Dec-1004-Jun-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L194.199.68701-Dec-1004-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L1957327.0502-May-1104-Jun-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU145.958.17.3816-Feb-1104-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L170.57819.2602-May-1104-Jun-12Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N140.0250.2510.116-Feb-1105-Dec-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L111.531.6416-Feb-1105-Dec-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as110.12.321.3416-Feb-1105-Dec-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L110.1250.6430.1701-Mar-1105-Dec-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P100.10.330.1601-Dec-1005-Dec-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L13175.6452.8322.9801-Dec-1005-Dec-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.000150.0003001-Dec-1005-Dec-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.0030.005001-Dec-1005-Dec-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.00120.0031001-Dec-1005-Dec-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.030.1540.0601-Dec-1005-Dec-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.000450.00419001-Dec-1005-Dec-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.01350.0280.0201-Dec-1005-Dec-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.01050.27380.0506-Apr-1104-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL95807300011955.5606-Apr-1104-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL10570240005575.201-Dec-1004-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L1947454158.6306-Apr-1103-Oct-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL7315362948220.14Martigney Creek at Sunset HeightsSample Summary and Statistics
Water Quality
A - 45
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage11-May-1004-Jun-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C15222.111.3411-May-1004-Jun-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L156.3513.29.3111-May-1004-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L15104423.6711-May-1004-Jun-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU116.548.147.6916-Feb-1104-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L1125713.3606-Sep-1104-Jun-12Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N100.0250.1260.0816-Feb-1105-Dec-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L51.51.51.516-Feb-1105-Dec-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as50.11.870.6416-Feb-1105-Dec-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L50.1250.1250.1206-Sep-1105-Dec-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P40.0360.140.0811-May-1005-Dec-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L9157.2336273.7611-May-1005-Dec-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L90.000150.10.0111-May-1005-Dec-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L90.00330.3411-May-1005-Dec-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L90.001238.34.2611-May-1005-Dec-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L90.03303.411-May-1005-Dec-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L90.000451.20.1311-May-1005-Dec-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L90.013513.51.5111-May-1005-Dec-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L90.0105495.4611-May-1004-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL653400000566759.3311-May-1004-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL652240004108.8311-May-1004-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L1522475160.7311-May-1003-Oct-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL310537223Sample Summary and StatisticsMattese Creek at Fred Weber
Water Quality
A - 46
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage03-Jun-0918-Jun-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C301221203-Jun-0918-Jun-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L311149.0903-Jun-0918-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L3055125.1703-Jun-0918-Jun-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU226.287.4415-Feb-1118-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L13730170.4619-Sep-1118-Jun-12Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N100.0250.1180.0715-Feb-1119-Dec-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L71.51.51.515-Feb-1119-Dec-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as71.012.331.5315-Feb-1119-Dec-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L60.1250.4260.2109-Mar-1119-Dec-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P60.040.3510.1303-Jun-0919-Dec-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L24263.6636463.8103-Jun-0919-Dec-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L240.000150.150.0603-Jun-0919-Dec-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L240.00331.4203-Jun-0919-Dec-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L240.001213.31.8703-Jun-0919-Dec-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L240.0314424.8503-Jun-0919-Dec-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L240.000450.450.2103-Jun-0919-Dec-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L240.013513.56.3803-Jun-0919-Dec-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L240.0105346.2403-Jun-0923-Sep-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL51804600187603-Jun-0918-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL1511033000757804-May-1018-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL9122242006507.6703-Jun-0918-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L29279866.2804-May-1017-Oct-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL79592104059.71Sample Summary and StatisticsMill Creek at Sioux Passage Park
Water Quality
A - 47
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage09-Jun-0906-Aug-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C348.1130.5322.6109-Jun-0906-Aug-12Discharge, instantaneous, cubic feet per secondcfs3478700455000282226.4709-Jun-0906-Aug-12Specific conductance, water, unfiltered, field, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees CelsiusuS/cm at 25 °C34380743583.1209-Jun-0906-Aug-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L345.2210.737.4109-Jun-0920-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L321.63316.4909-Jun-0906-Aug-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU347.098.53809-Jun-0920-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L3251820271.3805-Apr-1120-Jun-12Total nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L150.723.61.9409-Jun-0926-Oct-10Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.00220.020.0105-Apr-1120-Jun-12Ammonia, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L150.00750.0580.0209-Jun-0926-Oct-10Nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.0010.050.0209-Jun-0926-Oct-10Nitrate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N1716.92.5409-Jun-0920-Jun-12Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L320.635.21.3705-Apr-1120-Jun-12Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as150.313.41.5409-Jun-0926-Oct-10Nitrate plus nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N171.016.912.5609-Jun-0920-Jun-12Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L320.160.80.3509-Jun-0920-Jun-12Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P320.070.240.1209-Jun-0926-Oct-10Chloride, water, filtered, milligrams per litermg/L17132518.1809-Jun-0913-Oct-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.45 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL71082100910.2905-Apr-1120-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL1518750187.214-Apr-1020-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL25201439236.6409-Jun-0913-Oct-09Escherichia coli, modified m-TEC MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL71101300582.8605-Apr-1120-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L15152419.214-Apr-1020-Jun-12Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL25103873267.4Sample Summary and StatisticsMississippi River above Lemay, MO
Water Quality
A - 48
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage09-Jun-0906-Aug-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C348.0430.6522.5709-Jun-0906-Aug-12Discharge, instantaneous, cubic feet per secondcfs347870045600028255009-Jun-0906-Aug-12Specific conductance, water, unfiltered, field, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees CelsiusuS/cm at 25 °C34382798577.509-Jun-0906-Aug-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L345.1511.037.4509-Jun-0920-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L321.63114.4809-Jun-0906-Aug-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU346.938.67.9609-Jun-0920-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L3253840268.2805-Apr-1120-Jun-12Total nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L150.753.51.9109-Jun-0926-Oct-10Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.00220.040.0105-Apr-1120-Jun-12Ammonia, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L150.00750.120.0309-Jun-0926-Oct-10Nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.0010.030.0109-Jun-0926-Oct-10Nitrate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.793.371.9309-Jun-0920-Jun-12Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L320.815.81.5205-Apr-1120-Jun-12Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as150.293.21.4709-Jun-0926-Oct-10Nitrate plus nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.83.391.9409-Jun-0920-Jun-12Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L320.180.820.3509-Jun-0920-Jun-12Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P320.070.250.1209-Jun-0926-Oct-10Chloride, water, filtered, milligrams per litermg/L1793017.1209-Jun-0913-Oct-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.45 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL718132072205-Apr-1120-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL1551000211.4714-Apr-1020-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL25201842172.4409-Jun-0913-Oct-09Escherichia coli, modified m-TEC MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL75840390.7105-Apr-1120-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L15143518.8714-Apr-1020-Jun-12Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL2511989158.52Sample Summary and StatisticsMississippi River above St. Louis at mm 184.5
Water Quality
A - 49
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage09-Jun-0906-Aug-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C348.3130.7422.609-Jun-0906-Aug-12Discharge, instantaneous, cubic feet per secondcfs3478000454000282216.4709-Jun-0906-Aug-12Specific conductance, water, unfiltered, field, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees CelsiusuS/cm at 25 °C34379719568.0609-Jun-0906-Aug-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L345.5510.837.3609-Jun-0920-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L321.66217.3809-Jun-0906-Aug-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU347.368.528.0309-Jun-0920-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L3257730251.9705-Apr-1120-Jun-12Total nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L150.733.51.9909-Jun-0926-Oct-10Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.00220.030.0105-Apr-1120-Jun-12Ammonia, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L150.00750.0520.0209-Jun-0926-Oct-10Nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.0010.040.0209-Jun-0926-Oct-10Nitrate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.863.12.0709-Jun-0920-Jun-12Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L320.7651.3305-Apr-1120-Jun-12Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as150.362.91.5209-Jun-0926-Oct-10Nitrate plus nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.873.142.0809-Jun-0920-Jun-12Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L320.180.630.3309-Jun-0920-Jun-12Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P320.080.260.1309-Jun-0926-Oct-10Chloride, water, filtered, milligrams per litermg/L17122619.3509-Jun-0913-Oct-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.45 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL738078401769.2905-Apr-1120-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL1563680254.414-Apr-1020-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL25621198285.6809-Jun-0913-Oct-09Escherichia coli, modified m-TEC MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL71303700812.8605-Apr-1120-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L15152820.1314-Apr-1020-Jun-12Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL25201920166.76Sample Summary and StatisticsMississippi River at Kimmswick, MO
Water Quality
A - 50
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage09-Jun-0906-Aug-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C348.2230.6222.5509-Jun-0906-Aug-12Discharge, instantaneous, cubic feet per secondcfs3478000455000282113.2409-Jun-0906-Aug-12Specific conductance, water, unfiltered, field, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees CelsiusuS/cm at 25 °C34380727566.2409-Jun-0906-Aug-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L345.6110.957.3809-Jun-0920-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L321.63615.1209-Jun-0906-Aug-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU347.298.548.0209-Jun-0920-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L3253630239.9405-Apr-1120-Jun-12Total nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L150.753.92.2309-Jun-0926-Oct-10Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.00220.030.0105-Apr-1120-Jun-12Ammonia, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L150.00750.0590.0209-Jun-0926-Oct-10Nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.0010.050.0209-Jun-0926-Oct-10Nitrate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.942.4109-Jun-0920-Jun-12Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L320.84.91.3305-Apr-1120-Jun-12Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as150.3741.8909-Jun-0926-Oct-10Nitrate plus nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.914.042.4309-Jun-0920-Jun-12Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L320.180.640.3309-Jun-0920-Jun-12Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P320.070.260.1209-Jun-0926-Oct-10Chloride, water, filtered, milligrams per litermg/L17102919.5909-Jun-0913-Oct-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.45 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL73309910199605-Apr-1120-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL1527510173.4714-Apr-1020-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL2541218728209-Jun-0913-Oct-09Escherichia coli, modified m-TEC MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL7603600871.4305-Apr-1120-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L15152821.214-Apr-1020-Jun-12Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL25202909207.76Sample Summary and StatisticsMississippi River at Oakville at mm 164.5
Water Quality
A - 51
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage09-Jun-0906-Aug-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C347.9730.5222.509-Jun-0906-Aug-12Discharge, instantaneous, cubic feet per secondcfs3478700456000282285.2909-Jun-0906-Aug-12Specific conductance, water, unfiltered, field, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees CelsiusuS/cm at 25 °C34380759571.9409-Jun-0906-Aug-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L345.6410.817.4809-Jun-0920-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L321.67918.209-Jun-0906-Aug-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU347.078.567.9909-Jun-0920-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L3250690246.6205-Apr-1120-Jun-12Total nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L150.73.82.0809-Jun-0926-Oct-10Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.00220.030.0105-Apr-1120-Jun-12Ammonia, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L150.00750.0540.0209-Jun-0926-Oct-10Nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.0010.040.0209-Jun-0926-Oct-10Nitrate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.86.52.5609-Jun-0920-Jun-12Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L320.848.61.5705-Apr-1120-Jun-12Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as150.354.61.609-Jun-0926-Oct-10Nitrate plus nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.816.512.5809-Jun-0920-Jun-12Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L320.150.680.3409-Jun-0920-Jun-12Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P320.080.250.1209-Jun-0926-Oct-10Chloride, water, filtered, milligrams per litermg/L17122718.5309-Jun-0913-Oct-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.45 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL7272200968.5705-Apr-1120-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL155860169.9314-Apr-1020-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL2551607193.3609-Jun-0913-Oct-09Escherichia coli, modified m-TEC MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL750790438.5705-Apr-1120-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L15152520.3314-Apr-1020-Jun-12Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL25103255206.16Mississippi River at St. Louis, MOSample Summary and Statistics
Water Quality
A - 52
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage09-Jun-0906-Aug-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C348.0930.822.5609-Jun-0906-Aug-12Discharge, instantaneous, cubic feet per secondcfs3478100455000282637.0609-Jun-0906-Aug-12Specific conductance, water, unfiltered, field, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees CelsiusuS/cm at 25 °C34387820556.1509-Jun-0906-Aug-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L345.3511.327.5709-Jun-0920-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L321.62916.1309-Jun-0906-Aug-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU347.458.638.0809-Jun-0920-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L3244570215.7805-Apr-1120-Jun-12Total nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L150.743.92.1509-Jun-0926-Oct-10Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.00220.040.0105-Apr-1120-Jun-12Ammonia, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L150.00750.0580.0209-Jun-0926-Oct-10Nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.0010.050.0209-Jun-0926-Oct-10Nitrate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N171.24.12.3509-Jun-0920-Jun-12Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L320.828.61.5505-Apr-1120-Jun-12Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as150.413.81.7209-Jun-0926-Oct-10Nitrate plus nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N171.224.132.3709-Jun-0920-Jun-12Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L320.160.590.3109-Jun-0920-Jun-12Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P320.0740.250.1209-Jun-0926-Oct-10Chloride, water, filtered, milligrams per litermg/L17142721.9409-Jun-0913-Oct-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.45 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL781790414.4305-Apr-1120-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL155530138.7315-Apr-1020-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL255708108.409-Jun-0913-Oct-09Escherichia coli, modified m-TEC MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL740855242.1405-Apr-1120-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L154.23020.2115-Apr-1020-Jun-12Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL2552489150.64Sample Summary and StatisticsMississippi River below Mo River confluence
Water Quality
A - 53
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage09-Jun-0906-Aug-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C348.9931.323.1209-Jun-0906-Aug-12Discharge, instantaneous, cubic feet per secondcfs3446300237000127618.5309-Jun-0906-Aug-12Specific conductance, water, unfiltered, field, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees CelsiusuS/cm at 25 °C34389833650.8209-Jun-0906-Aug-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L344.8110.467.309-Jun-0920-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L321.63215.5609-Jun-0906-Aug-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU347.538.498.0509-Jun-0920-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L32581000334.9705-Apr-1120-Jun-12Total nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L150.63.51.5109-Jun-0926-Oct-10Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N160.00220.030.0105-Apr-1120-Jun-12Ammonia, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L150.00750.050.0209-Jun-0926-Oct-10Nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.0010.030.0109-Jun-0926-Oct-10Nitrate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.5731.6309-Jun-0920-Jun-12Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L320.758.61.5905-Apr-1120-Jun-12Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as150.192.71.1709-Jun-0926-Oct-10Nitrate plus nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.5713.0011.6409-Jun-0920-Jun-12Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L320.190.920.409-Jun-0920-Jun-12Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P320.0760.230.1209-Jun-0926-Oct-10Chloride, water, filtered, milligrams per litermg/L178.22415.9509-Jun-0913-Oct-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.45 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL71171470705.7105-Apr-1120-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL155880203.3315-Apr-1020-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL2510910156.2409-Jun-0913-Oct-09Escherichia coli, modified m-TEC MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL71001150452.8605-Apr-1120-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L156.42415.6315-Apr-1020-Jun-12Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL2553873241.76Sample Summary and StatisticsMissouri River at Columbia Bottom Consv. Area at mm 4
Water Quality
A - 54
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage09-Jun-0906-Aug-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C349.3131.1523.1309-Jun-0906-Aug-12Discharge, instantaneous, cubic feet per secondcfs3446400237000128023.5309-Jun-0906-Aug-12Specific conductance, water, unfiltered, field, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees CelsiusuS/cm at 25 °C34385865653.8809-Jun-0906-Aug-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L344.8710.227.2109-Jun-0920-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L321.63215.7509-Jun-0906-Aug-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU347.488.558.0409-Jun-0920-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L3264920330.0605-Apr-1120-Jun-12Total nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L150.63.51.4709-Jun-0926-Oct-10Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N160.00220.010.0105-Apr-1120-Jun-12Ammonia, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L150.00750.0620.0209-Jun-0926-Oct-10Nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.0010.030.0109-Jun-0926-Oct-10Nitrate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.843.11.7309-Jun-0920-Jun-12Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L320.714.71.3805-Apr-1120-Jun-12Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as150.232.71.1509-Jun-0926-Oct-10Nitrate plus nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.8413.1011.7309-Jun-0920-Jun-12Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L320.190.850.409-Jun-0920-Jun-12Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P320.0610.240.1209-Jun-0926-Oct-10Chloride, water, filtered, milligrams per litermg/L17112516.0609-Jun-0913-Oct-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.45 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL7632100762.5705-Apr-1120-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL1518700159.0715-Apr-1020-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL255987137.0409-Jun-0913-Oct-09Escherichia coli, modified m-TEC MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL7301340417.1405-Apr-1120-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L156.42215.6915-Apr-1020-Jun-12Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL25102014148.04Sample Summary and StatisticsMissouri River below St. Charles at mm 24.5
Water Quality
A - 55
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage09-Jun-0906-Aug-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C349.6631.1823.1609-Jun-0906-Aug-12Discharge, instantaneous, cubic feet per secondcfs3446400237000127969.3809-Jun-0906-Aug-12Specific conductance, water, unfiltered, field, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees CelsiusuS/cm at 25 °C34382890646.7609-Jun-0906-Aug-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L344.6710.427.2509-Jun-0920-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L321.63213.6509-Jun-0906-Aug-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU347.438.61809-Jun-0920-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L3273840322.2805-Apr-1120-Jun-12Total nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L150.583.31.4209-Jun-0926-Oct-10Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.00220.0430.0105-Apr-1120-Jun-12Ammonia, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L150.00750.060.0109-Jun-0926-Oct-10Nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.0010.02009-Jun-0926-Oct-10Nitrate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.492.91.5109-Jun-0920-Jun-12Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L320.734.21.3305-Apr-1120-Jun-12Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as150.001152.71.0709-Jun-0926-Oct-10Nitrate plus nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.4912.9011.5209-Jun-0920-Jun-12Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L320.180.80.3909-Jun-0920-Jun-12Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P320.0290.250.1209-Jun-0926-Oct-10Chloride, water, filtered, milligrams per litermg/L17122516.4709-Jun-0913-Oct-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.45 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL7181320583.8605-Apr-1120-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL155670167.815-Apr-1020-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL255594120.1609-Jun-0913-Oct-09Escherichia coli, modified m-TEC MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL751200380.7105-Apr-1120-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L15132416.5315-Apr-1020-Jun-12Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL2551178128Sample Summary and StatisticsMissouri River near Chesterfield at mm 48
Water Quality
A - 56
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage28-Jul-0905-Dec-11Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C1612311.1628-Jul-0905-Dec-11Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L165.7138.9128-Jul-0905-Dec-11Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L16157432.0628-Jul-0905-Dec-11pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU115.57.836.8916-Feb-1105-Dec-11Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L663016.3306-Sep-1105-Dec-11Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N40.0570.3590.1616-Feb-1105-Dec-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L61.51.51.516-Feb-1105-Dec-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as60.11.050.416-Feb-1105-Dec-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L60.1250.2840.1501-Mar-1105-Dec-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P50.040.130.0928-Jul-0905-Dec-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L16134.8456.8246.1528-Jul-0905-Dec-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L160.000150.150.0628-Jul-0905-Dec-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L160.00331.3128-Jul-0905-Dec-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L160.00123.10.6528-Jul-0905-Dec-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L160.0316028.6728-Jul-0905-Dec-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L160.000450.450.228-Jul-0905-Dec-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L160.013513.55.9228-Jul-0905-Dec-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L160.0105366.228-Jul-0921-Oct-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL573740356.628-Jul-0903-Oct-11Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL79170001155.8606-Sep-1103-Oct-11Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL2189155007844.528-Jul-0905-Dec-11Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L16381160201.8106-Sep-1103-Oct-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL217351702671.5Sample Summary and StatisticsRiver des Peres at S. Broadway
Water Quality
A - 57
Begin Date End Date Parameter Description Units Count Min Max Average
16-Jun-09 04-Jun-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius °C 37 -0.17 30.73 15.18
16-Jun-09 17-Aug-11 Discharge, cubic feet per second cfs 22 2 1150 138.87
14-Jul-09 13-Dec-11 Discharge, instantaneous, cubic feet per second cfs 9 2.2 1010 151.97
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Specific conductance, water, unfiltered, field, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius uS/cm at 25 °C 31 239 7367 975.45
16-Jun-09 04-Jun-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter mg/L 37 0.52 14.17 8.6
16-Jun-09 04-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter mg/L 37 1.6 78 24.04
16-Jun-09 04-Jun-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard units SU 37 6.22 9.54 7.73
16-Jun-09 04-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per liter mg/L 37 3 160 26.61
18-Jan-11 13-Dec-11 Total nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter mg/L 12 0.58 2.3 1.38
16-Jun-09 04-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L as N 25 0.0075 1.27 0.16
18-Jan-11 13-Dec-11 Ammonia, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L 12 0.041 0.45 0.2
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L as N 19 0.001 0.14 0.04
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Nitrate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L as N 19 0.08 1.3 0.7
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L 31 0.65 2.3 1.13
18-Jan-11 13-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L as 12 0.00115 1.2 0.57
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L as N 19 0.09 1.35 0.74
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorus mg/L 31 0.06 0.54 0.21
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorus mg/L as P 31 0.02 0.26 0.1
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonate mg/L 31 79 351 194.19
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Calcium, water, filtered, milligrams per liter mg/L 19 24 110 51.79
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Magnesium, water, filtered, milligrams per liter mg/L 19 4.2 21 10.97
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Chloride, water, filtered, milligrams per liter mg/L 19 20 1400 144.74
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Arsenic, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 1 3.3 2.13
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Arsenic, water, unfiltered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 1.5 4.9 2.35
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Beryllium, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.006 0.2 0.03
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Beryllium, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.006 0.25 0.04
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 0.00395 0.22 0.04
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Cadmium, water, unfiltered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.00395 0.22 0.06
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 1.2 28 5.13
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Chromium, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 1.7 32 5.63
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 1.4 16 4.01
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Copper, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 3.1 19 6.21
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Iron, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 120 6300 842.11
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 5.6 260 53.14
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 0.0016 1.1 0.2
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Lead, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.51 15 2.87
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Manganese, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 43 280 107.63
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Manganese, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 2.3 200 60.84
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 1.9 8.1 4.69
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Nickel, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 3.3 13 5.77
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Silver, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.00475 0.13 0.03
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Silver, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.00475 0.13 0.03
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 0.0095 15 4.83
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Zinc, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 3.6 45 14.94
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Aluminum, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 72 6400 795.11
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Aluminum, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 2.3 200 47.67
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Selenium, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 0.71 4.1 1.95
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Selenium, water, unfiltered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.7 5.3 2.05
16-Jun-09 15-Dec-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.45 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliters cfu/100mL 7 440 140000 49102.86
12-Apr-11 04-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliters cfu/100mL 10 45 28000 6370.2
19-Jan-10 04-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 22 1 32600 4578.36
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Mercury, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.0155 0.11 0.03
16-Jun-09 15-Dec-09 Escherichia coli, modified m-TEC MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliters cfu/100mL 7 10 51000 16544.29
18-Jan-11 04-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter mg/L 18 20 550 132
19-Jan-10 18-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 19 1 24800 2433.95
Sample Summary and Statistics
River des Peres at St. Louis, MO
Water Quality
A - 58
Begin Date End Date Parameter Description Units Count Min Max Average
16-Jun-09 04-Jun-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius °C 37 -0.22 29.14 14.97
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Discharge, instantaneous, cubic feet per second cfs 31 0.1 434 16.24
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Specific conductance, water, unfiltered, field, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius uS/cm at 25 °C 31 338 11012 1484.19
16-Jun-09 04-Jun-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter mg/L 37 4.65 24 11.65
16-Jun-09 04-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter mg/L 37 1.6 120 23.05
16-Jun-09 04-Jun-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard units SU 37 6.87 9 8.09
16-Jun-09 04-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per liter mg/L 37 0.5 180 10.85
18-Jan-11 13-Dec-11 Total nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter mg/L 12 0.00115 5 1.24
16-Jun-09 04-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L as N 25 0.0073 1.48 0.15
18-Jan-11 13-Dec-11 Ammonia, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L 12 0.0075 3.1 0.39
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L as N 19 0.001 0.1 0.01
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Nitrate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L as N 19 0.01 1 0.41
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L 31 0.4 4.5 0.92
18-Jan-11 13-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L as 12 0.028 0.91 0.44
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogen mg/L as N 19 0.011 1 0.42
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorus mg/L 31 0.0075 0.41 0.16
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorus mg/L as P 31 0.0025 0.25 0.1
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonate mg/L 31 64 492 229.42
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Calcium, water, filtered, milligrams per liter mg/L 19 20 160 66
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Magnesium, water, filtered, milligrams per liter mg/L 19 3.6 25 14.78
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Chloride, water, filtered, milligrams per liter mg/L 19 42 3800 409.37
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Arsenic, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 1.1 4.1 1.98
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Arsenic, water, unfiltered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 1.4 3.7 2.13
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Beryllium, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.006 0.06 0.01
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Beryllium, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.006 0.19 0.02
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 0.00395 0.66 0.08
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Cadmium, water, unfiltered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.0041 0.75 0.12
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 2.2 76 9.92
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Chromium, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 2.3 90 11.07
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 2 44 6.31
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Copper, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 2.5 48 8.57
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Iron, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 64 4900 483.16
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 11 160 45.68
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 0.0016 0.34 0.09
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Lead, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.12 11 1.11
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Manganese, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 16 590 110.89
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Manganese, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 10 540 91.58
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 1.4 9.7 5.22
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Nickel, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 2.8 12 6.51
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Silver, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.00475 0.1 0.02
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Silver, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.00475 0.1 0.02
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 0.0095 29 10.29
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Zinc, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 5.3 110 25.06
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Aluminum, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 18 5000 357.21
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Aluminum, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.008 130 20.72
16-Jun-09 13-Dec-11 Selenium, water, filtered, micrograms per liter µg/L 31 0.76 5.2 2.24
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Selenium, water, unfiltered, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.8 8.8 2.65
16-Jun-09 15-Dec-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.45 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliters cfu/100mL 7 350 85500 24921.43
12-Apr-11 04-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliters cfu/100mL 10 140 220000 27316
19-Jan-10 04-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 22 30 38700 4625.41
16-Jun-09 14-Dec-10 Mercury, water, unfiltered, recoverable, micrograms per liter µg/L 19 0.0155 0.1 0.03
16-Jun-09 15-Dec-09 Escherichia coli, modified m-TEC MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliters cfu/100mL 7 220 28000 7708.57
18-Jan-11 04-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter mg/L 18 41 1200 229.61
19-Jan-10 18-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 19 5 34500 3149.47
River des Peres near University City, MO
Sample Summary and Statistics
Water Quality
A - 59
River Des Peres
Note – Limit shown for comparative purposes only. MDNR determines compliance based on 303(d) listing
methodology
Note – Limit shown for comparative purposes only. MDNR determines compliance based on 303(d) listing
methodology
Water Quality
A - 60
River Des Peres
Note – Limit shown for comparative purposes only. MDNR determines compliance based on 303(d) listing
methodology
Water Quality
A - 61
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage07-Mar-1112-Mar-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C562012.307-Mar-1112-Mar-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L47.610.068.4607-Mar-1112-Mar-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L4164631.7509-May-1112-Mar-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU37.417.87.6307-Mar-1112-Mar-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L443713.7517-Jan-1212-Mar-12Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N20.140.1560.1507-Mar-1125-Apr-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L21.51.51.507-Mar-1125-Apr-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as21.52.712.107-Mar-1125-Apr-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L20.1250.1250.1207-Mar-1125-Apr-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P20.0150.10.0607-Mar-1125-Apr-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L2296.8422.8359.807-Mar-1125-Apr-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L20.000150.00015007-Mar-1125-Apr-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L20.0030.003007-Mar-1125-Apr-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L20.00120.0012007-Mar-1125-Apr-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L20.030.030.0307-Mar-1125-Apr-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L20.000450.00045007-Mar-1125-Apr-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L20.01350.01350.0107-Mar-1125-Apr-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L20.01050.0790.0425-Apr-1125-Apr-11Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL127027027007-Mar-1112-Mar-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L48618513425-Apr-1125-Apr-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL1464464464Sample Summary and StatisticsShady Grove Creek at Thornton & Waymire Ave
Water Quality
A - 62
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage07-Jul-0912-Jun-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3712713.9707-Jul-0912-Jun-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L371.6313.27.2707-Jul-0912-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L37158034.7607-Jul-0912-Jun-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU685.58.16.4108-Feb-1112-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L170.525824.7109-May-1112-Jun-12Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N130.0753.690.6408-Feb-1112-Dec-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L101.54.482.1708-Feb-1112-Dec-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as110.10.860.5108-Feb-1112-Dec-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L110.1250.9780.307-Mar-1112-Dec-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P100.030.4090.1707-Jul-0912-Dec-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L31140.8464293.4607-Jul-0912-Dec-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.000150.150.0607-Jul-0912-Dec-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.003302.0307-Jul-0912-Dec-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.00128.20.8907-Jul-0912-Dec-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.036913.8907-Jul-0912-Dec-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.000450.450.1707-Jul-0912-Dec-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.013513.55.2407-Jul-0912-Dec-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0105619.7907-Jul-0907-Oct-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL51106700218807-Jul-0912-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL229.1290004313.2807-Apr-1012-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL1641363008374.3107-Jul-0912-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L37191670177.6707-Apr-1010-Oct-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL1410362946164.21Sample Summary and StatisticsSmith Creek at Bellerive Country Club
Water Quality
A - 63
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage29-Jul-0906-Jun-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3622714.0629-Jul-0906-Jun-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L365.615.29.5229-Jul-0906-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L364391529-Jul-0906-Jun-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU666.38.76.9722-Feb-1106-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L160.5196.2517-May-1106-Jun-12Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N140.0250.1240.0422-Feb-1106-Dec-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L101.51.51.522-Feb-1106-Dec-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as100.2451.130.7322-Feb-1106-Dec-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L100.1250.1250.1205-Apr-1106-Dec-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P90.040.3890.129-Jul-0906-Dec-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L30155.2320247.7329-Jul-0906-Dec-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.000150.150.0629-Jul-0906-Dec-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.00331.229-Jul-0906-Dec-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.0012120.9829-Jul-0906-Dec-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.033012.0229-Jul-0906-Dec-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.000450.450.1829-Jul-0906-Dec-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.013513.55.4129-Jul-0906-Dec-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.0105336.5629-Jul-0905-Jan-11Aluminum, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.064564.538.7329-Jul-0906-Oct-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL4210170069529-Jul-0906-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL22998022078.0506-Apr-1006-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL1852400485.7829-Jul-0906-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L36318554.1406-Apr-1004-Oct-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL155198632091.53Sample Summary and StatisticsSpring Branch at New Ballwin Rd
Water Quality
A - 64
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage28-Jul-0904-Jun-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3723014.8728-Jul-0904-Jun-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L373.112.547.8128-Jul-0904-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L3726225.3528-Jul-0904-Jun-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU766.278.47.0916-Feb-1104-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L160.5269.3402-May-1104-Jun-12Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N130.0250.3680.1516-Feb-1105-Dec-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L91.531.6716-Feb-1105-Dec-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as100.11.30.5816-Feb-1105-Dec-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L100.1250.2850.1701-Mar-1105-Dec-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P90.010.2460.0828-Jul-0905-Dec-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L31220590432.7528-Jul-0905-Dec-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.000150.150.0528-Jul-0905-Dec-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.00331.0728-Jul-0905-Dec-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.001212.20.9228-Jul-0905-Dec-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0314116.5828-Jul-0905-Dec-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.000450.450.1628-Jul-0905-Dec-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.013513.54.828-Jul-0905-Dec-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0105858.2428-Jul-0908-Sep-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL3120030001833.3328-Jul-0904-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL20516000012334.2512-Apr-1004-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL1931238003201.4728-Jul-0904-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L3746392122.4912-Apr-1003-Oct-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL1675155003184.19Sample Summary and StatisticsSugar Creek I at Barrett Station Rd
Water Quality
A - 65
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage28-Jul-0904-Jun-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3812413.1628-Jul-0904-Jun-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L386149.0728-Jul-0904-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L3824718.5828-Jul-0904-Jun-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU746.18.47.316-Feb-1104-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L170.5309.0902-May-1104-Jun-12Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N140.0250.09910.0616-Feb-1105-Dec-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L111.531.6416-Feb-1105-Dec-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as110.2011.40.7516-Feb-1105-Dec-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L110.1250.1250.1201-Mar-1105-Dec-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P100.050.3680.1828-Jul-0905-Dec-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L32232531.6344.6628-Jul-0905-Dec-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L320.000150.150.0528-Jul-0905-Dec-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L320.00331.1328-Jul-0905-Dec-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L320.00123.20.5128-Jul-0905-Dec-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L320.033011.2728-Jul-0905-Dec-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L320.000454.50.328-Jul-0905-Dec-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L320.013513.55.0728-Jul-0905-Dec-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L320.010510.53.9528-Jul-0921-Oct-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL53301200697.828-Jul-0904-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL213633000016418.112-Apr-1004-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL17121240002477.1228-Jul-0904-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L3822910117.4712-Apr-1003-Oct-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL1474120302142.86Sample Summary and StatisticsSugar Creek II at Christopher Rd
Water Quality
A - 66
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage04-Nov-0912-Mar-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C151209.8704-Nov-0912-Mar-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L16113.18.2604-Nov-0912-Mar-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L15165728.3304-Nov-0912-Mar-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU366.287.3424-Feb-1112-Mar-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L768621.5709-May-1112-Mar-12Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N40.0570.1530.0924-Feb-1108-Nov-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L51.53.361.8724-Feb-1108-Nov-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as50.4782.791.1424-Feb-1108-Nov-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L50.1250.3250.207-Mar-1108-Nov-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P40.070.220.1504-Nov-0908-Nov-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L13168311.2250.7104-Nov-0908-Nov-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.000150.150.0504-Nov-0908-Nov-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.00330.9304-Nov-0908-Nov-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.00122.70.4904-Nov-0908-Nov-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.03309.2604-Nov-0908-Nov-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.000450.450.1404-Nov-0908-Nov-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.013513.54.1604-Nov-0908-Nov-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.010510.53.2407-Apr-1009-May-11Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL42104600012172.507-Apr-1009-May-11Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL3443362941241104-Nov-0912-Mar-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L15262216507-Apr-1009-May-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL4213241966815.5Sample Summary and StatisticsTwomile Creek at Overbrook Dr
Water Quality
A - 67
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage03-Jun-0918-Jun-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C23124.712.6403-Jun-0918-Jun-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L241138.4603-Jun-0918-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L2326630.1303-Jun-0918-Jun-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU445.78.17.4815-Feb-1118-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L8115730.3819-Sep-1118-Jun-12Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N60.0250.0920.0615-Feb-1119-Dec-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L61.51.51.515-Feb-1119-Dec-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as50.280.8180.6615-Feb-1119-Dec-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L60.1250.2540.1909-Mar-1119-Dec-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P60.0150.1630.0903-Jun-0919-Dec-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L21100.8536.8334.4703-Jun-0919-Dec-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L210.000150.150.0603-Jun-0919-Dec-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L210.00331.3403-Jun-0919-Dec-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L210.001287.74.9803-Jun-0919-Dec-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L210.0333929.0603-Jun-0919-Dec-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L210.000453.50.3503-Jun-0919-Dec-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L210.013513.56.0103-Jun-0919-Dec-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L210.01058711.1203-Jun-0923-Sep-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL5187100014997.603-Jun-0918-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL125790008954.8310-May-1018-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL71054801287.1403-Jun-0918-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L2333600155.3510-May-1017-Oct-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL510577001704Sample Summary and StatisticsWatkins Creek at Riverview Drive
Water Quality
A - 68
Watkins Creek
Note – Limit shown for comparative purposes only. MDNR determines compliance based on 303(d) listing
methodology
Note – Limit shown for comparative purposes only. MDNR determines compliance based on 303(d) listing
methodology
Water Quality
A - 69
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage14-Jul-0913-Jun-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3512613.8614-Jul-0913-Jun-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L35615.78.714-Jul-0913-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L3558017.6614-Jul-0913-Jun-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU626.18.27.6309-Feb-1113-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L160.58517.5310-May-1113-Jun-12Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N140.0250.1020.0509-Feb-1114-Dec-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L111.51.51.509-Feb-1114-Dec-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as110.14.390.7509-Feb-1114-Dec-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L110.1250.1250.1208-Mar-1114-Dec-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P90.010.10.0614-Jul-0914-Dec-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L29108.4285218.5414-Jul-0914-Dec-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.000150.150.0614-Jul-0914-Dec-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.00331.2414-Jul-0914-Dec-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.001210.40.8714-Jul-0914-Dec-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.0311315.314-Jul-0914-Dec-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.000450.450.1914-Jul-0914-Dec-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.013513.55.614-Jul-0914-Dec-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.0105366.8914-Jul-0912-Oct-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL59180003760.414-Jul-0913-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL20731700009269.8519-Apr-1013-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL14201720223.8614-Jul-0913-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L353348573.4519-Apr-1011-Oct-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL1320155001697.85Sample Summary and StatisticsWildhorse Creek at Wildhorse Creek Rd
Water Quality
A - 70
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage29-Jul-0906-Jun-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3662513.6929-Jul-0906-Jun-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L366.4128.7329-Jul-0906-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L3626014.6929-Jul-0906-Jun-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU696.28.47.722-Feb-1106-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L1614710.517-May-1106-Jun-12Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N140.0250.0250.0222-Feb-1106-Dec-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L101.51.51.522-Feb-1106-Dec-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as90.8273.4431.4222-Feb-1106-Dec-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L100.1250.2790.1405-Apr-1106-Dec-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P90.050.1250.0929-Jul-0906-Dec-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L30102356255.4929-Jul-0906-Dec-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.000150.150.0529-Jul-0906-Dec-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.00330229-Jul-0906-Dec-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.00121053.929-Jul-0906-Dec-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.036912.3329-Jul-0906-Dec-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.000452.50.2629-Jul-0906-Dec-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.013513.54.9629-Jul-0906-Dec-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.01051208.3629-Jul-0906-Oct-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL439020000537529-Jul-0906-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL2236340002991.6806-Apr-1006-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL185298101440.7829-Jul-0906-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L362410950.1906-Apr-1004-Oct-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL153041101282.47Sample Summary and StatisticsWilliams Creek at Simpson Quarry
Water Quality
A - 71
Williams Creek
Note – Limit shown for comparative purposes only. MDNR determines compliance based on 303(d) listing
methodology
Water Quality
A - 72
Begin DateEnd DateParameter DescriptionUnitsCountMinMaxAverage02-Jun-0904-Jun-12Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C261.123.911.3402-Jun-0904-Jun-12Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L26614.19.6602-Jun-0904-Jun-12Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L2675523.4602-Jun-0904-Jun-12pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU386.29.27.9316-Feb-1104-Jun-12Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L11211533.2706-Sep-1104-Jun-12Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N100.0250.1590.0816-Feb-1105-Dec-11Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L51.51.51.516-Feb-1105-Dec-11Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as50.10.4780.2706-Sep-1105-Dec-11Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L40.1250.1250.1206-Sep-1105-Dec-11Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P40.0510.1370.0802-Jun-0905-Dec-11Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L2096459.6301.8802-Jun-0905-Dec-11Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L190.000150.150.0802-Jun-0905-Dec-11Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.00331.602-Jun-0905-Dec-11Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.00121.20.7202-Jun-0905-Dec-11Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.039023.5802-Jun-0905-Dec-11Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.000450.450.2402-Jun-0905-Dec-11Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.013513.57.2102-Jun-0905-Dec-11Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.01057215.7102-Jun-0929-Sep-09Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL65330005980.8302-Jun-0904-Jun-12Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL1116332000032556.6406-Sep-1104-Jun-12Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL598240005148.202-Jun-0904-Jun-12Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L2614660149.6206-Sep-1103-Oct-11Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 millilitersMPN/100 mL2121609365Sample Summary and StatisticsYarnell Creek at Hwy 30
A - 73
APPENDICES
Outlets
A - 74
A - 75
A - 76
A - 77
A - 78
A - 79
A - 80
A - 81
A - 82
A - 83
A - 84
A - 85
A - 86
OUTLET INDEX MAP
A - 87
A - 88
A - 89
A - 90
A - 91
A - 92
A - 93
A - 94
A - 95
A - 96
A - 97
A - 98
A - 99
A - 100
A - 101
A - 102
A - 103
A - 104
A - 105
A - 106