HomeMy Public PortalAboutSite Design GuidanceSITE DESIGN GUIDANCE
TOOLS FOR INCORPORATING POST-
CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER QUALITY
PROTECTION INTO CONCEPT PLANS AND
LAND DISTURBANCE PERMITTING
Revision 1 - April 17, 2009
The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District,
Developed in Conjunction with the St. Louis
Municipalities Phase II Storm Water Steering
Committee
2
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 4
2. Evaluation of Existing Conditions 6
3. Evaluation of Concept Plans 10
4. Integration with MSD Stormwater Quality Review 18
5. Conclusion 21
Table 1 Existing Natural Resource Considerations 7
Table 2 Site Development Goals, Questions, and Methods 11
Table 3 Post-Construction Structural BMPs and Allowed 14
Figures
Figure 1 Generic Stormwater Site Design Approval Process 19
Appendices
Appendix A Example Maps
Appendix B Typical BMP Layouts and Sections
Tables
3
The effect of intense urbanization on natural watercourses is well documented: as urbanization (and
impervious area) increases, the diversity and quality of aquatic life that exists within urban streams
decreases. The sources of impairment (for example, roadway runoff, fertilizer runoff, creek bank ero-
sion, litter, etc.) to these streams are collectively referred to as non-point source pollution (NPS). The
Clean Water Act Phase II Stormwater Regulations were promulgated to provide appropriate storm-
water management of NPS pollution in urbanized areas, and these regulations apply to the water-
sheds located within the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD). The Missouri Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), through the Small MS4 Permit (Permit), sets requirements for stormwater
management within the separate sewer portion of the MSD in St. Louis County. The St. Louis
County Phase II Stormwater Management Plan (Plan) sets forth specific activities and schedules
that the MSD, St. Louis County, and its fifty-nine municipal co-permittees must do to satisfy the Per-
mit requirements.
This document has been prepared to assist in im-
plementing the Permit and Plan requirements re-
lated to Post-Construction Storm Water Manage-
ment in New Development and Redevelopment.
These requirements apply to all new development
and redevelopment projects that disturb greater
than or equal to one acre, including (but not limited
to) municipal roadway projects, residential infill and
redevelopment projects, commercial and industrial
development and redevelopment projects, and new
residential subdivisions. While this topic’s descrip-
tion implies measures that should be taken at pro-
ject completion, its implementation begins in the
project planning process, before project clearing
and grading (i.e., land disturbance). The Permit
states that water quality impacts must be prevented
or minimized by mimicking pre-construction runoff conditions on new development projects to the
maximum extent practicable, emphasizing practices that provide infiltration. Policies and ordinances
must be implemented to protect sensitive areas, maintain green space, buffer water bodies, mini-
mize impervious surfaces, and minimize disturbance of soils and vegetation. The Permit further re-
quires that “The permittee shall assess site characteristics at the beginning of the construction de-
sign phase to ensure adequate planning for storm water program compliance”. Thus, appropriate
planning for mitigation of stormwater impacts must begin at the start of the project planning stage.
A significant complicating factor in meeting this requirement is that MSD, who is responsible for im-
plementing the stormwater facility design requirements, is not typically involved in the early planning
stages of a development or redevelopment project. Municipal planners and other officials are more
typically in contact with developers in the early stages of a land development project. Additionally,
MSD does not issue land disturbance permits, which are issued by municipalities or St. Louis
County. As a result, municipal/county plan review officials are the “first line” of watershed protection.
However, post-construction stormwater quality and treatment considerations have not traditionally
been part of the planning or land disturbance permit approval process. Thus, training and education
1 Introduction
NPS Pollution, St. Louis County, MO
4
on stormwater management techniques that will meet the Permit and Plan are needed. This guid-
ance is written for municipal/county plan review officials who will review development project concept
plans and/or stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs) at sites located with the MSD. This
guidance is consistent with Plan goals of
Providing “…educational materials on Best Management Practices (BMPs) and promote the use
of non-structural credits and the benefits of site storm water management planning prior to land dis-
turbance” and
“Provid(ing) storm water management BMP guidelines to public works and planning and zoning
reviewers to assist in the concept review of plans.”
While upfront stormwater planning is a requirement of the Permit, our Permit does not provide meth-
odology for completing this requirement. This document presents “tools” and processes that plan re-
view officials can use to evaluate whether development plans address Permit requirements and Plan
goals for upfront stormwater planning. The tool develops a series of questions and actions that could
be taken to meet Permit and Plan requirements. Not all of these questions and actions will be appli-
cable to every project. Municipal/county plan reviewers even have the option of replacing this meth-
odology with another one that accomplishes the same upfront stormwater planning objectives. The
test is, when evaluated as a whole,
1. Does the project planning effort adequately document existing site conditions and identify im-
portant natural resource considerations?
2. Does the project plan provide features that minimize runoff and pollutant loading and mimic
pre-construction runoff conditions (for new development projects) to the maximum extent
practicable?
Although emphasis has been placed in this introduction on the regulatory requirements, the goal of
this document is to better serve our communities through better site development design. The public
is served when new development and redevelopment projects implement practices that help avoid
public hazards like flooding and NPS pollution and that protect important natural resources not fully
appreciated until they are gone.
5
2 Evaluation of Existing Conditions
Purpose:
Documenting a site’s existing conditions is the first step in protecting natural resources. The primary
purpose of evaluating existing conditions is to generate information that should be used as a basis
for laying out the development and implementing strategies for protecting environmentally sensitive
areas. Some of these areas may be protected by federal, state, and/or local regulations as well.
Tool:
Table 1, Existing Natural Resource Considerations, presents a list of natural resources, key ques-
tions, and actions that should be taken by the developer to document a site’s existing resources.
The plan reviewer should use the questions as a “springboard” of initial questions to be discussed.
Additional probing will likely result from answers to the questions listed in Table 1, and documenta-
tion of these additional questions is also important since a legal review of these issues could ensue.
In the evaluation of existing conditions, the “actions” should be focused on delineating the location
and extent of areas that warrant protection. The next step, concept planning, addresses specific
“actions” that may be taken to protect natural resources and to mitigate the impacts.
Key Terms:
The following key terms define the natural resources and other technical terms evaluated in Table 1.
Existing topography: mapping of the existing (pre-development) land surface elevations, water
bodies, geology, and other features that describe a piece of property. Steep areas are generally un-
stable and can result in extensive runoff caused by stormwater runoff.
Flood plain: the area adjacent to a stream of body of water that is susceptible to flooding. The edge
of a flood plain is defined by a water level for a given recurrence interval (i.e., probability of flooding),
such as “100-year flood plain”. Development in the flood plain is at higher risk of flood damage, and
reducing the floodwater storage volume in the flood plain will impact flood levels in other areas.
Floodway: the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be re-
served in order to discharge the 100-year flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface
elevation. [See 44 CFR 59.1]
Karst: areas where the dissolution of limestone or other soluble rocks has produced cliffs, sinkholes,
caves, underground streams, and other similar features. Karst areas may be direct “conduits” of
stormwater “injection” to groundwater or streams. Increasing the rate and amount of urban stormwa-
ter to karst features also increases the rate of limestone dissolution, which can exacerbate erosion
problems. NPS pollution in urban runoff to karst areas can quickly contaminate groundwater wells
and impact public health.
Ponds: a small, still body of water. Lakes and reservoirs, including natural lakes and any impound-
ments created by the construction of a dam across any waterway or watershed, are considered Wa-
ters of the State. [See 10 CSR 20-7] Ponds (wet or dry) that were engineered and constructed for
the purpose of flood detention or stormwater treatment are generally not considered Waters of the
State.
6
Natural Re-
source
Questions Actions
Wetlands Are wetlands on site?
Are Army COE and/or MDNR permits
needed (e.g., 404/401 permits)?
Show all wetlands on map.
Obtain COE/MDNR permits &/or docu-
mentation before plan approval.
Streams and
Floodplains
Are major waterways on the site?
Are Army COE and/or MDNR permits
needed?
Is the site located within the 100 or 500-
year flood plain?
Is the municipal or county stream buffer
(setback) shown?
Is the site in a flooding or erosion prone
area?
Show major waterways.
Obtain COE/MDNR permits &/or docu-
mentation before plan approval.
Show 100 and 500-year flood plains
on map.
Show stream buffer.
Show areas prone to flooding.
Show stream bank erosion areas.
Karst Are sinkholes, springs, or seeps located
on the site?
What is the depth to bedrock?
Show sinkholes, springs, seeps, and
other karst features.
Show areas with shallow depth to bed-
rock.
Existing To-
pography
What is the existing topography?
Are there areas with slopes steeper than
20 percent?
What are the site’s soil types?
What is the existing stormwater drainage
area and flow path?
Show existing topography, identify ar-
eas with slopes greater than 20 per-
cent.
Show site soil type.
Show areas with erodible soils.
Show gullies, swales, ditches, etc.
Ponds Are there existing ponds on or adjacent
to the property?
Does the pond provide recreational bene-
fits?
Does the pond provide flood detention
benefits?
What is the condition of existing ponds
(i.e., depth of sediment in pond, bank
erosion, invasive plants)?
Show all ponds on map, including any
existing detention basins.
Vegetated
Cover
Is the site forested?
Are grassy/prairie areas on the site?
Show forest and prairie areas.
Show large trees (>12” dia).
Existing Prop-
erty Use
What is the site’s current use?
What buildings, structures, and other im-
pervious surfaces are present?
Are there utilities through the site?
Show existing impervious areas and
utilities.
Surrounding
Property Use
What is the surrounding property use?
Show property boundary and sur-
rounding property uses.
Table 1: Existing Natural Resource Considerations
7
Property use: evaluating the existing property use is important in understanding the impact from the
proposed development or the project site. Evaluation of surrounding property use is important in
evaluating its impact on the development site.
Soil type (or hydrologic soil group): a term used to estimate the stormwater runoff potential. The
USDA (NRCS) classifies soils as “A”, “B”, “C”, or “D” soils based on the soil’s potential for runoff. “A”
soils have the lowest runoff potential (i.e., highest infiltration rate), while “D” soils have the highest
runoff potential (i.e., lowest infiltration rate). Understanding what soil types exist before grading be-
gins and leaving “A” and “B” soils undisturbed can reduce urban stormwater impacts by infiltrating
stormwater runoff into the soil. Soil type information is easily retrieved through the web at http://
websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov.
Stream: a body of moving water in a natural channel, such as a creek or river. Regulated streams
are those that are considered Waters of the State. Streams are considered regulated wetlands and
are subject to State and Federal law, as well as local stream buffer ordinances that require areas
next to the stream to remain undisturbed in natural condition.
Stream Buffer: a natural area boundary between a development and stream that helps protect wa-
ter quality by filtering pollution and infiltrating stormwater runoff. Stream buffers also help alleviate
stream bank erosion and provide room for the normal lateral movement of the stream channel.
Vegetated Cover: vegetation can heavily influence the runoff potential from a site. Wooded sites,
sites with heavy brush, and sites planted in warm-season native grasses have the lowest runoff po-
tential. Large trees help stabilize sites, reduce runoff, and reduce thermal warming of waters. Pre-
serving areas with quality vegetated cover, and replanting buffer areas with deep-rooted trees and
native plants are techniques that minimize site development runoff. Turf grass (i.e., bluegrass, fes-
cue, etc.) has a shallow root structure and, accordingly, a higher runoff potential.
Wetland: wetlands occur at the transition zone between land and water. For regulatory purposes
under the Clean Water Act, the term wetlands means "those areas that are inundated or saturated
by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil con-
ditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas.” [See 40 CFR 230.3
(t).] Wetlands are protected from disturbance under the Clean Water Act. The Army Corps of Engi-
neers and DNR issue permits for any work impacting a wetland.
Waters of the State: All rivers, streams, lakes, and
other bodies of surface and subsurface water lying
within or forming a part of the boundaries of the state
which are not entirely confined and located com-
pletely upon lands owned, leased, or otherwise con-
trolled by a single person or by two or more persons
jointly or as tenants in common and includes waters
of the United States lying within the state. [See 10
CSR 20-7] This term is important because the small
MS4 Permit authorizes discharges to waters of the
state (i.e., the Permit applies to and protects waters
of the State). Waters of the state should not be used
as BMPs, but rather be protected by BMPs.
Ramona Lake, Berkeley, MO
8
Deliverables:
At a minimum, the developer should provide the reviewer an Existing Site Resources Map of the site
that documents the location of any of the features listed in Table 1. A table or legend stating what
features are (and are not) of concern on the site would be helpful. Presenting this information on a
separate large size sheet (preferably on 24” x 36” paper) will assist the reviewer in evaluating the
site’s information. An example Existing Site Resources Map is provided in Appendix A.
The presence of some features will require additional assessment beyond the Existing Site Re-
sources Map. A site visit and digital photographs of the features are also helpful. Additionally, a pro-
ject which impacts wetlands or waters of the U.S. or State (jurisdictional waters) will likely be accom-
panied by an additional assessment of the feature as required for Army Corps of Engineers and/or
Missouri Department of Natural Resources under the Clean Water Act section 404/401 permitting
requirements. The plan reviewer should request and review this information, as it may be helpful to
them as well in determining the location, extent, and quality of these features.
9
3 Evaluation of Concept Plans
Purpose:
Once the Existing Site Resources Map is presented, the next step is locating the proposed buildings
and other impervious features (e.g., parking lots, roadways, sidewalks, etc.) and managing the
stormwater runoff from these areas. To the maximum extent practicable, the development plan
should preserve and/or protect existing natural resource areas that facilitate pollutant removal and
reduce runoff.
With today’s construction technology, the tendency is to completely disturb and grade a site based
on the future use of that property, but without regard to a site’s existing natural resources or potential
for minimizing stormwater runoff. While this approach facilitates the speed of development, fre-
quently it is at odds with conservation of natural features and soil characteristics (e.g., soil perme-
ability) that mitigate development impacts and have longer-term community and water quality bene-
fits. Additionally, many have approached compliance with “MSD’s water quality requirements” in a
similar way to traditional flood detention, in that an engineered structural BMP is installed near the
low point of the site. This mindset needs to be replaced with one that also includes practices that
minimize the volume of runoff, because treatment alone does not meet the Permit intent’s for mim-
icking pre-construction runoff or implementing water quality strategies to the maximum extent practi-
cable.
Tool:
Table 2, Site Development Goals, Questions, and Methods, presents an approach to site design that
plan reviewers can look for, and designers and developers can take, to minimize impacts to the envi-
ronment from stormwater. While specific solutions will be tailored on a site-by-site basis, the major
concepts that these solutions embody (in order of preference) include:
Limiting disturbance and preserving existing pervious areas (i.e., green space) and sensitive ar-
eas such as flood plains and stream buffers.
Reducing the amount of impervious area (rooftops, parking lots, sidewalks, roads, etc.).
Disconnecting impervious areas stormwater from the storm sewer system via overland flow to
vegetated buffers and other “green” infrastructure techniques that promote infiltration.
Using pervious surface materials, such as permeable paver blocks, porous asphalt, porous con-
crete, and green roofs.
Installing engineered systems that treat stormwater runoff and/or reduce peak stormwater runoff
rates using techniques that employ vegetation and infiltration. Underground structural techniques
should be used as a last resort.
A significant portion of MSD is already developed. Strategies for managing stormwater quality at re-
development sites are sometimes more limited because of existing utilities, space restrictions, and
other factors. MSD provides greater flexibility for meeting water quality requirements to smaller (<5
acre) redevelopment projects. Additionally, MSD wants to encourage redevelopment of existing im-
pervious areas and infill development as a component of regional stormwater management.
(Redeveloping a parking lot, commercial district, or already degraded site allows a community to en-
joy the benefits of growth and improved water quality without further increasing net runoff.) However,
MSD anticipate that larger redevelopment projects will have an opportunity to employ techniques
10
Table 2: Site Development Goals, Questions, and Methods
Goal Questions Methods (To the Maximum Extent Practicable)
Minimize
Stormwater
Generation
Can land disturbance be mini-
mized?
Can additional green space
be preserved?
Can proposed development
be located in already devel-
oped areas?
Limit clearing, grading, and earth disturbance.
Use clustered development with open space de-
signs.
Use narrower, shorter streets, right-of-way, and
sidewalks.
Allow smaller radii for cul-de-sacs.
Reduce parking space requirements.
Preserve and protect forested areas, especially
areas with large trees. Show tree preservation
areas on plans.
Allow for shared driveways and parking areas.
Provide incentives for site redevelopment.
Can stormwater safely flow
overland to buffer areas (i.e.,
avoid piping)?
Grade to allow stormwater to sheet flow into
buffer or conservation easement areas.
Limit use of curb and gutter streets.
Use grass channels for street drainage and
stormwater conveyance.
Allow roof downspouts to flow overland into
vegetated cover.
Can stormwater be captured
and infiltrated into the
ground?
Rainwater infiltration systems. Examples include
rain gardens, dry wells, and other landscape infil-
tration methods.
Emphasize managing stormwater at the point of
generation.
Can stormwater be captured
and reused for irrigation or
décor?
Rainwater harvesting systems. Examples include
rain barrels, cisterns, shallow ponds, and under-
ground chambers.
Emphasize managing stormwater at the point of
generation.
Could permeable surface ma-
terials be used to promote in-
filtration and limit runoff?
Use permeable pavements in low traffic areas.
Use green roofs.
Direct rooftop runoff to pervious surfaces, such
as amended soils.
Minimize Ero-
sion of Site
Soils
Can land disturbance be re-
stricted to less sensitive ar-
eas?
Is the development located
outside the 100-year flood
plain?
Land disturbance SWPPP requirements apply.
Avoid grading areas with steep slopes and erod-
ible soils.
Limit disturbance areas within the 100-year flood-
plain.
Minimize
Stream Bank
Erosion
Is the development located
outside the stream bank set-
back buffer?
Development should not encroach municipality’s
stream bank buffer. Show stream buffer on pre-
liminary plan.
Does the development war-
rant engineering channel pro-
tection controls (because of
development size or stream
bank erosion problems)?
MSD rules and regulations require channel pro-
tection detention for the 1-year 24-hour rainfall
event. Show detention basin on preliminary
plan. Locate outside limits of 100-year floodplain.
If feasible, stabilize the stream bank using other
engineered methods.
11
(Bold items reflect project requirements.)
Minimize Im-
pact to Envi-
ronmentally
Sensitive Ar-
eas
Does the development plan
avoid sensitive areas?
Untreated stormwater should not discharge into
sinkholes, wetlands, fishing ponds, and other
sensitive areas.
Provide a buffer around sensitive areas.
Preserve the existing stormwater flow path.
Adequately
Treat Storm-
water Before
Discharge
Does the site development
plan utilize stormwater cred-
its?
Does the development plan
show structural BMPs?
What is the acreage of drain-
age to the BMP? Will the BMP
be above or below ground?
Show locations of any (non-structural) “credit”
areas and show locations of any structural
stormwater BMPs on preliminary plan. Locate
structural BMPs outside the 100-year flood plain.
Provide a BMP drainage area map. Only certain
wet ponds and wetlands may be used for drain-
age areas larger than 10 acres. Encourage
stormwater credits, managing stormwater at the
point of generation, and aboveground stormwater
BMPs. “Regional BMPs” and underground BMPs
should be avoided when possible. As a rule of
thumb, the development should provide 35%
minimum green space for a structural BMP(s).
Stormwater
Controls Shall
Be Maintain-
able and En-
forceable
Who will be responsible for
maintaining stormwater con-
trols?
Are the structural BMP shown
on the plan appropriate for the
entity or person responsible
for maintenance?
The property owner or subdivision association
will maintain BMPs.
Underground BMPs, large surface filters, and
other maintenance intensive BMPs should be
avoided on residential developments.
Minimize
Downstream
Flooding
Is over 1 acre of impervious
area being added?
Is the development tributary to
any existing basins that need
to be upgraded?
A stormwater detention basin will be needed.
Show location on plan.
Developments feeding basins that do not cur-
rently meet MSD flood detention requirements
will need to be upgraded. Frequently this re-
quires enlargement of the existing basin.
12
that both minimize stormwater generation and treat stormwater pollution. For example, larger rede-
velopment and new development projects may employ alternative surfaces (e.g., porous pavement)
that reduce stormwater runoff, as well as decentralized technologies that infiltrate and treat stormwa-
ter runoff at the source. At smaller redevelopment projects, these alternative surfaces and technolo-
gies may not be practical due to space constraints, utility conflicts, traffic flow, cost, or other factors.
A common misconception is that a traditional “dry” flood detention basin meets MSD water quality
requirements. Dry basins may be used in conjunction with water quality BMPs for flood control, but
by themselves they do not provide effective stormwater quality management. Additionally, while con-
structed wet ponds and wetlands provide effective water quality management, developments may
not use existing features that are considered “waters of the State” as a BMP. This includes wetlands,
lakes, and ponds located on public property (e.g., park land), as well as the streams that feed them
(including intermittent streams).
MSD recognizes that some of the methods that can be used to mitigate stormwater impact may be
in conflict with other development requirements (e.g., reducing cul-de-sac radii, reducing parking
spaces, use of narrower streets and sidewalks, alternative pervious materials, etc.). Municipal/
county/state officials and MSD must identify impediments to these practices, determine what flexibil-
ity is available, and modify rules as appropriate. St. Louis area local governments are increasingly
supportive of green infrastructure and have an incentive to be supportive as a Phase II co-permittee.
Until all barriers and conflicts are removed, co-permittees are encouraged to allow greener stormwa-
ter management solutions and allow exemptions to conflicting requirements where it makes sense.
The property owner must maintain stormwater treatment devices, and they will be periodically in-
spected by MSD to ensure proper maintenance is occurring. (A maintenance plan is recorded with
the property and is transferable with property ownership.) Failure of the property owner to maintain
their BMPs is a violation of MSD ordinance and the site maintenance agreement. Therefore, what-
ever BMPs are selected, they need to be maintainable by the end user of the property. It is im-
portant to recognize that all designed systems will require maintenance, and as a rule, the more
“engineered” the solution, the more frequent and expensive maintenance will be. There are eco-
nomic tradeoffs: while establishing buffer areas and managing stormwater using non-structural
BMPs may reduce the amount of land available for development, maintenance costs and head-
aches on future property owners are reduced. However, only using non-structural BMPs may make
some developments cost prohibitive due to land value, and some commercial users will have the re-
sources needed to maintain the engineered structural BMPs. The best solution is the one that bal-
ances future maintenance costs, given the resources of the user, with the cost of development. Un-
derground vaults, filters, and manufactured separation devices (which are maintenance intensive)
are not appropriate for residential development. Except for approved hydrodynamic separation de-
vices installed by municipalities in roadway right-of-way, MSD will not maintain stormwater treatment
devices.
Post-Construction Non-Structural BMPs:
Non-structural BMPs are development strategies that minimize the impact of land development on
natural resources. Many of the “methods” in Table 2 are non-structural techniques that can be used
to treat, as well as reduce, site runoff. In the Maryland Stormwater Manual, some non-structural
techniques are grouped together as a “credit” that satisfies MSD water quality requirements (as a
stand-alone practice) or reduces the volume or rate of water that must be managed as part of the
stormwater management plan. These credits include
Natural area conservation
Disconnection of rooftop runoff
13
14
Disconnection of non-rooftop runoff
Sheet flow to buffers
Open (grass) channel use (for roadways), and
Environmental sensitive development (i.e., low-impact development).
In most cases, non-structural practices must be combined with structural practices to meet stormwa-
ter requirements. Nationally and at MSD, non-structural practices are increasingly recognized as a
critical and economical feature of stormwater management.
Post-Construction Structural BMPs:
In all new development and redevelopment, MSD rules and regulations require the use of BMPs to
treat a water quality volume of runoff from 1.14 inches of rainfall. MSD regulations specify and allow
certain structural BMP’s for use. The structural BMPs allowed for stormwater quality control are di-
vided into six general categories as shown in Table 3. Typical BMP layouts and sections are pro-
vided in Appendix B. The full scope of BMP selection, design, and construction is beyond this docu-
ment and the goal of conceptual plan review. However, concept plan reviewers may find this table of
BMP categories helpful in evaluating whether a proposed BMP, at least by name, is allowable and
whether adequate space has been allocated in the design. For more specific guidance on structural
BMPs, MSD relies upon Chapters 3 and 4 of the Maryland Department of the Environment’s (MDE),
April 2000, “Stormwater Design Manual, Vol. I and Vol. II.” The “Maryland Manual” outlines the se-
lection, design and construction of various structural BMPs. (At present, there is not a national or
Missouri state design manual for these devices. The Maryland Manual is a comprehensive BMP de-
sign manual, and its principles can be adapted to the St. Louis region.)
Table 3. Post-Construction Structural BMPs Allowed within MSD
1Hydrodynamic Separator Devices are manufactured by a variety of vendors. A list of approved devices and vendors is
available through the MSD website, www.stlmsd.com.
2 Alternative surfaces reduce the impervious area, reduce the volume of runoff requiring treatment, and provides some
pre-treatment benefit; but are not recognized as “stand-alone” treatment BMPs. They may be a component of a BMP
that does provide treatment (i.e., infiltration or filtration).
Stormwater Ponds
Micropool Extended-Detention (ED) Ponds
Wet Ponds
Wet ED Ponds
Multiple Pond System
“Pocket Ponds”
Stormwater Wetlands
Shallow Wetland
ED Shallow Wetland
Pond/Wetland System
“Pocket Wetland”
Stormwater Infiltration
Infiltration Trench
Infiltration Basin
Stormwater Filtering System
Surface Sand Filters
Underground Sand Filters
Perimeter Sand Filters
Organic Filters
Pocket Sand Filters
Bioretention
Proprietary Cartridge Devices
Open Channel Systems
Dry Swale
Wet Swale
Hydrodynamic Separator Devices
MSD Approved Devices1
Alternative Surface Materials2
Green Roof
Permeable Pavement
Many of the post-construction structural BMPs incor-
porate plants that add functional and landscape value
to the BMP. MSD references the “Landscape Guide
for Stormwater Best Management Practice Design,
St. Louis, Missouri” for recommendations on selecting
plant species and on planting methods used in BMPs.
(This guide can be accessed through the MSD web-
site, www.stlmsd.com.)
Key Terms:
Amended soils: soil that has been improved by
practices that preserve site topsoil, reduced soil com-
paction, and/or blended with organic and/or inorganic
materials that reduce soil runoff capacity.
BMP drainage area map: a topographical map that shows the drainage areas that feed individual
BMPs or credit areas. The BMP drainage area map also provides limits of disturbance, improve-
ments, and a table showing the water quality volumes required and provided in BMPs.
Disconnection of runoff: Credit focused on reducing the water quality volume by disconnecting im-
pervious areas (rooftops, parking lots, etc.) from the sewer and directing them to pervious areas
where stormwater can either infiltrate into the soil or filter over it. The credit is usually obtained by
grading the site to promote overland flow or by providing bioretention/rain garden areas on single-
family residential lots.
Engineered channel protection: to protect natural channels from erosion and consequent pollu-
tion, MSD rules and regulations require some developments to provide extended detention of the
one-year, 24-hour storm event. A detention pond or underground chamber is generally needed to
meet channel protection requirements.
Environmentally Sensitive Development (or Low-Impact Development (LID)): mimicking a site's
predevelopment hydrology by using decentralized “micro-scale” techniques that infiltrate, filter, store,
evaporate, and detain runoff close to its source. These micro-scale
techniques include rainwater harvesting (e.g., rain barrels), dry wells,
small rain gardens, bioswales, and other small-scale techniques that
reduce runoff.
Grass channel credit: Credit that is given when open grass chan-
nels are used in lieu of curb and gutter and when designed to reduce
the volume of runoff during smaller storms.
Green roof: also referred to as vegetated roofs, roof gardens, or
eco-roofs, green roofs replace conventional roof materials with a pro-
tective (water barrier), planting media, and vegetation. The planting
media and vegetation assists in attenuation of stormwater impacts.
Hydrodynamic Separator (HDS) Devices: A pre-fabricated stormwater treatment structure utilizing
settling and vortex separation to remove coarse sediment and trash from storm runoff. HDS devices
are only allowed as “stand-alone” treatment devices for highway runoff and small redevelopment
Surface Sand Filter, St. Louis County, MO
Typical section of a green roof
15
sites. They may also be used for pre-treatment to filters, ponds, or other types of structural BMPs.
Infiltration basin (or trench): BMPs that capture and temporarily store the water quality volume
while allowing infiltration into the soil over a defined period. Infiltration basins should be limited to
tributary areas smaller than 10 acres, and infiltration trenches should be limited to areas smaller
than 5 acres. Infiltration techniques should be located in areas with A or B soil types. These tech-
niques should not be located where seepage could damage adjoining or downstream property.
Maintenance agreement: a recorded agreement between MSD and the owner of the property
where the BMP is located. The agreement requires the property owner to maintain the stormwater
facilities and provides a means for MSD to rehabilitate these facilities and place a lien on the prop-
erty, if necessary.
Natural Area Conservation: Credit focused on conserving natural areas, thereby retaining the pre-
development and water quality characteristics. This strategy reduces the water quality volume that
must be managed by placing conservation areas in permanent protection through a conservation
easement, reserve area, or other means that preserves the pervious area in its natural state.
Open channel systems: BMPs that are de-
signed to capture and treat the water quality vol-
ume within swales formed by check dams or
other means of shallow ponding. They are typi-
cally limited to roadways and low-density residen-
tial projects with drainages areas 5 acres or less.
Permeable pavement: pavement that is porous,
allowing stormwater to infiltrate into the subbase
(gravel) and soil below it. Permeable pavements
are effective for reducing imperviousness in park-
ing lots, driveways, sidewalks, and areas with low
traffic load. Permeable pavement areas are also
exempt from MSD’s stormwater service fee.
Rain Garden: a rain garden, or bioretention area, is a type of filtering system where stormwater is
allowed to temporarily pond in a planted shallow depression. Rain gardens are planted with native
vegetation that can tolerate periods of inundation and remove pollution in stormwater. (Rain garden
is a “buzzword” that is sometimes inaccurately used to describe many filtering systems. They may or
may not meet MSD Rules and Regulations, based on whether they meet the applicable filter system
design.)
Redevelopment site: within MSD, a site (i.e., total property area) is considered a redevelopment
site if at least 20% of the existing site was impervious coverage as of January 15, 2000.
Regional stormwater treatment: post-construction structural BMPs that serve multiple properties,
property owners, and sub-watersheds. While regional BMPs focus maintenance in large, centralized,
treatment cells, by themselves they do not encourage methods that reduce runoff at the source and
can complicate maintenance responsibilities.
Sheet flow: flow over plane surfaces (e.g., a rooftop or roadway) that typically occur in the headwa-
ters of the watershed. As the volume of water in sheetflow increases, it concentrates and begins to
Permeable Pavement During Rainfall
16
(quickly) flow in channels. By maintaining sheet flow conditions in buffers, the length of time storm-
water is allowed to infiltrate increases.
Sheet Flow to Buffer: Credit that reduces the water quality volume when a natural buffer or a for-
ested area effectively treats stormwater runoff. Effective treatment is achieved when pervious and
impervious area runoff is discharged to a grass or forested buffer through overland sheet flow.
Stormwater filtering systems: BMPs that capture and temporarily store the water quality volume
and then pass it through a bed of sand, organic matter, soil, or other media. Filtered water is then
collected and returned to the conveyance system (or allowed to infiltrate). Examples of stormwater
filters include sand filters, bioretention (rain gardens), and manufactured filter devices. Due to clog-
ging, experience suggests the drainage area to underground filters should be limited to a couple
acres; aboveground surface sand filters may serve up to 10 acres. The filtering medium may need to
be removed and replaced in the future, as sediments build up over the filter and ponding times in-
crease.
Stormwater ponds: BMPs that have a permanent
pool of water, or combination of extended detention
or shallow wetland with a permanent pool, equivalent
to the water quality volume. Stormwater ponds re-
move solids by settling. The shallow bench around
stormwater ponds is planted with aquatic plants that
further remove pollution. To ensure the pond remains
“charged” with water, stormwater ponds should be
limited to sites with a drainage area of 10 acres or
greater.
Stormwater wetlands: BMPs that create shallow
wetland areas to treat urban stormwater and often
incorporate small permanent pools of water and or
extended detention storage to contain the full water
quality volume. Stormwater wetlands should be lim-
ited to sites with a drainage area of 25 acres or greater.
Water Quality Volume (WQv): the storage needed to capture and treat the runoff from 90 percent of
the recorded daily rainfall events. [See 4.080.02 of MSD’s Rules and Regulations].
Deliverables:
The Concept Plan submittal should include a Site Development Plan (preferably on 24” x 36” paper)
and narrative to support the design. The narrative should describe how natural resources will be pre-
served and protected, and explain how stormwater quality and flood protection requirements will be
achieved. At a minimum, the concept should include the following:
Location of site natural resources.
Proposed limits of clearing and grading.
Location of proposed impervious areas (buildings, roadways, parking, and sidewalks).
Location of existing and proposed utilities.
Locations of proposed buffer areas and BMPs.
Rain Garden in St. Louis County, MO
17
As alluded to earlier, a challenge to meeting better site designs for stormwater management is coor-
dination between municipal/county plan reviewers and MSD plan reviewers. Complicating this fur-
ther, the process by which municipalities and/or St. Louis county review preliminary development
plans and land disturbance plans varies. For an overview, Figure 1 presents a general process of
how the preliminary and detailed plan development pieces “fit” together. While each municipality and
St. Louis County can use a different process for assessing site plans, the elements of the process
(establishing existing site conditions, identifying natural resources that warrant protection, establish-
ing a preliminary layout that illustrates post-construction buffers and BMPs, etc.) should be common.
The municipality and/or St. Louis County would review the initial steps in the development review
process: establishing site conditions and presenting a preliminary development plan. For projects
that need “rezoning”, the initial stormwater planning steps should occur before or during the rezoning
process. In many cases, it will make sense to incorporate key components (e.g., protection buffers
and “credit” areas) as conditions of rezoning. If rezoning is not required, the planning authority
should coordinate with MSD to ensure stream buffers and non-structural BMPs are reserved in the
recorded maintenance agreement.
The more detailed site development phase begins after the planning authority approves the prelimi-
nary plan. The resource protection component of the approved preliminary plan will need to be coor-
dinated between the SWPPP authority (St. Louis County or municipality) and post-construction per-
mit authority (MSD). The SWPPP authority will address the actions to be taken to protect resources
from runoff during construction activities. MSD will permit the actions need to protect resources after
construction activities are complete.
SWPPP reviewers should note the relationship between construction and post-construction BMPs.
Construction BMPs in a SWPPP are designed to minimize impacts during the active construction
phase, and they do not always translate into BMPs applicable for post-construction. Post-
construction BMPs must treat long-term runoff from the newly constructed or redeveloped site. In
some cases, construction and post-construction BMPs can be located in the same area. (For exam-
ple, a sediment control basin may be converted into a wet pond and flood detention basin.) How-
ever, at the majority of sites, construction and post-
construction sites will be located on different parts of
the site. This is needed to preserve the soil structure
necessary for BMPs that rely upon infiltration (such
as infiltration basins). Also, post-construction BMPs
(such as filters, bioretention/rain gardens, dry swales,
and infiltration areas) must be installed after contribut-
ing drainage areas are stabilized in order to prevent
them from clogging with construction sediment.
MSD plan review engineers will review the post-
construction stormwater management plan. This will
include review of plans showing how stormwater will
be conveyed and treated (and detained), the BMP
drainage area map, maintenance plans, calculations,
4 Integration with MSD Stormwater
Quality Review
18
Surface Sand Filter Clogged with Construction Site
Sediment, Berkeley, MO
Figure 1. Generic Stormwater Site Design Approval Process yesEstablish Existing Site Conditions -Identify & locate natural resources -Establish which areas merit special protectionSubmittal: Existing Site Conditions MapEstablish Preliminary Development Layout -Establish strategies for preservation/protection of sensitive areas -Locate stormwater credits and post-construction BMPs -Draft BMP Drainage Area map.Submittal: Preliminary Site Development LayoutPreliminary Site Development Layout Approved by Planning Authority?noBegin Site Development Phase (Post-Construction Component) -Finalize site layout, topography, & drainage areas -Finalize Post-Construction Stormwater Management Plan (calculations, sizing, details, etc.) -Finalize post-construction strategies for preservation/protection of sensitive areasMSD Engineering Plan Approval?yesFinalize Design and Proceed to Permits -Complete Maintenance Agreements, Easements, and Other Land Use Restrictions Needed to Implement Post-Construction Stormwater Management Plan -Finalize Site Development Design -Determine Performance Deposits to be CollectedBegin Site Development Phase (Improvement Plan & SWPPP component) -Finalize Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (obtain municipal & state land disturbance permit) -Finalize strategies for preservation/protection of sensitive areas during construction -Provide overlay of sediment control plan & post-construction BMP planCounty/City Grading Plan Approval?yesFinalize Design and Proceed to Permits -Finalize Site Development (Improvement Plans) Design -Determine Performance Deposits to be CollectednonoCoordination
BMP sizing, and other details. MSD and the owner of the property(s) where the BMP(s) is located
will enter into a maintenance agreement, and the agreement will be recorded with the property(s).
MSD will also collect a BMP construction deposit and field-inspect the post-construction BMPs.
It is not the task of the planning and zoning or SWPPP permitting staff to review detailed post-
construction stormwater management plans and calculations. These reviewers need only to be fo-
cused on ensuring
that post-construction stormwater management is a component of preliminary design and
that the development approach considers sensitive areas, buffer areas, and methods that re-
duce (as well as treat) stormwater runoff.
It is very difficult to provide “rules of thumb” and general guidance on stormwater management de-
sign, given the site-specific nature of design and the range of BMP options available. In some cases,
specific questions about post-construction stormwater management should be addressed to MSD,
and assistance is available on three levels. First, MSD plan review engineers are available through
the MSD permit office (314-768-6272) to answer general questions. Second, where a site specific
and/or more defined scope of stormwater management requirements is requested, MSD can provide
a (paid) conceptual review. The conceptual review provides a quicker “desktop” review of the devel-
opment plan and comments on the overall direction of stormwater management, but does not typi-
cally address project details and calculations. Plan approvals are not provided in conceptual re-
view. Where a detailed project review and plan approval is needed, the developer and engineer
should apply for a formal plan review. It is important to note that the developer/engineer can submit
plans to MSD for formal plan review at any point in the process (including preliminary site layout).
20
Stormwater quality in our community will best be managed when all of us coordinate our stormwater
management strategies. Stormwater management should be focused on minimizing and treating
stormwater runoff. One development or redevelopment project, alone, is unlikely to improve regional
stormwater quality. Rather, meaningful results will only be achieved after many redevelopment and
development projects that incorporate good stormwater management practices and years operation.
MSD looks forward to working with our co-permittees and stakeholders on improving water quality.
Questions about stormwater management plans and approaches may be directed to these MSD
managers.
Mr. Bruce Litzsinger, P.E.
Environmental Compliance Manager
314-436-8757
BLITZSIN@stlmsd.com
Mr. Francis Kaiser, P.E.
Program Manager, Development Review
314-768-6315
FXKAIS@stlmsd.com
Mr. John Grimm, P.E.
Principal Engineer, Development Review (east team)
314-768-2743
JCGRIM@stlmsd.com
Mr. -D\ +RVNLQV, P.E.
Principal Engineer, Development Review (west team)
314--27
JSHOSK@stlmsd.com
Internet Resources:
http://www.stlmsd.com/MSD/PgmsProjs/planreview/Search. MSD plan review information, including
links to rules and regulations, proprietary devices, and the Landscaping Guide.
http://www.stlmsd.com/MSD/PgmsProjs/PhaseII. MSD Phase II information website, a clearinghouse
on many stormwater related items.
http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/stormwater/sw-local-gov-programs.htm. Phase II stormwater re-
quirements and resources Information for local governments from Missouri DNR.
http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/WaterPrograms/SedimentandStormwater/stormwater_design/
index.asp. The Maryland Stormwater Design Manual may be downloaded from this website.
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. Web soil survey application from the USDA-NRCS.
http://www.cwp.org/. The Center for Watershed Protection is a non-profit organization that develops
watershed protection strategies, researches their effectiveness, and publishes guidance to water-
shed managers across the U.S.
5 Conclusion
21
Appendix A
Example Site Resources Map
Example Concept Plan for Stormwater Management
Example BMP Drainage Area Map
?"
APPR
f2'
r
�4 >CM
58 H".E.._
\i^ \
410.14
ASDRES NO. Xry;
1,023,968 SO.
23.507 ACRES±
/ J
OMB
SPAT
WIERSTA1E2I2
RoIMA1E LOCATION
FIBER CPRC (LMil1CORE)
Natural
Resource
Presence?
Additional lnformOtion
Wetlands
Yes
COE/MDNR 404/401 are required for any
work in wetlands.
Streams and
Yes
Watkins Creek tributaries now through site.
Floodplains
Silo is located outside of 100-year Soodplain.
Stream buffer requirements apply.
Karst
No
Not identified during site walk..
Ponds
Yes
'Farm pone is not waters of the Stale.
1111111111111,
Requlal L Waters of Stale or Nation
Ny*de gie Group B Soh
irydotogic Group d Sons
Hydrologic Group 0 Soils
>SWlde stream BUNsr
EASEMENT
1074
10; 5%. TRIO EASEMENT
Sttq P0. 124
151 NATURAL GAS EASEMENT
De. srls. PO. 200
XltlJ
Example
Existing Site Resources Map
/440P MO
I
Vacant Commercial Property
3d
Scala 1" =1OOt
Total Disturbance Acreage: 18.6 AcTotal Existing Imperviousness: 17.1 AcTotal Proposed Site Imperviousness: 13.5 AcOnly surface BMPs will be used and more pervious area is created. No flood or channel protection detention is required.Post-construction stormwater quality management is required. Stormwater BMP/Credit Summary TableBasin Description of Area BMP TypeDrainage Area (Acres) ImperviousnessWQv(Cu. Ft.)A Roof, roadway, and green space Surface Sand Filter9.0476%27,000BParking areasBioretention 9.5670%27,000Total18.673%54,000
PRIVATE
LACIER A5O
INSPECTION
SAID FILTER
4" VAULT A
o-
I
2 I I 1 I
I I I 1
✓ 4 4 4 4
FINE ARTS DRIVE 4 Q Q
INSPEcnaM I I I �. 1
-- J__I I I I
ofrAkOr An 11122=1122 —;11;11-1.114t40.i> ,
Erawitamv.m...:=..ff, ir
-7111
Li
L I I,-�e I I
7 ? 7 -i -I _,r
I I I
I I 1
I ,_
I I 1 I {. r,
I I I I: -
I I I I I:
1 I I l:
I I I 1_o-
.._.._.._.._.._.. _.. _.. _..—.... _.._.. _.._.._..�
l •.(
IAUIT1R TER
t 1
1 I 1 I' 1 I I I
-I -I i -j- I
I I I I I
1
I ItIIIIILIIIIII' 1 I I �{P tO1V
I I�� I I
11'fnnni'nrfmmtr Tvii / /.Y Y-
F
I I 1 I
I B IN6 I 1 i
I. 14�; I 1 1 I 1
e I I 1 I l I I 1
I 1 1 I I I I 1
t- t I t t—
I 1 I I
<I
. IT
I;
I L 1
I 1;
J
r
1
I
L
1'f==?"1"r=.�!e�-%
711.
ige (14
1: TT, Yf Y7 nlrYTT _ .... tk
AN-AILTBRY7Q
�IATpA1R
MAL•BInCTIPADI-fit
NM BOER
IBA rosIa1110212
e
N-sanYL-nt
A11o11-NW:
ro.
LIMITS OF SITE
Al DISTURBANCE
Py
i'
BASIN
30 0 30 60
90: , • 30' Heel
LEGEND
BASIN 5 ASIN 6
•
Fp ■ ■
BAP DRAINAGE BOUNDARY
WATER QUALITY TREATMENT
BOUNDARY
AREA COLLECTED FOR
TREATMENT
UNCOLLECTED AREA ACCOUNTED
FOR IN BMP SIZING
WATER QUALITY
TREATMENT SYSTEM
NOTES:
1. ANY FUTURE LAID DISTURBANCE AND/OR INCREASE IN IIPERVIOUS
AREA ON THIS SITE MAY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL STORM WATER
MANAGEMENT PER RED REGULATIONS IN PLACE AT THAT TILE
(INCLUDING TOTAL LOAD DISTURBANCE MID/OR IIFERVIOUSLESS
ADDED CAI THIS PLAN).
2. DETENTION FOR ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENT SHALL INCLUDE THESE
IAPROVEAENTS AS YELL.
3. LAND AREA DISTURBED • 7.080 ACRES
ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENT SHALL INCLUDE THESE IAPROVEIENTS AS YELL.
4. PROJECT ADDRESS IS ONE FINE ARTS DRIVE, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI,
63110 AND IS LOCATED IN LOT 33 OF *CATLIN TRACT..
BMP/STORMWATER CREDIT SUMMARY TABLE
BASIN
REQUIRED
TREATMENT AREA
(ACRES)
COLLECTED
AREA
(ACRES]
DESCRIPTION
BA'
STORINATER
CREDIT
WO, REDUCTION
TYPE II OF 3 TYPES)
99. REQUIRED
ICU FTI
75f of VAN
MO, PROVIDED
(CO FT)
1
020
021
NORTHWEST
SAID FILTER
--
--
540
540
5
4.24
2.96
50UTH
BIOREIENTION POND
--
--
2368
8026
6
229
222
NORTHEAST
SAID FILTER
--
--
5524
5524
TOTAL 6.73
TOTAL 5.39
MSD BASEMAP 19H3 & 19144
WB,MIA &WIBre
BMP DRAINAGE MAP
MSD-2
Appendix B
Typical BMP Layouts and Sections
Appendix – Examples of BMP Designs