The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About460892 ILLICIT AND ELIMNATION ST. LOUIS COUNTY PHASE II STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN PREPARED FOR ST. LOUIS COUNTY MUNICIPALITIES BY THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY PHASE II STORM WATER PLANNING COMMITTEE Fall 2012 THIRD TERM PERMIT 2013-2018 PUBLIC EDUCATION PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION CONSTRUCTION SITE CONTROLS POST-CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT MUNICIPAL POLLUTION PREVENTION DRAFT October 9, 2012 DRAFT i St. Louis County Phase II St. Louis County Phase II Storm Water Management Plan Prepared by The St. Louis Municipalities Phase II Storm Water 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. Civil Engineer Senior 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 Sterling Corporation Gail Choate Land Use Manager St. Louis County Ray Gawlik, P.E. Storm Water Manager St. Louis County Bruce H. Litzsinger, P.E. Manager of Environmental Compliance 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 DRAFT ii Executive Summary The Phase II Storm Water Regulations were promulgated to provide appropriate storm water 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 storm water 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 combined sewers serving the City of St. Louis and the numerous small political subdivisions in St. Louis County. Missouri’s Phase II Storm Water Regulations for small MS4s are contained in 10 CSR 20-6.200. The statute allows three permit options for small MS4 discharges: a general permit, a site specific permit, or a co-permittee option. 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. The 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. Many communities provide municipal operations and public services that impact storm water 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 storm water 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 insuring control of storm water pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. DRAFT iii St. Louis County storm water drains into three major watersheds: the Mississippi River, the Meramec River, and the Missouri River. All storm water 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. The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD) has been given the responsibility for providing adequate sewer and drainage facilities within its boundaries by its Charter (Plan). Under the Phase II Storm Water Regulations, MSD was recognized as the coordinating authority under the St. Louis Metropolitan Small MS4 Storm Water 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 Storm Water Management Plan, Summer 2007 has been implemented. Public education activities 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 term 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 storm water 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 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 DRAFT iv 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 Storm Water 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 2008 Plans will be maintained as resources, and will not be duplicated. The Phase II Storm Water 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. DRAFT v Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Phase II Plan Coordination .................................................................................................................... 1-1 Plan Coverage .......................................................................................................................... 1-1 A. Major Watersheds .................................................................................................................... 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 ........................................................................................................................ 1-10 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 ....................................................................................................................... 3-4 B. Water Quality Monitoring .......................................................................................................... 3-6 C. Identification of Area Storm Water 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 Storm Water 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 ............................................................ 6-8 F. On-site sewage disposal systems ............................................................................................ 6-9 G. Rationale for New Goals .......................................................................................................... 6-9 CHAPTER 7 ............................................................................................................................................... 7-1 Construction Site Storm Water 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 DRAFT vi 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 Storm Water Management in New Development and Redevelopment (MCM 5) .... 8-1 CHAPTER 9 ............................................................................................................................................... 9-1 Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations (MCM 6) ..................................... 9-1 A. MS4 Permit Requirements ....................................................................................................... 9-1 B. Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity .................................................... 9-2 C. Storm Water 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 ......................................................................................................... 11-11 D. Funding ................................................................................................................................ 11-11 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................... - 1 - DRAFT 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 the MSD and land area covered by the MSD are shown in Figure 1.1. This Plan is intended to cover the portion of St. Louis County that is included within the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District 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 co-permittees contained 59 municipalities, however, one municipality disincorporated in November 2011. Of the 88 municipalities, 11 are served by combined sewers and are, therefore, excluded pursuant to Section (1)(C)16.C of the Missouri storm water 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, was determined to no longer be exempt. An additional 18 municipalities are exempt under the provisions of Section (1)(C)24.A of the regulation based on 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. 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. DRAFT Phase II Plan Coordination 1-2 Figure 1.1: Map showing MSD boundaries DRAFT Phase II Plan Coordination 1-3 DRAFT Phase II Plan Coordination 1-4 B. Major Watersheds St. Louis County storm water drains into three major watersheds: the Mississippi River, the Meramec River, and the Missouri River as illustrated in Figure 1.3. All storm water 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 also 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 DRAFT 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 and by approximate methods. 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 DRAFT Phase II Plan Coordination 1-6 D. Permitting Strategy The State’s Phase II Storm Water Regulations for small MS4s are contained in 10 CSR 20-6.200. The regulations allows three permit options for small MS4 discharges: a general permit, a site specific permit, or co-permittee option. 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 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 Storm Water Management Plan and one NPDES 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 storm water 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 insuring control of storm water pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. The St. Louis County urbanized area is complex from a jurisdictional 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 is a co-permittee on one permit regardless of service area location. Best management practices selected will be applicable to all of St. Louis County and its municipalities. One storm water 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 Minimum Control Measures (MCM). For example, since the 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. St. Louis County and the municipalities with their land disturbance programs control pollution from land disturbance activities to comply with the requirements of MCM 4, Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control. Because the MSD is the recognized continuing authority for sewer extensions within its jurisdictional boundaries and has plan review responsibilities for storm water control, it is responsible for best management practices in storm water facility design to comply DRAFT Phase II Plan Coordination 1-7 with MCM 5, Post Construction Storm Water Management in New Development and Redevelopment. St. Louis County and the municipalities control the land use aspect of MCM 5. 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 storm water impacts and Public Involvement and Participation (MCM 2) can best be coordinated 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 discharges. Eighty-eight (88) municipalities exist in the Plan Area. Eighteen (18) of the municipalities are exempt from the Phase II Regulations because of 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 as a result of the 2010 census. Eleven (11) additional St. Louis County municipalities within the Plan Area are exempt because of combined sewer service. 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 Storm Water Regulations. However, the Phase II Regulations were specific in naming cities that must be issued permits under the program and must meet certain minimum control requirements related to municipal operations, e.g. vehicle maintenance, salt storage and street sweeping. The MSD has been recognized as the coordinating authority for development and implementation of the St. Louis Area Phase II Storm Water Management Plan by St. Louis County municipalities and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. Establishing a Planning Committee F. The third St. Louis Municipalities Phase II Storm Water 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. DRAFT Phase II Plan Coordination 1-8 Table 1.1: Land Area and Population of Municipalities in MSDs Service Area MUNICIPALITY MAP AREA** 2010 EXEMPTION REF* TOT AL BIS CWC LOM MOR RDP POP BASIS*** Ballwin 93 7.74 6.76 0.98 30404 Bella Villa 2 0.13 0.13 729 Population Bellefontaine Neighbors 88 4.36 4.36 10860 Bellerive 3 0.34 0.34 188 Population 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 Population 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 Population 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 Population Dellwood 95 1.03 1.03 5025 Des Peres 17 4.29 2.75 1.54 8373 Edmundson 73 0.27 0.27 834 Population 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 Population Grantwood Village 29 0.81 0.81 863 Population Greendale 86 0.19 0.19 722 Population 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 Population Jennings 31 3.77 3.77 14712 Kinloch 74 0.72 0.61 0.11 298 Population Kirkwood 32 9.19 5.43 3.76 27540 * In Figure 1.2 from St. Louis County Department of Planning, Research and Statics Division ** Areas are in square miles *** Municipalities exempt from Phase II requirements Combined sewer systems, per 10 CSR 20-6.200(1)(C)16.C. Populations less than 1000, per 10 CSR 20-6.200(1)(C)24A. DRAFT Phase II Plan Coordination 1-9 MUNICIPALITY MAP AREA** 2010 EXEMPTION REF* TOTAL BIS CWC LOM MOR RDP POP BASIS*** Ladue 33 8.55 8.55 8521 Lakeshire 70 0.21 0.21 1432 Mackenzie 34 0.02 0.02 134 Population 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 Population 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 Population Town & Country 63 11.55 3.45 6.63 1.47 10815 Twin Oaks 55 0.26 0.26 392 Population 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 Population 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 Population Wilbur Park 65 0.06 0.06 471 Population 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 TOTALS 448.36 54.87 56.51 119.42 125.41 92.15 * In Figure 1.2 from St. Louis County Department of Planning, Research and Statics Division ** Areas are in square miles *** Municipalities exempt from Phase II requirements Combined sewer systems, per 10 CSR 20-6.200(1)(C)16.C. Populations less than 1000, per 10 CSR 20-6.200(1)(C)24A. **** Combined sewer exemption no longer applies, MDNR notified May 23, 2011. ***** Population less than 1000 due to 2010 census, exemption subject to MDNR action. DRAFT 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, a monthly newsletter entitled the Cloud Burst was published by the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District’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 Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) 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 SWMP proposed goals. An MDNR 2011 MDNR audit report also recommended involving public stakeholders in developing future goals. 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; 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 Builders Association American Public Works Association Missouri Chapter Home Owner Association American Planning Association St. Louis Metro Section League of Women Voters of St. Louis American Society of Civil Engineers St. Louis Section Maryland Heights St. Louis Audubon Society Missouri Botanical Garden BMP Maintenance Contractors Missouri Department of Conservation Citizen Monarch - Chesterfield Levee District City of Crestwood North County Incorporated Council of Construction Consumers City of Olivette Deer Creek Watershed Alliance Partnership for Tomorrow East West Gateway Council of Governments River Des Peres Watershed Coalition City of Ellisville SITE Improvement Association City of Frontenac Spanish Lake Community Association U.S. Green Building Council - Missouri Gateway Chapter St. Louis County City of Green Park St. Louis Soil and Water Conservation District H. Plan Revisions This Phase II Storm Water 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, Special Conditions in permit section 3.1 would become applicable. Also, MDNR may designate additional cities subject to MS4 permitting. The new cities would need to be included in DRAFT Phase II Plan Coordination 1-11 the Plan and a goal timeline established for them to implement the program. MSD as the coordinating authority would need to consult with the MDNR, and revise the Phase II Storm Water Management Plan accordingly. DRAFT Demographics of the 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. DRAFT Demographics of the 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 DRAFT Demographics of the 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 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. DRAFT Demographics of the 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. DRAFT Demographics of the 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 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. DRAFT Demographics of the 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 occurred 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 DRAFT 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 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. These criteria are referenced in Sections 4.1.4.1 and 4.1.4.2 of Missouri’s Small-MS4 permit as follows: Discharges to waters of the state shall not cause a violation of water quality standards rule under 10 CSR 20-7.031, including both specific and general criteria; and 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; DRAFT Water Quality in St. Louis County Streams 3-2  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;  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. Storm water permittee compliance with the Missouri Water Quality Standards is mandated in Section (5)(A) of Missouri’s storm water regulation (10 CSR 20-6.200). This section states, in part: Applicants for permits for discharges from small MS4s must develop and submit descriptions of storm water management programs designed to reduce pollutants in storm water runoff to protect water quality of receiving waters. Subsequent sections of this Plan describe how the co-permittees will protect the quality of storm water runoff within the Plan Area. DRAFT 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 09/30/09) Water Body1 Location Classification2 Designated Beneficial Uses3 Metro ND4 Losing5 MSD Service area From Mouth or Segment Class Length IR LW AQ CF WB BT 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 to Big R. P 15.7 X X X A X X X LOM Meramec River 18,44N,5E P 22.8 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 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 5.0 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 B 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 to Sur2037,45N,6E P 3.7 X X RDP River des Peres Sur1359,44N,6E P 2.6 X X RDP Deer Creek 1930,45N,6E P 1.6 X X B RDP Black Creek 21,45N,6E P 1.6 X X B RDP Gravois Creek 24,44N,6E P 2.3 X X B All RDP Gravois Creek 24,44N,6Eto16,44N,6E C 6.0 X X B All RDP Maline Creek Sur 3125,46N,7Eto9,46N,7E C 0.6 X X B 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 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 (class A or B); BT = Boating & canoeing; DW = Drinking water s upply; IN = Industry. 4 Metropolitan No-Discharge Streams: These streams may only receive uncontaminated cooling water, permitted storm water 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 trib utary is within the Plan Area. DRAFT 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 09/30/09) Water Body1 Location Classification2 Designated Beneficial Uses3 Metro ND4 Losing5 MSD Service area Mouth or Start of Segment Class Length IR LW AQ CF WB BT DW IN Length Length Missouri River Gasconade R. P 104.5 X X X B X X X 6 Coldwater Creek 13,47N,7E C 6.9 X X B X All CWC Creve Coeur Creek Above lake 6,45N,5E P 2.1 X X B All MOR Creve Coeur Creek Below 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 1.5 X X B All MOR Creve Coeur Lake 20,46N,05E L3 327 ac 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 (class A or B); BT = Boating & canoeing; DW = Drinking water supply; IN = Industry. 4 Metropolitan No-Discharge Streams: These streams may only receive uncontaminated cooling water, permitted storm water 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. 8 The losing upper reach of Bonhomme Creek is outside the Plan Area. However, parts of the Plan Area drain to this reach. B. Impaired Waters Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires states to identify water bodies that cannot 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. DRAFT Water Quality in St. Louis County Streams 3-5 Section 3.1 of Missouri’s Small-MS4 permit imposes additional requirements on permittees who have discharges which “significantly” contribute to 303(d) water bodies. This section requires a permittee, having storm water discharges upstream from an impaired water body, to determine whether those discharges are significantly contributing directly or indirectly to the impaired water body and to further identify any TMDL approved for that water body. If the permittee determines that it is significantly contributing to the impaired water body, the permittee must include, within its storm water management plan, steps to control the pollutants of concern and to ensure that the permittee’s discharges do not cause or contribute to instream exceedances of the water quality standards. If a TMDL has been approved, the permittee must include provisions within its program to ensure that all requirements of the TMDL will be met. At the time this SWMP was planned 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 2010 and proposed 2012 303 (d) lists: Table 3.2: 2010 and proposed 2012 303 (d) listing Water Body Pollutant DO Bacteria (E Coli) Chloride Lead pH Mercury Coldwater Creek X X X Creve Coeur Creek X X X Fishpot Creek removed X X Grand Glaize Creek X removed X X Gravois Creek removed X X Kiefer Creek X X Maline Creek removed X X X Meramec River X X Missouri River X River Des Peres removed X X Watkins Creek X X X Antire Creek X X Black Creek X X Bonhomme Creek X X Deer Creek X X Fee Fee Creek (New) X X Fenton Creek X Williams Creek X X X – On Missouri’s 2010 303(d) and Proposed Missouri’s 2012 303(d) list X – On Proposed Missouri’s 2012 303(d) list (added to impaired streams list) removed – pollutant removed from the Proposed Missouri’s 2012 303(d) list DRAFT Water Quality in St. Louis County Streams 3-6 C. Water Quality Monitoring Stream monitoring is useful for a variety of purposes, one of which is to evaluate efforts under the Phase II Storm Water 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- scheduled days at monthly intervals. The MSD sampling locations are shown in Figure 3.1. Summaries and statistics for samples collected from June 2009 through August 2012 are provided in the Water Quality Section at the Appendices. Historical sample data graphs are provided for the listed impaired streams in the above table. This data is the most representative data available for characterizing these streams due to the consistent monthly sampling methodology used. Previous permit term Plans contained sample results that emphasized wet weather conditions to evaluate pollutant levels in storm water runoff. Figure 3.1: Sampling locations DRAFT Water Quality in St. Louis County Streams 3-7 D. Identification of Area Storm Water 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 Storm Water 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 water quality limits. Bacteria samples were collected during the recreational season April through October. The analysis does not attempt to duplicate the detailed methodology and 303(d) listing process conducted by MDNR under the water quality regulations. The parameter pH was not reviewed because it is only on the proposed 2012 303(d) list at this time. Table 3.3: Samples exceeding water quality Parameter Sampling Results (June 2009 - Au gust 2012) Total Samples Exceeds Level in Water Quality Standards Acute Chronic Number % Number % Dissolved Oxygen 1568 - - 67 4% Chloride 1332 20 2% 132 10% Bacteria (E.coli) 133 - - 91 68% Dissolved Oxygen water quality limit = 5 mg/L Bacteria (E.coli) whole body contact class B water quality limit = 206/100 mL Chloride water quality limits = 860 mg/L acute and 230 mg/L chronic 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 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 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 levels 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. DRAFT Water Quality in St. Louis County Streams 3-8 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 SWMPs 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 and SCR criterion of 200/100 mL and 1,800/100 mL, respectively. All classified stream segments within the MSD Plan Area are designated as WBCR-B. A 2012 Geosyntec Consultants data trends analysis report prepared for MSD explains that E. coli densities are generally more elevated in the small urbanized streams, particularly for those sampling stations more centrally located within the MSD service area. Approximately 44 percent of the small stream stations have a recreational season E. coli geometric mean in excess of the WBCR-B criteria. Recreational season E. coli geometric means exceed the SCR criterion of 1,134 cfu/100 mL at Deer Creek (1,713 cfu/100 mL), Twomile Creek (2,388 cfu/100 mL), Maline Creek (1,368 cfu/100 mL), River des Peres (1,649-2,003 cfu/100 mL), and Shady Grove (2,326 cfu/100 mL). The lowest small stream E. coli densities are generally located near the outskirts of the MSD service area. The Geosyntec trend report 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 storm water 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. DRAFT 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 SWMP, fecal coliform levels, at the St. Louis County sampling stations, during periods of storm water runoff, typically exceed the recreational-use standard by several orders of magnitude. Other studies have reported that primary sources of pathogens in urban storm water 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 storm water were of nonhuman origin.” The increasing evidence that wild and domestic animals are significant contributors to high levels of E. coli in storm water 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 (available on the MSD website) 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 th e 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 SWMP, 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. DRAFT 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. DRAFT 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 permittee to implement a public education program to distribute educational materials to the community or conduct equivalent outreach activities about the impacts of storm water discharges on water bodies and the steps that the public can take to reduce pollutants in storm water 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 The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District 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. DRAFT Public Education and Outreach 4-2 Depending on the type of pollution contained in storm water 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 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 educational 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 storm water. 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 established outlets D. Compliance Activities using Presentations MSD presents storm water 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 SWMPs’ 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, speaking engagements , brochures, school curricula, and seminars. DRAFT Public Education and Outreach 4-3 The MSD web site was completely re-organized during the second term SWMP. 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. 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 SWMP, developed an outdoor rain garden sign template that anyone may use to explain what is a watershed, what is storm water, 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 SWMPs has been through the development and distribution of several printed educational materials. The 2012 MSD Storm Water 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 SWMP 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 SWMP 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 storm water quality educational information to school classrooms, a large number of students are not reached and nonpoint source pollution is not a required curriculum. A workgroup will be formed to evaluate nonpoint source pollution education in the St. Louis County Plan Area. Workgroup members will include educators and youth group (i.e., cub scouts and girl scouts) leaders. DRAFT Public Education and Outreach 4-4 The 2012 MSD Storm Water Education Survey stated that the percent of residents who reported they had seen or heard MSD sponsored information about water quality or storm water 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 Storm Water Education Survey indicated that the Internet has become an increasingly effective way of reaching residents. A review of 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, or link to a regional web site, with educational resources on storm water 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 SWMP 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 storm water 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 workgroup 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 DRAFT Public Education and Outreach 4-5 number of schools and students reached and how. Findings and recommendations to enhance education efforts will be established. Year 3 A workgroup will be formed to review and update the existing inventory of educational materials to improve water quality. MSD will ask co-permittees to develop and maintain a web site, or link to a regional web site, with educational resources on storm water impacts and ways to improve water quality. Year 4 MSD will develop specific water quality messages for co-permittees that are particularly relevant to the area. Year 5 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 storm water 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 storm water quality issues and needs. Effective actions will be continued but subject matter may be revised and expanded. DRAFT 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 SWMP, 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 Storm Water Plan Development As part of the third term SWMP 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; 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., upon DRAFT 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 storm water pollution in the Plan Area. As part of managing the storm water 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. Educational 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. DRAFT Public Involvement and Participation 5-3 D. Pet Owner Responsibilities Fecal coliform 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 storm water management public involvement programs that reduce the volume and/or rate of discharges of storm water will be implemented. This activity is related a second term SWMP 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 SWMP, 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 installed. 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 workgroup 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 and be recognized. The workgroup 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, and address a 2011 MDNR audit report recommendation to develop new and additional ways to get citizens involved with the MS4 program, MSD and County 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. DRAFT 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 storm water management public involvement programs that reduce the volume and/or rate of discharges of storm water. Year 1 A workgroup 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. DRAFT 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-storm water 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-storm water 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 DRAFT Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 6-2 believe there is a need to develop a list of allowable incidental non-storm water discharges at this time. Under the existing program implementation, any incidental non- storm water 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 storm water 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 lap top computers that contain the most up-to-date versions of these maps. When the second term SWMP 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) DRAFT Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 6-3 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. Figure 6.1: Schematic of Sewer and Structure Location Procedure MSD has identified 17,591 storm sewer outfall structures 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 storm water 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 permit application form requires outlets, along with their receiving waters to be listed. Since St. Louis County and its numerous incorporated municipalities were included in a single SWMP, it was determined that only the storm DRAFT Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 6-4 water outlets discharging storm water into the Mississippi, Missouri, and Meramec Rivers needed to be identified. Figure 6.2 shows the multitude of storm water outlets which discharge storm water from the boundaries of the Plan Area. The insert enlargement on the figure focuses on five 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 “storm water 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: Storm Water Outlets from Land Areas in St. Louis County DRAFT Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 6-5 MSD has identified 217 storm water outlets exiting the 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 storm water outlets from the Plan Area is presented in the 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 visually 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 storm water 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. 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 storm water discharge regulations, or cause any violations of State or Federal water quality standards.” A specific provision (Article IV, Section One, Paragraph A) requires NPDES permits for discharges to separate storm sewers: DRAFT Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 6-6 “No person shall discharge any wastewater treatment plant effluent, cooling water, unpolluted water or any other water that is not composed entirely of storm water 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.” Storm water 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 storm water associated with industrial activity as defined in 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14) or any storm water 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 storm water 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” 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) DRAFT Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 6-7  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 storm water system, including illega l 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 illici t 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. DRAFT Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 6-8 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 enforcement 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. MSD channel surveyors use 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 1380 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 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 Storm water 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. The public education measures of this Plan have addressed this issue from the public’s perspective by DRAFT Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 6-9 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 Phase II web page 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 bacteria levels. The magnitude of the impairment related to these systems is unknown at this time. In the second term SWMP, a Plan Area workgroup developed a document titled Addressing Individual Sewage Disposal Systems in the Storm Water 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. G. Rationale for New Goals MSD survey of all the Plan Area stream areas will continue with 1380 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 it’s 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, DRAFT Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 6-10 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 the second term recommendation in the Addressing Individual Sewage Disposal Systems in the Storm Water Phase II St. Louis County Plan Area-Existing Activities and Recommendations Report. The brochure will be developed by a workgroup 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 Storm Water 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. Specific goals for each year of the permit are presented as follows: Annually Survey 1380 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 storm water 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. DRAFT Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 6-11 Year 2 No new goals. Year 3 MSD and 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. DRAFT Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control 7-1 CHAPTER 7 Construction Site Storm Water 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 storm water runoff from construction activities that result in a land disturbance of greater than or equal to one acre. Reduction of storm water 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 DRAFT Construction Site Storm Water 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 or 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 storm water 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 storm water 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 right-of-ways. The H&T Department also performs land disturbance storm water 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 grading required on DRAFT Construction Site Storm Water 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 MORA00000 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 Storm Water 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; DRAFT Construction Site Storm Water 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 storm water or to remove pollutants from storm water to ensure all BMPs are continually implemented and are effective. Inspections must be scheduled at least weekly and within48 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. DRAFT Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control 7-5 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 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 DRAFT Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control 7-6 LDC contains provisions that allows the code official to stop the work, when deemed necessary. 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 adopted 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 storm water 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 maintain its on-line land disturbance tool box, developed in the second term, that contain several resources, including inspection checklist templates, links to certification programs and organizations that can DRAFT Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control 7-7 help solve erosion and sediment control problems, and information on managing runoff from small sites under St. Louis County Ordinary Permits. A key element of an effective land disturbance program is the inspection process. To assure the proper functioning of soil erosion and, sedimentation, and storm water 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 and mock land disturbance inspection training program for municipalities. A challenge to installing post-construction BMPs under MCM 5 is coordinating construction BMP activity around them. Developers, SWPPP reviewers, and land disturbance inspections should be aware of the relationship between construction and post-construction BMPs. Sites will contain both construction and post-construction BMPs located on different parts of a site. Preserving the soil structure necessary for the post-construction BMPs that rely upon infiltration (such as infiltration basins) will require some areas to be handled carefully. The post-construction areas must be protected during construction activities. Also, post-construction BMPs, (such as filters, bioretention/rain gardens, dry swales, and infiltration areas) must be installed after contributing drainage areas are stabilized in order to prevent them from clogging with construction sediment. Strategies for preserving/protection of sensitive areas/natural resources used to manage post-construction storm water must also be addressed before and during construction activities. MSD and St. Louis County will develop and distribute educational material on coordinating post-construction BMPs with land disturbance activities. 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 a mock inspection training workshop for municipalities to improve implementation of their Phase II land disturbance programs. Year 2 No new goals planned DRAFT Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control 7-8 Year 3 St. Louis County and MSD will develop and distribute educational material on coordinating post-construction BMPs with land disturbance activities. Year 4 No new goals planned Year 5 MSD and St. Louis County will provide educational program or training for developers and construction company employees, engineers or local inspectors on sediment and erosion control BMPs, and evaluate training effectiveness. DRAFT Post-Construction Storm Water Management in new Development and Redevelopment 8-1 CHAPTER 8 Post-Construction Storm Water Management in New Development and Redevelopment (MCM 5) A. MS4 Permit Requirements Section 4.2.5.1 of the general MS4 permit requires the permittee to develop, implement and enforce a program to address storm water 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 DRAFT Post-Construction Storm Water Management in new Development and Redevelopment 8-2 measures often thought of as good housekeeping, preventive maintenance and spill prevention. B. Program Intent 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 storm water 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 SWMP, 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 storm water 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 been 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. DRAFT Post-Construction Storm Water 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 distributed 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). DRAFT Post-Construction Storm Water 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. DRAFT Post-Construction Storm Water Management in new Development and Redevelopment 8-5 Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District In the Plan Area, all storm water 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 storm water 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 that requires all applicable development projects comply with Phase II storm water permit requirements. The Rules and Regulations include storm water design criteria for:  Water quality treatment of the project disturbed area, or equivalent, using the 90 th 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 will continue to require flood volume detention 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 storm water BMPs design, installation and maintenance. DRAFT Post-Construction Storm Water Management in new Development and Redevelopment 8-6 Through July 2012, 630 projects representing 1,718 BMPs have been constructed or approved 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 approved BMPs between October 2006 and July 2012 MSD will continue to offer a conceptual review service that will evaluate a project’s storm water requirements early in the design phase of the project. MSD offers a paid “Basic” conceptual review, and a more “Detailed” paid conceptual review. 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. 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. MSD will continue to issue permits for and inspect the construction of all structural BMPs. DRAFT Post-Construction Storm Water Management in new Development and Redevelopment 8-7 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 property 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 SWMP 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 storm water 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 Storm Water Management Plan. C. Flood Control 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 storm water problems throughout the District. Many flood control projects were identified in the SSMIP, of DRAFT Post-Construction Storm Water Management in new Development and Redevelopment 8-8 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 storm water 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 Count y 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 cannot 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 requires compensatory storage except in the floodplains of the Mississippi, Missouri and Meramec Rivers. Since the early 1970’s, storm water detention has been required for new development to control flooding of downstream properties. The MSD currently requires storm water 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. DRAFT Post-Construction Storm Water Management in new Development and Redevelopment 8-9 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 D. Rationale for New Goals Previous sections of this chapter have dealt with activities carried out by co-permittees in the implementation of the post-construction storm water 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 SWMP 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 storm water 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, DRAFT Post-Construction Storm Water Management in new Development and Redevelopment 8-10 selection and performance of BMPs with regard to local water quality impairments (i.e. bacteria and chloride), MSD will review post construction storm water 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 storm water, 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 SWMP, 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. 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 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. DRAFT Post-Construction Storm Water Management in new Development and Redevelopment 8-11 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 Toolkit website. MSD will coordinate a workgroup of co-permittees and consultants to evaluate parameters and technology related to guidance for 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 storm water 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. Year 3 MSD will develop educational materials on storm water 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 determine 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.) DRAFT Post-Construction Storm Water Management in new Development and Redevelopment 8-12 Year 5 MSD will review post construction storm water BMP selection and pollutant removal performance with regard to local water quality impairments, including bacteria and chloride. DRAFT 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. 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 storm water pollution from activities such as DRAFT Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations 9-2 park and open space maintenance, fleet and building maintenance, new construction and land disturbances and storm water system maintenance. B. Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity Section (2)(B)3.F of the Missouri Storm Water Regulations (10 CSR 20-6.200) requires that municipalities obtain separate state NPDES permits for storm water discharges from certain “industrial” facilities that are municipally owned or operated if the storm water 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 storm water permit number for each facility or a copy of the current NPDES storm water 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 storm water permit is only required if storm water from any of these “industrial” facilities discharges directly to waters of the state and the storm water 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. Storm Water 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 storm water 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 amount of storm water capital improvement projects that fall into three categories:  Operation, Maintenance and Construction Improvement (OMCI)  Replacement/Renewal Projects  Emergency Projects DRAFT 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 projects 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 storm water 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. 2. Replacement/Renewal Projects Over time, drainage infrastructure may become degraded to the point of needin g 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 storm water projects. Some have a sales tax that is dedicated for storm water 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 storm water facilities on a daily basis and to keep the drainage system functioning as designed. Storm water 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. DRAFT 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 storm water 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 SWMP, has been reported by each co-permittee. Table 9.1 lists a summary of the commonly implemented BMPs applicable to municipal pollution prevention. DRAFT Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations 9-5 Table 9.1 Summary of BMPs Currently 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/disp osal Employee Education/Training Provide education and training in pollution prevention DRAFT 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. DRAFT 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 storm water 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 storm water 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 storm water 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. DRAFT 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 SWMP to accomplish immediate benefits through municipal good housekeeping. MSD continues to provide annual refresher training on best management practices for the operation and maintenance program. Training addresses specific issues as needed. For example, in response to a 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 Storm water Pollution” brochure available for employees and the public summarizing the best management practices 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 SWMP, 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. DRAFT Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations 9-9 To further address pet waste, the SWMP 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 SW MP focuses on winter salt usage and storage BMPs. In the second term SWMP, numerous activities to address chloride were implemented. A workgroup 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 Storm Water 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 SWMP 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 workgroup 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 storm water quality on municipal property using green infrastructure and low impact development. Part of the workgroup efforts will be to develop a mock inspection training program 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 SWMP. This DRAFT 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 storm water system is still a priority pollutant under this plan. During the second term SWMP, a municipal work group develop ed 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 assist co- permittees to meet the goal of participating in an annual clean-up event, SD 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 SWMP 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 SWMP, 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 the salt usage forms, consider BMP training, 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 storm water 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 storm water runoff implemented at municipal-owned facilities. MSD will share the survey information and provide resource information, such as funding sources, with the co-permittees. In the second term SWMP, MSD and partners distributed short educational information and case studies on pollution prevention and storm water runoff reduction BMPs to the DRAFT 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 contributes to elevated bacteria levels in storm water 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 SWMP; Brochures and pet waste ordinances were addressed in the first term SWMP and pet waste signs and radio public service announcements were addressed in the second term SWMP. The 2012 MSD Storm water 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 County 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 best management practices. 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 best management practices 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. DRAFT 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 workgroup will be organized to update the February 2005 dated Operation and Maintenance Program model template for co-permittees. MSD will develop and conduct a mock inspection training workshop for municipalities to improve implementation of their Phase II inspection programs. MSD, St. Louis County, and partners, such as Missouri Stream Team, will hold a 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 storm water runoff implemented at municipal-owned facilities. The survey will include both regulated and voluntary type BMPs. A workgroup will be formed to evaluate, and update as applicable, the reporting form and guidance for 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 post construction BMP green infrastructure projects 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. Year 5 MSD will survey municipality and St. Louis County parks with pet waste stations and distribute pet waste station BMP resource information. DRAFT 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 storm water management program. This section also requires the permittee to inspect any structures that function to prevent pollution of storm water or to remove pollutants from storm water 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 storm water 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 SWMP may be made at any time upon written notification to the MDNR. Changes replacing an ineffective or infeasible BMP specifically identified in the SWMP 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: DRAFT 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 minimum control measures; 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 storm water activities the permittee plans to undertake during the next reporting cycle (including an implementation schedule); Proposed changes to the permittee’s SWMP, including changes to any BMPs or any identified measurable goals that apply to 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 storm water management activities within the co- permittee’s area of jurisdiction. That individual will be responsible for ensuring that:  All elements of this SWMP, 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 SWMP identifies actions that the co-permittees are committed to take in order to comply with the requirements of the Phase II Storm Water 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: DRAFT 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 storm water 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 storm water 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, development and adoption of a model O&M program, development of a training program, 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 DRAFT Record Keeping and Reporting 10-4 District’s Division of Environmental Compliance (DEC) will be responsible for coordinating this activity and preparing and submitting the reports to MDNR. 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.DRAFT 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 Minimum Control Measures. 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 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 MSD will report the number of brochures and other educational materials distributed to improve water quality. Number distributed MSD MSD will report the number of presentations on water quality and nonpoint source pollution education. Number presentations MSD MSD will maintain its web site with educational materials on storm water impacts and ways to improve water quality, and will report the number of Phase II web page visits. Number page visits MSD 1 No new goals planned - - DRAFT BMP Goals, Measurements, and Responsibilities 11-2 Permit Year BMP Goal Selected Measurement Method Responsibility 2 A workgroup 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 workgroup will be formed to review and update the existing inventory of educational materials to improve water quality. Materials updated MSD MSD will ask co-permittees to develop and maintain a web site, or link to a regional web site, with educational resources on storm water impacts and ways to improve water quality. Web sites developed Co-permittees 4 MSD will develop specific water quality messages for co-permittees that are particularly relevant to the area. Message developed MSD 5 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 MSD To test the public’s knowledge of storm water 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 storm water quality issues and needs. Effective actions will be continued but subject matter may be revised Number of responses MSD DRAFT BMP Goals, Measurements, and Responsibilities 11-3 MCM 2: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND PARTICIPATION Permit Year BMP Goal Selected Measurement Method Responsibility All MSD will report on the number of volunteer presentations supported. Number supported MSD MSD will report on the number of storm drain marking projects supported. Number supported MSD MSD will report on the number of volunteer neighborhood and stream clean-ups supported. Number supported MSD St. Louis County will report on the amount of household hazardous waste collected. Waste volume St. Louis County 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 Report on public participation activities to promote storm water management public involvement programs that reduce the volume and/or rate of discharges of storm water. Number of participation activities MSD 1 A workgroup 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 - - DRAFT 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 Survey 1380 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 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 MSD will distribute illicit storm water discharges brochure to the industrial customers inspected by the pretreatment unit each year. Brochures distributed MSD 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 - - DRAFT BMP Goals, Measurements, and Responsibilities 11-5 Permit Year BMP Goal Selected Measurement Method Responsibility 3 MSD and 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 and St. Louis County 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 and St. Louis County 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-permitttees 5 No new goals planned - - DRAFT BMP Goals, Measurements, and Responsibilities 11-6 MCM 4 CONSTRUCTION SITE STORM WATER RUNOFF CONTROL Permit Year BMP Goal Selected Measurement Method Responsibility All 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 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 a mock inspection training workshop for municipalities to improve implementation of their Phase II land disturbance programs. Workshop provided St. Louis County and MSD 2 No new goals planned - - 3 St. Louis County and MSD will develop and distribute educational material on coordinating post-construction BMPs with land disturbance activities. Material distributed MSD and St. Louis County 4 No new goals planned - - 5 MSD and St. Louis County will provide educational program or training for developers and construction company employees, engineers or local inspectors on sediment and erosion control BMPs, and evaluate training effectiveness. Program or training sessions provided MSD and St. Louis County DRAFT BMP Goals, Measurements, and Responsibilities 11-7 MCM 5: POST-CONSTRUCTION STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Permit Year BMP Goal Selected Measurement Method Responsibility All 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 MSD will report the number of developments that are charged for utilizing the conceptual review service. Number of reviews MSD 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 toolkit website. Material developed MSD MSD will coordinate a workgroup of co- permittees and consultants to evaluate parameters and technology related to guidance for roadway redevelopment projects within the District. Evaluation complete MSD 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 storm water management planning prior to land disturbance. Material distributed MSD 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 MSD will develop educational materials on storm water 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 home owner associations, school districts and fire districts. Material distributed MSD DRAFT BMP Goals, Measurements, and Responsibilities 11-8 Permit Year BMP Goal Selected Measurement Method Responsibility 3 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 determine 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 storm water BMP selection and pollutant removal performance with regard to local water quality impairments, including bacteria and chloride. Review completed MSD DRAFT BMP Goals, Measurements, and Responsibilities 11-9 MCM 6 POLLUTION PREVENTION/GOOD HOUSEKEEPING FOR MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS Permit Year BMP Goal Selected Measurement Method Responsibility All MSD and partners will identify and develop educational information or a case study, and distribute to co-permittees to encourage implementation of best management practices. Information distributed MSD 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 Co-permittees will report on the number of employees trained. Employees Trained Co-permittees Co-permittees will inspect their facilities to ensure implementation of best management practices 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 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. 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 DRAFT BMP Goals, Measurements, and Responsibilities 11-10 Permit Year BMP Goal Selected Measurement Method Responsibility 2 A municipal workgroup will be organized to update the February 2005 dated Operation and Maintenance Program model template for co-permittees. Model template updated Co-permttees MSD will develop and conduct a mock inspection training workshop for municipalities to improve implementation of their Phase II inspection programs. Workshop provided MSD MSD, St. Louis County, and partners, such as Missouri Stream Team, will hold a training workshop for co-permittees on how to host a clean-up event. Workshop provided MSD and St. Louis County 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. Model template distributed MSD MSD will survey the number of co-permittee BMP projects that reduce the volume and rate of storm water runoff implemented at municipal-owned facilities. The survey will include both regulated and voluntary type BMPs. Survey completed MSD A workgroup will be formed to evaluate, and update as applicable, the reporting form and guidance for 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 and St. Louis County DRAFT BMP Goals, Measurements, and Responsibilities 11-11 Permit Year BMP Goal Selected Measurement Method Responsibility 4 MSD will develop and distribute a report on municipal operations post construction BMP green infrastructure projects 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 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 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 storm water in the Plan Area will be prevented to the maximum extent practicable. D. Funding The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District remains committed to permit compliance and continuing to act as coordinating authority implementing the phase II SWMP. However, funding the SWMP is a challenge and due to specific legislation explained in this section, MSD no longer provides specific areas covered under the phase II MS4 permit certain storm water management services required under the permit. In the first term SWMP, MSD referenced that an impervious charge could generate funds to support implementation of the SWMP. 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 Storm Water 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 DRAFT BMP Goals, Measurements, and Responsibilities 11-12 area starting March 1, 2008, which was later increased to $0.14 per 100 square feet. With the implementation of a new storm water 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 storm water impervious fee. However, in Year 3 of the second term annual report, MSD reported an interruption in MSD’s storm water 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 storm water services. Therefore, on August 28, 2009, when House Bill 661 went into effect, MSD ceased the storm water 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 storm water quality requirements under MCM 5 on the affected parcels. Secondly, on July 9, 2010, Circuit Judge Dan Dildine ruled against MSD in the case 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 storm water user charge under Missouri’s Hancock Amendment. The judgment meant MSD would lose its ability to collect funds for storm water 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 storm water 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. DRAFT Appendices - 1 - APPENDICES DRAFT Appendices - 2 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average10-Jun-09 06-Jun-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3722413.9310-Jun-09 06-Jun-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L374.31 13.8 8.3310-Jun-09 06-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L3724013.1610-Jun-09 06-Jun-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU266 9 7.1922-Feb-11 06-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L150.5578.7706-Jun-11 06-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N130.025 0.0758 0.0322-Feb-11 06-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L9 1.5 1.5 1.522-Feb-11 06-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as 9 0.277 0.72 0.522-Feb-11 06-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L9 0.125 0.489 0.1705-Apr-11 06-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P 8 0.054 0.478 0.1310-Jun-09 06-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L31164.4344287.6610-Jun-09 06-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.00015 0.15 0.0610-Jun-09 06-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.003 3 1.210-Jun-09 06-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0012 5.8 0.6310-Jun-09 06-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.034012.9310-Jun-09 06-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.00045 4.9 0.3210-Jun-09 06-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0135 13.5 5.3810-Jun-09 06-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0105589.0910-Jun-09 06-Oct-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL 659 2000858.1710-Jun-09 06-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL23961001018.7813-Apr-10 06-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL17 10 1553485.7610-Jun-09 06-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L37 11 10334.4613-Apr-10 04-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL14 20 1076281.5Sample Summary and StatisticsAntire Creek near Lewis RdDRAFT Appendices - 3 - Antire Creek DRAFT Appendices - 4 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average22-Jul-09 18-Jun-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3612613.4622-Jul-09 18-Jun-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L363.9148.6422-Jul-09 18-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L3668429.3622-Jul-09 18-Jun-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU266.3 8.7 7.5815-Feb-11 18-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L17223739.0616-May-11 18-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N140.025 0.149 0.0915-Feb-11 19-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L111.5 3.92 1.9415-Feb-11 19-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as110.1 0.89 0.4115-Feb-11 19-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L110.125 0.535 0.2809-Mar-11 19-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P100.04 0.307 0.1522-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L30 60 688482.7122-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.00015 0.15 0.0622-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.003 3 1.222-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.0012 29.7 1.922-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.0318826.122-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.00045 0.45 0.1822-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.0135 13.5 5.4122-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.0105507.0122-Jul-09 23-Sep-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL 4660 16001057.522-Jul-09 18-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL19 150 33000 543004-May-10 18-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL15 189 130003577.6722-Jul-09 18-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L36 28 1260143.8304-May-10 17-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL13 98 362945866.23Sample Summary and StatisticsAubuchon Creek at Charbonier RdDRAFT Appendices - 5 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average07-Jul-09 12-Jun-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3612715.1207-Jul-09 12-Jun-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L363.33147.5307-Jul-09 12-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L36 15 18938.4207-Jul-09 12-Jun-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU266 8 7.1908-Feb-11 12-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L170.512314.4409-May-11 12-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N130.025 0.237 0.1108-Feb-11 12-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L101.5 3.92 1.7408-Feb-11 12-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as110.343 1.57 0.8808-Feb-11 12-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L110.125 0.25 0.1407-Mar-11 12-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P100.015 0.17 0.0807-Jul-09 12-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L30184.8600337.1207-Jul-09 12-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.00015 0.15 0.0607-Jul-09 12-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.003302.107-Jul-09 12-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.0012 34.2 1.7307-Jul-09 12-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.037213.4307-Jul-09 12-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.00045 1.1 0.207-Jul-09 12-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.0135 13.5 5.4107-Jul-09 12-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.01055410.1807-Jul-09 07-Oct-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL 5460 55000 1231007-Jul-09 12-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL22 36 840006450.2707-Apr-10 12-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL16 145 200002102.0607-Jul-09 12-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L36 68 2070264.4407-Apr-10 10-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL14 63 34501110.86Sample Summary and StatisticsBlack Creek at Manchester RdDRAFT Appendices - 6 - Black Creek DRAFT Appendices - 7 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average02-Jun-09 13-Jun-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3512814.6302-Jun-09 13-Jun-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L356.1 15.1 8.7402-Jun-09 13-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L3546421.3402-Jun-09 13-Jun-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU255.8 8.1 7.2124-Feb-11 13-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L140.54314.6810-May-11 13-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N120.025 0.101 0.0624-Feb-11 14-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L9 1.5 1.5 1.524-Feb-11 14-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as 9 0.1 1.65 0.8824-Feb-11 14-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L9 0.125 0.875 0.2808-Mar-11 14-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P 8 0.01 0.24 0.0902-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L29 94353.2 239.5702-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.00015 0.4 0.0702-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.003 3 1.2802-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.0012 11.8 0.9902-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.036714.4402-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.00045 0.45 0.1902-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.0135 13.5 5.7502-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.0105729.9602-Jun-09 12-Oct-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL 6120 2200840.6702-Jun-09 13-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL19 45 92001530.7919-Apr-10 13-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL12 63 1150241.9202-Jun-09 13-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L35 19 21493.0319-Apr-10 08-Aug-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL11 31 98001629.91Sample Summary and StatisticsBonhomme Creek at Baxter RdDRAFT Appendices - 8 - Bonhomme DRAFT Appendices - 9 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average14-Jul-09 13-Jun-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C353 22.5 13.9514-Jul-09 13-Jun-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L355.6212814-Jul-09 13-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L3548520.3114-Jul-09 13-Jun-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU266 7.9 7.1324-Feb-11 13-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L160.52910.7210-May-11 13-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N140.025 0.092 0.0424-Feb-11 14-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L111.5 3.36 1.6724-Feb-11 14-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as110.41 2.3175 1.624-Feb-11 14-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L110.125 0.275 0.1408-Mar-11 14-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P100.03 0.12 0.0714-Jul-09 14-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L29 114355.6 259.3714-Jul-09 14-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.00015 0.15 0.0614-Jul-09 14-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.003 3 1.2414-Jul-09 14-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.0012 6.8 0.6914-Jul-09 14-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.0312015.5414-Jul-09 14-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.00045 0.45 0.1914-Jul-09 14-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.0135 13.5 5.614-Jul-09 14-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.0105 10.5 4.3614-Jul-09 12-Oct-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL 5190 5600 159614-Jul-09 13-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL20 100 490004541.2519-Apr-10 13-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL14 41 64901179.7114-Jul-09 13-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L35 26 262109.7119-Apr-10 11-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL13 74 48801391.31Sample Summary and StatisticsCaulks Creek at Wildhorse Creek RdDRAFT Appendices - 10 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average22-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3012613.5122-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L305.6148.1222-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L3069234.5322-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU206.1 8.7 7.4515-Feb-11 19-Dec-11 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L11828747.7316-May-11 19-Dec-11 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N 8 0.025 0.243 0.1315-Feb-11 19-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L111.5 5.6 2.2115-Feb-11 19-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as110.1 0.76 0.4815-Feb-11 19-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L110.125 1 0.309-Mar-11 19-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P100.015 0.542 0.1522-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L3070.8 539.2 260.2322-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.00015 0.15 0.0622-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.003 3 1.222-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.0012 334.2 16.1722-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.033012.0522-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.00045 18.4 0.9322-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.0135 13.5 5.4122-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.010535021.1122-Jul-09 18-Jan-11 Aluminum, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L190.064512944.1622-Jul-09 23-Sep-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL 4220 1300632.522-Jul-09 17-Oct-11 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL16 110 640006315.504-May-10 17-Oct-11 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL12 86 242004210.1722-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L30 16 750155.7304-May-10 17-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL13 52 362944481.08Coldwater Creek at Hwy 367Sample Summary and StatisticsDRAFT Appendices - 11 - Coldwater Creek, Hwy 367 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 DRAFT Appendices - 12 - Coldwater Creek, near Black Jack DRAFT Appendices - 13 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average22-Jul-09 18-Jun-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C321 26.5 13.4822-Jul-09 18-Jun-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L331 16.6 7.6322-Jul-09 18-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L32 19 6337.5322-Jul-09 18-Jun-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU246.6 8.6 7.615-Feb-11 18-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L16714937.6916-May-11 18-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N130.025 0.18 0.1115-Feb-11 19-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L101.5 3.92 1.7415-Feb-11 19-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as100.1 0.99 0.3615-Feb-11 19-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L100.125 0.448 0.1709-Mar-11 19-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P 8 0.03 0.111 0.0722-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L26 1402904.4 476.9622-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L260.00015 0.15 0.0622-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L260.003 3 1.2722-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L260.0012 58.7 322-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L260.0312016.2122-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L260.00045 0.45 0.1922-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L260.0135 13.5 5.7222-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L260.010561029.9822-Jul-09 23-Sep-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL 41300 4100 235022-Jul-09 18-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL16 110 520005918.1204-May-10 18-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL12 107 242005262.522-Jul-09 18-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L32 72 1640251.1204-May-10 17-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL10 86 362949055.7Sample Summary and StatisticsCowmire Creek at Aubochon RdDRAFT Appendices - 14 - 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 DRAFT Appendices - 15 - Creve Coeur Creek, near Creve Coeur DRAFT Appendices - 16 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average15-Nov-10 13-Jun-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C2013014.4515-Nov-10 13-Jun-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L205.5 14.6 8.5615-Nov-10 13-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L20 19 6831.6510-May-11 13-Jun-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU147.2 8.6 8.0109-Feb-11 13-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L16210731.1910-May-11 13-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N140.025 0.289 0.0709-Feb-11 14-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L111.5 3.36 1.6709-Feb-11 14-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as110.1 3.89 0.5409-Feb-11 14-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L110.125 0.125 0.1208-Mar-11 14-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P100.01 0.087 0.0315-Nov-10 14-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L14154.8 436.4 210.9415-Nov-10 14-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L140.00015 0.00015 015-Nov-10 14-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L140.003 0.005 015-Nov-10 14-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L140.0012 0.0027 015-Nov-10 14-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L140.03 0.5062 0.0715-Nov-10 14-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L140.00045 0.00045 015-Nov-10 14-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L140.0135 0.02 0.0215-Nov-10 14-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L140.0105 0.0544 0.0226-Apr-11 13-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL109310132.410-May-11 13-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 810 22851.515-Nov-10 13-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L20 60 277113.126-Apr-11 11-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 710 189 101Sample Summary and StatisticsCreve Couer Creek at Maryland Heights ExpDRAFT Appendices - 17 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average02-Jun-09 04-Oct-10 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C1522717.1302-Jun-09 04-Oct-10 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L155.1148.2402-Jun-09 04-Oct-10 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L15 21 4733.6702-Jun-09 03-May-10 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU136.5 8.6 7.7502-Jun-09 04-Oct-10 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L15119.6 396.4 200.402-Jun-09 04-Oct-10 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L150.00015 0.15 0.1102-Jun-09 04-Oct-10 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L150.003 3 2.3302-Jun-09 04-Oct-10 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L150.0012 160.8 11.8502-Jun-09 04-Oct-10 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L150.039934.2802-Jun-09 04-Oct-10 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L150.00045 6.1 0.7302-Jun-09 04-Oct-10 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L150.0135 13.5 10.502-Jun-09 04-Oct-10 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L150.010514218.402-Jun-09 12-Oct-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL 7 52700468.2902-Jun-09 04-Oct-10 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL10 45 1500397.519-Apr-10 04-Oct-10 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 4 52011.2502-Jun-09 04-Oct-10 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L15 31 248 12019-Apr-10 04-Oct-10 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 4 524394.5Sample Summary and StatisticsCreve Couer Creek I at Missouri R. WWTPDRAFT Appendices - 18 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average10-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C311 27.3 15.2710-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L312.4136.9210-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L31 20 6132.7110-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU215.7 7.9 7.2209-Feb-11 14-Dec-11 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L1084221.210-May-11 14-Dec-11 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N 8 0.0826 0.283 0.1709-Feb-11 14-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L111.5 3.36 1.6709-Feb-11 14-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as110.312 1.32 0.7309-Feb-11 14-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L110.125 0.298 0.1508-Mar-11 14-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P100.015 0.17 0.110-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L31115.2528294.6810-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.00015 0.15 0.0610-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.003 3 1.2610-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0012 795.5 26.2510-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0324524.1710-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.00045 34.6 1.2910-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0135 13.5 5.6710-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.010567026.0910-Jun-09 12-Oct-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL 6150 86002116.6710-Jun-09 11-Oct-11 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL18 73 210002300.8919-Apr-10 11-Oct-11 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL12 10 61301161.0810-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L31 25 1010163.2919-Apr-10 11-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL13 41 141001479.62Sample Summary and StatisticsCreve Couer Creek II at Creve Coeur Mill RdDRAFT Appendices - 19 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average07-Jul-09 12-Jun-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3712714.9407-Jul-09 12-Jun-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L374.44137.5807-Jul-09 12-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L37 15 10236.8907-Jul-09 12-Jun-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU266.2 8.2 7.2508-Feb-11 12-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L170.528827.7409-May-11 12-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N130.1 1.46 0.3808-Feb-11 12-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L101.5 3.92 2.1108-Feb-11 12-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as110.41 1.45 0.8408-Feb-11 12-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L110.125 0.274 0.1507-Mar-11 12-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P100.041 0.2 0.1107-Jul-09 12-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L31 141 480293.6607-Jul-09 12-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.00015 0.15 0.0607-Jul-09 12-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.003 3 1.1607-Jul-09 12-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0012 122.3 4.4907-Jul-09 12-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0311518.6507-Jul-09 12-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.00045 3.4 0.2707-Jul-09 12-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0135 13.5 5.2407-Jul-09 12-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.010522919.1707-Jul-09 07-Oct-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL 5340 25000 633207-Jul-09 12-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL22 36 28000 325307-Apr-10 12-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL16 41 240002159.0607-Jul-09 12-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L37 43 2190215.5607-Apr-10 10-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL14 10 3870901.21Deer Creek at Big Bend BlvdSample Summary and StatisticsDRAFT Appendices - 20 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average02-Jun-09 02-Jun-09 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C125 25 2502-Jun-09 02-Jun-09 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L1 5.7 5.7 5.702-Jun-09 02-Jun-09 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L127 27 2702-Jun-09 02-Jun-09 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU1 8.2 8.2 8.202-Jun-09 02-Jun-09 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L1 311.2 311.2 311.202-Jun-09 02-Jun-09 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L1 0.05 0.05 0.0502-Jun-09 02-Jun-09 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L1 1 1 102-Jun-09 02-Jun-09 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L1 1.2 1.2 1.202-Jun-09 02-Jun-09 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L164 64 6402-Jun-09 02-Jun-09 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L1 0.15 0.15 0.1502-Jun-09 02-Jun-09 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L1 4.5 4.5 4.502-Jun-09 02-Jun-09 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L137 37 3702-Jun-09 02-Jun-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL 1270 270 27002-Jun-09 02-Jun-09 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL 1420 420 42002-Jun-09 02-Jun-09 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L1108 108 108Sample Summary and StatisticsDeer Creek at Brechenridge Industrial CtDRAFT Appendices - 21 - Deer Creek, near Big Bend DRAFT Appendices - 22 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average07-Jul-09 12-Jun-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3713015.0207-Jul-09 12-Jun-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L374 15.5 7.8407-Jul-09 12-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L37 11 11334.3207-Jul-09 12-Jun-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU266.4 7.92 7.3508-Feb-11 12-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L17310727.8209-May-11 12-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N130.06 0.404 0.1708-Feb-11 12-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L101.5 1.5 1.508-Feb-11 12-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as110.232 1.1 0.7308-Feb-11 12-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L110.125 0.36 0.1707-Mar-11 12-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P100.015 0.259 0.1407-Jul-09 12-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L31 162 448290.2107-Jul-09 12-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.00015 0.15 0.0607-Jul-09 12-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.003 3 1.1607-Jul-09 12-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0012 8 0.7907-Jul-09 12-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.036012.6207-Jul-09 12-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.00045 1 0.1907-Jul-09 12-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0135 13.5 5.2407-Jul-09 12-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.01056911.407-Jul-09 07-Oct-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL 5170 650 41007-Jul-09 12-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL22 330 350004310.7707-Apr-10 12-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL16 318 200004736.507-Jul-09 12-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L37 41 940140.7307-Apr-10 10-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL14 187 81603273.64Sample Summary and StatisticsEngelholm Creek at KingslandDRAFT Appendices - 23 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average02-Jun-09 13-Jun-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3712815.0202-Jun-09 13-Jun-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L374.1 14.5 7.9302-Jun-09 13-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L37 20 6133.7602-Jun-09 13-Jun-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU276.2 8.1 7.5824-Feb-11 13-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L160.54213.5910-May-11 13-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N140.025 0.188 0.0924-Feb-11 14-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L111.5 3.92 1.7224-Feb-11 14-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as110.1 0.88 0.5624-Feb-11 14-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L110.125 0.307 0.1408-Mar-11 14-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P100.015 0.15 0.0902-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L31107.2 531.2 325.2802-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.00015 0.15 0.0602-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.003 3 1.202-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0012 14.9 1.102-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0318119.0702-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.00045 0.45 0.1802-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0135 13.5 5.3802-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0105397.7602-Jun-09 12-Oct-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL 691 130003423.502-Jun-09 13-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL21 20 180001845.3819-Apr-10 13-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL13 41 52801110.8502-Jun-09 13-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L37 48 740216.0219-Apr-10 11-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL13 20 24196 2630Sample Summary and StatisticsFee Fee Creek at Creve Coeur Mill RdDRAFT Appendices - 24 - Fee Fee Creek DRAFT Appendices - 25 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average12-Apr-10 04-Jun-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C2022714.1812-Apr-10 04-Jun-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L205.5 12.39 8.9912-Apr-10 04-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L2024222.0512-Apr-10 04-Jun-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU9 6.9 8.2 7.8416-Feb-11 04-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L100.5279.7505-Dec-11 04-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N 7 0.025 0.279 0.1216-Feb-11 05-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L4 1.5 1.5 1.516-Feb-11 05-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as 4 0.53 0.86 0.7116-Feb-11 05-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L4 0.125 0.125 0.1201-Mar-11 05-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P 3 0.03 0.055 0.0512-Apr-10 05-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L14 140 532414.9712-Apr-10 05-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L140.00015 0.15 0.0212-Apr-10 05-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L140.003 3 0.4312-Apr-10 05-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L140.0012 23.6 1.7712-Apr-10 05-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L140.03304.3112-Apr-10 05-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L140.00045 0.45 0.0612-Apr-10 05-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L140.0135 13.5 1.9412-Apr-10 05-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L140.0105323.0512-Apr-10 04-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL11 45 22000041422.7312-Apr-10 04-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL11 52 240002797.7312-Apr-10 04-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L21 30 431165.7112-Apr-10 06-Apr-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 852 241963390.12Sample Summary and StatisticsFenton Creek at Hwy 141DRAFT Appendices - 26 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average28-Jul-09 17-Mar-10 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C1022312.628-Jul-09 17-Mar-10 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L106.4 13.4 9.7828-Jul-09 17-Mar-10 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L10 13 3320.528-Jul-09 17-Mar-10 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU106.1 7.7 6.9828-Jul-09 17-Mar-10 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L10 200 568463.2828-Jul-09 17-Mar-10 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L100.15 0.15 0.1528-Jul-09 17-Mar-10 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L103 3 328-Jul-09 17-Mar-10 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L101.2 1.2 1.228-Jul-09 17-Mar-10 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L10 30 16343.328-Jul-09 17-Mar-10 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L100.45 4.5 0.8628-Jul-09 17-Mar-10 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L1013.5 13.5 13.528-Jul-09 17-Mar-10 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L1010.53512.9528-Jul-09 21-Oct-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL 5230 1400 55228-Jul-09 21-Oct-09 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL 5500 1400 91028-Jul-09 17-Mar-10 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L10 55 229144.59Sample Summary and StatisticsFenton Creek at Winter Co. ParkDRAFT Appendices - 27 - Fenton Creek DRAFT Appendices - 28 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average29-Jul-09 06-Jun-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3642413.9429-Jul-09 06-Jun-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L366 10.9 7.9329-Jul-09 06-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L3674320.0329-Jul-09 06-Jun-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU266.3 8 7.1822-Feb-11 06-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L161155.1217-May-11 06-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N140.025 0.0768 0.0322-Feb-11 06-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L101.5 1.5 1.522-Feb-11 06-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as100.29 2.19 1.3422-Feb-11 06-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L100.125 0.125 0.1205-Apr-11 06-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P 9 0.053 0.1 0.0829-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L302.8 473.2 273.1729-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.00015 0.15 0.0629-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.003 3 1.229-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.0012 10.6 0.9829-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.033012.0229-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.00045 0.45 0.1829-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.0135 13.5 5.4129-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.0105808.2829-Jul-09 05-Jan-11 Aluminum, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.0645 64.5 38.7329-Jul-09 06-Oct-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL 4180 58000 1474529-Jul-09 06-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL22 27 200002279.1806-Apr-10 06-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL18 52 4600748.0629-Jul-09 06-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L36 37 1140154.9406-Apr-10 04-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL15 31 2910766.27Sample Summary and StatisticsFishpot Creek at Vance RdDRAFT Appendices - 29 - Fishpot Creek DRAFT Appendices - 30 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average10-Jun-09 06-Dec-11 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C2032713.3810-Jun-09 06-Dec-11 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L205.7 13.3 8.7410-Jun-09 06-Dec-11 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L20 16 10937.5510-Jun-09 06-Dec-11 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU146 8 7.2322-Feb-11 06-Dec-11 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L5 43212.207-Sep-11 06-Dec-11 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N 4 0.025 0.185 0.0922-Feb-11 06-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L5 1.5 3.36 1.8722-Feb-11 06-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as 5 0.1 0.449 0.3422-Feb-11 06-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L5 0.125 0.125 0.1207-Sep-11 06-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P 4 0.01 0.047 0.0310-Jun-09 06-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L2081.2574235.5810-Jun-09 06-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.00015 0.15 0.0710-Jun-09 06-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.003 3 1.410-Jun-09 06-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.0012 1.2 0.610-Jun-09 06-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.0317824.6310-Jun-09 06-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.00045 0.45 0.2110-Jun-09 06-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.0135 13.5 6.3110-Jun-09 06-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.01056517.6810-Jun-09 06-Oct-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL 627 290000 4839610-Jun-09 04-Oct-11 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL105540005605.615-Sep-10 04-Oct-11 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 441 487155.2510-Jun-09 06-Dec-11 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L20 18 1460213.9415-Sep-10 04-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 430 350155.75Grand Glaize Creek at Marshall RdSample Summary and StatisticsDRAFT Appendices - 31 - 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 DRAFT Appendices - 32 - Grand Glaize Creek, Marshall Road Grand Glaize Creek, Valley Park DRAFT Appendices - 33 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average28-Jul-09 04-Jun-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C2912912.128-Jul-09 04-Jun-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L295.5 13.56 8.9828-Jul-09 04-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L29 15 5630.2128-Jul-09 04-Jun-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU225.8 7.77 7.1816-Feb-11 04-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L140.531333.9601-Aug-11 04-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N110.025 0.183 0.116-Feb-11 05-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L8 1.5 1.5 1.516-Feb-11 05-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as 8 0.1 0.95 0.5416-Feb-11 05-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L8 0.125 0.475 0.1901-Mar-11 05-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P 7 0.05 0.185 0.1128-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L23116.4 778.8 275.0528-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L220.00015 0.15 0.0728-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L230.003 3 1.4428-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L230.0012 10.1 1.0528-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L230.033014.3828-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L230.00045 0.45 0.2228-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L230.0135 13.5 6.4628-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L230.01055212.928-Jul-09 21-Oct-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL 518 580259.628-Jul-09 04-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL14 82 340003015.2911-May-10 04-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 974 160002412.5628-Jul-09 04-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L29 38 1150185.3111-May-10 03-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 696 3450837.17Sample Summary and StatisticsGravois Creek at Weber RdDRAFT Appendices - 34 - Gravois Creek DRAFT Appendices - 35 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average29-Jul-09 06-Jun-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3642414.1829-Jul-09 06-Jun-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L366.1149.3329-Jul-09 06-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L3623614.8129-Jul-09 06-Jun-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU266.4 8.5 7.4422-Feb-11 06-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L160.5144.2217-May-11 06-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N140.025 0.118 0.0422-Feb-11 06-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L101.5 1.5 1.522-Feb-11 06-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as101.065 3.65 1.6722-Feb-11 06-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L100.125 0.125 0.1205-Apr-11 06-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P100.04 0.103 0.0629-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L30 174 427277.6629-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.00015 0.15 0.0629-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.003 3 1.229-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.0012 5.1 0.6129-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.033012.0329-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.00045 0.45 0.1829-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.0135 13.5 5.4129-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.0105528.6829-Jul-09 05-Jan-11 Aluminum, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.0645 64.5 38.7329-Jul-09 06-Oct-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL 4110 54001527.529-Jul-09 06-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL225180001343.506-Apr-10 06-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL1851500 20729-Jul-09 06-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L36 52 27795.6906-Apr-10 04-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL15 10 933240.8Sample Summary and StatisticsKieffer Creek at Kiefer Cr. RdDRAFT Appendices - 36 - Kiefer Creek DRAFT Appendices - 37 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average29-Jul-09 06-Jun-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3612412.5829-Jul-09 06-Jun-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L365.9 14.2 9.0329-Jul-09 06-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L3622611.1929-Jul-09 06-Jun-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU266.12 8.5 7.3322-Feb-11 06-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L160.5389.1217-May-11 06-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N140.025 0.0803 0.0422-Feb-11 06-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L101.5 1.5 1.522-Feb-11 06-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as100.1 1.05 0.4822-Feb-11 06-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L100.125 0.125 0.1205-Apr-11 06-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P 9 0.11 0.246 0.1729-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L30 154301.2 227.4929-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.00015 0.15 0.0629-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.003 3 1.229-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.0012 11.8 0.8329-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.033012.0229-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.00045 0.45 0.1829-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.0135 13.5 5.4129-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.0105 10.5 4.2129-Jul-09 06-Oct-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL 4120 200005122.529-Jul-09 06-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL22 36 220001838.8606-Apr-10 06-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL18 20 730198.8929-Jul-09 06-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L36 1032.9 16.5506-Apr-10 04-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL15 20 2098576.27Sample Summary and StatisticsLittle Antire Creek at Beaumont-Antire RdDRAFT Appendices - 38 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average03-Jun-09 13-Jun-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C2912713.2403-Jun-09 13-Jun-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L293.9 14.03 9.3603-Jun-09 13-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L29 16 12035.0303-Jun-09 13-Jun-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU246.8 8.4 7.6408-Mar-11 13-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L120.57618.2110-May-11 13-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N110.025 0.159 0.0708-Mar-11 14-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L7 1.5 4.48 2.1908-Mar-11 14-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as 7 0.1 0.52 0.3208-Mar-11 14-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L7 0.125 1.06 0.3308-Mar-11 14-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P 7 0.015 0.218 0.103-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L23121.6484283.4903-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L230.00015 0.15 0.0803-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L230.003 3 1.6103-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L230.0012 39.4 2.403-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L230.0318928.4203-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L230.00045 0.45 0.2403-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L230.0135 13.5 7.2503-Jun-09 14-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L230.01054610.6603-Jun-09 12-Oct-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL 5200 4500 214003-Jun-09 13-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL16 91 160004953.1919-Apr-10 13-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 973 200004507.4403-Jun-09 13-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L29 21 1260163.3119-Apr-10 13-Sep-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 8110 241964846.75Sample Summary and StatisticsLouiselle Creek at Creve Coeur Mill RdDRAFT Appendices - 39 - 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 DRAFT Appendices - 40 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average22-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C2012611.3122-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L211 14.5 9.4722-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L20 12 11040.422-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU146.5 8.2 7.415-Feb-11 19-Dec-11 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L6 98039.1719-Sep-11 19-Dec-11 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N 4 0.053 0.107 0.0815-Feb-11 19-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L6 1.5 1.5 1.515-Feb-11 19-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as 6 0.1 0.7 0.4115-Feb-11 19-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L6 0.125 0.271 0.1509-Mar-11 19-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P 5 0.084 0.17 0.1222-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L20104.4 545.6 311.5122-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.00015 0.15 0.0722-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.003 3 1.522-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.0012 1.2 0.622-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.033015.0622-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.00045 0.45 0.2322-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.0135 13.5 6.7622-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.010523126.3722-Jul-09 23-Sep-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL 4110 1300862.522-Jul-09 17-Oct-11 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL 718 190000 2747808-Sep-10 17-Oct-11 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 397 4160 155322-Jul-09 19-Dec-11 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L20 36 1190254.5408-Sep-10 17-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 352 130004399.33Sample Summary and StatisticsMaline Creek at Riverview DriveDRAFT Appendices - 41 - Maline Creek, near Riverview DRAFT Appendices - 42 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average28-Jul-09 03-Nov-10 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C1312211.9228-Jul-09 03-Nov-10 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L136.2139.0428-Jul-09 03-Nov-10 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L13910127.6928-Jul-09 11-May-10 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU116.1 7.8 728-Jul-09 03-Nov-10 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L13219.6 604.8 422.3628-Jul-09 03-Nov-10 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.00015 0.15 0.1228-Jul-09 03-Nov-10 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.003 3 2.5428-Jul-09 03-Nov-10 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.0012 8.4 1.6828-Jul-09 03-Nov-10 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.033025.3928-Jul-09 03-Nov-10 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.00045 0.45 0.3828-Jul-09 03-Nov-10 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.0135 13.5 11.4328-Jul-09 03-Nov-10 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.01053112.9328-Jul-09 21-Oct-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL 527 1200643.428-Jul-09 11-Oct-10 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL 7380 7300011338.5711-May-10 11-Oct-10 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 2836 4884 286028-Jul-09 03-Nov-10 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L13 69 1820277.2211-May-10 11-Oct-10 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 21660 6490 4075Sample Summary and StatisticsMartigney Creek at Koch RdDRAFT Appendices - 43 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average01-Dec-10 04-Jun-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C1942813.2501-Dec-10 04-Jun-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L194.19 9.68 701-Dec-10 04-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L1957327.0502-May-11 04-Jun-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU145.95 8.1 7.3816-Feb-11 04-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L170.57819.2602-May-11 04-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N140.025 0.251 0.116-Feb-11 05-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L111.5 3 1.6416-Feb-11 05-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as110.1 2.32 1.3416-Feb-11 05-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L110.125 0.643 0.1701-Mar-11 05-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P100.1 0.33 0.1601-Dec-10 05-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L13175.6 452.8 322.9801-Dec-10 05-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.00015 0.0003 001-Dec-10 05-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.003 0.005 001-Dec-10 05-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.0012 0.0031 001-Dec-10 05-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.03 0.154 0.0601-Dec-10 05-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.00045 0.00419 001-Dec-10 05-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.0135 0.028 0.0201-Dec-10 05-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.0105 0.2738 0.0506-Apr-11 04-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL 9580 7300011955.5606-Apr-11 04-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL10 570 240005575.201-Dec-10 04-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L19 47 454158.6306-Apr-11 03-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 7315 362948220.14Martigney Creek at Sunset HeightsSample Summary and StatisticsDRAFT Appendices - 44 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average11-May-10 04-Jun-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C152 22.1 11.3411-May-10 04-Jun-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L156.35 13.2 9.3111-May-10 04-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L15 10 4423.6711-May-10 04-Jun-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU116.54 8.14 7.6916-Feb-11 04-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L1125713.3606-Sep-11 04-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N100.025 0.126 0.0816-Feb-11 05-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L5 1.5 1.5 1.516-Feb-11 05-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as 5 0.1 1.87 0.6416-Feb-11 05-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L5 0.125 0.125 0.1206-Sep-11 05-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P 4 0.036 0.14 0.0811-May-10 05-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L9 157.2336273.7611-May-10 05-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L9 0.00015 0.1 0.0111-May-10 05-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L9 0.003 3 0.3411-May-10 05-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L9 0.0012 38.3 4.2611-May-10 05-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L9 0.03303.411-May-10 05-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L9 0.00045 1.2 0.1311-May-10 05-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L9 0.0135 13.5 1.5111-May-10 05-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L9 0.0105495.4611-May-10 04-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL 6 53400000566759.3311-May-10 04-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 652 240004108.8311-May-10 04-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L15 22 475160.7311-May-10 03-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 310 537 223Sample Summary and StatisticsMattese Creek at Fred WeberDRAFT Appendices - 45 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average03-Jun-09 18-Jun-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C30122 1203-Jun-09 18-Jun-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L311149.0903-Jun-09 18-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L3055125.1703-Jun-09 18-Jun-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU226.2 8 7.4415-Feb-11 18-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L13730170.4619-Sep-11 18-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N100.025 0.118 0.0715-Feb-11 19-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L7 1.5 1.5 1.515-Feb-11 19-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as 7 1.01 2.33 1.5315-Feb-11 19-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L6 0.125 0.426 0.2109-Mar-11 19-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P 6 0.04 0.351 0.1303-Jun-09 19-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L24263.6636463.8103-Jun-09 19-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L240.00015 0.15 0.0603-Jun-09 19-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L240.003 3 1.4203-Jun-09 19-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L240.0012 13.3 1.8703-Jun-09 19-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L240.0314424.8503-Jun-09 19-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L240.00045 0.45 0.2103-Jun-09 19-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L240.0135 13.5 6.3803-Jun-09 19-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L240.0105346.2403-Jun-09 23-Sep-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL 5180 4600 187603-Jun-09 18-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL15 110 33000 757804-May-10 18-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 9122 242006507.6703-Jun-09 18-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L29 27 9866.2804-May-10 17-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 795 92104059.71Sample Summary and StatisticsMill Creek at Sioux Passage ParkDRAFT Appendices - 46 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average09-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C348.11 30.53 22.6109-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Discharge, instantaneous, cubic feet per secondcfs34 78700 455000282226.4709-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Specific conductance, water, unfiltered, field, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius uS/cm at 25 °C34 380 743583.1209-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L345.22 10.73 7.4109-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L321.63316.4909-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU347.09 8.53 809-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L32 51 820271.3805-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Total nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L150.72 3.6 1.9409-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.0022 0.02 0.0105-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L150.0075 0.058 0.0209-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.001 0.05 0.0209-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Nitrate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N171 6.9 2.5409-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L320.63 5.2 1.3705-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as150.31 3.4 1.5409-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N171.01 6.91 2.5609-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L320.16 0.8 0.3509-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P320.07 0.24 0.1209-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Chloride, water, filtered, milligrams per litermg/L17 13 2518.1809-Jun-09 13-Oct-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.45 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL 7108 2100910.2905-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL15 18 750187.214-Apr-10 20-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL25 20 1439236.6409-Jun-09 13-Oct-09 Escherichia coli, modified m-TEC MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL 7110 1300582.8605-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L15 15 2419.214-Apr-10 20-Jun-12 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL25 10 3873267.4Sample Summary and StatisticsMississippi River above Lemay, MODRAFT Appendices - 47 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average09-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C348.04 30.65 22.5709-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Discharge, instantaneous, cubic feet per secondcfs34 78700 456000 28255009-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Specific conductance, water, unfiltered, field, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius uS/cm at 25 °C34 382 798577.509-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L345.15 11.03 7.4509-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L321.63114.4809-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU346.93 8.6 7.9609-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L32 53 840268.2805-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Total nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L150.75 3.5 1.9109-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.0022 0.04 0.0105-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L150.0075 0.12 0.0309-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.001 0.03 0.0109-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Nitrate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.79 3.37 1.9309-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L320.81 5.8 1.5205-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as150.29 3.2 1.4709-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.8 3.39 1.9409-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L320.18 0.82 0.3509-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P320.07 0.25 0.1209-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Chloride, water, filtered, milligrams per litermg/L1793017.1209-Jun-09 13-Oct-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.45 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL 718 1320 72205-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL1551000211.4714-Apr-10 20-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL25 20 1842172.4409-Jun-09 13-Oct-09 Escherichia coli, modified m-TEC MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL 7 5840390.7105-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L15 14 3518.8714-Apr-10 20-Jun-12 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL2511989158.52Sample Summary and StatisticsMississippi River above St. Louis at mm 184.5DRAFT Appendices - 48 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average09-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C348.31 30.74 22.609-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Discharge, instantaneous, cubic feet per secondcfs34 78000 454000282216.4709-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Specific conductance, water, unfiltered, field, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius uS/cm at 25 °C34 379 719568.0609-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L345.55 10.83 7.3609-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L321.66217.3809-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU347.36 8.52 8.0309-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L32 57 730251.9705-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Total nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L150.73 3.5 1.9909-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.0022 0.03 0.0105-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L150.0075 0.052 0.0209-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.001 0.04 0.0209-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Nitrate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.86 3.1 2.0709-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L320.76 5 1.3305-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as150.36 2.9 1.5209-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.87 3.14 2.0809-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L320.18 0.63 0.3309-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P320.08 0.26 0.1309-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Chloride, water, filtered, milligrams per litermg/L17 12 2619.3509-Jun-09 13-Oct-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.45 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL 7380 78401769.2905-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL15 63 680254.414-Apr-10 20-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL25 62 1198285.6809-Jun-09 13-Oct-09 Escherichia coli, modified m-TEC MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL 7130 3700812.8605-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L15 15 2820.1314-Apr-10 20-Jun-12 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL25 20 1920166.76Sample Summary and StatisticsMississippi River at Kimmswick, MODRAFT Appendices - 49 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average09-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C348.22 30.62 22.5509-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Discharge, instantaneous, cubic feet per secondcfs34 78000 455000282113.2409-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Specific conductance, water, unfiltered, field, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius uS/cm at 25 °C34 380 727566.2409-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L345.61 10.95 7.3809-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L321.63615.1209-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU347.29 8.54 8.0209-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L32 53 630239.9405-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Total nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L150.75 3.9 2.2309-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.0022 0.03 0.0105-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L150.0075 0.059 0.0209-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.001 0.05 0.0209-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Nitrate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.9 4 2.4109-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L320.8 4.9 1.3305-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as150.37 4 1.8909-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.91 4.04 2.4309-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L320.18 0.64 0.3309-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P320.07 0.26 0.1209-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Chloride, water, filtered, milligrams per litermg/L17 10 2919.5909-Jun-09 13-Oct-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.45 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL 7330 9910 199605-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL15 27 510173.4714-Apr-10 20-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL25 41 2187 28209-Jun-09 13-Oct-09 Escherichia coli, modified m-TEC MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL 760 3600871.4305-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L15 15 2821.214-Apr-10 20-Jun-12 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL25 20 2909207.76Sample Summary and StatisticsMississippi River at Oakville at mm 164.5DRAFT Appendices - 50 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average09-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C347.97 30.52 22.509-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Discharge, instantaneous, cubic feet per secondcfs34 78700 456000282285.2909-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Specific conductance, water, unfiltered, field, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius uS/cm at 25 °C34 380 759571.9409-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L345.64 10.81 7.4809-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L321.67918.209-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU347.07 8.56 7.9909-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L32 50 690246.6205-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Total nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L150.7 3.8 2.0809-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.0022 0.03 0.0105-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L150.0075 0.054 0.0209-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.001 0.04 0.0209-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Nitrate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.8 6.5 2.5609-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L320.84 8.6 1.5705-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as150.35 4.6 1.609-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.81 6.51 2.5809-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L320.15 0.68 0.3409-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P320.08 0.25 0.1209-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Chloride, water, filtered, milligrams per litermg/L17 12 2718.5309-Jun-09 13-Oct-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.45 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL 727 2200968.5705-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL155860169.9314-Apr-10 20-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL2551607193.3609-Jun-09 13-Oct-09 Escherichia coli, modified m-TEC MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL 750 790438.5705-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L15 15 2520.3314-Apr-10 20-Jun-12 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL25 10 3255206.16Mississippi River at St. Louis, MOSample Summary and StatisticsDRAFT Appendices - 51 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average09-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C348.09 30.8 22.5609-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Discharge, instantaneous, cubic feet per secondcfs34 78100 455000282637.0609-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Specific conductance, water, unfiltered, field, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius uS/cm at 25 °C34 387 820556.1509-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L345.35 11.32 7.5709-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L321.62916.1309-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU347.45 8.63 8.0809-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L32 44 570215.7805-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Total nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L150.74 3.9 2.1509-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.0022 0.04 0.0105-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L150.0075 0.058 0.0209-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.001 0.05 0.0209-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Nitrate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N171.2 4.1 2.3509-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L320.82 8.6 1.5505-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as150.41 3.8 1.7209-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N171.22 4.13 2.3709-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L320.16 0.59 0.3109-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P320.074 0.25 0.1209-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Chloride, water, filtered, milligrams per litermg/L17 14 2721.9409-Jun-09 13-Oct-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.45 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL 781 790414.4305-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL155530138.7315-Apr-10 20-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL255708108.409-Jun-09 13-Oct-09 Escherichia coli, modified m-TEC MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL 740 855242.1405-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L154.23020.2115-Apr-10 20-Jun-12 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL2552489150.64Sample Summary and StatisticsMississippi River below Mo River confluenceDRAFT Appendices - 52 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average09-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C348.99 31.3 23.1209-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Discharge, instantaneous, cubic feet per secondcfs34 46300 237000127618.5309-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Specific conductance, water, unfiltered, field, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius uS/cm at 25 °C34 389 833650.8209-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L344.81 10.46 7.309-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L321.63215.5609-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU347.53 8.49 8.0509-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L32 58 1000334.9705-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Total nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L150.6 3.5 1.5109-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N160.0022 0.03 0.0105-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L150.0075 0.05 0.0209-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.001 0.03 0.0109-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Nitrate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.57 3 1.6309-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L320.75 8.6 1.5905-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as150.19 2.7 1.1709-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.571 3.001 1.6409-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L320.19 0.92 0.409-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P320.076 0.23 0.1209-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Chloride, water, filtered, milligrams per litermg/L178.22415.9509-Jun-09 13-Oct-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.45 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL 7117 1470705.7105-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL155880203.3315-Apr-10 20-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL25 10 910156.2409-Jun-09 13-Oct-09 Escherichia coli, modified m-TEC MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL 7100 1150452.8605-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L156.42415.6315-Apr-10 20-Jun-12 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL2553873241.76Sample Summary and StatisticsMissouri River at Columbia Bottom Consv. Area at mm 4DRAFT Appendices - 53 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average09-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C349.31 31.15 23.1309-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Discharge, instantaneous, cubic feet per secondcfs34 46400 237000128023.5309-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Specific conductance, water, unfiltered, field, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius uS/cm at 25 °C34 385 865653.8809-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L344.87 10.22 7.2109-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L321.63215.7509-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU347.48 8.55 8.0409-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L32 64 920330.0605-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Total nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L150.6 3.5 1.4709-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N160.0022 0.01 0.0105-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L150.0075 0.062 0.0209-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.001 0.03 0.0109-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Nitrate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.84 3.1 1.7309-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L320.71 4.7 1.3805-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as150.23 2.7 1.1509-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.841 3.101 1.7309-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L320.19 0.85 0.409-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P320.061 0.24 0.1209-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Chloride, water, filtered, milligrams per litermg/L17 11 2516.0609-Jun-09 13-Oct-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.45 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL 763 2100762.5705-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL15 18 700159.0715-Apr-10 20-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL255987137.0409-Jun-09 13-Oct-09 Escherichia coli, modified m-TEC MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL 730 1340417.1405-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L156.42215.6915-Apr-10 20-Jun-12 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL25 10 2014148.04Sample Summary and StatisticsMissouri River below St. Charles at mm 24.5DRAFT Appendices - 54 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average09-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C349.66 31.18 23.1609-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Discharge, instantaneous, cubic feet per secondcfs34 46400 237000127969.3809-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Specific conductance, water, unfiltered, field, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius uS/cm at 25 °C34 382 890646.7609-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L344.67 10.42 7.2509-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L321.63213.6509-Jun-09 06-Aug-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU347.43 8.61 809-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L32 73 840322.2805-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Total nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L150.58 3.3 1.4209-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.0022 0.043 0.0105-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L150.0075 0.06 0.0109-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.001 0.02 009-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Nitrate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.49 2.9 1.5109-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L320.73 4.2 1.3305-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as150.00115 2.7 1.0709-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N170.491 2.901 1.5209-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L320.18 0.8 0.3909-Jun-09 20-Jun-12 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P320.029 0.25 0.1209-Jun-09 26-Oct-10 Chloride, water, filtered, milligrams per litermg/L17 12 2516.4709-Jun-09 13-Oct-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.45 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL 718 1320583.8605-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL155670167.815-Apr-10 20-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL255594120.1609-Jun-09 13-Oct-09 Escherichia coli, modified m-TEC MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL 7 51200380.7105-Apr-11 20-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L15 13 2416.5315-Apr-10 20-Jun-12 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL2551178 128Sample Summary and StatisticsMissouri River near Chesterfield at mm 48DRAFT Appendices - 55 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average28-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C1612311.1628-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L165.7138.9128-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L16 15 7432.0628-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU115.5 7.83 6.8916-Feb-11 05-Dec-11 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L6 63016.3306-Sep-11 05-Dec-11 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N 4 0.057 0.359 0.1616-Feb-11 05-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L6 1.5 1.5 1.516-Feb-11 05-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as 6 0.1 1.05 0.416-Feb-11 05-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L6 0.125 0.284 0.1501-Mar-11 05-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P 5 0.04 0.13 0.0928-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L16134.8 456.8 246.1528-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L160.00015 0.15 0.0628-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L160.003 3 1.3128-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L160.0012 3.1 0.6528-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L160.0316028.6728-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L160.00045 0.45 0.228-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L160.0135 13.5 5.9228-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L160.0105366.228-Jul-09 21-Oct-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL 573 740356.628-Jul-09 03-Oct-11 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL 791 70001155.8606-Sep-11 03-Oct-11 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 2189 155007844.528-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L16 38 1160201.8106-Sep-11 03-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 2173 51702671.5Sample Summary and StatisticsRiver des Peres at S. BroadwayDRAFT Appendices - 56 - 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 DRAFT Appendices - 57 - Begin Date End Date Parameter Description Units Count Min Max Average 16-Jun-09 04-Jun-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius °C 37 -0.22 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 DRAFT Appendices - 58 - River Des Peres DRAFT Appendices - 59 - River Des Peres DRAFT Appendices - 60 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average07-Mar-11 12-Mar-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C5 62012.307-Mar-11 12-Mar-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L4 7.6 10.06 8.4607-Mar-11 12-Mar-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L416 4631.7509-May-11 12-Mar-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU3 7.41 7.8 7.6307-Mar-11 12-Mar-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L4 43713.7517-Jan-12 12-Mar-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N 2 0.14 0.156 0.1507-Mar-11 25-Apr-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L2 1.5 1.5 1.507-Mar-11 25-Apr-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as 2 1.5 2.71 2.107-Mar-11 25-Apr-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L2 0.125 0.125 0.1207-Mar-11 25-Apr-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P 2 0.015 0.1 0.0607-Mar-11 25-Apr-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L2 296.8 422.8 359.807-Mar-11 25-Apr-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L2 0.00015 0.00015 007-Mar-11 25-Apr-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L2 0.003 0.003 007-Mar-11 25-Apr-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L2 0.0012 0.0012 007-Mar-11 25-Apr-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L2 0.03 0.03 0.0307-Mar-11 25-Apr-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L2 0.00045 0.00045 007-Mar-11 25-Apr-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L2 0.0135 0.0135 0.0107-Mar-11 25-Apr-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L2 0.0105 0.079 0.0425-Apr-11 25-Apr-11 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL 1270 270 27007-Mar-11 12-Mar-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L486 185 13425-Apr-11 25-Apr-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 1464 464 464Sample Summary and StatisticsShady Grove Creek at Thornton & Waymire AveDRAFT Appendices - 61 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average07-Jul-09 12-Jun-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3712713.9707-Jul-09 12-Jun-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L371.63 13.2 7.2707-Jul-09 12-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L37 15 8034.7607-Jul-09 12-Jun-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU685.5 8.1 6.4108-Feb-11 12-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L170.525824.7109-May-11 12-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N130.075 3.69 0.6408-Feb-11 12-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L101.5 4.48 2.1708-Feb-11 12-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as110.1 0.86 0.5108-Feb-11 12-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L110.125 0.978 0.307-Mar-11 12-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P100.03 0.409 0.1707-Jul-09 12-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L31140.8464293.4607-Jul-09 12-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.00015 0.15 0.0607-Jul-09 12-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.003302.0307-Jul-09 12-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0012 8.2 0.8907-Jul-09 12-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.036913.8907-Jul-09 12-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.00045 0.45 0.1707-Jul-09 12-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0135 13.5 5.2407-Jul-09 12-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0105619.7907-Jul-09 07-Oct-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL 5110 6700 218807-Jul-09 12-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL229.1290004313.2807-Apr-10 12-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL16 41 363008374.3107-Jul-09 12-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L37 19 1670177.6707-Apr-10 10-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL14 10 362946164.21Sample Summary and StatisticsSmith Creek at Bellerive Country ClubDRAFT Appendices - 62 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average29-Jul-09 06-Jun-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3622714.0629-Jul-09 06-Jun-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L365.6 15.2 9.5229-Jul-09 06-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L36439 1529-Jul-09 06-Jun-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU666.3 8.7 6.9722-Feb-11 06-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L160.5196.2517-May-11 06-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N140.025 0.124 0.0422-Feb-11 06-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L101.5 1.5 1.522-Feb-11 06-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as100.245 1.13 0.7322-Feb-11 06-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L100.125 0.125 0.1205-Apr-11 06-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P 9 0.04 0.389 0.129-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L30155.2320247.7329-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.00015 0.15 0.0629-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.003 3 1.229-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.0012120.9829-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.033012.0229-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.00045 0.45 0.1829-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.0135 13.5 5.4129-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.0105336.5629-Jul-09 05-Jan-11 Aluminum, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.0645 64.5 38.7329-Jul-09 06-Oct-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL 4210 1700 69529-Jul-09 06-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL22998022078.0506-Apr-10 06-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL1852400485.7829-Jul-09 06-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L36 31 8554.1406-Apr-10 04-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL155198632091.53Sample Summary and StatisticsSpring Branch at New Ballwin RdDRAFT Appendices - 63 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average28-Jul-09 04-Jun-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3723014.8728-Jul-09 04-Jun-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L373.1 12.54 7.8128-Jul-09 04-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L3726225.3528-Jul-09 04-Jun-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU766.27 8.4 7.0916-Feb-11 04-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L160.5269.3402-May-11 04-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N130.025 0.368 0.1516-Feb-11 05-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L9 1.5 3 1.6716-Feb-11 05-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as100.1 1.3 0.5816-Feb-11 05-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L100.125 0.285 0.1701-Mar-11 05-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P 9 0.01 0.246 0.0828-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L31 220 590432.7528-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.00015 0.15 0.0528-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.003 3 1.0728-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0012 12.2 0.9228-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0314116.5828-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.00045 0.45 0.1628-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0135 13.5 4.828-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L310.0105858.2428-Jul-09 08-Sep-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL 31200 30001833.3328-Jul-09 04-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL20516000012334.2512-Apr-10 04-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL19 31 238003201.4728-Jul-09 04-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L37 46 392122.4912-Apr-10 03-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL16 75 155003184.19Sample Summary and StatisticsSugar Creek I at Barrett Station RdDRAFT Appendices - 64 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average28-Jul-09 04-Jun-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3812413.1628-Jul-09 04-Jun-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L386149.0728-Jul-09 04-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L3824718.5828-Jul-09 04-Jun-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU746.1 8.4 7.316-Feb-11 04-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L170.5309.0902-May-11 04-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N140.025 0.0991 0.0616-Feb-11 05-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L111.5 3 1.6416-Feb-11 05-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as110.201 1.4 0.7516-Feb-11 05-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L110.125 0.125 0.1201-Mar-11 05-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P100.05 0.368 0.1828-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L32 232531.6 344.6628-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L320.00015 0.15 0.0528-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L320.003 3 1.1328-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L320.0012 3.2 0.5128-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L320.033011.2728-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L320.00045 4.5 0.328-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L320.0135 13.5 5.0728-Jul-09 05-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L320.0105 10.5 3.9528-Jul-09 21-Oct-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL 5330 1200697.828-Jul-09 04-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL21 36 33000016418.112-Apr-10 04-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL17 121 240002477.1228-Jul-09 04-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L38 22 910117.4712-Apr-10 03-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL14 74 120302142.86Sample Summary and StatisticsSugar Creek II at Christopher RdDRAFT Appendices - 65 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average04-Nov-09 12-Mar-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C151209.8704-Nov-09 12-Mar-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L161 13.1 8.2604-Nov-09 12-Mar-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L15 16 5728.3304-Nov-09 12-Mar-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU366.2 8 7.3424-Feb-11 12-Mar-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L7 68621.5709-May-11 12-Mar-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N 4 0.057 0.153 0.0924-Feb-11 08-Nov-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L5 1.5 3.36 1.8724-Feb-11 08-Nov-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as 5 0.478 2.79 1.1424-Feb-11 08-Nov-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L5 0.125 0.325 0.207-Mar-11 08-Nov-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P 4 0.07 0.22 0.1504-Nov-09 08-Nov-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L13 168311.2 250.7104-Nov-09 08-Nov-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.00015 0.15 0.0504-Nov-09 08-Nov-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.003 3 0.9304-Nov-09 08-Nov-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.0012 2.7 0.4904-Nov-09 08-Nov-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.03309.2604-Nov-09 08-Nov-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.00045 0.45 0.1404-Nov-09 08-Nov-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.0135 13.5 4.1604-Nov-09 08-Nov-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L130.0105 10.5 3.2407-Apr-10 09-May-11 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL 4210 4600012172.507-Apr-10 09-May-11 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 3443 36294 1241104-Nov-09 12-Mar-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L15 26 221 6507-Apr-10 09-May-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 4213 241966815.5Sample Summary and StatisticsTwomile Creek at Overbrook DrDRAFT Appendices - 66 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average03-Jun-09 18-Jun-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C231 24.7 12.6403-Jun-09 18-Jun-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L241138.4603-Jun-09 18-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L2326630.1303-Jun-09 18-Jun-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU445.7 8.1 7.4815-Feb-11 18-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L811 5730.3819-Sep-11 18-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N 6 0.025 0.092 0.0615-Feb-11 19-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L6 1.5 1.5 1.515-Feb-11 19-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as 5 0.28 0.818 0.6615-Feb-11 19-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L6 0.125 0.254 0.1909-Mar-11 19-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P 6 0.015 0.163 0.0903-Jun-09 19-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L21100.8 536.8 334.4703-Jun-09 19-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L210.00015 0.15 0.0603-Jun-09 19-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L210.003 3 1.3403-Jun-09 19-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L210.0012 87.7 4.9803-Jun-09 19-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L210.0333929.0603-Jun-09 19-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L210.00045 3.5 0.3503-Jun-09 19-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L210.0135 13.5 6.0103-Jun-09 19-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L210.01058711.1203-Jun-09 23-Sep-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL 518 7100014997.603-Jun-09 18-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL125790008954.8310-May-10 18-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 710 54801287.1403-Jun-09 18-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L23 33 600155.3510-May-10 17-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 5105 7700 1704Sample Summary and StatisticsWatkins Creek at Riverview DriveDRAFT Appendices - 67 - Watkins Creek DRAFT Appendices - 68 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average14-Jul-09 13-Jun-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3512613.8614-Jul-09 13-Jun-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L356 15.7 8.714-Jul-09 13-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L3558017.6614-Jul-09 13-Jun-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU626.1 8.2 7.6309-Feb-11 13-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L160.58517.5310-May-11 13-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N140.025 0.102 0.0509-Feb-11 14-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L111.5 1.5 1.509-Feb-11 14-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as110.1 4.39 0.7509-Feb-11 14-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L110.125 0.125 0.1208-Mar-11 14-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P 9 0.01 0.1 0.0614-Jul-09 14-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L29108.4285218.5414-Jul-09 14-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.00015 0.15 0.0614-Jul-09 14-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.003 3 1.2414-Jul-09 14-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.0012 10.4 0.8714-Jul-09 14-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.0311315.314-Jul-09 14-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.00045 0.45 0.1914-Jul-09 14-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.0135 13.5 5.614-Jul-09 14-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L290.0105366.8914-Jul-09 12-Oct-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL 5 9180003760.414-Jul-09 13-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL20 73 1700009269.8519-Apr-10 13-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL14 20 1720223.8614-Jul-09 13-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L35 33 48573.4519-Apr-10 11-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL13 20 155001697.85Sample Summary and StatisticsWildhorse Creek at Wildhorse Creek RdDRAFT Appendices - 69 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average29-Jul-09 06-Jun-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C3662513.6929-Jul-09 06-Jun-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L366.4128.7329-Jul-09 06-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L3626014.6929-Jul-09 06-Jun-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU696.2 8.4 7.722-Feb-11 06-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L1614710.517-May-11 06-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N140.025 0.025 0.0222-Feb-11 06-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L101.5 1.5 1.522-Feb-11 06-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as 9 0.827 3.443 1.4222-Feb-11 06-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L100.125 0.279 0.1405-Apr-11 06-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P 9 0.05 0.125 0.0929-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L30 102 356255.4929-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.00015 0.15 0.0529-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.00330229-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.00121053.929-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.036912.3329-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.00045 2.5 0.2629-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.0135 13.5 4.9629-Jul-09 06-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L300.01051208.3629-Jul-09 06-Oct-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL 4390 20000 537529-Jul-09 06-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL22 36 340002991.6806-Apr-10 06-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL18 52 98101440.7829-Jul-09 06-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L36 24 10950.1906-Apr-10 04-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL15 30 41101282.47Sample Summary and StatisticsWilliams Creek at Simpson QuarryDRAFT Appendices - 70 - Williams Creek DRAFT Appendices - 71 - Begin Date End DateParameter DescriptionUnits Count Min Max Average02-Jun-09 04-Jun-12 Temperature, water, degrees Celsius°C261.1 23.9 11.3402-Jun-09 04-Jun-12 Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L266 14.1 9.6602-Jun-09 04-Jun-12 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L2675523.4602-Jun-09 04-Jun-12 pH, water, unfiltered, field, standard unitsSU386.2 9.2 7.9316-Feb-11 04-Jun-12 Residue, total nonfilterable, milligrams per litermg/L11211533.2706-Sep-11 04-Jun-12 Ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as N100.025 0.159 0.0816-Feb-11 05-Dec-11 Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L5 1.5 1.5 1.516-Feb-11 05-Dec-11 Nitrate plus nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as nitrogenmg/L as 5 0.1 0.478 0.2706-Sep-11 05-Dec-11 Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L4 0.125 0.125 0.1206-Sep-11 05-Dec-11 Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as phosphorusmg/L as P 4 0.051 0.137 0.0802-Jun-09 05-Dec-11 Hardness, water, milligrams per liter as calcium carbonatemg/L20 96459.6 301.8802-Jun-09 05-Dec-11 Cadmium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L190.00015 0.15 0.0802-Jun-09 05-Dec-11 Chromium, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.003 3 1.602-Jun-09 05-Dec-11 Copper, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.0012 1.2 0.7202-Jun-09 05-Dec-11 Iron, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.039023.5802-Jun-09 05-Dec-11 Lead, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.00045 0.45 0.2402-Jun-09 05-Dec-11 Nickel, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.0135 13.5 7.2102-Jun-09 05-Dec-11 Zinc, water, filtered, micrograms per literµg/L200.01057215.7102-Jun-09 29-Sep-09 Fecal coliform, M-FC MF (0.7 micron) method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100 mL 6 5330005980.8302-Jun-09 04-Jun-12 Fecal streptococci, m-enterococcus MF method, water, colonies per 100 milliliterscfu/100mL11 163 32000032556.6406-Sep-11 04-Jun-12 Escherichia coli, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 598 240005148.202-Jun-09 04-Jun-12 Chloride, water, unfiltered, milligrams per litermg/L26 14 660149.6206-Sep-11 03-Oct-11 Enterococci, Defined Substrate Technology, water, most probable number per 100 milliliters MPN/100 mL 2121 609 365Sample Summary and StatisticsYarnell Creek at Hwy 30DRAFT Appendices - 72 - DRAFT Appendices - 73 - DRAFT Appendices - 74 - DRAFT Appendices - 75 - DRAFT Appendices - 76 - DRAFT Appendices - 77 - DRAFT Appendices - 78 - DRAFT Appendices - 79 - DRAFT Appendices - 80 - DRAFT Appendices - 81 - DRAFT Appendices - 82 - DRAFT Appendices - 83 - DRAFT Appendices - 84 - OUTLET INDEX MAP DRAFT Appendices - 85 - DRAFT Appendices - 86 - DRAFT Appendices - 87 - DRAFT Appendices - 88 - DRAFT Appendices - 89 - DRAFT Appendices - 90 - DRAFT Appendices - 91 - DRAFT Appendices - 92 - DRAFT Appendices - 93 - DRAFT Appendices - 94 - DRAFT Appendices - 95 - DRAFT Appendices - 96 - DRAFT Appendices - 97 - DRAFT Appendices - 98 - DRAFT Appendices - 99 - DRAFT Appendices - 100 - DRAFT Appendices - 101 - DRAFT